SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT RALLY 

taxman.gif (6229 bytes)

Document 100.0.1.........04 of 38......

Subject: SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT RALLY     The Income Tax is Illegal.   Pls See:
We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education.
http://www.givemeliberty.org  E-mail: acta@capital.net Ph: 518-656-3578,
Fax: 518-656-9724.

   UPDATE 21 JAN 2001!!!  Sixteenth Amendment Initiative Launched; Oklahoma
Coalition Established.
OKLAHOMA CITY -- People who convened at the Capitol of Oklahoma on Friday to
kick off strategy intended to have the Oklahoma Legislature or the Oklahoma
court system declare that the Second Oklahoma Legislature did not ratify the
Sixteenth Amendment in 1910 were greeted by cold winds that drove the rally
inside. People from across Oklahoma and support from Kansas, Texas,
California, Missouri and Florida participated in the Friday event.
   On Thursday, Jan. 18, Bill Benson of Illinois filed suit in the Oklahoma
County District Court to secure a judicial determination that the second
Oklahoma Legislature didn't ratify the Sixteenth Amendment as Congress
proposed it in 1909 and as it appears in the U.S. Constitution today. At a
meeting held subsequent to the Capitol rally, Oklahoma citizens charted a
course to promote a resolution that will be presented for consideration of
the current Oklahoma Legislature.
   Benson will shortly file a parallel suit in California then a third in
Kentucky or Tennessee. The theory is that if three of the 38 states that
allegedly ratified the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 or before confirm that
legislatures of their respective states did not ratify the Sixteenth
Amendment, the so-called income tax amendment will be left in the lurch.
   In 1984, Benson secured documents from capitols of the 48 states that
participated in the ratification process. The documents prove that very few
of the state legislatures that allegedly endorsed the Sixteenth Amendment
between 1909 and 1913 actually approved it.
   According to Devvy Kidd, spokesman for The Wallace Institute, initiatives
relating to the Seventeenth Amendment will follow shortly on the heels of
the Sixteenth Amendment initiative.
   Under the original Constitution, U.S. Senators were elected by state
legislatures. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the process by switching the
Senate to direct electoral process by the people, thereby nullifying state
representation in Congress and opening the door to what Kidd described as a
raft of treaties that in the last century compromised American sovereignty
and solvency.    Benson documented Seventeenth Amendment irregularities
simultaneous with his Sixteenth Amendment research.
   Representatives of three Oklahoma advocacy groups agreed to promote the
Sixteenth Amendment resolution and proposed judicial accountability
legislation via a statewide umbrella organization designated as Oklahoma
Constitutional Advocates. The Benson suit and legislation being proposed for
consideration of the Oklahoma Legislature will be posted on a coalition
Internet web page.
End of 21 Jan 2001 update.
 [I, Chester L McWhorter Sr, represent the following except that enclosed in
[ ] to be an exact copy of an article that appeared in the USA Today
"newspaper" issue of July 7-8-9.  With the media being a socialist oriented
media the proponents of this article paid USA Today $87,000 to have it
published world wide.]
Dear We The People:
MOST CITIZENS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN
THE 16TH ("INCOME TAX") AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS A FRAUD
IF YOU FILE, YOU WAIVE YOUR 5th AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
These are the major points expressed in a Remonstrance, that was hand
delivered to leaders of the three branches of the federal government on
April 13, 2000, by a group of citizen-delegates representing all 50 states.
These grievances concern alleged illegal operations of the federal income
tax system and the IRS.
 The Remonstrance was signed by thousands of citizens, and was delivered as
part of an event sponsored by We The People Foundation for Constitutional
Education, a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to research and education
in matters of taxation & governance.
 The main propositions of the Remonstrance are:
 1) The 16th amendment to the U.S.  Constitution (the "income tax
amendment") was fraudulently and illegally proclaimed to be ratified in
1913.  Exhaustive legal research from both state and national archives
documented conclusively that the amendment did not even come close to being
legally approved by the required number of states.  The Courts have refused
to hear this issue.
 "[Defendant] Stahl's claim that ratification of the 16th Amendment was
fraudulently certified constitutes a political question because we could not
undertake independent resolution of this issue without expressing lack of
respect due coordinate branches of government?."
 U.S.  v Stahl (1986), 792 F2d 1438
2) Filing a federal income tax return is, in fact, voluntary, because there
is no statute or regulation that requires the vast majority of U.S.
citizens to file and pay income taxes -- or to have taxes withheld from the
money they earn.
 Neither the IRS nor the Congress can cite an authorizing law or regulation.
 3) Citizens cannot "voluntarily" file a federal income tax return without
surrendering their 5th amendment right not to bear witness against
themselves. You can be criminally prosecuted for your "voluntary" return.
 Robert Schulz, chairman of the Foundation, and Joseph Banister, a former
special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS (accompanied
by a videographer) delivered copies of the Remonstrance to designated
officials of the three branches.
 At the White House and the Capitol, the delegates had the opportunity to
explain and discuss the contents of the Remonstrance, and to ask that the
government send experts representing the three branches to a conference to
be held in June, where those experts could debate the tax issues with a
group of researchers invited by the Foundation.
 The officials agreed to the idea of having such a conference, and the
Foundation scheduled the meeting for June 29th. The officials the delegates
delivered the Remonstrance to were: At the White House-Jason Furman, Senior
Director and Senior Economic Advisor of the National Economic Council; at
the Capitol-Dr.  William Koetzle, Legislative Director for Speaker Hastert,
and Keith Hennessey, Policy Director for Senate Majority Leader Lott.
 However, on June 2nd the White House reneged on the promises it made during
the April 13th meeting.  As with three previous conferences, the government
has again refused to debate the grievances.  Jason Furman told Robert
Schulz, "The legality of the income tax is not a high priority item at the
White House, and we will not participate in any conference on the subject."
 WE HAVE NOW REACHED THE POINT WHERE THE GOVERNMENT'S EVASION MUST BE
REGARDED AS AN ADMISSION.
 If the government had valid counter-arguments to the Remonstrance, it
should be a simple matter to clarify the law, provide the appropriate
regulatory references and promptly settle the matter.  Our government's
repeated avoidance of these debates should speak volumes.
 On this, the 224th birth celebration of our one Nation under God, the We
The People Foundation offers the following facts, internet links and a
challenge for each American: Read the facts for yourself.  Judge what is
truth.  Pass it on. We hope you will join many who now believe that the time
has come for our government and our nation to begin a long-overdue process
of public debates concerning the economic, political and constitutional
problems posed by the true legal restrictions upon our current system of
taxation.
 As a nation of justice and due process, we cannot tolerate a tax system, or
a government, that seizes our property, sends us to prison and induces fear
in our hearts -- while refusing to provide us basic proof of their legal
authority, clearly written tax codes and unambiguous legal rulings on
Constitutional and legal issues concerning the income tax.
 We pray that you be convinced that nothing less than our freedoms, our
property and our Republic are at stake. The Soul of America needs
illumination.  Please join us.
 Legal Facts & Did You Know

