Sunday, November 15, 2009

IRS And Alleged 5th Amendment Violations - Was The 16th Amendment Really Ever Ratified?

Apparently, the Federal government sued William J. Benson to censor and punish his speech disclosing a major government fraud with respect to the federal income tax. Even as the Fifth Amendment protects our right to due process of law and prohibits the government from denying a person charged with illegal conduct the ability to defend himself, the government has refused to hear Benson's evidence proving government fraud!

Meanwhile, the Federal Judiciary refuses to enforce the Constitution!
The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

The ongoing litigation in U.S. v Benson is a fight for all of us ... and now includes an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.


In 1984, William J. Benson traveled to the capitols of all forty-eight states. There he obtained official, certified, copies of each State's legislative journals pertaining to the State's activities in ratifying, or not ratifying, the proposed 16th Amendment. Benson also traveled to Washington, D.C. and obtained from the United States National Archives, certified copies of the official documents pertaining to the proposed 16th Amendment.

The legislative journals conclusively establish, that despite not having the power to do so, several States intentionally modified the language of the proposed amendment. Having done so, the States violated Article V of the United States Constitution, and their votes cannot be counted.

Benson discovered other discrepancies too. He wrote and published a book on what he discovered, The Law That Never Was, Vols 1 and 2, available on his web site at . The 17,000 official, certified, documents conclusively show that less than the constitutionally required thirty-six States voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment.

Without a validly ratified Sixteenth Amendment, the federal income tax is unconstitutional. Bill accused the government of a massive fraud and cover-up and urged the American people to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to petition the government to correct this fraud.

In 2004, the government filed a lawsuit against Bill Benson. That lawsuit alleged Bill was falsely telling people the 16th Amendment was not ratified. The government asked the United States District Court in Chicago to issue an order preventing Bill from telling people what he found and preventing him from selling the supporting information through the Internet. The lawsuit also asked for the names and addresses of everyone who obtained Bill's information.

Bill attempted to defend against the allegations that he was lying by filing with the Court the evidence which proves he is telling the truth. The government, being wholly unable to refute the fact that the documents prove Bill is telling the truth, instead asked the Court to strike Bill's evidence from the court record.

The Court struck Bill's evidence from the record, then ruled that Bill had provided no evidence to refute the government's allegations that his statements were false. The Court then issued an injunction making it illegal for Bill to tell the people what he had discovered.

Bill then filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Bill argued that when the District Court refused to look at and consider his evidence, he was denied fundamental due process of law. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates the government give a defendant, charged with violating the law, a fair hearing in which the Court must consider the defendant's evidence.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, just like the government attorneys, refused to address this issue.


The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

* The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
* The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
* The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
* The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

Attorney Jeffrey A. Dickstein, will be filing an appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and you can review the pleadings filed in this case so you can see for yourself the tyranny being practiced in our courts.

Interesting video here


Anonymous said...

Actually, USA v. Benson isn't about censoring and punishing, it is about stopping Mr. Benson from committing fraud by selling people his incorrect tax advice for $3500.00.

The Court imposed a Permanent Injunction against Mr. Benson to stop him from selling his "Reliance" materials (for $3500.00) as they counsel people -- in a signed letter of guarantee from Mr. Benson, apparently -- that they will be indemnified against prosecution for non-payment of taxes by purchasing and using the materials. As the Court's Injunction shows, Mr. Benson is well aware that isn't the case, because he himself has been convicted of felony tax evasion and has done jail time for it. (His conviction was overturned; he was retried. He was re-convicted and went back to jail. He appealed when he got out and the 7th Circuit affirmed the second conviction. He appealed AGAIN, and was denied. Then he violated his parole.)

It really doesn't look as if the the IRS is afraid to see Mr. Benson in Court as they surely saw him there a lot throughout the '90s.

Mr. Benson may have spent a lot of time on research, but his research was flawed from the start and illustrates that Mr. Benson didn't know too much about the Constitution from the outset. The 16th Amendment doesn't give the government the power to tax. That authority is given in Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

The issue addressed in the 16th stems from Article 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3 -- the distribution of direct taxes (those derived from real property) amongst the States according to Census figures. The discussion centered on taxation of income from property being the same as taxing property itself. Which would be un-Constitutional by Article 1, Sec. 9, Clause 4.

The 16th deals with apportionment and it conveyed absolutely no new power to tax. See Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916) for an explanation.

Mr. Benson, while not being a Constitutional scholar, is certainly no stranger to fraud. Back in the 1960s he worked for Bethlehem Steel. He filed a SSA disability claim that he had encephalitis and a seizure disorder which made it impossible for him to work. He got full disability benefits for 20 years, not only from the SSA, but from Bethlehem Steel and Met Life. However, he was working for the Illinois state government and also in a bowling alley as a bartender during that time. What did he do at the Illinois Department of Revenue, you might ask? He monitored the border to catch people trucking in cigarettes to AVOID PAYING TAXES, so they could be arrested and have their vehicles confiscated. He got fired from that one for trying to extort a job from them.

Tax rebellion hero? Nah. Snake oil salesman.

Anonymous said...

The 16th Amendment isn't about the power to levy taxes. Where did he get that idea?

Judy Aron said...

Well Anonymous - thank you for plagiarizing someone else's work - and that was the analysis done at a site written by Bill Branscum - a treasury representative (not exactly an unbiased party here). He is owner of Oracle International, an investigative agency.

I find it interesting that you quote people who once worked for (and possibly still working for) the government as government agents, as a credible source to cite against people who are working to bring some light to what is possibly being covered up by the government.

You certainly are free to present their argument - and I am glad you did.


People who are questioning actions of the government of course are being labeled frauds and snake oil salesmen. Dickstien and Irwin Schiff, Bob Schulz etc., etc., are all on that list. They question the constitutionality of certain actions of the government. That is why they are being called scam artists.

I wonder how many government contracts Mr. Branscum has
profited from.

As far as I can see Mr. Benson's research is far from flawed, and Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification from State's despite the errors and irregularities regarding ratification from the States - he even knew there were such irregularities present.
Bottomline is that it appears that the amendment was not properly ratified as it should have been - but you are free to disagree and side with the US government on that.