E-Mail from a Bill Benson Fan

[Joey Smith]

> Here is the information submitted to Quatloos! via the Ask Tony-the-Wonder-Llama Form from IP address:66.113.111.235 on Sunday, June 28th, 2009 at 3:28 pm.
> ------------------------
> Name: John R. Venrick
>
> Email: jacksranch@skynetbb.com
>
> Question: You obviously not done your homework and/or your political bias is to thick for your to see through. The current tax system in America goes against all the founding and fundamental laws of the land along with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. Bill Benson was right on, 13 states did not ratify, 12 did, 23 had misc. errors. Even counting states with error only 35 ratified vs 36 to qualify for 3/4 of the then 48. Even if it had, "income" is gain and profit NOT wages. Multiple high court confirm 16th did not apply to private property wages. Sales till taxes are indirect and can only be applied to corporations then passed thru in pricing or not. At least high state courts confirm property taxes are unconstitutional, i.e. they are not apportioned. I have spent the last 5 years researching the illegtimate theft of our private and public property. Allodial Freehold Land Patent title has been illegitimately usurped. there is just too much independent credible sources confirming this. Only those who are profiting from takings continue the shell game. Conviction is not evidence the tax freedom heros are wrong, it is reason the prima facie, colored, de facto codes can fool even the few juries who hear these cases outside of the IRS. We have innocent rural property owners in jail who have only cleaned their ditches and burn slash here in the extreme green Puget Sound. We do not own our property, we are indentured slaves. As Ben Franklin said "We have a Republic, if you can keep it. My research shows it was far worse than that. We never kept it because we never got it from day one. Please check out my site, especially the Must Read Must See page.
> http://www.freedomforallseasons.org
>

[The Operative]

Wow, a dozen idiotic misconceptions all rolled into one run-on paragraph!

[Joey Smith]

Since these people Hate America so much, why don't they just leave?

[The Operative]

I say we should deport them. Put them on a carrier, go 200 miles off shore, and deport (in other words, throw them off the port side). They can lay claim to any land their feet touch.

[Nikki]

Since these people Hate America so much, why don't they just leave?

Perhaps (1) they don't have bus fare to the border or (2) no one will issue a visa?

[Quixote]

Judging by the amount of space given to each on his website, I suspect that the income tax is just a sideline to Venrick's main obsessesion, eminent domain, specifically as it has been used by the authorities in Enumclaw, WA.

[LegalEagleMan]

Since these people Hate America so much, why don't they just leave?

Yeah, I have no idea why those stupid people back in the 1700s didn't just leave the English colonies. They hated it so much they could have just left and saved 10s of thousands from dying. I don't know what their problem was.

[Famspear]

Mr. Space Cadet wrote:

Sales till taxes are indirect and can only be applied to corporations then passed thru in pricing or not.

Wow, how can I argue with, uh, logic, uh, like that?

Conviction is not evidence the tax freedom heros are wrong, it is reason the prima facie, colored, de facto codes can fool even the few juries who hear these cases outside of the IRS.

I don't know. I'm thinking that this could have been caused by a serious, chronic vitamin deficiency, or maybe just massive file corruption caused by too many improper shutdowns. Or, maybe, this guy's elevator just doesn't go all the way to the top floor.

[Nikki]

I think the source of his legal theories was either really good or really bad brakes on his ATV.

[Demosthenes]

or maybe just massive file corruption caused by too many improper shutdowns.

Hmmm. I'm going to have to steal ... um, borrow ... this analogy from you.

[Noah]

Was the 16th amendment properly ratified ? NO
Is Bill Benson correct on the ratification issue ? YES
Was or Is the 16th Amendment relevant to the current income tax laws ? NO !!!!

Ignorant ones bang their heads against the 16th Amendment wall because they do not know how or where to find the truth. After a while ignorance is reduced to stupidity.

Will the truth set you free ? YES There is a out, you just have to pick the right door. The wrong door will get you ate alive.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Was the 16th amendment properly ratified ? NO
Is Bill Benson correct on the ratification issue ? YES
Was or Is the 16th Amendment relevant to the current income tax laws ? NO !!!!

Ignorant ones bang their heads against the 16th Amendment wall because they do not know how or where to find the truth. After a while ignorance is reduced to stupidity.

Will the truth set you free ? YES There is a out, you just have to pick the right door. The wrong door will get you ate alive.

Yawn.

Welcome to Quatloos, Noah.

[Famspear]

Was the 16th amendment properly ratified ? NO
Is Bill Benson correct on the ratification issue ? YES
Was or Is the 16th Amendment relevant to the current income tax laws ? NO !!!!

