All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 1999 - Bill Cooper
01:01:11
Legality of Taxes #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Once upon a night when I was sleeping, I woke up and saw her.
My soul will be filled with the blood of the one who saves the world.
I will be the one who saves the world.
I'm William Cooper.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
uh...
you're listening to the all over the time on the improvement
evening ladies and gentlemen tonight we've got uh...
some pretty good stuff for you In fact, you're going to be listening to this for about the next six or seven broadcasts.
It is the entire audio track from the Legality of Taxes seminar that just took place this last week in Washington, D.C.
with some pretty hip people, some of the pioneers in the research of the legality of the federal income tax.
So, pay close attention.
The tape starts about 30 to 45 seconds into the introduction by the Master of Ceremonies, so you're just going to miss a few beginning remarks, and that's all.
The rest of this is all there.
Every single word that was uttered, we have on videotape.
In fact, if you want to order the two-tape set, that's two videotapes.
It's over three hours of seminar speeches.
You can order it directly from us for $20 postpaid.
That's both tapes of the entire Legality of Taxes seminar.
And you can order by sending $20 in blank money order or cash only.
If you fill out that money order, we will not accept it.
It's going to be a blank money order or cash only.
Send it to the hour of the time in care of 101.1 FM P.O.
Box 940.
Eager, spelled E-A-G-A-R, Arizona, 85925.
That's the hour of the time.
In care of, 101.1 FM.
P.O.
Box 940.
Eager, spelled E-A-G-A-R, Arizona, 85925.
Once again, that's the entire two-tape videotape set of the Legality of Taxes seminar that took place in Washington, D.C.
just this last week.
If you'd like to order that, it's $20 post-pay.
So sit back, make sure you have pen and paper handy.
You're going to want to take notes during this.
All of this broadcast, tomorrow night's broadcast, and all of next week is going to be devoted to this particular subject.
You're going to get the audio over this broadcast.
If you want the video, you can order that So, without further ado, here it is, the legality of taxes,
seminar.
you.
The way this came about was that the Foundation last winter began to become aware of, and again acquainted with, The work and the ideas of a number of people from various parts of the country who have been for years been researching, writing, and speaking out about their beliefs that the federal income tax as we know it is not legal and is not being administered legally.
It soon seemed like there needed to be an organized meeting of some sort in order to get some of these people together to talk about their work.
Present it to a concerned audience, compare and contrast their views, and challenge the government to debate with them the key and crucial questions on their merits without evasion.
The We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education is an educational not-for-profit corporation whose purpose is oriented towards information, research, and education, and in fact, we are restricted to that realm by our charter.
The Foundation has not taken a position on the question of the legality of the income tax, except a position that it's a very interesting and important question, and that there's been some very impressive work done on it.
We decided that the proper format for the meeting would be in the general style of an academic symposium, combined with opportunity for debate in sort of a point-counterpoint concept.
A scholarly format is a good way to assure that the best ideas will float to the top.
Since the IRS has chosen not to respond to our request, to identify their most knowledgeable people and to have them participate in this symposium to argue against the conclusions of the researchers.
We are providing you, in your packets, as a substitute, a collection of written arguments that have been used by the government in defense of the income tax.
These will be discussed later on, and I'm sure the speakers will be addressing them during their presentations.
Now, the overall question of the legality of the income tax is approached at this symposium in terms of two propositions.
First, that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified.
Indeed, was fraudulently declared to be ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox in 1913.
And two, second, regardless of the 16th Amendment, that there is neither law nor regulation that requires most citizens to file returns and pay income taxes.
We recognize that there are a variety of views represented by the participants here and that they don't all see eye to eye on all points.
However, the most important common ground is that it appears that they all agree with the conclusions that most citizens are not legally required to file returns and pay income taxes, and that laws are being applied illegally.
We want the speakers to present their ideas and findings in a positive fashion, propounding their own views, not focusing on their differences.
