8 - Speaking of the IRS

WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D.
Attorney at Law

May 5, 2000
Mr. William J. Benson
Constitutional Scholar
1128 East 160th Place
South Holland, IL 60473

You may address me simply as Warren and I’ll call you Bill. My
first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of work
you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of factual
data- over 17,000 pages of certified government documents from each
of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the National
Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, which
includes your two books, is truly monumental.


Before going to the subject of your books-the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America was not properly
ratified-I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the United States
Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be unconstitutional in
the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (158 U.S.
601). Since our forefathers who established our form of government
(a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the federal power into
three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and administrative),
it was clearly within the Court’s discretion to render their
verdict in the Pollock case.

The Supreme Court’s decision in that case can only be changed by
one of two methods:

The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could reverse
the Pollock case; or,

An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct income tax
could be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress
and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
States.

Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of State
has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and the
Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or
rejected.

The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the second
alternative.

In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to
me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even though
the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had
been properly ratified. When only four states of the required 38
ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view of
the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution?
Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court,
what is the legal framework upon which the current income tax law
is based?

Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not a
constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted
above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence,
the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Furthermore, I
believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in
constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their
opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified.
Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not
properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last
question is a real tough one because of the politics involved.
Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought
before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you
even visualize the reaction of the members of Congress?

Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual data
about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am
hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step
and suggest what should be done now.

Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to your
country.

Sincerely,

P.S.: Since a personal letter cannot be distributed, or even shown,
to anyone other than the recipient without permission of the
author, I hereby authorize you to show it (not publish it) to other
people at your discretion.