Sherry Peel Jackson speaks on Being put in Federal Prison for Misdemeanor by IRS - Former IRS Agent Sherry Peel Jackson speaks with 1st Fam Radio about being sentenced to federal prison for a misdemeanor and why the American people are all slaves

multi part videos future coming here soon
13173   2 years ago
TadehDavtian | 1 subscriber
13173   2 years ago
Sherry Peel Jackson speaks on Being put in Federal Prison for Misdemeanor by IRS
-
Former IRS Agent Sherry Peel Jackson speaks with 1st Fam Radio about being sentenced to federal prison for a misdemeanor and why the American people are all slaves
-
listen to full Interview at
www.blogtalkradio.com/1stfamradio

Credit;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEatg71BQtk

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax is a 1985 book by William J. Benson and Martin J. "Red" Beckman which claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the income tax amendment, was never properly ratified. In 2007, and again in 2009, Benson's contentions were ruled to be fraudulent.

Background
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment proposed by Congress must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution. The Article permits Congress to specify, for each amendment, whether the ratification must be by each state's legislature or by a constitutional convention in each state; for the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress specified ratification by the legislatures. There were 48 states in the Union in 1913 — the year when the Sixteenth Amendment was finally ratified — which meant that the Amendment required ratification by the legislatures of 36 states to become effective. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander C. Knox issued a proclamation that 38 states had ratified the amendment. According to Congressional analysis, a total of 42 states had ratified the amendment as of 1992.[1]

Contentions
Prior to Benson, the "non-ratification" argument was presented by James Walter Scott in the 1975 case of United States v. Scott, some sixty-two years after the ratification. Scott's argument was to no avail; he was convicted of willful failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 1969 through 1972, and the conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[2] In a 1977 case involving a tax protester named Bob Tammen, a U.S. District Court noted that Tammen was involved with a group called "United Tax Action Patriots," which took the position "that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly passed and therefore invalid...." However, the specific issue of the validity of the ratification was neither presented to nor decided by the court.[3]

William Benson's book relates how, in 1984, nine years after the Scott case and seventy-one years after the ratification was proclaimed, Benson began a research project to investigate the ratification process by traveling to the National Archives and the capitols of various New England states to review documents relating to the ratification of the Amendment.

Benson found variations in wording, punctuation, capitalization, and pluralization in the language of the Amendment as ratified by many states. He used the changes as part of the basis for his contention that those states had not properly ratified the Amendment. Benson further claimed to have found documents suggesting that some states that had been certified as having ratified the Amendment never voted to ratify it, or voted against ratification. Benson claimed that no states, or only a few states (variously reported as two states or four states), had properly ratified the Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_that_Never_Was

by Constitutional Attorney Larry Becraft

The National Educator, April 1989

The federal government and its tax agencies, supported by our congressmen, would like for us to believe that the power of the government to tax was greatly changed by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in February 1913. Having been denied the right to tax incomes by a Supreme Court decision in 1895, Uncle Sam claims that, once this Amendment was ratified, a constitutional deficiency was corrected by the Amendment and that after 1913, it had a legal right to claim a portion of income of every American in taxes.

Ever since the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments after the Civil War, arguments were made that these amendments were not legally ratified, but nobody ever did enough research to conclusively prove this contention in court. When the Sixteenth Amendment came along, popular support for the amendment and the very light taxes imposed as a consequence of the amendment were sufficient to prevent similar arguments that this amendment was not ratified. It was only when the income tax burden became almost unbearable and tax enforcement and collection turned ruthless that for the first time in American history someone decided to actually research and investigate the question of whether a federal amendment had legally and really been ratified.

In 1984, Bill Benson, a former investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, made the historical decision to research the question of whether the Sixteenth Amendment was legally ratified. Taking the government's list of States which purportedly adopted the amendment, Bill traveled to all 48 states in the Continental United States for the purpose of perusing Archives records to discover the story as to how each state acted upon the amendment.

In January and February 1984, Bill reviewed records in the New England states and discovered that, contrary to popular belief, these states had committed errors of such magnitude that they could not be counted as ratifying states. Buttressed by these amazing findings, he pushed onward through the remainder of the states, copying all official state documents that related to the ratification of the Amendment. By July 1984, Bill knew from the documents he possessed that the states had not legally ratified the amendment and that gross misconduct and fraud was involved.

In August 1984, Bill went to the National Archives in Washington, DC to find the federal government's records of how this amendment allegedly was ratified. Once discovered in a dusty bin in a hidden place in the National Archives, he opened a book made, probably in 1913, that contained all these documents. In a few minutes of reading, Bill learned that not only was there documented evidence disclosing fraudulent ratification, but there was conclusive proof that government officials knew of the fraud in 1913.

https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/History/President/1913-16thFraud.htm

Benson's non-ratification argument ruled fraudulent
On December 17, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Benson's "Reliance Defense Package" (including Benson's Sixteenth Amendment non-ratification argument), which Benson sold to customers via the internet, constituted a "fraud perpetrated by Benson" that had "caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources."[22]

The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes. Also, as is indicated above, Benson is precluded in this action from taking the position that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified."[23] The court stated that "the undisputed evidence shows that Benson had actual knowledge that the information in the Reliance Defense Package was false or fraudulent."[24] The court also stated: "Benson falsely tells customers that if they purchase and use his products they will be shielded from criminal prosecution for violating the internal revenue laws. Purchasers of the 'Reliance Defense Package' receive a letter signed by Benson that falsely represents that the purchaser can rely on Benson's research to conclude that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and that the purchaser is thereby not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income or social security taxes to the United States."[25] The court ruled that "Benson's position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700.[26]

The court granted an injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 prohibiting Benson from promoting the theories in Benson's "Reliance Defense Package," which the court referred to as "false and fraudulent advice concerning the payment of federal taxes."[27][28] The court injunction requires that Benson send his customers copies of the order, and that he post the order on his website.[29] As of January 2008 Benson had modified his web site and posted a copy of the court order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_that_Never_Was#Benson's_non-ratification_argument_ruled_fraudulent

What the Sixteenth Amendment Says
"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."

What It Means
United States Library of Congress, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation

The ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.1 holding unconstitutional Congress's attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States.2 A tax on incomes derived from property,3 the Court declared, was a direct tax, which Congress, under the terms of Article I, § 2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population. Scarcely fifteen years earlier the Justices had unanimously sustained4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had used this method of raising revenue.6

During the years between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency that Pollock threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of direct tax or by emphasizing the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,7 Knowlton v. Moore,8 and Patton v. Brady,9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the incidents of ownership and hence to be excised:

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment16.html
Please log in or register to post comments