Letters We Have
Received

From an
M2K Package Holder about the Rizzo Plea

Emails
to Bill Benson and responses from him about the M2K
Package

To
William Craig from Senator Hatch

Jerry
Benson's Reply to Senator Hatch

Warren
Richardson to William Benson

Former
IRS Officer John Turner to Congressman Hoekstra

Tupper
Saucey to Larry Becraft

United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC
20510-4402
April 14,
2000

Mr. William
Craig
4215 Harding Road, #701
Nashville, TN
37205

Dear Mr.
Craig:

Your recent
e-mail message has just been called to my attention. Thank you
for taking the time to inquire about this. This is not the
first time I have heard about some alleged deal with a man
named Bill Benson about his book project. I assure you that
this is hogwash.

The only Warren
Christopher I know is President Clinton’s former Secretary of
State, and it should be obvious that he does not represent
me.

Other people have
suggested that the person doing this liaison work is a man
named Warren Richardson, with whom I was acquainted, but who
was never authorized to speak for or represent m in any
way.

Moreover, I have
no interest in buying up copies of a book in which the main
point is that the income tax is constitutionally invalid. The
fact of the matter is that, for better or worse, the 16th
Amendment to the Constitution was declared ratified by the
requisite three-quarters of the states, then 38 states, on
February 25, 1913. It was subsequently ratified by four
additional states. Only four states rejected the
amendment.

What concerns me
most is that such completely bogus information can be
spread over the Internet at warp speed. Again, thank you for
contacting me directly about it. I hope you will pass this
information on to any others you know who have expressed
concern. If you have further questions, please let me
know.

Sincerely,

Orrin G.
Hatch
United States Senator

Back to Top

To the Honorable
Senator Hatch,

There are a lot
of Hogs that need washing!  Only a fool judges a book by
its cover and not its content.  If you have not read
The Law That Never Was how can you say it is good, bad,
or indifferent?  Bogus information can also be spread
from people of great influence like yourself when you judge
something to be true or false without the knowledge of having
read it.  If we do not understand something after we read
it, that is OK, but if we don't even bother to read the book
in question and we comment on it as if we had read it, then
who is guilty of passing on bogus information?  Now
that's what I call HOGWASH!

Jerry
Benson

Back to Top

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.

In case you wish
to know a little about my background, let me give you a brief
overview. I was honored to serve my nation in World War II as
a Naval Aviator. Since my college career at the University of
Rochester had been interrupted by the war, I went back to the
U. of R. and obtained my A.B. degree in history. That was
followed by a B.S. in accounting. By then I was married and we
moved to the Washington, D.C. area so that my wife could
continue her college work while I attended law school. Upon
receiving my law degree, I was honored to be chosen for the
first class of Honor Law Graduates at the Justice Department.
(This program was started in 1953 while Eisenhower was
president.) Because of my law and accounting background, I
moved to the legal department at the General Accounting
Office. After 5 years as a government attorney, I left for the
private sector, where I have been ever since. Two years of
that time was spent in a law firm and the rest has been
working in the lobbying profession.

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.

This letter is to
be shown only and not to be published as Warren has
requested.
Bill Benson

Back to Top

John Turner
P.O. Box
612
Paradise, California 95967

March 25,
2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Congressman Peter
Hoekstra
2234 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington,
D.C. 20515-2202

(Sent via FAX (202) 226-0779 on March
27)

CC: Senator Carl Levin, FAX (202)
224-1388
Senator Debbie Stabenow, FAX (202)
228-0325

Dear Congressman Hoekstra:

My letter to you concerns the plight of Rose
Lear who is a constituent of yours. As you know, Rose is
withholding food from herself and has pledged not to eat
unless the government answers questions raised by We The
People Foundation For Constitutional Education regarding
various aspects of the federal income tax. I know you are now
aware that her husband William was recently convicted of “tax
crimes” and is now serving a prison sentence, which is what
precipitated Rose’s action. I hope you will overlook the
lengthiness of this letter and make the needed and timely
response.

I
see from your web site that you and I are the same age and
that you are a Christian man. Please know also that I am a
believer and hold close the Word of God. So, we have some
things in common, many more things I am sure if we took time
to discover them.

Please allow me
to introduce myself and provide you with some background about
me, my beliefs and my involvement with the so-called “tax
honesty movement”. I worked for Internal Revenue Service for
ten years, 1987 – 1997, as a commissioned Revenue Officer. I
resigned in April 1997 for reasons that are unique. I held
then, and hold now, no grudge against the government of the
United States nor the Internal Revenue Service. I was not an
IRS employee with a chip on my shoulder or “sour grapes”. I
enjoyed my job as a tax collector and strove to be an asset to
both the Service and the public that I served.

