These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made
a name for themselves in their particular business endeavors.
Our 100Q Woopoo chips commemorate famous tax scam artists. One
of the most famous is William J. Benson, co-author of the infamous
"The Law that Never Was" which claims that the 16th Amendment
was never ratified by the states. Benson was indicted for tax evasion
in 1980 and 1981 and a jury convicted him on all counts. Benson
appealed his conviction on a variety of grounds, and won a reversal
by the Seventh Circuit on a technicality. On retrial, a new jury
also convicted him. Oh, well.
Idiots who have attempted Benson's defense in court have batted
.000 and had the same results as Benson himself -- convictions for
tax evasion. In the first of these cases, United
States v. Thomas the Seventh Circuit held dispelled Benson's
groundless assertion that the 16th Amendment was never ratified
because some of the versions ratified had typos or insubstantial
changes to the language of the amendment. The Seventh Circuit commented:
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything;
they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in
1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and
thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary
of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional
states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.)
Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment
exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of
diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress
transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power
to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several States, and without regard
to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected
to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words
instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration"
in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri
substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument
from Washington had "income" not "incomes";
others made similar blunders.
Thomas insists that because the states did
not approve exactly the same test, the amendment did not go into
effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor
of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the
instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the
deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced
more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized
to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
Although Thomas urges us to take the view
of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text
may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows
the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document
is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials,
the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark,
143 U.S. 649, 36 L. Ed. 294, 12 S. Ct. 495 (1892). The principle
is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser
v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L. Ed. 505, 42 S. Ct. 217 (1922),
which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of
State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United
States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 10-12
& n.6, we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential
nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance
of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim
similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433,
83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification
of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared
that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's
decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when,
if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that
Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.
Not impressed with Benson's research, Thomas was convicted of
tax evasion and sentenced to prison for 8 years and a fine of $30,000.
Everybody thought that this statement by the Seventh Circuit which
thoroughly de-bunked Benson's bogus arguments had put the matter
to bed, and indeed after Thomas' conviction, even most tax protestors
looked askance at his research and mostly avoided using it as a
Nonethess, like a bad social disease, Benson and his theories have
returned in recent years and been used in tax scams run by some
of the worst tax scam artists, such as Global Prosperity. http://www.quatloos.com/groups/gpg.htm.
Bill Benson's "findings" have also been thoroughly de-bunked
by a variety of researchers, including this extensive work: http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm
Benson's Claims Exploded
Benson's premise is that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional
because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or
because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of
ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents
mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this
The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power
to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several states, and without regard
to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth
Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued
by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also
ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only
three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There
were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without
Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore,
the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income
tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment
in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that
time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality
of the federal income tax.
Relevant Case Law:
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir.
1989) (per curiam) - the court stated, "We find it hard to
understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the
constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber
v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting
the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded
Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing
their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court
imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous"
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir.
1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the
Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that
the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number
of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive
upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure
to file returns and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir.
1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the
contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally
adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary
sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal.
"Every court that has considered this argument has rejected
it," the court observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert.
denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction
for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4
statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was
never properly ratified.
See also http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification
|FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004
TDD (202) 514-1888
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES ILLINOIS
TO HALT ALLEGED TAX SCAM
Government Suit Alleges Illinois
Man Sells Bogus “Defense”
to Refusal to File Tax Returns and Pay Taxes
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department today asked a federal
court in Chicago to stop William J. Benson, of South Holland, Illinois,
from selling an allegedly fraudulent tax scheme and from unlawfully
interfering with the Internal Revenue Service. The civil injunction
complaint, which was filed on November 16, alleges that Benson,
who also operates under the name Constitutional Research and Associates,
charges $3,500 for documents, identified as the “Reliance
Defense Package”, that supposedly provide purchasers with
a legal defense to IRS action against them for failing to file federal
income tax returns or pay taxes. The complaint says that Benson
contends that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, a claim
the Justice Department suit notes has been rejected by every federal
court in which it has been raised.
In addition to barring Benson from selling the Reliance Defense
Package, the government’s suit also asks the court to order
Benson to send his customers a copy of the injunction; to give the
government the names, addresses (including e-mail), Social Security
and telephone numbers of his customers; and to post a copy of the
injunction on his website, www.thelawthatneverwas.com
“People who buy ‘defenses’ to tax evasion are
not only wasting their money, but also buying trouble for themselves,”
said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the
Justice Department’s Tax Division. “People who sell
or use tax fraud schemes can expect serious trouble, including criminal
charges where appropriate.”
