the truth matter anymore in this country? Once I began my journey
now going into my 24th year, all I found was nothing but lies,
lies and more lies. Elected officials as well as unelected adminsitrative
honchos like Lois Lerner of the IRS mess do nothing but lie to
we the people. Both parties, county, state, federal, it doesn't
seem to matter. The agenda is all important regardless of party.
government for longer than I've been alive and regardless of which
party holds "power" in the Outlaw Congress or which puppet occupies
the White House, has lied to us about everything from The Gulf
of Tonkin 'incident' dragging us into the undeclared Viet Nam
"era" to the true nature of who the federal income tax applies
to, TWA Flight 800, OKC, 9/11 and every scandal in between like
Benghazi and Fast and Furious. .
man seeking the truth about two constitutional amendments, Bill
Benson, discovered that both the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution were not properly ratified and therefore
are laws that don't exist. For Bill's efforts, his life was made
hell. Bill was railroaded into prison while Americans sat in front
of their football games, lined up at some electronics store for
a new gadget or stampeded to Macy's for a sale.
Sixteenth Amendment is commonly known as the "income" tax amendment.
On January 19, 2001, Larry Becraft, a constitutional attorney
with more than 35 years experience in federal courts, filed a
lawsuit on behalf of Bill Benson in the State of Oklahoma. Larry
and I had the Wallace Institute at the time. The purpose of that
lawsuit was to finally expose the non-ratification of the Sixteenth
Amendment. What happened was all to familiar in courts for decades;
the truth didn't matter. This
is an interview with Larry about that lawsuit.
Oklahoma lawsuit was not the first attempt to expose a big fat
lie, but it was the last. In the end, the truth didn't matter.
We didn't have the money to fight an appeal and what would have
been the purpose when the only message sent by the State of Oklahoma
was they didn't care about the law or the truth. That was not
the first time the non-ratification has been challenged. In a
case back in 1985 where Larry was counsel, this
was the court's opinion:
the Court notes that the sixteenth amendment has been in existence
for over half a century and has been applied by the Supreme Court
in hundreds of cases. As stated in Maryland Petition Committee
v. Johnson, 265 F.Supp. 823, 826 (D.Md.1967)), cert. denied,
393 U.S. 835, 89 S.Ct. 109, 21 L.Ed.2d 106 (1968), "While age
and usage are not absolute barriers to judicial inquiry, the courts
have recognized them as persuasive indicia of validity."''
upholding the fifteenth amendment against constitutional challenge
the United States Supreme Court noted that it "has been recognized
and acted on for half a century." Leser v. Garnett, 258
U.S. 130, 136, 42 S.Ct. 217, 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922). In United
States v. Association of Citizens Councils, 187 F.Supp. 846,
848 (W.D.La.1960), the constitutionality of the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments was upheld. "In the light of hundreds of
cases in which the United States Supreme Court has applied the
amendments." Similarly, in United States v. Gugel, 119
F.Supp. 897, 900 (E.D.Ky.1954), in rejecting a constitutional
attack on the fourteenth amendment, the Court found legal significance
in the fact that the fourteenth amendment had been recognized
and acted upon by the Supreme Court for more than three-quarters
of a century.
sixteenth amendment and the tax laws passed pursuant to it have
been followed by the courts for over half a century. They represent
the recognized law of the land. Because the sixteenth amendment
was duly certified by the Secretary of State, because defendants
have not alleged that the minor variations in capitalization,
punctuation and wording of the various state resolutions are materially
different in purpose or effect from the language of the congressional
joint resolution proposing adoption of the sixteenth amendment,
and because the sixteenth amendment has been recognized and acted
upon since 1913, the Court rejects defendants' argument that the
sixteenth amendment is not a part of the United States Constitution."
because the big lie had been in place for a long time, fraud doesn't
matter and clearly without any doubt, fraud was committed during
the ratification process of both the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Amendments. Those two amendments were absolutely vital to the
dirty traitors working feverishly to destroy this constitutional
Republic. In 1913, three key things happened:
The Sixteenth Amendment was declared ratified giving Congress
no new power of taxation, but we all know how
that turned into stealing the fruits of our labor with a gun to
our head to fund our own destruction.