That's the job of the government.
As I say, we think the best ideas will rise to the top on their own merits.
We have, obviously, the question, if the income tax and social security tax are illegal, what then?
There are many ideas for tax reform.
Some of the country's most prominent people have their own ideas.
In Congress and outside of Congress for tax reform.
One of those organizations is the Heritage Foundation.
We're pleased to have Dan Mitchell, a senior economist at the Heritage Foundation, with us this morning to discuss with us one such alternative to the income tax.
A sales tax.
We'll be hearing from Mr. Mitchell later on.
So we're here to discuss whether the income tax and social security tax are legitimate.
Or are they a hoax?
If a hoax, it's ironic that the first income tax was during the war between the states.
Ironic because it was Lincoln who said, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool All of the people, all of the time.
If today's income tax is a hoax, then we don't want to be fooled any longer.
And we don't want the rest of the people to be fooled either.
We've asked our participants to be as specific as they can in order that the IRS's arguments will have as little wiggle room as possible, and to respond to the government's arguments that way as well.
In looking over the government's written positions, it seems like the pea is always under some other shell.
We want to eliminate or exhaust all of the shells.
That's one of the advantages of having researchers here who have come at this from different angles and backgrounds.
Now, we're pleased to have with us as our first speaker, Panel member Bill Benson.
Bill Benson in the 1970s spent 10 years as a criminal investigator with the Criminal Investigation Division of the Illinois Department of Revenue.
He was let go, fired, by the department for uncovering corruption within the department.
He sued the state for violation of his First Amendment rights and won a large judgment.
He began assisting an attorney in a significant tax case.
In June 1983, he was assisting attorney Andy Spiegel in a willful failure to file case.
He had 300 documents showing At that time, serious problems with the 16th Amendment, the so-called Income Tax Amendment, purportedly ratified in 1913.
But the judge in that case would not allow Mr. Benson to submit those documents into the record.
Undeterred, Bill Benson took then one year Studying, going to all 48 states, going to the archives of the 48 states that were in existence in 1913, obtaining certified copies of their records, and he determined from those certified copies that, in fact, the 16th Amendment was not properly or legally ratified.
It gives me pleasure to introduce Mr. Bill Benson.
Thank you for having me here this morning.
And thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
I have waited a long time to bring this issue before the cameras, before the courts.
In fact, 15 years.
As Bob told you, when I was fired by the Department of Revenue for the state of Illinois for undercovering corruption, The director and I did have a very heavy dispute.
And I told him I would sue him.
And that I did.
And won a large judgment against the state of Illinois.
So bear in mind, David can beat Goliath.
In June of 1983, I began to assist an attorney in Chicago by the name of Andrew Spiegel.
We had a willful failure to file income tax case, and we had approximately 300 documents showing that there was a very, very serious problem with the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives the government its taxing authority over all of us, over all Americans.
To reach into your pocket, reach into your wallet, reach into your bank account, seize your cars, seize your homes, and etc.
I hope and pray that I can put this to an end.
I am making every attempt to do it, and I did that By going to all 48 states, all 48 continental United States in 1984, spent an entire year on the road doing nothing but research.
For the government or against the government.
I knew full well, because of my past experience, that if I did not Bring back the proper documents.
The government certainly would then dispute me, certainly would win.
I can tell you now that since 1981, I, Bill Benson, have not filed a personal income tax return.
I can also tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that I, Bill Benson, absolutely completely refuse to file a 1040 tax return if I were given a job that paid me a million dollars tomorrow.
Because with the research that I did for the entire year of 1984, I came back with 17,000 Probably in excess of 17,000 certified, notarized documents showing and proving that the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute, complete, total fraud.
And I tell you that I will not file a 1040 tax return because this man is not going to permit the federal government to make him a criminal.
For if I file a 1040 tax return under 18 U.S.C.
