16th Amendment on Trial in Chicago 28 Oct 2008
7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals to Hear Landmark Sixteenth Amendment (Income Tax) Case
Court to determine whether proof of non-ratification of the Sixteen Amendment Irrelevant.
Chicago, Oct. 27. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument in the government's case against William J. Benson, author of The Law That Never Was–The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax, for Oct. 28th at 10:00 a.m. in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721 of the United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. Among other issues, the Court will decide whether the several states sufficiently ratified the 16th Amendment, and whether evidence of non-ratification constitutes legally admissible evidence in a court of law.
Patriots generally agree that the 16th Amendment falsely alleged to allow Congress to impose an unapportioned, direct, personal income tax on virtually all American earners. The Supreme Court claimed the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new taxing powers, but merely put the income tax in the class of an excise. The IRS and its advocated claim the 16th Amendment allows Congress to impose a direct unapportioned tax upon people's property. The Constitution specifically requires that Congress apportion direct taxes among the states according to percentage of population. That would mean every taxpayer would owe the same amount of tax, and the states would have the responsibility of allocating, assessing, and collecting the tax. Then the states would give the money to Congress. That has not happened since the times of the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War), possibly because the 17th Amendment removed the state legislatures from the power to choose US Senators, and thereby deprived the states of representation in the "United States" government.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on what constitutes the actual subject of the income tax, and it has stymied patriot efforts to get the courts to compel the IRS and other government entities truthfully and fully to respond to petitions for redress of grievance regarding income tax and the work of the IRS in unlawfully imposing it directly upon the people. Furthermore, the Supreme Court refused to address the legality of the 16th Amendment, claiming its ratification by the states and approval in Congress is a "political" issue. The issue at stake has nothing to do with what the 16th Amendment means. It has to do only with whether the 16th Amendment exists lawfully.
The Department of Justice charged William J. Benson with falsely telling the American People that the several states did not ratify the Sixteenth Amendment and that the implementation of a direct unapportioned income tax violates the Constitution. The US District Court struck evidence of the truth of his statement from the record, claiming it "irrelevant and immaterial." The appeal before the 7th Circuit raises the question of whether American Citizens may 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 states had not ratified the Sixteenth Amendment. 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 judge struck evidence from the record as irrelevant and immaterial, and the District Court issued the injunction. The complete set of pleadings filed in the District Court are available at http://jeffdickstein.com/pleadings.aspx.
The appeal before the 7th Circuit raises four fundamental questions of national significance:
Wanza & Gene Webb - "William Benson Has been one of the finest men we have ever known. He never dropped the ball on this lie that the 16th Amendment had been ratified. He is a true American and it is a privilege to know him. Gene and I feel blessed to see his efforts will now bring the TRUTH to light."
Davis Mauldin - "Jeff Dickstein was my defense attorney in IRS vs. Holland & Mauldin (we hung the jury... 5 of our 12 jurors joined our activist organization following our 30 day criminal trial in Tulsa... Sep-Oct, 1990)... the Benson appeal is a landmark case on several Constitutional issues... please distribute this widely... the government doesn't want this case to get any press for obvious reasons."