The Seventeenth Amendment, direct election of U.S. Senators by
the people, was critical in destroying the balance of power in
the U.S. Congress, wrestling away the sovereign power of the States
and any representation in Washington, DC.
Then came the ultimate pot of gold at the end of the rainbow on
December 23, 1913, passage of the unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve
Banking Act. "When the President signs this act [Federal Reserve
Act of 1913], the invisible government by the money power -- proven
to exist by the Monetary Trust Investigation -- will be legalized.
The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation.
From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." Charles
Lindberg, Sr., served in the U.S. House of Representatives from
March 1907 - March 1917.
it was necessary to pass a "law" forcing we the people to give
up the fruits of our labor - the federal "income" tax. The sweat
off our back would then feed
the unconstitutional central bank aka the "Federal" Reserve.
nexus I explained in a recent column.)
was also imperative to crush the states and make them impotent
by giving the vote for U.S. Senators to the people which was NEVER
the intention of those who birthed this Republic and breathed
life into the U.S. Constitution:
Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution wrote: "The Senate
will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures."
John Jay, co-author of The Federalist Papers is quoted: "Jay then
informed Governor Clinton that, unlike the Senate, where the two-thirds
rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house
had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas
the Senate represented the states for the Federalists always
a significant distinction."
when the propaganda machine was in full swing, the justification
for the Seventeenth Amendment was corruption within state legislatures.
Perhaps so, but only someone with their head stuck in rectal darkness
cannot see how corrupt the U.S. Senate has been almost from the
beginning when that amendment was declared law. The sovereign
states of the Union have been crushed since the Seventeenth Amendment
was put into effect. U.S. Senators have been owned by corporate
and special interest money for decades while the average American
believes their senator is
Senators have been signing onto thousands of pieces of legislation
for unconstitutional cabinets and agencies running amok inside
the states of the Union. Large numbers of those regulations involving
jurisdiction carry prison time if a conviction occurs. When will
Senate was not created to represent Joe and Mary Smith. The U.S.
Senate was created to give equal representation, 2 senators per
state regardless of population, in the U.S. Congress. Those of
us who have studied history that is never seen in classrooms or
even college classrooms in this country know there was far more
to it than a little local corruption. The ignorance of the American
people about important issues is not only sad, it's dangerous.
January 16, 2012 column:
once read a comment below a news item regarding former senate
candidate, Joe Miller, [R-AK] after he came out supporting a repeal
of the Seventeenth Amendment. The useful fool who submitted the
comment said old Joe wouldn't have to run for office and worry
about getting beat. Miller's opponent and alleged eventual winner,
Lisa Murkowski, RINO, opened
the pie hole in her face: "...was the first to criticize Miller's
comments, issuing a news release entitled “Joe Miller reaching
new extremes every day.”
have seen Joe Miller take some extraordinary positions in this
campaign, but I never imagined he would support disenfranchising
himself and every other Alaskan,” Murkowski said in a statement.
“Joe is no longer content with simply taking away federal support
for Alaskan families, now he wants to take away their right to
select our United States senators.”
those who gave their lives and blood to create this republic reached
"new extremes" when they voted to create two separate bodies for
the U.S. Congress, one for the people and one for the states.
Murkowski wants to give up her power as a U.S. Senator? When pig's
fly. That foolish hen votes for legislation that affects my life
and I can't vote her out of office. Another dangerous female,
Olympia Snowe, RINO from Maine, voted for the unconstitutional
Obamacare declaring her constituents wanted it! Well, I'm not
her constituent and I sure as hell don't want it. The vile, Charles
Schumer, [D-NY] would like to see the Second Amendment wiped off
the books and every time he votes for a bill, I have no way to
send his "progressive" backside packing."