1001, I become an accessory after the facts of the crime committed by Palandra Knox back in February the 25th of 1913, and I refuse to do that.
If government cares to come after me and indict me, then let's get the show on the road.
That's the purpose for meetings like this.
That's the purpose for being on television.
I welcome their indictment.
I have written a book titled, The Law That Never Was.
And I believe it's a very, very fitting name.
I had a son that went to Vietnam who lost a left leg, came back, And as a computer expert now, teachers' computers, we had a problem naming the book.
You're writing from the records.
You're writing from 17,000 records.
That wasn't a very difficult problem.
And I said, Gerald, we're having a problem naming the book.
He said, Dad, that's very simple.
He said, just call it The Law That Never Was, because that's exactly what it is.
I will show you a document from the state of Kentucky.
This is one of the 17,000 certified, notarized documents that I obtained throughout the 48 state research that I conducted.
In this document, it shows On February the 8th of 1910, on page 486 of the Senate Journals for the State of Kentucky, and the government is welcome to look at this, I'm sure they have, because in fact they have a copy.
The federal courts in Chicago have a copy of all 17,000 documents, one for a judge and one for a prosecutor.
The vote goes on to tell us That there were nine senators that voted for the amendment and twenty-two against it.
Now, I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, all over this country, when in your wildest dreams or comprehension will nine ever become greater than twenty-two?
If any judge can make that happen, I'll march off to jail tomorrow.
Or I'll file a 1040 tax return.
He can't make it happen.
They cannot get by the documentation.
And that's why I am as secure with my position as I am.
And that's why I can challenge the government as I do.
In some of the documents, one of the documents I found in the National Archives in Washington, D.C., That was authored on February the 25th of 1913 by Reuben J. Clark.
He was the attorney for Philander Chase Knox, the Secretary of State at that time.
Philander Knox wanted to know how the amendment was adopted.
And I believe that his attorney gave him some very good advice.
Because what he said In the certified copies of the resolutions passed by the legislators of the several states ratifying the proposed 16th Amendment, it appears that only four of those resolutions, those submitted by Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee, and New Mexico, have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly the 16th Amendment as proposed by Congress.
No state legislator can change one word, can change one punctuation.
They cannot change capitalization.
They cannot change a period or a comma.
Because if they do, it does not meet with the requirements of the Congress of the United States and therefore it must, absolutely must be rejected.
I found that to be very true.
Because when I was researching the 16th Amendment, I also researched the 17th Amendment.
In the state of Wisconsin, William Jennings Bryan was then the Secretary of State, and William Jennings Bryan rejected the state of Wisconsin's ratification because they had added a paragraph And change the wording in the body of the resolution adopted by the Congress of the United States.
There were telephone calls that were made back and forth.
The Secretary made one to the Governor.
The Governor says it's a fortunate thing for us that the General Assembly is still in session, so maybe I can call them back together and we can change it if they want to conform with the wishes of Congress.
Otherwise, it will have to be rejected.
You see, at that point in time, the legislators for the various states only met once every four years.
Once every four years.
Not like today, a profession like they have, and meet once every four split seconds to go ahead and enact some new crazy law for us to be binded by.
They go on.
To also say that the other 33 resolutions all contain errors either of punctuation, capitalization, or wording.
Remember the date.
February the 15th of 1913.
It says, Minnesota, it is to be remembered, did not transmit to the Department a copy of the resolution passed by the state.
I found that extremely interesting.
When I went to Minnesota, I found my answer.
And I also found my answer in the 16-page memorandum that any one of you can go to the National Archives and get a copy of.
It says on page 16 that the department has not received a copy of the resolution passed by the state of Minnesota, but the Secretary of the Governor has assured the state The Secretary of the United States said the amendment has been adopted.
The Secretary of the Governor, I beg your pardon, can not happen, will not happen.
The Secretary of the Governor cannot sign a document like this.
Absolutely cannot.
Has not that power to do so.