I
believe the IRS is enforcing the income tax law beyond the
scope that Congress intended. The amount of evidence to
support my beliefs is staggering, but several Supreme Court
cases, the Congressional Record, as well as other things,
including internal agency data lend weight to my conclusions.
I have been quite open and public in sharing my opinions in
this regard, that is the IRS’ misapplication of the law. I am
not “anti-government” or “anti-tax”. In fact, I am a
god-fearing, patriotic man who has served my country also as a
member of the armed forces.

Let me just put
it this way: the IRS needs to be absolutely honest in
administering and enforcing the law and I don’t believe the
agency is close to meeting that standard. I am absolutely
positive that you and I agree that the agency must honestly
and fairly enforce the law. So, the issue is whether the
agency is or is not as a matter of fact, being honest in its
business of administering the tax laws. This is where the
controversy lies. Verifying the facts to determine who is
right is a time-consuming matter, but it is possible. It
requires at minimum an open mind. Dismissing the claims and
facts out of hand that “the IRS is misapplying the law” simply
because it is “too unbelievable that the claims could possibly
be accurate” will not suffice. On the other hand, dismissing
the claims because just possibly The People could be right and
the government could be wrong is a sobering thought. If it was
established after all that The People were right, think of
what that would mean! Of course, the government does not
publicly address this obvious factor when they summarily
dismiss The People’s claims. A concerted effort of study and
research will either verify the overall conclusions of the
“tax honesty movement” as being largely correct or it will
show them to be wrong. If shown clearly to be wrong, what
better way to demonstrate that the government, does, after all
have clean hands in the administration of the income tax?
Again, the obvious problem is what would happen if the IRS
position was refuted by Congress? Well, if that was
communicated loudly and clearly to the public the chaos and
disruption that would likely follow would be unacceptable, to
say the least. If the public were suddenly made aware of the
truth that the income tax has been misapplied against them for
many decades the result would be disastrous to our national
economy. I for one am not wanting to see anything, including
the failure of the income tax, be responsible for such a
catastrophe. And yet, sir, there remains that little problem
of the need, the requirement for honest government. The People
require and demand honest government. So, how would the nation
maintain economic and social tranquility while addressing
obvious shortcomings in the administration of the income tax?
I cannot confess to know the answer to that complicated
question. I would say that the solution, if politicians such
as you would be moved to even consider such a mind-boggling
thing, would be fairly long-term in its implementation.

I
have great faith in the American people. I believe they want
to contribute their fair share for the running of the
government. We are a generous and fair-minded people. But I
don’t believe the American people would knowingly tolerate any
tax system that was being enforced against them using
deception to pull it off. It is my opinion that that is what
is occurring and that is why I speak out. You being a
Christian and one who took an oath to defend and protect the
Constitution I am sure you would not knowingly permit
deception by government against The People.

The Internal
Revenue Code is perfectly constitutional. In that context, it
really does not need to be abolished; however, it needs to be
properly enforced. Credible and verifiable evidence exists to
demonstrate that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly
ratified. Even so, a proper understanding of the Sixteenth
Amendment reveals that it did not allow the IRS to improperly
use the law to make direct tax assessments against the working
people’s income from labor. So, assuming it had been properly
ratified, it would really not need to be repealed; it would
simply need to be applied according to Congress’ original
intentions and the rulings of the Supreme Court (not the lower
courts).

Now, if the law
was being properly enforced would there be a huge loss of
revenue to the government? Yes! I can see how you politicians
see that as a huge threat. Fine. Let’s find a solution that
provides the needed revenue but does not stray from the law or
deceive The People in administering it. That is the problem is
it not? Our Founding Fathers purposely made it
politically-difficult and unpopular (but permissible within
the law) for Congress to directly tax people’s labor. Congress
has always had plenary powers to tax our income directly but
they must follow the Constitutional provisions to do so.
Currently, IRS is not doing that. If more Americans today were
acutely aware of this they would insist that Congress exert
its authority to tame the IRS. If Americans understood the
legal hoops that Congress must follow to collect a direct tax
they would exert their political power at the state and local
level resulting most likely in an outright rejection of the
outrageous amount of tax that is extorted from them. I think
Congress knows this and fears this. Nevertheless, the law must
be followed.

Ahh. So, it is
about money. But it is also about honesty. Tax me within the
confines and limitations of the Constitution and the political
and practical limits that We The People will hold you to – but
don’t try to trick me with the law. That’s the essence of the
problem: if Congress did its job and forced IRS to apply the
law as written, revenues would shrink. If Congress wanted to
maintain revenues by lawfully and directly taxing the labor of
Americans it would face the scrutiny and approval of The
People. The fact is, The People may not approve. As it is now,
The People have not really approved; they have been tricked
and are not in a position to overcome the power that comes
from the barrels of the guns of the taxing agency.