Proposition #1
 The issue of the fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment has never
been decided by a court of law.
The courts have instead tossed the issue into the lap of Congress as a
"political question," even though fraud is a clear issue for judicial
review, not a political question.
 A brief report printed by the Congressional Research Service in 1985 states
up front that, "The report does not attempt to rebut specific factual
allegations?." It then goes on to make the astonishing assertion that the
actions of a government official must be presumed to be correct and cannot
be judged or overturned by the courts! (John Ripy, "Ratification of the
Sixteenth Amendment." CRS, 1985.)
 An attorney speaking for Senator Orin Hatch in 1984 offered to pay former
tax investigator William Benson a  fortune not to publish his research
proving that the 16th amendment did not [even] come close to being legally
ratified by the required number of states in 1913.
 Philander Knox, Secretary of State from 1909 to 1913 during the Taft
administration, proclaimed the 16th amendment to be ratified just a few days
before he left office in 1913, to make way for the Wilson administration,
even though he knew it had not been legally ratified.
 Philander Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the richest
men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and the Vanderbilts.
He had created for them the largest cartel in the world, then was appointed,
at their request, as Attorney General in the McKinley/Roosevelt
administrations, where he refused to enforce the Sherman anti-trust laws
against the cartel he had just created.
 The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen.
Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D.  Rockefeller, Jr.  and grandfather
and namesake of Nelson A.  Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if
Knox had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.
 Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted
Kentucky as having approved it.
Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it
meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but
Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment.  Minnesota did not submit
any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as
approving the amendment.
 Legal scholars have agreed that if any state violated provisions of its own
state constitution in the ratification process, its approval would be null
and void.  At least 20 states were guilty of serious violations of their
constitutions. For example, Tennessee's constitution provided that the state
legislature could not act upon any  proposed amendment to the U.S.
Constitution submitted by Congress until after the next state legislative
elections. Yet the Tennessee legislature acted on the proposed 16th
amendment the same month it was received and before any elections.
 Particulars of the Oklahoma 16th Amendment Initiative Oklahoma
constitutional advocates will offer the 2001 session of the
Oklahoma Legislature the opportunity to correct historical error: The 1910
session of the Oklahoma Legislature was credited with endorsing the
Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the so-called income tax
amendment, when in fact the 1910 legislature did not approve the amendment
Congress proposed in 1909. The Secretary of State declared that the
amendment had been ratified by 38 states in 1913, but that was clearly not
the case. Ratification by 36 of the 48 state legislatures was required, so
if Oklahoma and two more legislatures notify Congress that their respective
states did not ratify the amendment, the situation Congress would have on
its hands would be nearly as interesting as the current presidential
election dispute.
  Text of the Sixteenth Amendment is as follows: "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."
  The 1910 edition of Oklahoma Legislature journals reflects what the
Oklahoma Legislature allegedly ratified via House Joint Resolution No. 5:
  "Article 16. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
several states, and from any census or enumeration." Whatever the Oklahoma
Legislature did, it obviously did not ratify the Sixteenth Amendment
Congress proposed. In fact, the Oklahoma version stands in direct opposition
to the last clause. But that is only part of the story.
  The Oklahoma Legislature journal documents that the House of
Representatives intentionally amended the proposed amendment, then the
Senate not satisfied with the House version, constructed a second amended
version. The Senate version was sent to the Secretary of State without the
House of Representatives considering and endorsing the Senate version. Where
the first issue is concerned, the concurrence rule governs: "The senate and
the house must agree on the exact text of any bill before they may send it
to the governor. There may not be the slightest variance, etc." (State ex
rel., Ashcroft v. Blunt (696 S.W.2d 329,
Missouri 1985) In sum, all legislative bodies party to enacting any law,
whether constitutional amendment or otherwise, must be in concurrence. Any
deviation nullifies that alleged law. It is of no effect.
  In Oklahoma, the Senate and House respectively endorsed something, but
they did not endorse the same legislation. Only Kentucky seems to have a
worse record on this score with respect to the Sixteenth Amendment. There,
the House ratified the proposed amendment but the Senate rejected it. It was
sent to or acquired by the U.S. Secretary of State without both houses of
the Kentucky Legislature ratifying it. In a recent telephone visit with Bill
Benson of Illinois, who secured documentation relating to the Sixteenth
Amendment from archives of the 48 states existent in 1913, I asked how many
state legislatures actually ratified the Sixteenth Amendment as Congress