And it's a good thing for us that they do not have the power to do so.
There are 11 states, ladies and gentlemen, that failed to vote.
Failed to vote on the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It is still tabled.
It's on the table today.
There was a seven-year cap.
on the 16th Amendment, so I give a hang what they do today.
They can't vote on it.
It makes no difference.
Congress likes to give us big arguments.
Well, the 16th Amendment was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, and the argument was lost.
Not this argument.
Not the fraudulent act of Philander Chase Knox has never, has never been before a jury, or before a full panel of the appellate court, or with all the 17,000 documents that I possess, the two books that I authored, volume one and two, has never been brought into district court.
Ever.
You know the reason why?
They've got the jury to deal with.
And you, ladies and gentlemen, in this room and in this country, are the jury.
When will 9 ever became greater than 22?
Never.
To prove a point, on Chicago, in the Chicago Tribune, on January the 10th of 1985, there was a young man that was arrested for selling PCP, angel dust.
This is a wall!
That says you can't do this, but the law must be enacted correctly.
His lawyer was very, very sharp, very shrewd.
He went to the inception of the law, like I did with the 16th Amendment, to find out if the legislative body had enacted that law correctly.
And what did he find?
He found that an F was substituted for an E in the code, naming a revised section dealing with PCP.
The young man flew like a bird.
And so did his lawyer right out of the courtroom.
They lost the case.
I hope you can understand why they fight this 16th Amendment issue as hard as they do.
There was a report written on April the 18th of 1980 by the Congressional Research Service.
And the Congressional Research Service tells us, here in Washington D.C., That arguably two requirements seem to be legally indispensable in a valid ratification resolution.
The first is that the resolution contain in full the exact language of every section of the proposed amendment as it appears in the enrolled joint resolution proposing the amendment.
They knew it back in 1913 and they know it to this day.
Let one of them in the Congress of the United States, or one of them, pass an amendment to the Constitution and let the states do what they did with the 16th Amendment.
It'll go out the windows like that, without a question of a doubt.
When I was in Boston, I found more proof.
Because you see, when you're an investigator, when you've gone through court, when you've arrested people, when you've had to prove your case, you better be right, or you're going to get sued.
In the report in Boston, there was a question that was asked by the committee.
Are we able to change it?
And the answer came back by Senator Luce, no, we must either accept or reject it.
This was in 1910.
Again, Washington DC.
How our laws are made, extremely, extremely important.
Because they must follow.
The Congress of the United States must follow the laws as we must follow.
If the 16th Amendment were adopted correctly, I would not be standing here before you today and telling you that I will not file a 1040 tax return and permit the federal government to make me a criminal.
In how our laws are made, It says, each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House.
They have got to!
Otherwise, what will we have?
Chaos!
We'd have 48 different versions of any amendment that the United States government tried to have the legislators of the various states adopt.
They must do it exactly, precisely as wished by Congress.
In the proclamation by Philandra Chase Knox that was Written on February 25th of 1913.
He said that it appears, it appears, when you go into federal court and you argue with a judge, hey judge, it appears that I'm right and you're wrong, find out how fast you'll go to jail.
Or find out how fast you'll get fined.
Or find out how fast That judge will do whatever is set in his mind to do to you.
It cannot just appear.
It must be exactly, precisely as the Congress of the United States wished in any amendment.
I wish I had the time to look up all of the amendments.
I don't know what I would find.
I'm rather afraid to do that.
I told you that there were eleven states that failed to vote on the amendment.
and in another. I had it put in the back of volume one. Ratification of the Constitution
and amendments of the state presented by Mr. Fetts of United States government printing
office. One. Ratification of the Constitution and amendments of the state presented by Mr.
Fetts of United States government printing office. Nineteen thirty one.
We'll see you next time.
What they did was the Congress of the United States wanted to know how all of the amendments were adopted, each and every one.
