Financial & Tax Fraud
Education Associates, Inc.

A Non-Profit Corporation


Have a question for Quatloos?
Ask Tony

Spam-Free Site

We do NOT spam. Various multi-level marketers & other criminals have recently sent out spam impersonating us, & having our return email address, so that people would complain about spam and cause us to be shut down (a/k/a "joe job"). These multi-level marketers and other criminals have engaged in this form of cyber-terrorism because our telling the truth about their fraudulent schemes was hurting their ability to sell to new victims. Fortunately, our ISP now recognizes that these fake spams are bogus and ignores them, and additionally we are duplicating this site on numerous other servers (including "hardened" servers as well as our own proprietary servers) so that we cannot be harmed by these multi-level marketers and other criminals. Death to Spammers!

Quatlosers > Bill Benson

Quatlosers Hall of Shame

Bill Benson

These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made a name for themselves in their particular business endeavors.

100 Q
Bill Benson

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 defense.

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 issue.

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" position.

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
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES ILLINOIS MAN
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 .

 

Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Complaint


Thurston Bell says Bill Benson is a Scam Artist

from http://www.nite.org/docs/academic-deficiency.htm

Notice of Academic Deficiency

5.12.2001

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 such e-mails.

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
Founder


PLEASE NOTE:

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:

Al Adask;
Al Beyer;
Al Thompson;
American Rights Litigators;
American Tax Consultants;
Barry Konicov;
Big Al;
Bill Benson;
Bill "William" Conklin;
Bill Drexler;
Bob Schulz;
Brad Barnhill;
Bruce Hatcher;
Chad Prater;
Christopher H. Hansen;
Christopher M. Hansen;
Dale Livingston;
Dan Meador;
Dave Bosset;
Dave Champion;
Dennis MacPhaeddon ;
Devvy Kidd;
Dick Simkanin;
Don Proctor;
Ed Akehurst;
Eddie Kahn;
Ed "Eduardo" Rivera;
Edmund Fitzsimmons;
Erwin Rommel School of Law;
Fairtax;
Financial Fortress;
Financial Prosperity;
Freedom Above Fortune;
Freedom Hall;
Freedom Law School;
Free Enterprise Society;
Gordon Phillips;
Howard Freeman;
Inform America;
Institute of Global Prosperity;
IRS Decoder;
Inhabitant;
Irwin Schiff;
Jeff Dickstein;
Jack Cohen;
Jim Deal;
John Feld;
John Gliha;
John Hecht;
John B. Kotmair;
Joseph Banister;
Joy Foundation;
Justin Garriott;
Ken "The Hornet" Hunter;
Lamar Hardy, Hawaii;
Larry "Lowell" Becraft;
Law Research Registry;
Les Hollingshead;
Lynda Wahl;
Lynn Meridith;
Marcia Doerr;
Mel Stamper;
Pat Patton;
Paul Lienthall;
PreferredServices;
Richard Cornforth;
Richard Standring;
Right Way Law;
Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF);
Sean O'Hara;
Solutions Group;
Steve DeLuca (S.T. Fitzgerald, Thomas Luca, other alisases)
Steven Swan;
Steven Beresford;
Supreme Law Firm;
Tax Ax;
Taxgate.com (NOT Tax-Gate.com);
Tax Statement;
The Informer;
Tom Scambos;
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"

Review Pending
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 --
http://www.fraudsandscams.com/Benson/benson.htm

Comment on this!

Back to Quatlosers Exhibit

 
© 2002-2008 by Financial & Tax Fraud Associates, Inc.. All rights reserved. No portion of this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without the express, written permission of Financial & Tax Fraud Associates, Inc. This site is http://www.quatloos.com. Legal issues should be faxed to (877) 698-0678. Our attorneys are Grobaty & Pitet LLP (http://grobatypitet.com) and Riser Adkisson LLP (http://risad.com).

Website designed and maintained by John Barrick

Google
www Quatloos!