Sunday, October 26, 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. 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.

William J. 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:

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 complete set of pleadings filed in the District Court are available at

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.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

They Just Don't Get It!

William Flax

The saddest thing about the present political campaign is a common demonstration of abysmal ignorance of the Constitution, the dynamics of social & economic interaction, and the realities of human nature, by most Democratic and Republican candidates for Federal Office. Let me illustrate:

Take the subject of Federal involvement with civilian education. Consider what has been said and what has not been said.

You have not heard either Presidential candidate even try to explain what in the Constitution, they were sworn to uphold, authorizes any Federal Role in Education. Yet they discuss a Federal Role as though there was such an authorization. There isn't.

You have not heard either Presidential candidate even try to explain what benefit there could possibly be, in having a layer of Federal Bureaucracy interacting with State and local bureaucracies, making it ever harder to make critical decisions with respect to the precise educational needs of any particular child. Layers of interactive bureaucracy can--and do--waste an enormous amount of money; they can never contribute anything meaningful to local education.

But then, you have not heard either Presidential candidate even acknowledge what everyone who has ever sat in a classroom knows: All children do not have the same aptitudes. Some have trouble with one subject, others with another; some with most, a few seem gifted in all--but to different degrees. What a classroom needs is a certain flexibility--freedom on the spot--to do what is most helpful to each child--given that child's strengths and weaknesses. That is hardly a subject that will benefit from the intrusion of an intimidating Committee or Bureau in the District Of Columbia.

Yet as sorry as McCain is in going along with the fantasy that unconstitutional Federal intrusion can do anything constructive, Obama is yet worse. In the last debate, he showed himself even more delusional on the prospects for equalizing educational achievement than McCain. Of course, Obama's rhetoric evokes fantasy; his grasp of reality a close parallel to the "Emperor's" wonderful "new clothes." But while we can laugh at the man's intellectual pretensions, his callous indifference to the Constitutional strictures can never be legally or morally accepted.

Similar comments might be made on the subject of a claimed Federal Role in health care, housing or local law enforcement.

Monday, October 13, 2008

The Recession Reader

Learn About the Great Depression II
More on the latest horror from the state, the banksters, and the rest of the power elite.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

America's move toward tyranny

Walter E. Williams: If liberty is lost in U.S., 'it will be lost for all times and all places'