With the 16th Amendment, they listed the names In alphabetical order, as far as the states are concerned, they listed the yeas and the nays and the percentage, and then they come up with a cute little word called past.
And when I would talk to people about this, they would say, past!
Bill, what are you arguing about?
Past means they passed it!
Look in your dictionaries, each and every one of you.
That's listening to me today.
Passed means no.
Passed means to go around.
Passed means to circumvent.
Passed means to pass it by.
That's why there are eleven states that are still tabled to this day that have failed to vote.
It takes three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment.
We're so far under that three-fourths, it is pathetic.
That's why I can so boldly say what I do on television, on radio, before anyone that I speak to.
Power and laws are made.
Any one of you.
Any congressman.
Call your congressman.
Tell them, give me a copy of the book.
You want to see it.
You want to see the book on the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution in the National Archives.
It's a very heavy bound book.
It's beautifully bound.
You cannot photocopy it.
So what I had to do was to bring in A man that would go ahead and make it camera ready.
He copied it with the camera.
And then our guys went ahead and they certified it and notarized it.
All the pages in the book, I said, I want every page from the front to the back.
I don't care if there's a little squiggly mark on the back.
I want it.
He says, Bill, do you understand what this is going to cost?
I said, I didn't ask you about cost, because at that point in time, cost was no object.
And I got what I wanted from the National Archives in Washington.
Today, I have heard it said, and I hope that I'm wrong, that you cannot get the documentation that I got, because they will tell you They do not have a supplier to give you the information that you want, that I possess.
I also have three sets of microphones.
I left no stone unturned in this 16th Amendment issue.
It is the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is by far, ladies and gentlemen,
the worst thing that the Congress of this United States could continue to let go.
And it takes people, like people in the camera audience, people in this audience, all over the world, To call your congressman, to write them, to do anything that you have, and say, bring Bill Benson to court and prove him wrong, or stop taking money from my pocket.
Stop taking money from my back pocket, from my wallet, my car, my house, and etc.
That we, the people, will no longer stand for it.
If I can stand up as one, and win a large lawsuit from the state of Illinois, with a lawyer that was fresh out of law school, give me the opportunity, Congress of the United States, the Justice Department of the United States, To prove those 17,000 documents wrong.
The federal government in Chicago has had those 17,000 documents for 18 years!
Federal Judge Paul Plunkett and United States First Assistant United States Attorney and Deputy United States Attorney Joan Mainbridge Stafford has also had a copy of those 17,000 documents that are certified and notarized.
I had to make them.
I could not send them out and have them done anywhere else.
Because if that ribbon is broken, if the seal is broken, or any part of this front page is defaced, it is non-void.
It is no good.
You could not use it in court.
That is my evidence, ladies and gentlemen.
And I thank you one and all.
Applause Music
And thank you Bill.
you Joe Bannister is believed to be the first Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division special agent ever to discover alleged wrongdoing in the administration of the federal income tax and then confront top officials
in the Internal Revenue Service about those allegations, and his belief that taxpayer rights were being violated.
After confronting top Internal Revenue Service officials, his inquiries were summarily rebuffed, and he was encouraged to resign.
He received a note from his superior.
Joe, take seven days off.
Clear your head.
When you come back, if you still feel the same way, resign.
Joe resigned on February 25th, 1999.
Mr. Bannister is a graduate of San Jose State University.
He became a licensed, certified public accountant, senior tax accountant with one of the large accounting firms.
In 1991, he left That profession of public accounting.
In 1993, he accepted appointment to the U.S.
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division as a special agent and criminal investigator.
In addition to his investigative duties as a sworn federal law enforcement officer, Mr. Bannister Was the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and Asset Forfeiture Coordinator for the Internal Revenue Service, Central California District.
He also assisted with firearms and defensive tactics training, as well as community outreach.
My pleasure to introduce Joe Banister.
Well, this is the same group that I spoke to yesterday, but somehow with these lights and cameras, it tends to make your heart flutter a little bit more.