This case is part of the Justice Department’s initiative
to enjoin promoters of fraudulent tax schemes. Information on other
recent cases is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2004.htm
. Frivolous tax arguments are number ten on the IRS’s list
of the Dirty Dozen tax scams. The full list is available at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=120803,00.html
. Information about the Tax Division is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/index.html
for Preliminary Injuction
Thurston Bell says Bill Benson is a Scam Artist
Notice of Academic Deficiency
There just seems to be an endless number of people out here on
the internet, who, without credentials, positive accomplishments,
or evidence of prior experience or knowledge of their work on the
Internet, and who also believe that they have some argument "worthy"
of hearing by the federal courts, will ask that YOU send them some
money. There are in fact SO MANY of these people, that I could spend
every day for the rest of my life arguing against and exposing them.
This will do nothing but serve the wishes of the Treasury Department.
I have to learn to trust that individuals can be responsible for
themselves, can show prudence, and judge that which is sent to them
over the World Wide Web.
When it comes to IRS lawsuits, I can only share a few points of
certainty regarding the issues of lawsuits.
A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule in YOUR favor because;
B: No Federal Judge wants to be the Federal Judge who collapses
the House of Cards known as the Economic Stabilization Program.
C: The Government and the Judge will use Rule 12(b)(6) to throw
your case out at the drop of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state
a claim for which relief can be granted.
D: The Courts and the Government will look for the weakest point
of your argument and they will rule on that one and ignore the rest
of the issues.
So, if someone is sending an e-mail regarding wanting money from
you to help support a case where there is no specifically damaged
plaintiff and there are multiple arguments, I will not respond to
If you are seriously considering spreading news of or financially
supporting the ideas of such people who have discovered the Internet
as a means of conning people out of money, instead of sending me
their e-mail please write back to them and ask them what their credentials
are, what results have they had, what is their area of expertise
and experience, and do they have references from anyone that you
might hold in esteem.
This how the Establishments of Academia control discussions and
discourse. (References are important.) And believe me folks, if
someone out there was doing something that you needed to know about,
I would have told you already. And if they don't have the guts to
come to me directly and seek counsel with people like me who have
results, they certainly are NOT worth your time and effort.
Thurston P. Bell
NITE has VERY strict standards about following the letter of the
Law. The people and organizations listed below use arguments that
the courts have already deemed frivolous, and make all sorts of
claims with no results to show for themselves. While some have truth
mixed in with lies, there is just enough truth to get people tangled
into their web. Some of these people are academic plagiarists who
have been using NITE's work product and claiming it as their own
and / or intermingling our argument with frivolous res judicata
patriot arguments. Many of these people / organizations are networked
(i.e. working together). A few of them are SHAM trust salesmen /
women. Therefore, we can truthfully say that from our experience
and first hand knowledge, the following people are "Snake Oil"
peddlers and / or CON-men/women who do not deserve your trust:
American Rights Litigators;
American Tax Consultants;
Bill "William" Conklin;
Christopher H. Hansen;
Christopher M. Hansen;
Dennis MacPhaeddon ;
Ed "Eduardo" Rivera;
Erwin Rommel School of Law;
Freedom Above Fortune;
Freedom Law School;
Free Enterprise Society;
Institute of Global Prosperity;
John B. Kotmair;
Ken "The Hornet" Hunter;
Lamar Hardy, Hawaii;
Larry "Lowell" Becraft;
Law Research Registry;
Right Way Law;
Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF);
Steve DeLuca (S.T. Fitzgerald, Thomas Luca, other alisases)
Supreme Law Firm;
Taxgate.com (NOT Tax-Gate.com);
Tom Smith (Alleged Doctor);
Treasury Tax Secrets;
Virginia Cropsey a/k/a Little Red Hen
Wallace Institute ( A Disgrace to William Wallace and Clan Wallace);
Wayne C. Bentson
"We The People Foundation"
Paul Sulla, Attorney
People who do not seem to understand have not seen as many people
as Mr. Bell has seen, get hurt. They lose their property, jobs,
paychecks, and / or families. They obviously do not have the discernment
to understand how vitally important this issue is, and how we MUST
stay on point or lose.
There is no room for those who claim it is their 1st Amendment
Right for supporting people who are espousing such res judicata
arguments. The courts and the Kotmair case made it clear. Guilt
by association is NOW supported by CASE LAW.
Bill Branscum's Expose of Bill Benson --
to Quatlosers Exhibit