October 12, 2014
Does 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.
"Our" 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. .
One 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.
The 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.
The 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:
"Finally, 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."''
"In 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.
"The 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."
So, 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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
First, 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. (The nexus I explained in a recent column.)
It 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:
James 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."
Back 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 representing them:
"U.S. 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 it stop?"
The 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. From my January 16, 2012 column:
"I 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.”
“We 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.”
"Yeah, 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.
"Think 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."
In 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:
The 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."
I 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.
Over 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.
In 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.
In 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.
As 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.
The 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 not happen.
Another 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:
"So 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.
"Which 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.
"Although this poltroonish judicial strategy has succeeded in some areas in the past, it will prove bootless, as well as myopic, in this case."
And, 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.
My 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.
The 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.
My 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:
United 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.
"The 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, controls."
Then, much to my shock right on the heels of finding that case, what else did I discover? Oh, you won't believe this:
On 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 the states.
On 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.
Now you see why Dillon v Gloss is so important to my case as is the taxpayer 'standing' exception here in Texas.
You 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.
If 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.
Either 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 disintegrate.
The 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.
This 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.
This 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.
The 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.
I 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.
My 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.
One 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.
We 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.
Very important links:
Page I set up
for state legislators - please do visit
2- Short Exposition Re Law of Ratification of Constitutional Amendments
The federal "income" tax does NOT apply to domestic Americans
3- The Memorandum by the late Tommy Cryer, Esq.
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
© 2014 - NewsWithViews.com and Devvy - All Rights Reserved
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.
E-mail is: email@example.com