Bob's basically done a good job of explaining to you briefly where I came from, what I did before I worked for the IRS.
But I will say that in 1991, when I became a CPA, I have this insatiable desire to get into law enforcement.
It was a burning desire, a desire that I just could not get rid of, as much as my wife would have liked me to.
So in 1991, I applied to both the FBI and the IRS to become a special agent in either of those two agencies.
The FBI, unfortunately, didn't work out because there was a hiring freeze that lasted a very long period of time.
And I was not able to get hired by them.
But in August of 1993, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division gave me a call and asked me if I'd be interested in working for them.
IRS special agents investigate violations of the federal income tax and money laundering laws.
And although I kind of had my heart set on being an FBI agent, I went ahead and interviewed for the position.
Actually, after my research, I found it to be, it sounded like a very exciting job.
So after August, I spent August, September, October, November, there was a long period
where I had to go through a background investigation.
They check you out quite thoroughly because you'll be holding a position of public trust and they want to make sure that you're worthy of holding that position.
So finally in November of 1993, I was sworn in as a Special Agent for the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.
I spent the next three years in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, or for short CID, and I had the most satisfying career to date.
I really enjoyed the work that I did.
What I thought was interesting is that up until that point, I would always Look at my watch.
Wonder when five o'clock was going to come or six o'clock because I really wasn't as happy or fulfilled being an accountant.
But during those three years, three and a half years in the IRS CID, my first three years, I very much enjoyed the job.
I worked on very exciting criminal investigations, illegal drug smuggling.
Tax evasion from very big people that cheated on hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
Money laundering investigations.
I very much enjoyed the job and of course I still believe that when people cheat on their taxes, taxes that are mandatorily paid and due and owing, that they should be investigated and punished.
So you remember from yesterday that I did it right now, it's really easy.
I really enjoyed myself.
I brought something I didn't bring yesterday.
I wanted to show you.
When I went through training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, I was elected president of my training class.
And I don't know if it's big enough for you to see, but it's a federal agent type guy with his dark glasses and fedora.
And it says, I'm your worst nightmare, an accountant with a gun.
And that's basically what IRS agents, special agents, were considered.
Accountants with guns.
We have a lot of financial expertise.
I'm still saying we, like I still work there.
But I still do have a lot of pride in that law enforcement profession and have a lot of friends in that area.
Anyway, this is a second shirt.
I used to wear this on search warrants.
I very much, I was very proud of my job, as I say.
I enjoyed it very much.
But unfortunately, in December of 1996, my career euphoria started to take a bit of a downturn.
I was listening to a talk radio show out in San Francisco, California.
I was hosted by a man named Jeff Metcalf, and Mr. Metcalf had a lady on his show named D.V.
And actually D.V.
Kidd is one of the panelists here.
And I believe that day I was driving around in my government car with my gun and my badge and thinking I was doing the right thing.
And D.V.
Kidd was on the radio saying what at the time sounded like very unbelievable and outrageous allegations.
She was saying things like the federal income tax is voluntary for most Americans.
She was saying that the 16th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution had never been legally ratified.
And she said that the money that we pay in income tax, federal income tax, does not go towards providing revenue for the U.S.
government to operate.
Well, I'm sure you can imagine that I didn't really like what I heard.
But because she was on Jeff Metcalfe's show, a man who had established credibility with me in the past, I went ahead and ordered books that she offered on the
radio, Why a Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty.
So that was about December of 19...
I spent upwards of two and a half years researching the information that Ms.
Kidd put in her booklets, and she referred to a number of individuals in the booklets And interestingly enough, she would put the telephone
numbers of the people with this evidence about these allegations that she mentioned on the
radio right in her booklets.
So I thought to myself, well, you know, I'm an investigator.
I use the phone quite often to perform my investigations.
I'm going to call these people and just ask them.
And that's exactly what I did.