offered it or in compliance with procedural requirements. Benson said that
he believes virtually any state ratification can be challenged. Even where
it first appeared a state legislature properly ratified the proposed
amendment, procedural
flaws have since been found. Alabama attorney Larry Becraft drafted a
proposed joint resolution of the Oklahoma Legislature to consider:
ENGROSSED HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. _____ By: (Representative)
A Concurrent Resolution memorializing the United States Congress and other
officials of the Government of the United States that the Second Oklahoma
Legislature convened in 1910 failed to lawfully and legally ratify the
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the federal income
tax amendment, and directing distribution.
 WHEREAS, Article V of the Constitution for the United States of America
authorizes the Congress to submit amendments thereof to the States of this
Union which "when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several states" become a part of such Constitution,
WHEREAS, no State is authorized to alter or change in any way the amendment
which the Congress proposes;
WHEREAS, in 1909 the Sixty-first Congress proposed an amendment to the
Constitution for the United States of America via Senate Joint Resolution
No. 40 which reads in words and phrases as follows, to-wit: "Article XVI.
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."
WHEREAS, in 1910 the Second Legislature for the State of Oklahoma responded
to such Senate Joint Resolution No. 40, and adopted House Joint Resolution
No. 5, approved March 14, 1910;
WHEREAS, the constitutional amendment which was approved by House Joint
Resolution No. 5 read in words and phrases as follows, to-wit: "Article 16:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and
from any census or enumeration."
WHEREAS, the amendment to which the Second Legislature for the State of
Oklahoma agreed means the opposite of that which was proposed by Congress;
WHEREAS, the Second Legislature for the State of Oklahoma failed in 1910 to
legally and lawfully ratify the amendment which the Sixty-first Congress
proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST
SESSION OF THE 48TH OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN:
THAT the Oklahoma Legislature hereby memorializes the Congress of the United
States to review and examine certified copies of the Journals of the 1910
Senate and House of the Oklahoma Legislature, which will be provided upon
request, and similarly conclude and resolve that the Second Legislature of
the State of Oklahoma failed to legally and lawfully ratify the Sixteenth
Amendment.
THAT copies of this resolution be sent to the Oklahoma Congressional
Delegation; the Governor; the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives; the Secretary of the United States Senate; and the state
legislative leaders of all fifty states.
Adopted by the House of Representatives the ___ day of ________, 2001.
_______________________
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Adopted by the Senate the ____ day of ___________, 2001.
_______________________
President of the Senate
_____
Also, Becraft constructed a suggested model letter to send to Oklahoma
officials:
____From the desk of (insert your name & address) December 8, 2000
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
Governor Frank Keating Room 212, State Capitol Building 2300 N. Lincoln
Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Lieutenant Governor Mary Fallin Room 211, State Capitol Building 2300 N.
Lincoln Blvd.Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Sec. of State Mike Hunter Room 101, State Capitol Building 2300 N. Lincoln
Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4897
Re: Alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment
Dear (insert name of govt. official addressee),
In 1909, the United States Congress proposed to the States of this nation
that the 16th Amendment, the federal income tax amendment, be ratified and
made a part of the United States Constitution. This amendment as offered to
the States by Congress read as follows:
"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." In February, 1913, after a
number of States had delivered to U.S.
Secretary of State Philander Knox a variety of documents regarding this
proposal, Knox proclaimed that 38 States had ratified the amendment and thus
it was a part of the U.S. Constitution. At that time, the approval of 36
States was needed to ratify this amendment.
It is alleged that Oklahoma was one of the 38 States to have ratified this
amendment. However, a review of the 1910 Oklahoma Session Laws reveals that
House Joint Resolution No. 5, which purports to have ratified this
amendment, read as follows:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and
from any census or enumeration."
What Oklahoma adopted as this amendment means the exact opposite of the
amendment which Congress proposed and this is shown by the deliberate change
in the wording of the amendment itself. Legislature bodies must agree upon
the precise language in legislative acts; see Ashcroft v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d
329 (Mo. 1985). It appears clear to me that Oklahoma failed to legally
ratify this amendment.
The Oklahoma Constitution authorizes the people to seek redress of
grievances from the government and that is the purpose of this letter.
It cannot be doubted that the 1910 Oklahoma legislature deliberately changed
the wording of this amendment, a power it did not possess, and that activity
made the actions of the 1910 Oklahoma legislature void. I request that you
inform the current Oklahoma legislature of this defect and seek from them a
determination that this amendment was not ratified. Your attention to my
request is appreciated.
Your truly, (Your name)

