tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (10/07/86)
I received the following handbill. It looks interesting, but I wonder what its author(s?) expected would come of it. David Hudson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jurisdiction Journal and Sovereign Review | March & April 1986 (Vol. VI, No. 31) > | Big news from Seattle! Red Beckman reports that on February 12, 1986, > at the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney Larry Becraft | argued (in the case of *US v. Stahl*) that because the 16th > "Amendment" was not ratified, the government has no authority to | incarcerate anyone for not paying income taxes or for not filing > returns. | > Observers report that the 3-judge panel appeared deeply stirred by | Becraft's presentation. During the first 10 minutes or so of oral > argument the judges just listened attentively, but as the presentation | fully developed they began to interrupt to ask questions. The > questions were penetrating, on point, and refreshingly free of bias. | > Also, it quickly became obvious that these judges had carefully read | Becraft's previously-submitted written materials. As Becraft moved > into his concluding remarks, the judges seemed especially attentive, | hanging onto his every word. > | At the end of the defense's allotted time (30 minutes), the judges > continued to probe Becraft for more details. Although the questions | became more penetrating, the judges gave Stahl's attorney more time to > answer. As the court began to grasp the implications of what they | were hearing, they paused in their questioning of Becraft and turned > to Assistant United States Attorney Robert Zimmerman (who was handling | the prosecution side of the case). > | Almost from the start, the court interrupted the government's > presentation with increasingly harsh questions; and the answers | elicited by those questions were beginning to demolish the > government's case. | > Apparently becoming desparate, the US Attorney's representative tried | to casually dismiss the defense position by stating that whether the > "16th" had been ratified or not was immaterial to the government's | position, that the government was relying on the "excise tax" > provision in the body of the Constitution, not the 16th "Amendment"! | > Shocked by this revelation, the judges turned to Becraft for a | response. The defense lawyer dryly re-marked that THAT IS *EXACTLY* > WHAT NUMEROUS PATRIOT'S HAVE ASSERTED IN THEIR DEFENSE, BUT THE | GOVERNMENT PUTS *THEM* IN PRISON! > | The judges, now clearly fed up with the government attorney, turned > back to Becraft. Renewing their questioning, this time displaying | unmistakable friendliness, the court gave the defense lawyer ample > opportunity to fully develop his argument. | > Becraft's appearance stemmed from the case of *US v. Stahl*, a Montana | patriot who had been convicted of tax charges in March, 1985. At this > trial, one of the first in which the non-ratification of the 16th | "Amendment" was the primary defense, Judge William B. Enright was > described by observers as having displayed the utmost hostility and | bias against the defense position. > | MORE FIREWORKS AHEAD > | More fireworks regarding the non-ratification of the 16th "Amendment" > are expected March 3, 1986 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In another | criminal case (*US v. House*) in the Federal 6th Circuit Court, the > government is expected to argue that "too much time" has passed since | 1913 and that the precedent has been established, etc., etc., buzz, > buzz! | > To counter such a move, Huntsville attorney Larry Becraft will cite | the US Supreme Court's recent favorable ruling (*Hohri v. US*) in the > case of reparations for Japanese AAmerican internees (WWII), asserting | that even though the "wrong" occurred more than 40 years ago the > victims have made a valid and timely claim. | > In addition to the non-ratification argument, Becraft is expected to | make a sharp attack on the government's long "concealment" of the > fraud which occurred in 1913. | > As background to these actions, J&R readers should be aware that the | 16th Amendment (INCOME TAX) was not lawfully ratified. This means > that the federal personal income tax in the United States is actually | a fraud!! It is unlawful. It is "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS!" > | These are the only conclusions an honest person can reach when brought > face to face with the devastating evidence uncovered by Bill Benson, a | former criminal investigator for the Illinois State Department of > Revenue. | > Benson's shocking revelations are coming to light some 70 years after | the "Income Tax Amendment" supposedly became law. In 1913, Secretary > of State Philander C. Knox, in complicity with his Solicitor (legal | counsel), *wilfully* and falsely declared that three fourths of the 48 > states had ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States | Constitution. > | Bill launched his investigation in February, 1984, and in the next > nine months, travelled to the capitals of all 48 states and to the | National Archives in Washington, DC. He obtained more than 17,000 > pages of documents -- all certified -- which prove that the 16th | Amendment was not ratified. > | In the basement of the National Archives, Benson discovered some 500 > pages of important documentation. Among these long-forgotten records | was a 16-page memorandum dated February 15, 1913, to Secretary of > State Philander C. Knox from his Solicitor. The memorandum clearly | indicates that, as of that date, only four states had "correctly" > ratified the amendment, Minnesota had not "yet" transmitted a copy of | its resolution, and the resolutions of 33 states contained > punctuation, capitalization, or wording which differed from that of | the Resolution approved by Congress. > | Regarding proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, the > law is very specific. Discrepancies between what a state legislature | ratifies and what was submitted to them for ratification by the United > States Congress renders the states "ratification" action null and | void. > | State legislatures presuming to ratify a proposed Constitutional > amendment must do so ONLY in *complete* agreement with, and in the | exact form of (including punctuation), a certified copy of the > proposed amendment as passed by Congress in a Joint Resolution. The | applicability of this legal principle was acknowledged by the > Solicitor (a lawyer) in his memorandum of February 15, 1913 to | Secretary of State Knox (also a lawyer). > | So despite his having personal knowledge of the discrepancies, > Secretary of State Knox certified that the 16th Amendment had been | ratified. > | Perhaps not surprisingly, when Benson researched the Senate and House > Journals of the 48 states, he discovered that most of the *alleged* | "errors" were in fact NOT errors. He found that most of the wording > changes, "misplaced" commas, etc., were accomplished by legislative | *intent*, not by accident. Incredibly, the certified documents Bill > obtained prove that NOT EVEN *ONE* state properly ratified the 16th | Amendment! > | DOCUMENTATION FORMED INTO NEW BOOK > | Much of the explosive documentation of the "16th Amendment" FRAUD has > been condensed in "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS", Volumes I and II. Bill | Benson and M. J. "Red" Beckman are co-authors of a couple of real > blockbusters -- each volume 350-plus pages, hard-cover bound. | Contents include a fotocopy of the Solicitor's 16-page memorandum of > February 15, 1913, and separate narrative reports on the | "ratification" actions of each of the 48 states. Fully EXPOSED is the > FRAUD which has been perpetrated upon the general public of the United | States since 1913.
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (10/14/86)
(The last few days we have had some trouble with our Usenet server. Responses and/or email might have been lost.) I was asked for an address for the book *The Law That Never Was*. I have seen it, and find it believable now on the basis of trust of some particular individuals rather than on the basis of the unlikelihood of self-deceptive errors in the handbill. Here is (was?) the address of the book's publishers: Constitutional Research Assoc. Box 550 South Holland, Illinois 60473 I was also told that the ERA was rejected, in part, because of the incorrectness of some of the ratifications. Supposedly, it is a political ploy to amend the text to be ratified, to show support for the incorrect version without actually having to support a Constitutional amendment. (I didn't want that version of an ERA passed, anyway, because of the vagueness in it that would allow, for example, the idiotic notion of "comparable worth" to be legislated or ajudicated. But the point is the accepted unconstititutionality of accepting deviations in the ratified text.) David Hudson