So over a period of approximately two and a half years, from about January of 1997 when I received D.B.
Kidd's booklet until February of this year, I spent researching and trying to disprove the allegations and claims that she made about the federal income tax, 16th Amendment, where our tax money goes, those kinds of things.
The first person I called was Bill Conklin, who will be speaking shortly.
And believe it or not, I took the day off work and I called up Mr. Conklin and I said, hello, my name is Joe Bannister, and I'm taking the day off, but when I'm at work, I'm a special agent for the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.
And I've read some of these very, very unbelievable allegations in D.B.
Kidd's books, and I'm not quite sure why I'm calling you.
I guess I'm basically trying to disprove what she's saying.
Now I expected Bill Conklin, because as I was reading these books, I'm getting this mental picture of what the IRS had always told me a tax protester, quote-unquote, was like.
You know, drooling, incomprehensible, you really can't understand what they're saying, they're not making any sense.
And as you'll see soon when Mr. Conklin speaks, he doesn't drool at all, and he's actually A very, very educated and intelligent man.
So anyway, over a long period of months, I found out that, contrary to my perception or belief, the information that he provided me was actually very credible, and it made a tremendous amount of sense.
His issue deals with the Fifth Amendment and the filing of federal income tax returns, and I won't go too deep into it.
I'll let him, let the expert talk about it.
But obviously, after talking to Bill Conklin, I definitely got a feeling that he was making
some sense and maybe there was something to these allegations that D.B. Kidd published.
So the next person I moved to in D.B.'s book was a man named Bill Benson, who you've just
heard speak.
And Mr. Benson, as you saw, definitely has some very compelling evidence that the Sixteenth
Amendment was never ratified.
Again, contrary to my perceptions, I thought that I'd be talking to somebody that, you
know, if he wasn't drooling, he was certainly not making any sense.
Totally incomprehensible.
That was my expectation.
But as you can see, Mr. Benson was a professional investigator himself.
He has moved heaven and earth to try to inform the American people about this 16th Amendment issue so that it gets debated and discussed.
Then I called Bebe Kidd and told her that I was an IRS special agent from the Criminal Investigation Division.
So, of course, she said to me, yeah, right.
But eventually I was able to prove that to her and so her basic question to me was,
what are you going to do about it?
And obviously that was a tough question because that's exactly the kind of decision
that I had to come to, was what am I going to do about it.
And what I did was, I went back and Basically reflected, and I didn't do this all in five minutes, but I reflected over a long period of time about what really had meaning to me in life.
And I thought about the ninth commandment, which forbids us from bearing false witness against our neighbor.
I thought about the Constitution that I had sworn an oath to support and defend.
I thought about the IRS mission statement, which speaks of Collecting a fair amount of tax with integrity and fairness.
Helping taxpayers to understand and meet their tax responsibilities.
I basically looked at the guideposts in my life to help me determine what I would do next.
I decided to take another drink of water.
So what I decided to do was to accumulate all of my own research and proof in a report
that was very similar to the kind of report that I would do as an IRS special agent.
Accumulate the facts and the evidence and basically come to a conclusion or at least a recommendation on what to do next.
Well, when it came to be early 1999 and I felt that I had researched this as much as I possibly could and was comfortable enough and confident enough in my own research that I could take a position, take a stand, I did so and I decided that I was going to actually submit that report that I prepared to my supervisors.
And I'm sure you can imagine that was quite a leap for me.
It took a lot of soul searching because I knew, I just had this feeling, that the IRS and my supervisors all the way up the chain would not be very positive about what I had to say.
But still, I had these convictions, I had all of my guideposts to rely on, my faith in God, and I just But I've got to do this.
I have to ask these questions.
I've sworn an oath to support and defend people's rights.
And whatever adversity may come my way, I feel that I have this duty and I need to earn my pay.
So on February 8th of 1999, I submitted my report to my immediate supervisor.