1993, I found out about Bill Benson's research on the two amendments
and how vote fraud was stealing our elections. One would
think with the surge the past few years by the states to reclaim
their sovereignty, they would take on the Seventeenth Amendment.
After all, there is this:
Constitution of the United States - Article V: "The Congress,
whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application
of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall
call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several
states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year
one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect
the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first
article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be
deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
thought a challenge to the non-ratification of the Seventeenth
Amendment would happen here in Texas because of keen interest
by a state rep, but he, for whatever reason, no longer seems interested.
How much time and money I wasted traveling to Austin and mailing
him my research.
the past two decades, this big fat lie has always been on my radar
and some other brave souls in a few states like Montana who worked
to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. However, you can't repeal
a law that doesn't exist. Bill Benson not only collected more
than 17,000 court certified documents proving the Sixteenth Amendment
was never properly ratified, he also collected documents showing
severe defects in the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment.
In March 2009, I went to the National Archives in Washington,
DC. Two of my friends met me there and we began the tedious job
of copying every single document on that amendment. An expensive
undertaking on my part, but one I felt was absolutely necessary.
my research, I had also come across a letter to a man in Montana
from then Secretary of State, March Fong Eu, who very specifically
in her letter states that the State of California did
not vote on either the Sixteenth or Seventeenth Amendments.
While I diligently tried to track him down even after all this
time, I was unsuccessful so that letter could not be included
with my lawsuit.
2005, I wrote a
working paper for then NH state rep, Henry McElroy on the
Seventeenth Amendment. Unfortunately, Henry did not get reelected.
In 2012, I wrote not only a
working paper for our legislature here in Texas, I
also wrote the damn bill and still nothing happened.
time has gone by, it became apparent to me that other than an
unacceptable bill introduced in the New Hampshire legislature
a few years ago, while state legislators whine and moan about
federal encroachment, not one of them seem inclined to go for
the solution: regaining representation in the U.S. Congress.
problems with filing a lawsuit are many - especially if you're
not a lawyer, which I am not. One is in an effort to cut down
on frivolous lawsuits, of which there have been a zillion too
many over the decades, state legislatures decided to penalize
($$) plaintiffs even if you have a valid case to bring forward.
Yes, I am at risk of being slapped with costs which I pray does
problem is what we refer to as PPP - poorly prepared patriots
- running around filing lawsuits that end up putting bad case
law on the books, something I did not want to do. Another problem
is the hallucination dreamed up by federal and state judges called
'standing' which Dr.
Edwin Vieira addressed in a column way back in 2008 about
the criminal impostor in the WH not being constitutionally eligible
and all the court cases that were filed:
much for Martin's lawsuit. It would be laughable if its result
did not hammer another twisted judicial nail into America's coffin.
Martin's suit, moreover, is not the last of its type that will
be dismissed on purported “standing” grounds, because the judge-contrived
rules of “standing” applicable to this situation are sufficiently
illogical, non-scientific, and even anti-intellectual—that is,
contrived from question-begging and ultimately undefinable, unverifiable,
and unfalsifiable legalistic mumbo jumbo—that they can rationalize
whatever result judges desire to reach, howsoever illogical, perverse,
and even dangerous to the national interest it may be. And, particularly
in this situation, judges will desperately desire to escape having
to take upon themselves the responsibility for the political consequences—let
alone the odium whipped up by Obama’s touts in the big media—that
will flow from the courts’ declaring Obama ineligible for the
Office of President.
responsibility and vilification wily judges can craftily evade
by denying that voters, electors, candidates, and various other
would-be litigants have “standing” to challenge his eligibility.