If the IRS is
correct that the law so clearly applies to the income of
working Americans, why should you, the IRS or some government
official not be able to easily demonstrate the legal
requirement to the American people? Why won’t someone of
authority refute the claims? Isn’t that a worthwhile thing to
do in order to save the life of Rose Lear? If the government
were able to do that wouldn’t it serve to shut the naysayers
up, including me? I was challenged to do that nearly 6 years
ago. I ended up resigning and giving up my very secure
government career.

So, the question
is, will you sincerely and thoroughly try to verify this
deception that I am speaking of? Will you announce that you
are in favor of putting this issue to rest? If so, will you
announce it now so that Rose Lear will cease her starvation
fast?

Earlier today I
spoke with Rose. Her voice was very weak after 20 days of
fasting. She cannot possibly have too many days left before
something bad happens to her. While talking with her, I made
several attempts to persuade her to give up the fast, to no
avail. Mr. Bob Schulz, founder of We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, informs me that every time he speaks
with Rose he too tries to persuade Rose to give it up. She is
determined. I don’t want to appear to be placing her fate in
your hands. Rose is responsible for her own life. From talking
with her she appears quite cognizant of that. However, I am
appealing to you, nevertheless. You cannot control Rose but
you can do better than you have thus far. It is my
understanding that you finally, recently met with Rose and
agreed to “look into” the matter. Under the circumstances, I
don’t think that represents the appropriate response that
Rose, a constituent of yours, deserves!

I
don’t know William Lear. I am told that back in his home town
of Muskegon, Michigan he is very well known by the townspeople
as a good and honest man. Various federal prison camps are
currently holding many good and honest men and women for tax
crimes. In a nation like America, how can so many really good
and honest Americans find themselves in prison because of
legitimate disputes about our income tax law? I’m talking
about decent people here, Mr. Hoekstra, the kind of people you
would enjoy eating a meal with.

Obviously, you by
yourself have not the power to change the tax system, even if
you saw that it was necessary. But that is not what I am
asking of you. I am asking that you contact Rose now and find
a way to satisfy her, with honesty and integrity. When I spoke
with her on the phone she told me that when she met with you
and looked into your eyes she saw “no soul”. She is under
great stress and very frustrated, so, a description like that
might not be unreasonable from her vantage point. I doubt that
you, a married man, a businessman, a Christian, and a six-term
Representative could be anything but a warm and responsive
man. Please don’t let your lack of having the perfect solution
in this matter stop you from exerting your full influence and
power of persuasion with your peers in Congress.

My purpose for
writing is not to bother you with my views about our income
tax system. I’ve taken some pains to give you my background
and outline my views about the income tax so that you have an
understanding as to why I am so concerned, in order that it
may encourage you to respond quickly and appropriately to the
needs of Rose Lear.

I
will be making this letter available to concerned Americans
via fax and email. It is my hope that you will simply respond
to Rose Lear. However, if you should take the time to respond
to this letter, which I will greatly appreciate, I will make
your response available also to the public, as I think they
are very much interested in how you are attempting to respond
in this matter. Thank you very sincerely,

John
Turner
Former IRS Revenue Officer

Back to Top

Subject: Re:
Richardson
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03 :04:50 -0700
From:
Pastoral Business <[email-masked]>
To: Larry
Becraft <[email-masked]>
CC: devvy kidd
<[email-masked]>, Bill Benson
<[email-masked]>'
Devvv & Bill:

I
read about Warren Richardson's letter in material Devvy sent
me. I then looked up his name on my search engine and round an
address. I wrote him for verification that he was, indeed, the
author of the letter. I copied the letter, striking the
business at the bottom about Bill's please not publicizing the
letter. I told him I intended to write an article about the
letter. A couple of days later, Richardson called me at home.
The first thing he wanted to know was who I was writing for. I
told him I would probably publish first on my website and go
from there.

He said he used
to be an attorney, but for the past 30 years he's been a
lobbyist in Washington DC. He said he thought Bill's books
were wonderful and had the power to bring down the IRS. But he
said that an article right now would maybe not be a good
thing. Knowing how Larry feels about planning, I
agreed.

He said he wanted
to contact certain unnamed congressmen and judges, and talk
with them about what to do. He spoke of the flat-rate
proponents, how their issue lost steam. If they could get
behind Bill's material they I could rekindle interest in the
flat-rate as an immediate patch to compensate for the
dismantling or IRS. His attitude, like Larry's, seemed to be
one of proceeding with method, caution, and great discretion.
He didn't want to destroy careers over this. Much attention
has to be paid to how do politicians salvage their credibility
after so many years of marginalizing Bill Benson. I agreed
that this was an important consideration.

He has my number.
I told him that if I could be of any kind of assistance to
him, covert or otherwise, he was welcome to call anytime. I
was given to understand he knew how to contact Bill, and
figured that once he'd woodshedded with his congressmen and
judges he'd be in touch with Bill, and things would be set in
motion.

If you need his
telephone number, let me know. It's in Santa Monica, and I
won't be there until later this afternoon.

Tupper
Saucey

Back to Top

March 9, 2004

DEAR M2K PACKAGE HOLDERS,

ON MARCH 2, 2004 DURING THE TUESDAY NIGHT
CALL BILL BENSON WAS ASKED IF HE BELIEVED THAT THE M2K PACKAGE
WAS SOUND AND SATISFACTORY TO TURN INTO THE IRS. BILL BENSON
EMPHATICALLY SAID THAT HE BELIEVED THAT IT WAS
DANGEROUS TO USE. HE WAS THEN ASKED WHAT IS WRONG WITH
THE PACKAGE? HE SAID THAT BECAUSE OF JOHN RIZZO’S PLEA
AGREEMENT THE PACKAGE WAS NOW TAINTED AS HEARSAY.

On page four of John Rizzo’s plea agreement
it shows the details of his plea - Conspiracy to defraud
the United States Government. It states:

"First, there existed a conspiracy,
agreement, or understanding to defraud the United States by
dishonest and deceitful means for the purpose of impeding,
impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental
functions of the U.S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue
Service, in the ascertainment, computation, and collection of
income taxes as described in the indictment, was formed,
reached or entered into by two or more persons;"

"Second, at some point during the
existence or life of the conspiracy, agreement, or
understanding, one of its members knowingly performed one of
the overt acts charged in the indictment in order to further
or advance the purpose of the agreement; and"

"Third, at some time during the
existence or life of the conspiracy, agreement or
understanding, defendant knew the purpose of the agreement,
and then deliberately joined in the conspiracy, agreement, or
understanding."

IT’S CLEAR IN THE RIZZO PLEA AGREEMENT THAT
JOHN RIZZO IS VIRTUALLY SAYING THAT IN CREATING M2K HIS
PURPOSE WAS TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, HE IS
SAYING THAT HE DOESN’T TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE 16TH
AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED.

In the plea agreement John Rizzo further
pleads to "False Declarations Before a Grand Jury of the
United States. It states:

"First, the defendant testified under
oath before a Grand Jury;

Second, the testimony was false; and

Third, the defendant knew the
testimony was false and material to a matter before the Grand
Jury."

ACCORDING TO PAGES 12 & 13 OF JOHN’S PLEA
AGREEMENT, IT STATES:

"On January 29, 2003, in the District of
Arizona, defendant JOHN J. RIZZO voluntarily appeared before a Grand
Jury of the United States knowing that he was a target of the
Grand Jury’s investigation concerning his willful failure to
file income tax returns, possible income tax evasion and other
income tax-related violations. Having been advised of his
legal rights and having taken an oath under penalties of
perjury that he would testify truthfully, defendant JOHN J.
RIZZO knowingly provided materially false and misleading
testimony before the same Grand Jury by falsely declaring that
it was his belief that he and his wife had filed tax returns
for the tax years 1999, 2000 and 2001, and was current through
tax year 2001, when in fact and material to the Grand Jury’s
investigation, defendant JOHN J. RIZZO, and codefendant Carol
A Rizzo had not filed any federal income tax returns as
required by law for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001."

THIS GOES TO THE FACT THAT JOHN NEVER
BELIEVED IN THE M2K PACKAGE. OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE PUT IT TO
THE TEST INSTEAD OF LYING BY SAYING THAT HE HAD FILED FOR
1999, 2000 AND 2001 WHEN, IN FACT, HE DID NOT FILE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE FOLLOWING IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT SPEAKS TO
JOHNS TENDENCY TO LIE, IN AN EMAIL SENT OUT TO EVERYONE
FROM:

[email-masked]

Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:58:59 EST

Subject: Re: LIVE CALL,

THE PERSON WE SHOULD JUSTIFIABLY ASSUME TO BE
JOHN SAYS:

"The latest rumor is that I have only been
dealing with the IRS for a few years. This is totally without
merit. Many of you that know me know that I have developed
several programs in the last 15 years that have been very
successful in beating the IRS."

IF THIS IS TRUE, WHY DID JOHN BARELY STOP
FILING IN 1995? FURTHERMORE, WHY DIDN’T HE USE ONE OF THESE
PROGRAMS AT THE GRAND JURY. IN THE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT WHERE
JOHN RIZZO VOLUNTARILY
TESTIFIED, HE WAS ASKED:

Q: US Attorney: "With respect to the
16th Amendment argument, sitting here today are you
aware that the 16th amendment defense for filing tax returns
has been rejected by the courts of the USA."

Ans.: John: "I’m aware that the courts have
rejected the argument but I’m also aware that the courts have
never examined the documents and I never told anyone to stop
filing tax returns based on the 16th Amendment. But
it’s my belief that the 16th amendment was never
ratified by my examination of the documents which the grand
jury is more than welcome to look at for themselves and make
their own determination."

Q: US Attorney: "But you have not taken
any action yourself based upon this belief?"

Ans. John: "I don’t believe that I have. I
believe that it wasn’t ratified. I didn’t say that paying
taxes was illegal."

Q: US Attorney: "I’m saying you sold
materials, have you not, Mr. Benson and others have put
together?"

A: John: " that’s correct"

Q: US Attorney: " advocating that the
16th Amendment was never ratified?"

A: John: "that’s correct"

Q: US Attorney: "have you personally taken
any action consistent with this belief?"

A: John: "describe what you mean by any
action?"

Q: US Attorney: "not filing tax
returns"

A: John: "I think I already testified to
that" (we know what John is referring to because According
to page 13 of rizzo’s plea agreement under section 2 it
states: "JOHN J. RIZZO knowingly provided materially false and
misleading testimony before the same Grand Jury by falsely
declaring that it was his belief that he and his wife had
filed tax returns for the tax years 1999, 2000 and 2001, and
was current through tax year 2001, when in fact and material
to the Grand Jury’s investigation, defendant JOHN J. RIZZO,
and codefendant Carol A Rizzo had not filed any federal income
tax returns as required by law for the years 1999, 2000 and
2001.")

AS FOR EVERYONE WHO ASSUMES THAT BILL BENSON
WAS A PARTNER TO JOHN RIZZO, THE ABOVE QUOTES (IN BOLD TYPE
AND TAKEN FROM THE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT) PROVES THAT THIS
ASSUMPTION IS FALSE. IN THE
GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT WHEN ASKED BY THE US ATTORNEY: "I’M
SAYING YOU SOLD MATERIALS, HAVE YOU NOT, MR. BENSON AND OTHERS
HAVE PUT TOGETHER?" BY RESPONDING, "THAT’S CORRECT" YOU CAN
SEE THAT JOHN RIZZO TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS ONLY SELLING BILL
BENSON’S MATERIALS NOTHING MORE. ON THE
MARCH 2 TUESDAY NIGHT CALL BILL BENSON ASSERTED THAT HIS M2K
ASSOCIATION WAS CHIEFLY TO PROVIDE M2K WITH BOOKS AND OPINION
LETTERS, NOTHING MORE. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS NEVER
A PARTNER TO JOHN RIZZO. JUST RECENTLY I FOUND OUT
THAT BILL BENSON’S ASSOCIATION WITH
M2K ENDED IN 2000 AFTER A FALLING OUT THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN
HIMSELF AND JOHN RIZZO CONCERNING RIZZO’S TENDENCIES TO
MISREPRESENT THE TRUTH AND TO FLAT OUT LIE. AT THAT TIME BILL
BENSON STOPPED SELLING ALL MATERIALS TO RIZZO. ADDITIONALLY,
IT WAS SOMETIME IN 2000 WHEN RIZZO CHANGED THE COVER TO THE
16TH AMENDMENT RELIANCE PACKAGE WHICH WAS A
STEP THAT COMPRIMISED THE VALIDITY OF THE PACKAGE.

REMEMBER, ACCORDING TO PAGE 12 OF JOHN’S PLEA
AGREEMENT, HE VOLUNTARILY
TESTIFIED TO THE GRAND JURY ON JANUARY 29, 2003. IF JOHN RIZZO
BELIEVED THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED
WHEN HE TESTIFIED TO THE GRAND JURY WHY WOULD HE LIE BY
TESTIFYING THAT HE HAD FILED HIS TAX RETURNS? HE HAD NOT BEEN
INCARCERATED YET. HE CAN’T SAY THAT HE WAS AT THE MERCY OF THE
IRS WHEN HE LIED AT THAT TIME. HE
CAN’T SAY, AS AN EXCUSE FOR HIS FALSE TESTIMONY, THAT THE IRS
WAS THREATENING TO HARASS HIS FAMILY. USING THE M2K PACKAGE HE
COULD HAVE JUMPED ON THE FACT THAT THE 16TH
AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED TO JUSTIFY HIS NOT HAVING FILED
TAX RETURNS AND AT THE SAME TIME FURTHER "THE CAUSE". INSTEAD
HE LIED AND LET EVERY ONE DOWN INCLUDING HIMSELF.

THE QUESTION IS, ‘HOW DO HIS LIES AND HIS
PLEA AGREEMENT AFFECT THE M2K PACKAGE AND THOSE OF US WHO
PURCHASED ONE?’ ACCORDING TO BILL BENSON, HE FEELS THAT IN
LIGHT OF ALL OF THIS, TURNING IN THE PACKAGE WOULD BE
DANGEROUS. ACCORDING TO RIZZO’S PLEA AGREEMENT, IF THE ONE’S
THAT SUBMIT THE PACKAGE ARE CALLED INTO COURT AND IF JOHN IS
CALLED IN AS A WITNESS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, HE MUST TESTIFY AGAINST THEM. ON PAGE THREE OF
THE PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER Cooperation Required, IT
STATES:

"The defendant will cooperate with the United
States on the following terms and conditions.

a. Defendant will waive the Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination and will no later than
the time of sentencing, meet as directed with federal
authorities and provide truthful information known by the
defendant concerning this and all related investigations. In
addition, when requested by the representatives of the United
States, the defendant shall testify candidly and truthfully in
any matter arising from this, or a related investigation,
including at any state or federal grand jury proceeding,
forfeiture proceeding, bond hearing, pretrial hearing, civil
and criminal trial, retrial or post-trial hearing."

WE’VE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS PLEA AGREEMENT WILL NOT EFFECT
ANY OF US. HOWEVER, IT’S PLAIN TO SEE THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE.
ON PAGE 6 OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION "P" IT
STATES:

"Defendant shall cooperate fully and without
reservation with the Internal Revenue Service and state tax
collection agencies with ascertainment, computations and
collection of all taxes that may be owed by defendant and
related entities."

IN OTHER WORDS, IF JOHN DOES NOT COOPERATE
AND GIVE THE IRS OR GOVERNMENT EVERYTHING THEY ASK FOR, HIS
PLEA AGREEMENT IS NULL AND VOID. THEREFORE, IF THE IRS ASKS
JOHN TO TESTIFY AGAINST ANY OF US - THEN JOHN REFUSES TO
COOPERATE - ALL BETS ARE OFF. IN ESSENCE TO GET THE PLEA
AGREEMENT THAT WAS NEGOTIATED BY JOHN AND CAROL, JOHN RIZZO IS
NOW WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS WHY SUBMITTING THE M2K
PACKAGE TO THE IRS IS DANGEROUS. BECAUSE IN THIS PLEA
AGREEMENT JOHN HAS ESSENTIALLY REJECTED ANY BELIEF THAT THE
16TH AMENDMENT WAS NOT RATIFIED AND IN DOING SO HE
IS SAYING THAT HIS PACKAGE IS BOGUS.

SOME OF YOU MAY SAY, "BUT THE PACKAGE IS
ALL BILL BENSON. IT CONTAINS HIS WORK, HIS SEAL AND HIS
SIGNATURES. ALL M2K DID WAS TO PUBLISH THE PACKAGE. WHY DOES
IT MATTER WHO PUBLISHED IT OR WHERE IT WAS PUBLISHED?"
THE ANSWER TO THIS IS THAT IT MATTERS NOW
BECAUSE DUE TO JOHN RIZZO’S LIE BILL BENSON CANNOT STAND
BEHIND THE PACKAGE. IT’S THIS LIE THAT MAKES THE WHOLE PACKAGE
HEARSAY. RIZZO DIDN’T BELIEVE IN IT ENOUGH TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON ITS MERITS. BY NOT TESTIFYING ON ITS
MERITS, HE ABANDONED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ITS AUTHENTICITY
INTO LIGHT. IF YOU DECIDE TO SUBMIT THE PACKAGE, AND AT SOME
POINT YOU ARE ASKED WHERE YOU GOT IT, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT YOU
GOT THE INFORMATION FROM BILL BENSON BECAUSE YOU GOT IT FROM
JOHN RIZZO/M2K. AS A RESULT, THE PACKAGE IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT
BILL BENSON’S ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION (HIS PERSONAL ACTIONS AND
HIS BELIEF THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER
RATIFIED) TO BACK IT UP.

YOU MAY ASK, "CAN’T WE JUST TAKE RIZZO OUT
OF THE EQUATION AND FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT THE M2K PACKAGE
CONTENTS ARE PRIMARYLY BILL BENSON’S MATERIALS?" THE
ANSWER TO THIS IS "NO". BY LYING JOHN HAS PUT THE ESTABLISHED
BELIEF OF EVERYONE WHO TURNS IN THE M2K PACKAGE IN QUESTION.
BECAUSE JOHN RIZZO SIGNED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, IF YOU USE THE
M2K PACKAGE YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR ESTABLISHED BELIEF THAT THE
16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED IN JEOPARDY. IN
OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. JOHN RIZZO CAN’T AND WON’T
BACK YOU UP. ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT, IF YOU USE THE
M2K PACKAGE, YOUR BELIEF WAS ESTABLISHED IN CONNECTION WITH A
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT (WHICH JOHN PLEAD
TO). WITH REGARD TO THE M2K PACKAGE, BILL BENSON’S HANDS ARE
TIED BECAUSE JOHNS LIE HAS PUT A STIGMA OF FRAUD ON THE
PACKAGE. BY LYING, JOHN HAS DAMAGED THE "CAUSE".
CONSEQUENTLY, IN ORDER TO KEEP "THE CAUSE’’ ALIVE,
PROTECTED AND UNTAINTED, BILL BENSON HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO
SEVER ALL RELATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE M2K PACKAGE.

ALSO INSPITE OF JOHN’S
TESTIMONY, FOR EVERYONE WHO OBTAINED THE M2K PACKAGE AFTER
THE 16TH AMENDMENT RELIANCE PACKAGE COVER
WAS CHANGED, THOSE PACKAGES BECAME INVALID
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO AFFIDAVITS. WHEN JOHN CHANGED THE COVER
SOMETIME IN 2000, THE AFFIDAVIT
WITH THE GOLDEN SEAL WAS AT THAT POINT NULL AND VIOD. AS A
RESULT, NO JUDGE WILL PERMIT THESE DOCUMENTS TO BE ENTERED
INTO ANY CASE BECAUSE JOHN DID NOT DO THE WORK. AND THE SAME
THING APPLIES WITH THE THREE RING BINDERS. THERE ARE NO
AFFIDAVITS ON THOSE SO THEY ARE
HEARSAY. AN AFFIDAVIT IS THE FOUNDATION THAT BACKS UP
EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAY IN COURT AND HAVE DISCOVERED - LIKE
CERTIFIED NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS. BECAUSE THE COVER OF THE
16TH AMENDMENT RELIANCE PACKAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED,
LEAGALLY THE DOCUMENT INSIDE OF THE BOOK WITH THE GOLDEN SEAL
IS THEREFORE VOID. IF YOU HAVE NO AFFIDAVIT THERE IS NOTHING
TO VERIFY THE CONTENTS OF THE PACKAGE. FOR THESE REASONS USING THE M2K PACKAGE IS DANGEROUS.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO BELIEVE THAT THE
16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED, THE GOOD NEWS IS
THAT, ALTHOUGH THE WATERS HAVE BEEN MUDDIED BY THIS WHOLE
UNFORTUNATE ORDEAL, "THE CAUSE" IS STILL ALIVE. BILL BENSON,
THE PERSON WHO HAS DONE ALL OF THE REAL WORK WITH REGARD TO
THE "CAUSE", HAS A PACKAGE OF HIS OWN THAT HAS BEEN AVAILABLE
TO EVERYONE SINCE 1993 (WHICH HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN UPDATED).
IT IS TRIED AND TRUE. HIS HARD WORK AND PERSONAL SACRIFICE ARE
REASONS THAT "THE CAUSE" IS ALIVE TODAY. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
BILL BENSON IS TRIED AND TRUE. I’VE TRIED
TO PREVENT THIS LETTER FROM SOUNDING LIKE AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR
BILL BENSON’S PACKAGE. BUT ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN
THIS TAX MOVEMENT KNOWS THAT BILL BENSONS WORK AND SACRIFICE
ARE THE HEART AND SOUL OF THIS MOVEMENT. IN FACT WHEN I
PURCHASED THE M2K PACKAGE I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT I
WAS PURCHASING BILL BENSONS PACKAGE. I KNOW NOW THAT THE M2K
PACKAGE WAS NOT BILL BENSON'S PACKAGE AT ALL. IN SPITE
OF EVERYTHING, ONE SALVAGABLE THING THAT HAS COME OUT OF
HAVING PURCHASED THE M2K PACKAGE ARE THE BOOKS "THE LAW
THAT NEVER WAS VOL. 1 AND VOL. 2, AUTHORED BY BILL
BENSON.

THERE ARE BASICALLY TWO COMPONENTS NECESSARY
IN BUILDING UP A DEFENSE TO INTRODUCE TO THE GOVERNMENT
SUPPORTING YOUR RIGHT TO STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES AND TO
PROTECT YOURSELF FROM HAVING TO PAY INCOME TAXES. THESE TWO
COMPONENTS ARE:

A PACKAGE CONTAINING ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS (SUPPORTING
YOUR BELIEF THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER
RATIFIED) INCLUDING THE AFFIDAVITS SUPPORTING THE LEGAL
VALIDITY OF THE PACKAGE.

EVIDENCE OF WHEN YOU ESTABLISHED YOUR BELIEF THAT THE
16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED.

WITH REGARD TO THE M2K PROGRAM, THE FIRST
COMPONENT THE M2K PACKAGE HAS BEEN PUT INTO
QUESTION. AS A RESULT M2K PACKAGE HOLDERS ARE LEFT WITH
A SEVERE VOID AS THE M2K PACKAGE HAS BEEN RENDERED UNSOUND.
HOWEVER, THAT VOID CAN BE FILLED WITH BILL BENSON’S UNTAINTED
GREATLY SUPERIOR PACKAGE. FORTUNATELY,
BECAUSE YOU PURCHASED THE BOOKS "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS
VOL. 1 AND VOL. 2" THE SECOND COMPONENT - YOUR ESTABLISHED
BELIEF - IS STILL INTACT PROVIDED YOU HAVE NOT TURNED
IN YOUR M2K PACKAGE TO THE IRS. HOWEVER, THE MINUTE YOU
TURN IN THE M2K PACKAGE YOUR ESTABLISHED BELIEF BECOMES
TAINTED BECAUSE WITHOUT THE PROPER AFFIDAVITS IN THE M2K
PACKAGE AND BECAUSE OF RIZZO’S PLEA AGREEMENT YOU ARE ON YOUR
OWN. (AS FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO TURNED IN THE PACKAGE BEFORE
JOHN SIGNED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, AND WHO HAD A PACKAGE WITH THE
ORIGINAL COVER BEFORE IT WAS CHANGED, YOU PROBABLY HAVE BETTER
OPTIONS. IT’S TRICKY. IF I WERE YOU I’D CALL BILL BENSON TO
SEE IF HIS PACKAGE CAN HELP YOU TOO. AFTER ALL, HE’S THE TRIED
AND TRUE EXPERT.)

LASTLY, THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO SET
THE RECORD STRAIGHT AS TO HOW JOHN RIZZO’S PLEA AGREEMENT
EFFECTS EVERYONE THAT HAS THE M2K PROGRAM. BY USING PUBLIC
RECORDS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH, THIS LETTER SHOULD BRING TO
LIGHT WHAT HAS EVIDENTLY REALLY COME TO PASS. THIS LETTER
SHOULD NOT, IN ANY SHAPE WAY OR FORM, BE CONSTRUED AS A
HARASSMENT OR RETALIATION TOWARDS JOHN RIZZO FOR HAVING SIGNED
THE PLEA AGREEMENT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO MAKE
M2K PACKAGE HOLDERS AWARE OF HOW, IN LIGHT OF JOHN’S
INCLINATIONS TO LIE, AS SEEN IN HIS VOLUNTARY GRAND
JURY TESTIMONY AND HIS PLEA AGREEMENT, THE M2K PACKAGE IS NOW
COMPLETELY HOLLOW. UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1001 AS SIGHTED IN
THE BOOK, THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS VOL 1:
"Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any statements
or representations, or makes or uses any false writings or
document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more that
$10,000 or imprisoned not more that five years, or both."
THOSE OF US WHO HAVE READ JOHN’S PLEA AGREEMENT AND NOW
UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER HAVE A DUTY AND A
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE TRUTH KNOWN TO EVERYONE CONCERNED.
AS BILL BENSON SAID, "IF THERE’S A LESSON HERE, IT SHOULD
TEACH US NOT TO LIE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE."

RESPECTFULLY,

A FELLOW M2K PACKAGE HOLDER

Click here to read about the Rizzo Grand Jury
Charges

Click here to read about the Rizzo Hearing
Arraingment & Detention Testimony

Click here to
read about the Rizzo Transcripts

Click here to
read about the Rizzo Plea Agreement

Click here to
read about the Rizzo Superseding Indictment

(All links are to
large PDFs. Please be patient for the download.)

Back to Top

Emails to Bill
Benson and responses from him:

Dear Mr.
Benson,

My wife and I
purchased the M2K package from your representatives in
Colorado, (name withheld at this point) and (name withheld at
this point) in April of 2002. We received the IRS CP-515 on
5-27-03 and 6-16-03. We moved to Missouri in Oct. 2002 and
contacted the IRS office in Springfield once we received the
CP-515 by letter to set up a meeting. The meeting was
scheduled on Aug. 11, 2003 by a representative but once we
arrived to the meeting that representative was not in the
office to meet with us. An IRS lady took our materials and
signed a receipt listing the materials we were handing over to
her to be put in our permanent file.

We received the
usual threading letters along with holding any bank interest
that was not reported to the IRS, but we also had our
materials returned back to us on Feb. 27, 2004 with no letter
stating why!

Not knowing what
to do next we sent a letter asking why these materials where
sent back with a copy of the signed receipt from the IRS
agent.

We were wondering
what we should do next.

We would
appreciate you're response.

Respectfully,
(Name
withheld at this point)

Response from Bill Benson:

Let it be clearly
understood that I Bill Benson have no representatives in
Colorado. So the Con JOB of M2K still goes on. Nevertheless,
this is a prime example of what I was talking about when I
said that it’s dangerous to turn in the M2K package. As for
what should be done next, I’ll be working on this
one.

Bill
Benson

Emails to Bill
Benson and responses from him:

Hi
Bill,

I
started reading the transcript last night….. As of now I
believe that you had no choice but to protect your good name
and your belief in what is the truth. As for Rizzo, there is
no excuse he should know. The hero dies but once the cowered
dies a thousand deaths and he would have prevailed with the
truth I don't get it.

Sincerely,
(Name
withheld at this point)

Response from
Bill Benson:

The transcripts
are also being provided to show all that you must not lie but
tell the truth when you are dealing with any part of federal
government, state, or the judicial system.

Bill
Benson

For technical
problems with this site, contact: Site
Admin
Copyright©1999-2006 Constitutional Research and
Associates. All Rights
Reserved.