Ignorant ones bang their heads against the 16th Amendment wall because they do not know how or where to find the truth. After a while ignorance is reduced to stupidity.

Will the truth set you free ? YES There is a out, you just have to pick the right door. The wrong door will get you ate alive.

Was the Sixteenth Amendment properly ratified?
Yes.

Is Bill Benson correct? No. And Bill Benson is a liar and a fraudster.

Was or is the Amendment relevant to current tax laws? Well, yes. But even had the Amendment never been ratified, the federal income tax on earnings from labor would be Constitutional -- as the tax was constitutional both before and after the year 1913.

[Thule]

Ignorant ones bang their heads against the 16th Amendment wall because they do not know how or where to find the truth.

Ironiccaly, there is so much truth in that statement.

[Joey Smith]

...

Sorry, but REAL researches have reviewed Benson's work and found that he was simply wrong.

BTW, did you know that Benson used to be a tax snitch who made money informing on other taxpayers when they tried to cheat on their taxes?

[Noah]

Precise definition of words are not only desireable but in tax law they are decisive.....
Frivolous is not what most here think. Look it up and take another look at the Pond with the correct definition factored in.....IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU STATE IS INCORRECT.....

The substance of the sixteenth amendment was always constitutional, it needed no special amendment. The amendment is just a ruse...to get dumb and dumber off point. The term "frivolous" should have been learned in Law 101.

Brushaber clearly stated the value of the 16th amendment...it gave no new powers....

[Arthur Rubin]

Brushaber clearly stated the value of the 16th amendment...it gave no new powers....

But removed restrictions on existing powers. Nice try.

[Duke2Earl]

Precise definition of words are not only desireable but in tax law they are decisive.....
Frivolous is not what most here think. Look it up and take another look at the Pond with the correct definition factored in.....IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU STATE IS INCORRECT.....

The substance of the sixteenth amendment was always constitutional, it needed no special amendment. The amendment is just a ruse...to get dumb and dumber off point. The term "frivolous" should have been learned in Law 101.

Brushaber clearly stated the value of the 16th amendment...it gave no new powers....

You need to work a bit more on your gibberish. You are getting there but to be completely incomprehensible word salad you need to work just a bit harder. I refer you to the seminal work by David Merrill who could make one doubt he was even speaking in English.

If you are really trying to make a point it would be helpful to actually speak in sentences. You know, nouns, verbs, tenses... those kinds of things.

And BTW, your knowledge and understanding of the law is nonexistant.

[Famspear]

Precise definition of words are not only desireable but in tax law they are decisive.....
Frivolous is not what most here think. Look it up and take another look at the Pond with the correct definition factored in.....IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU STATE IS INCORRECT.....

The substance of the sixteenth amendment was always constitutional, it needed no special amendment. The amendment is just a ruse...to get dumb and dumber off point. The term "frivolous" should have been learned in Law 101.

Brushaber clearly stated the value of the 16th amendment...it gave no new powers....

Dear Noah:

Yes, the term "frivolous" does indeed mean what most people here "think" it means. We know the law. The term frivolous is defined in the law, and we know what the law is.

Yes, if your position is "frivolous", that means that your position is incorrect. Indeed, if your position is frivolous, then it is worse than merely incorrect.

The statement that the Sixteenth Amendment granted no new powers is from Brushaber, and is a correct statement. It's unclear whether you know what that means, though. You may or may not.

Most posters here can tell you why the Sixteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified. Most of us can probably do it in our sleep. You may or may not be able to do that.

Welcome to Quatloos! Stay tuned.

[Famspear]

Dear Noah: If you haven't read this already, this is a great introduction:

[ . . . . ]In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as “frivolous,” “ridiculous,” “absurd,” “preposterous,” or “gibberish.” If you don’t read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument “frivolous” or “ridiculous.” Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges.

Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time.

That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for “absurd.”

The frustration of judges is well described in the following opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal raising some of the ridiculous constitutional claims described in this FAQ:

We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always--or often--frivolous. However we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain’s present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of ’adjudicating’ this meritless appeal.”

Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).

The court not only ruled against Crain, but imposed a damage award against him (essentially a fine) of $2,000 for bringing a frivolous appeal. Id at 1418.

So, when a judge calls an argument “ridiculous” or “frivolous,” it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone’s time. It doesn’t mean that the case wasn’t well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side.. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were “wrong.” The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.

--Daniel B. Evans, from The Tax Protester FAQ; copyright by Daniel B. Evans.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html