Judges have been extraordinarily unwilling to allow defendants in "failure
to file" cases to present evidence or testimony of expert researchers
regarding the constitutionality of the 16th amendment.

Proposition #2
Juries have been acquitting defendants in failure-to-file income tax return
cases due to lack of demonstrable evidence that there is any law or
regulation that requires it.
 An increasing number of employers have stopped withholding taxes from their
workers, and stopped filing W-2s and 1099s for the same reason. Unless one
is a foreigner working in the U.S., or a U.S. citizen earning money abroad,
one is not liable for the federal income tax.
 The OMB Number on Form 1040 is cross-referenced in the Code of Federal
Regulations to the section covering taxes by resident aliens, which,
therefore, doesn't apply to most Americans.
 Responding to an inquiry by a constituent who was a tax consultant, Sen.
Daniel Inouye told him that based on research performed by the Congressional
Research Service, no provision of the Internal Revenue Code requires an
individual to pay income taxes.  He then went on to warn that Section 7201
sets forth numerous penalties for not paying income taxes owed.  However,
when I contacted my Democrat Rep Karen Thurman, she responded with the
comments that the Congressional Research Center looked into the matter and
found that the 16th Amendment was certifed as ratified by the necessary
states and the tax is legal.  Who is right?  However - The failure-to-file
law applies to alcohol-tobacco-firearms taxes, (Section 7201), not to income
taxes, and convictions are based on the mis-application of the
alcohol-tobacco- firearm regulations.
 No law requires employees to provide a Social Security Number to an
employer, nor for an employer to demand one from an employee.

Proposition #3
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the filing of an income tax
return (Form 1040) and the information on the 1040 is not compelled, and,
therefore, the principle that no one may be forced to waive their 5th
amendment rights in order to comply with a law is not applicable to federal
income tax returns.  "The [5th Amendment] privilege protects against
compelled testimonial communications?." U.S.  v Conklin (1994), WL 504211
(10th Cir.  Colo.)
 No one has been able to collect the $50,000 reward offered by William
Conklin (www.anti-irs.com) to anyone who can:
1) show how to file a federal income tax return without waiving one's 5th
amendment rights, and 2) identify what statute in the Internal Revenue Code
makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.
 [added:]
["We shall use our grant making power to SO* alter life in the United States
that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union." H. Rowan Gaither,
Chairman of Ford Foundation in testimony to Norman Dodd, The Congressional
Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations, 1953. *Emphasis by Mr
Gaither.  As usual, nothing came of the Cong Hearings. Status Quo.] [Does
this mean that buyers of Ford products contribute via the Ford Foundation to
the downfall of The United States as a separate Sovereign nation?  I think
yes!]