And by February 11th, My supervisor's boss, who was the chief of our Central California division, called me into his office and to say that he looked at me like I had two heads would probably be an understatement.
He said to me, are you really serious about this?
Because what I had asked on February 8th was that my report be submitted not only to my chief, but all the way up the chain to Commissioner Rosati here in Washington, D.C.
I respectfully requested that they review my evidence and show me the error of my analysis, if any.
I really, sincerely needed some guidance.
And at that point, although I had spoken with the various people on the panel and others, I was not doing anything publicly about this.
I wanted to get answers to my questions because I was issued a gun and a badge to put people in jail, and when called for, I mean, I had the authority to use deadly force, carrying a gun.
I would think I would at least need to know what the laws I was enforcing were all about.
So I did present that evidence to my supervisors, and from February 11th to February 17th, didn't hear anything.
I went ahead and just did my job as I had always done.
And then on February 17th, I was called into my chief's office again, and I was given a And actually, I should back up, because I always forget this part, but when I submitted my report on February 8th, I told them that if they were not able to show me the error of my analysis, then I'd be forced to resign, because I could not serve two masters.
I believed that the Constitution and the income tax was all one, and I wouldn't have any push-pull or conflict between the two, and I had now come in contact with that conflict and needed some resolution.
On February 17th, I was issued a short memorandum which stated that the IRS as an agency would not be responding to my report.
They also told me that they would provide me with the necessary paperwork to tender my resignation.
And the last thing they told me was that I was to be placed immediately on administrative leave for a period of seven days to think about What I had done and what I was going to do.
So, that day I turned in my gun.
gun. They didn't take my badge from me, but they took my gun and I spent the next few
days on a paid vacation, I guess you could say, to think about what I was going to do.
On February 25th, which happened to be my birthday, And I believe it also happened to be the day that Philander Knox proclaimed that the 16th Amendment was ratified.
Things are all kind of coming together.
I resigned from the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.
And the reason I resigned is obvious.
I received no response whatsoever from the agency.
And folks, that concludes tonight's broadcast.
Tomorrow night I will back up the tape about five minutes so that the continuity of what Mr. Bannister is talking about can be preserved.
And I'll do that every night if at the end of the broadcast we have to interrupt one of the speakers.
I hope you're learning something.
I hope you're taking notes.
And by the way, you can have a copy of the two tape videotape set for $20 postpaid by sending a blank money order remember if you fill it out we will return it we will not accept it our cash to the hour of the time 101.1 FM P.O.
101.1 FM P.O. Box 940 EAGER spelled E-A-G-A-R Arizona 85925.
That's the hour of the time.
In Karov, that's in Karov, 101.1 FM P.O. Box 940 EAGER spelled E-A-G-A-R Arizona 85925.
Good night, folks.
And God bless each and every single one of you.
And to Annie, Poo, and Allison, I love you, wherever you are, with all my heart and soul.
This comes through the whole air, from the fat, thin, and square.
And I miss you terribly.
This comes from the feels, that this ain't exactly real, or it's real, but it ain't exactly real.
From the war against disorder, from the sirens at the bay, From the fires of the horrors, from the ashes of the gay,
Democracy has come to the U.S.A.
And it's coming through cracking walls.
I wish I had a gun.
Remember, folks, Marx defined democracy as indispensable to socialism.
Lenin said the same thing.
And of course, the ultimate goal of socialism is world communism.
The entire world dominated by communism.
Remember folks, you're not alone.
Remember folks, you're not alone.
If you love freedom, I love you.
And if you live in the round valley of Arizona, I'm sure you know that.
Join me in praying.
I'm putting together a coalition to get rid of Police Chief Garms in Eager.
Join me in a coalition to get rid of Police Chief Garms in Eager.
There's a state of nepotism going on here.
See, the mayor is his mother-in-law.
And when we, right after the warrants were issued for our arrest,
▲
Export Selection