Sunday, November 02, 2008

Our lawless government is on trial again

The Law That Never Was7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Hears Landmark 16th Amendment (Income Tax) Case

Court to determine whether proof of non-ratification of the 16th Amendment is irrelevant

[Listen] [MP3] [Alt] 31:12
[Read Dickstein's defense]

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments 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, on October 28 at 10 a.m. in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721 of the United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. Issues to be decided include whether the 16th Amendment, which allows for the personal income tax, was actually ratified and whether evidence of non-ratification is admissible in a court of law.

William J. Benson was charged with falsely telling the American people the 16th 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 16th 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 that 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 16th 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 48 states. Benson obtained certified copies of the House and Senate Journals pertaining to the ratification of the 16th 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 Web site.

In 2004, the government sued Benson to enjoin him from falsely telling the American people that the 16th 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 complete set of pleadings filed in the District Court is available on Mr. Dickstein's Web site.

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 16th Amendment ratified; and whether the federal income tax is unconstitutional.

Contact: Jeffrey A. Dickstein, Attorney at Law, 500 W Bradley Rd Ste C-208, Fox Point WI 53217, Tel: (414) 446-4264, E-mail, Web site

See also: Attorney Issues a Call to Arms

Update 02/06/09: There is still no word from the Seventh Circuit on Bill's appeal that was argued in October 2008.


Anonymous said...

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In addition to be rammed through at Christmas vacation & not officially ratified, the 16th Amendment is hopelessly vague in not defining, specifying (nor re-defining) "income" or "sources of income".

3ms said...

But the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 did define "income". Therefore the definition of income is definite and knowable and remains the same throughout the laws and regulations. From that Act,Income is defined as corporate gains and profits.

Checkout the "Black's Law" during that time period for the term income. It will knock you socks off.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, how come a citizen can be charged with making a false statement, yet the media now has precedent in US law that they have no legal requirement to tell the truth?

What would happen if some of the many failing newspapers were bought by the Truth movement, and began publishing facts uncomfortable to the government? Somehow I suspect the 'justice system' would find a way to impose several absurd and contradictory judgements before breakfast.


greg said...

Seems the point is being missed. If you are accused of a crime and your evidence that you didn't commit the crime is "inadmisable", how is there any justice?

Anonymous said...


Precisely. And unless and until we stop blogging these issues, and start giving this out-of-control government "The Greek" answer to oppression, there will be no justice.

They need to know quite clearly: "No Justice, No Peace."


Anonymous said...

If your thinking critically it will be as plain as day why it's called the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. The CRIMINALS are running the JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Anonymous said...

Lock and load people, for only a second revolution will restore this country now.

It is high time we start acting like "free" and "brave" people instead of just talking about it.

Think about that my fellow Americans.

Anonymous said...

We have these kind of laws in Europe as well. Actually they have been imposed on us after WWII by the US occupation:
Nobody is allowed to say
that the killing of the Jews didn't take place. Even if there is hard evidence for this. No proof allowed. Look for Zundel's case.....

Anonymous said...

To me, all of this posturing is merely a show put on for those who don't understand. This argument may have been relavant prior to the bankruptcy in '33, but the real question today has become, 16th Amendment having been ratified or not, can anyone be expected to "pay" (as defined in Black's law 4th edition) a tax on debt instruments, since no one has received any "money" (again, defined in Black's law 4th edition) which could be defined as an increase?

Anonymous said...

The us goverment gets no income from personal income tax. It all goes to the Federal Reserve (a bunch of scum sucking international bankers) and It's tax free to them. Whats wrong with this picture?