19
Apr

Sullivan v USA and the 16th Amendment

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

There are an untold number of Americans who are convinced that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was never properly ratified and, as a result, the Federal income tax is unconstitutional.

Bill Benson is one of the proponents of that argument and made his case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on October 28, 2008.  I wrote about that in my November 4, 2008 blog entitled “USA v William J. Benson“.

The evidence of the truth of his argument was struck from the record as “irrelevant and immaterial.”  His appeal before the 7th Circuit raises the question of whether American citizens will continue to be allowed to prove their innocence in the courts of this country.

Now, it is one thing for an everyday American citizen to claim that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, but, what if a Federal judge makes the same claim during the course of a trial?

This happened in Sullivan v USA (03-CV-39), heard before Judge James C. Fox in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 21, 2003.  In that case, Lt. Colonel Donald Sullivan filed a “Motion For Temporary Restraining Order” to stop the Iraq War until Congress met and issued a formal declaration of war to the President, in accordance with Article I Section 8(11) of the Constitution, which states: “Congress shall have power… to declare war…..”.

The basis of Colonel Sullivan’s argument before the court was this:

Throughout its history, the United States has engaged in numerous military conflicts without a Constitutionally mandated declaration of war issued by Congress, and the fact that this has occurred so many times doesn’t make it legal.

After hearing Colonel Sullivan’s and the Government’s, arguments Judge Fox denied Colonel Sullivan’s motion, and made the following statements in his rebuttal:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Court Transcript at Page 20, Lines 16-23:

“THE COURT:  WELL, I THINK IT HAS OCCURRED OVER…. I DON’T DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAY.  I THINK THAT IT HAS OCCURRED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS LESS HESITANCY ON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO PRESERVE ANYTHING.   IT’S JUST LIKE KIDS WHO BREAK A RULE THE FIRST 200 TIMES AND AFTER AWHILE THEY DON’T CARE; THEY DON’T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE RULE EXISTS.  I DON’T SAY THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT.  I REALLY DON’T.”

Further, at Page 22, Lines 24-25 and Page 23, Lines 1-22:

“THE COURT:  I WILL SAY I THINK, YOU KNOW, COLONEL, 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 – WOULD SET IT ASIDE.  WELL, I’VE SEEN THAT– I’VE SEEN SOMEWHERE A TREATISE ON THAT, AND I THINK IT WAS — 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.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That’s a pretty startling admission by a Federal judge and, in my mind, lends a great deal of credibility to those who believe the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.

But, I’ll let you judge for yourself.

Click on the following link(s) to read the document(s) relevant to this blog:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 19th, 2009 at 2:25 pm and is filed under IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment