4
Nov

USA v William J. Benson

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

On October 28, 2008, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case of USA v William J. Benson (08-1312) at 10:00 a.m. in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721 of the United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.

Bill Benson is the author of The Law That Never Was – The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax. Issues to be decided include whether the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows for the personal income tax, was actually ratified and whether evidence of such non-ratification is admissible in a court of law.

Mr. Benson was charged with falsely telling the American People the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified and therefore the income tax is unconstitutional. The evidence of the truth of his statement was struck from the record as “irrelevant and immaterial.” The appeal before the 7th Circuit raises the question of whether American Citizens will continue to be allowed to prove their innocence in the courts of this country.

In 1895 the United States Supreme Court declared the federal income tax unconstitutional as an unapportioned direct tax. Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment to allow the government to impose and collect taxes on income. The proposed amendment was sent to the States for ratification. Then Secretary of State, Philander Knox, received certificates of ratification from the States which showed differences between the language proposed by Congress and what was ratified by the States. Certified documents on file in the United States National Archives establish that Knox, knowing that States cannot change the language of a proposed Constitutional amendment, relied upon a presumption that no State had done so, and declared the Sixteenth Amendment as having been properly ratified.

Benson, who once worked for the Illinois Department of Revenue, visited the National Archives in Washington, D.C., as well as the capitols of all forty-eight states. Benson obtained certified copies of the House and Senate Journals pertaining to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. These documents show that several states did, intentionally, modify the language proposed by Congress, proving the presumption relied upon by Secretary of State Knox was false. Benson published his findings in a two volume set of books, and sold his books and supporting documents on his website:

http://thelawthatneverwas.com.

In 2004, the government sued Benson to enjoin him from falsely telling the American people that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified. In response, Benson’s attorney, Jeffrey A. Dickstein of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, offered the certified documents into evidence. On motion of the government’s attorney, the evidence was struck from the record as irrelevant and immaterial, and the District Court issued the injunction.

The appeal before the 7th Circuit raises four fundamental questions of national significance: whether an American, charged with making a false statement, is entitled to present evidence that his statement is true; whether the injunction violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech; whether Secretary of State Knox committed fraud in proclaiming the Sixteenth Amendment ratified; and whether the federal income tax is unconstitutional.

Listen to Jeff Dickstein’s oral arguments here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-1312&submit=showdkt&yr=&num

The complete set of pleadings filed in the District Court are available here: http://jeffdickstein.com/pleadings.aspx.

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

The following is a report from a court watcher:

U.S. v. William Benson, 08-1312 and 08-1586 (7th Circuit) Report of Oral Arguments

On Tuesday, Oct. 28th, 2008, oral arguments were held in the 7th Cir. Court of Appeals for the appeal of U.S. v. Benson.

The District Court issued an injunction, enjoining Bill Benson from selling his “Reliance Defense” package, but denied the government the list of people who purchased the package from Bill. A complete explanation of the case and why it is so important, can be read at http://jeffdickstein.com. Bill appealed, and the government filed a cross appeal.

The oral arguments were before Judges Bauer, Evans, and Ripple. Between 25 and 30 Patriots were there to show support for Bill Benson and the First Amendment. The court was announced into session by a man with a heavy Eastern European [Communist] accent, which was very appropriate for a case where the government is banning books and information.

Bill’s attorney, Jeff Dickstein, delivered a spectacular and stunning argument. When the case was called, Jeff sprang to the podium and immediately picked up a stack of documents in each hand and said, “these are certified public documents from the National Archive… and this is a government report. The government says Bill Benson can’t sell these!”

Initially, Judges Evans and Bauer had smirks on their faces and almost mocked Dickstein, until they made the mistake of challenging him. Bauer sarcastically said, “you have to pay taxes or go to jail”. Bauer stated, “the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment was ratified”. Dickstein cut him off and hollered, “Name the case! What case?”

Judge Bauer stuttered, “duh duh duh”. Judge Evans came to Bauer’s rescue by saying, “we will ask the questions here”.

Dickstein brilliantly argued that Bill has the right to disseminate information, especially when it is true. Judges Evans and Bauer attempted to make the case solely into a 16th Amendment case, instead of a First Amendment case. While rolling his eyes, Evans asked Dickstein if he could cite one case saying the 16th Amendment was not ratified, and is he aware that this issue has been before all the courts several times and the courts have ruled against it.

Dickstein cried out that “Mr. Benson believes the courts are wrong! And it his right to say the courts are wrong. Mr Benson believes you have committed TREASON!” At this point Evans and Bauer lost their arrogant attitude and the smirks were wiped clean off their faces as Dickstein proceed to rip them a new bunghole.

Dickstein correctly argued that Bill Benson has the right to change the political thinking by showing people the material he has researched and that the government cannot silence any person’s attempt to educate the public simply because the government doesn’t agree. In a loud commanding tone, Dickstein lifted his arm, pointed to the black bailiff and said, “this man was property because of bad decisions of this court!” Wow! You could have heard a fish fart in that court room at that point.

Dickstein repeatedly slammed the judges for their erroneous decisions and refusal to allow the 16th Amendment issue to reach it’s merits.

Dickstein’s argument was razor sharp and he knows the issue and the law. Dickstein’s arguments were so compelling that I almost stood up and cheered. It didn’t take long for the judges to see what a mistake it was to ask Dickstein anything. Dickstein was the only attorney in all the cases heard that day to be told “your time is up”.

On behalf of the government, a female U.S. Attorney gave an unconvincing argument that Bill Benson’s “Reliance Defense” package directed people to stop paying income taxes. It was at this time that the silent Judge Ripple came to life. He stated that the act of selling documents does not mean it is “commercial speech”, and that any person can read the material and decide for himself whether to act on it or not.

Embarrassingly, the U.S. Attorney said that the material being sold [separately] was ok, but when packaged together, it was illegal. This argument is ludicrous, if not funny.

After referring to the Bell case [3rd Cir.], Judge Ripple told the U.S. Attorney that “the language in Bell is terribly broad.” Finally, Judges Bauer and Evans joined in on challenging the U.S. Attorney about the First Amendment implications.

The U.S. Attorney also stated that the government “needs the list of names” of everyone Bill sold the Reliance Defense package to, because “those people are victims”. What a laugh. If the government gets those names, then they will surely be victims.

Bill was sitting front and center, and as the U.S. Attorney would make false statements [which was most of the time], Bill would adamantly shake his head “no” while groaning in disapproval.

Although the judges put on a good First Amendment show for the audience, we will not know how they will rule until the opinion is handed down [quietly and out of public view]. But one thing I do know, Bill Benson and Jeff Dickstein are Heroes! I was very proud to stand beside them. For those of you not there, you missed one of the greatest oral arguments of our day.

As one Patriot in attendance stated, “that was definitely worth the price of admission!”

by
Rick Wos

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

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

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

Knowledge is power. Educate yourselves.

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 at 2:51 am and is filed under IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Trackbacks/Pings

  1. RAM-V-IRS.com » Blog Archive » Sullivan v USA and the 16th Amendment    Apr 19 2009 / 2pm:

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

  2. RAM-V-IRS.com » Blog Archive » USA v William J. Benson - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision    Aug 22 2009 / 12pm:

    […] my November 4 2008 blog entitled , “USA v William J. Benson“, I wrote that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case of USA v […]

  3. The Benson Case Against the 16th Amendment | Taxing Thoughts: The Sixteenth Amendment    Feb 20 2014 / 7pm:

Leave a reply

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