For then the judges can claim both that, on the one hand, they
have no authority to declare Obama ineligible because no litigant
has “standing” to demand such relief, and that, on the other hand,
by dismissing the cases solely on “standing” grounds they have
not declared him eligible, either. Perhaps when each judge publishes
these rulings, the statue of Justice holding the sword and scales
should be replaced in his courtroom with one of Pontius Pilate
washing his hands.
this poltroonish judicial strategy has succeeded in some areas
in the past, it will prove bootless, as well as myopic, in this
so it has come down to me. I fully intended to file my lawsuit
earlier this year, but due to life's challenges was unable to
do so until a few weeks ago. Besides daily obligations in life,
I had been trying to get this done for quite some time, but there
were issues right away. First was 'standing'. As it turns out,
there was a Texas Supreme Court case decided a couple of years
ago regarding taxpayer 'standing' and using that case, I argue
I do have standing.
lawsuit is against the Texas Secretary of State: Request for a
Writ of Prohibition and Injunction to keep any candidates
for the U.S. Senate off the November ballot. It is a
'first blush' lawsuit meaning the first of its kind in either
state or federal court to my knowledge. Our likely next governor,
Attorney General Greg Abbott, will defend Nandita Berry, our SOS
and will no doubt attack the 'standing' issue in an effort to
get my lawsuit dismissed. That is the big hurdle that shouldn't
be for all the reasons Dr. Vieira wrote above.
next problem I had to address: Since ratification was two states
short, Wisconsin and California, how long could the ratification
process stay open? Since the Seventeenth was two states short
of ratification, would the process still be open 101 years later?
Going back to the court's decision when Larry filed the Sixteenth
Amendment case in Oklahoma, the court relied on a bunch of cases
that said, well, it doesn't matter if it's fraud, the "law" has
been on the books for ever, so we'll just leave it.
research provided me with what I pray will be the silver bullet
on that issue because, surprise, surprise, something else popped
up which I will get to in a moment that is germane to that problem.
I found a U.S. Supreme Court case which supports my position:
States Supreme Court - DILLON v. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) 256
U.S. 368 DILLON v. GLOSS, Deputy Collector. No. 251. Argued
March 22, 1921. Decided May 16, 1921.
provisions of the act which the petitioner was charged with violating
and under which he was arrested (title 2, 3, 26) were by the terms
of the act (title 3, 21) to be in force from and after the date
when the Eighteenth Amendment should go into effect, and the latter
by its own terms was to go into effect one year after being ratified.
Its ratification, of which we take judicial notice, was consummated
January 16, 1919. That the Secretary of State did not proclaim
its ratification until January 29, 1919, is not material, for
the date of its consummation, and not that on which it is proclaimed,
much to my shock right on the heels of finding that case, what
else did I discover? Oh, you won't believe this:
April 11, 2002, the State of Alabama decided out of the clear
blue to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment - 89 years after the
alleged ratification. Back in 1913, not all states were in session;
some were out of session four years at a time. Others took no
action on the amendment - Georgia specifically based on an investigation
ordered by their governor at the time that the Seventeenth Amendment
was not legally adopted by Congress before it was even sent to
July 1, 2010, 97 years after the alleged ratification of that
amendment, the State of Delaware ratified it. On April 1, 2012,
99 years after the alleged ratification, the State of Maryland
voted to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment. How interesting that
nearly 100 years after the alleged ratification of the Sevententh
Amendment and after people like me have been pounding on this
issue for close to two decades, three states just up and decided
to vote on an old constitutional amendment.
you see why Dillon v Gloss is so important to my case
as is the taxpayer 'standing' exception here in Texas.
might ask yourself why I filed this lawsuit. Certainly, it's a
very real financial burden for me. The cost of filing a civil
lawsuit in Texas is a whopping $292.00. The judge assigned to
my case would welcome a trip to the proctologist more than my
lawsuit so there's no doubt in my mind he will dismiss it. Then
comes the Appellate Court and then the Texas Supreme Court. I'm
in it for the long haul. That will require travel several trips
to Austin, a six hour drive, hotel and food expenses. Like I said,
a real financial sacrifice, but one I feel very strongly about
and so should you. My lawsuit is for all of us, we the people.
you read the working papers I wrote linked above, the states of
the Union will continue to be crushed because they have no representation
in Congress. Votes by U.S. Senators affect all of our
lives (think Obamacare) and we have no way to vote them out of
office. There was a reason the framers of the Constitution
made the term of service two years for the U.S. House representing
we the people. If at the end of two years they abused the people's
purse, they could be voted out of office. I know, such an antiquated
idea, but one that hopefully will rise out of the ashes. U.S.