             >>>>Disclaimer: This document may be used as you will except:
If you change anything in the text, remove my name and other Ident. You may
use it without my identification also if you wish...I only ask that people
read it and think...think...think. Sources/Ref's if not in the text will be
found on the last page of Doc 000.0.0.1 and 000.0.6. CLMsr.<<<<
We have a Constitution and our Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) that
makes us free.  Right?  Then visit:
 http://www.trimonline.org  http://www.getusout.org
http://www.thenewamerican.com   http://www.givemeliberty.org
     http://www.jbs.org      Http://www.getawarrant.com
Then take a look at these sites:       http://www.dixierising.com
http://www.dixienet.org  http://www.palmetto.org
http://www.southerncaucus.org   http://www.spofga.org
http://www.southern-style.com  http://www.nca.mybravenet.com

NOTE # 1: This is the FOURTH doc in a string of about 37 regarding the
Income Tax, How it was illegally forced upon us, the collusion of various
nation banks, including The Bank of England, the Banks of Europe, the Banks
of the USA that make up the Non-Government organization known as the Fed and
the bankers themselves dedicated to making this a Socialist Nation. As David
Rockefeller reportedly said in 1973 when he and others formed the Trilateral
Commission, "We will have this a Socialist Nation by the end of the year
2000."  Well, with the help of our past Communist President, he damned well
nearly did it.  If Comrade Gore had been elected, it would be now! The last
doc in this series is a plan that was presented to President Bush when he
visited Florida recently.  It was put directly into his hands.  He has not
acted upon it. We The People must initiate a campaign of letters, faxes,
e-mails, and phone calls to him and others in our otherwise corrupt
government letting them know of our displeasure.  For God and Country, Chet.

NOTE # 2:  [  Should you wish to be removed from my mailing list, please
send a message with the word remove in the subject line.  If you got this
from a mail list, such as xxxxxx@xxxxxgroups.com  or something like that,
then it is up to the moderator or owner of the list to remove my access
based upon complaints of my material, abuse, or removal of your access if
you request it. ]         Should you wish a copy of a numbered message
(this is the fourth one)   that you may have missed, please e-mail me off
net for a copy of it and I will be very happy to provide it. Chet.

You may forward this to every member of Congress by using a Mail Blaster
application available on the Internet as follows:
Step 1.  Access your web browser.   Step 2.  Type in the search block:
http://www.mailblasterdot.com
Step 3.  Click on   Send Batch E-Mail which is on the left end of the
screen.
Step 4.  Type in your E-mail Address.   Step 5.  Click on Subject: Type in
the subject of your document.
Step 6.  Click on Message: Now here you can type in your message or you can
paste a previously copied file here.  You can also edit your message after
you finish with the message and before sending it.
Step 7.  Then click on   select a file.  Here you may click on:
 demhouse.txt (Socialist Democrat House Members) or,
 democsen.txt (Socialist Democrats Senate Members) or,
 newsorg.txt (Many of the "anchor" news folks have their email address here
for you to use) or,
 rephouse.txt (Republican House of Representatives Members) or,
 repubsen.txt (Republican Senate Members) or,
 senators.txt (All Senators).
Step 8.  After selecting the group to receive your message then click on
send batch. It will go to everyone listed in the batch.  Remember: Nothing
beats a letter AND a phone call.
A
Chester L McWhorter Sr, c/o 504 N. Brighton Rd, Lecanto, Occupied Florida.
C.S.A. 34461. Ph: 352-344-9073. Fax: Same. E-mail:
robertthebruce@naturecoast.net
 04 of 37     100.0.1 End.

Quote:  We are on the verge of a global transformation.  All we [ the CFR ]
need is the right major crisis and the nation[s] will accept the New World
Order.  End Quote.  David Rockefeller: Founder and Honorary Chairman,
Council of the Americas; Chairman, Americas Society; Founder, Forum of the
Americas; Chairman, Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]; Founder
and Honorary Chairman, Trilateral Commission [TC]; Chairman, The
Bilderbergs.  [ How does the 11 Sept 2001 attack upon our country figure
into this?  CLMsr ]

16TH AMENDMENT
 

Part 5

<Back The Bankruptcy of the United States

American Patriot Friends Network APFN

"...a network of net workers..."

APFN Contents Page:Click Here

Message Board

APFN Home Page

Hit Counter