Ratification of the 16th Amendment was a Fraud In researching what can be done about the rogue IRS and the rampant infringement of Constitutional Rights, I’ve quickly uncovered some very interesting facts. I have long heard and believed, the 16th Amendment was fraudulently claimed to have been ratified by Secretary of State Philander Knox on 25FEB1913. This fraud was perpetrated to put in place the oppressive trifecta of the 16th Amendment (Individual Income Tax – previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), the 12 privately owned and unaccountable Federal Reserve Board Banks (that would be fed directly from the proceeds of the Individual Income Tax), and the resurrection of the Internal Revenue Service to act as the strong-arm enforcer for the FRB. Some of the best documentation of this fraud was compiled by Bill Benson in his 1984 book, “The Law That Never Was”. Benson was prosecuted, found guilty, and his research was ruled “fraudulent” by the Supreme Court. The Courts simply will not hear any evidence the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared ratified…period! However, I did run across the obscure case of Sullivan v. U.S.A. et al, from March 21, 2003. Ret. Colonel Sullivan was seeking a restraining order against President George W. Bush to keep our Armed Forces from being sent to the First Gulf War without a Congressional Declaration of War. The Honorable James C. Fox, Senior United States District Court Judge, was sympathetic to Sullivan’s case, but ultimately dismissed his case. However, in the course of the Court proceedings, Hon. Fox made the case that even though some governmental policies were not accomplished legally, through long-standing practice, they “change” the Constitution. Fox uses the example of the 16th Amendment never being legally ratified to support his dismissal of Col. Sullivan’s Temporary Restraining Order. Here are excerpts from the Court transcripts: Sullivan v. U.S.A. et al March 21, 2003, page 23 & 24 – the court being represented by James C. Fox, Senior United States District Court Judge. The Court: I will say I think, you know, Colonel (Sullivan), I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I’m correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which was the Internal Revenue, Income Tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of States never ratified that Amendment. Mr. Sullivan: True statement. The Court: And nonetheless, I think it’s fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don’t think any court would ever – Mr. Sullivan: I would love to have a very long discussion with you about that subject. The Court: --would set it aside. Well, I’ve seen that – I think I’m correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred. Mr. Sullivan: Correct sir. The Court: Yet nonetheless, I’m sure no court’s going to say that the 16th Amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason, although I wouldn’t mind filing for a rebate myself. But I think that there may be something analogous there vis a vis the continued practice of the executive to have incursions and police action or to commit the country to hostilities without the formal Declaration of War. Well, apparently in Federal Government, Two Wrongs do make the Right to Oppress.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:36:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015