Senators appointed by their state legislatures could be recalled
and replaced if they did not act in the best interests of their
state. The Seventeenth Amendment crushed that right of the states.
we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of lies. We can't be
both and survive as anyone can see watching our beloved republic
Seventeenth Amendment is not law, it's a lie. Most certainly it
comes with massive ramifications, i.e., every vote taken by the
U.S. Senate since 1913 is null and void - all of which can be
addressed rationally instead of hysterics. But, as I pointed out
in my lawsuit, this is NOT a political question as courts have
shoved down our throats on the Sixteenth Amendment. It's about
the law. It's about the legal ratification of an amendment to
the U.S. Constitution that either becomes law or fails ratification
by the states.
is not a lawsuit just anyone can run out and file in their state.
'Standing' being the single biggest obstacle besides money and
misery. However, it is one that could be filed by state legislators
- Arizona comes to mind first. Think John McCain and his love
of illegal aliens. That's where you can lobby your state representative.
Get together in a group, get an appointment with your state legislator
and show them my lawsuit. It is well within their power to challenge
the non-ratification of that amendment.
is the filing. The official date of filing was September 22,
2014, in the 53rd Judicial District in the District Court of Travis
County, Texas. Most of the exhibits submitted in my lawsuit are
on my web site here.
very large file on the page linked above was put onto a CD and
submitted as well as an exhibit that is the entire Journal
Records for the State of California for the year 1913. A couple
of years ago I had my web master down load it and save those 3,000
+ pages just to make sure if a page shows up purporting to be
the vote we can prove fraud. I also obtained court certified copies
of the date in question for the vote in California from the Secretary
of State. Those pages from the SOS are identical to the ones on
line on California's official web site and prove no vote was ever
taken. All of which was submitted as exhibits in my lawsuit.
did not go into this willy nilly. All the research took a long
time in between living life and responsibilities we all have.The
big one in my case was my husband hospitalized from Feb. 24th
- May 1st this yer; the last five weeks at a big hospital in Denver.
Then another few few weeks in Denver to get fitted for his prosthetic
leg and when he got home another surgery. But, I finally got it
finished and filed.
dear friend, Larry Becraft, provided some of the cites for cases
and helped me with the format for which I am grateful and which
drove him nuts. I guess you could say I'm the kitchen help who
gathered all the ingredients and he being the chef put out the
final entree. The defendant was served October 10, 2014, with
a service on our AG as well, so the clock is ticking. Of course,
I will do a column for each step of the process.
thing I dearly hope this lawsuit will do is educate our fellow
Americans on why that amendment must be stricken from the books.
Besides not being ratified by the required number of states, like
the federal "income" tax, the Seventeenth Amendment has been a
tool of destruction by tyrants.
shall see if truth matters in the "Don't Mess With Texas" state
courts or if political expediency and lies will be the order of
the day. Even if by some magic the court allows Wisconsin, California
did not vote on that amendment making it one state short of ratification
and that is the bottom line. Unlike the filing in Oklahoma that
heavily relied on all the errors made by the states, my lawsuit
focuses on just one issue: not enough states voted to ratify.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court the ratification process cannot
go on forever so the fact that Alabama, Maryland and Delaware
decided just short of 100 years later to ratify it does not make
the amendment ratified.
set up for state legislators - please do visit
Exposition Re Law of Ratification of Constitutional Amendments
The federal "income" tax does NOT apply to domestic Americans
Memorandum by the late Tommy Cryer, Esq.
here to visit NewsWithViews.com
2014 - NewsWithViews.com and Devvy - All Rights Reserved
This Site Served