FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL

                                  Real.  Educational.  News.

 Fort Fairfield Journal     About Us     Contact Us    Advertising Rates      Subscribe       Distribution       Bible Reference     Our Library

THE UNLAWFUL FEDERAL INCOME TAX

Simple truth, simply stated, resonates in your heart. One always knows the truth simply because it is true! Here are some other simple truths:

- The United States Constitution makes a distinction between direct taxes and indirect taxes, and requires direct taxes to be apportioned and indirect taxes to be uniform. - Art. I, § 2, Cl. 3; Art. I, § 8, Cl. 1; and Art. I, § 9, Cl 4.

- The United States Constitution requires constitutional amendments to be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states before becoming a part of the Constitution. - Art. V.

In 1894 Congress passed the 1894 Income Tax Act, 28 Stat. 509, ch. 349. Section 27.

The constitutionality of this section was challenged on the ground that the act passed by Congress was a direct tax that wasn’t apportioned. The argument went before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company. It was reported twice; once at 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and again at 158 U.S. 601 (1895). The majority of the Supreme Court held Section 27 imposed a direct tax and that because the tax was not apportioned, it violated the taxing provisions of the Constitution. The minority thought a tax on income was as excise that didn’t require apportionment.

In 1909, President Taft called a special session of Congress. He asked Congress, to overcome the Pollock decision, to pass a proposed constitutional amendment. Congress obliged, and proposed the 16th Amendment, which reads as follows:

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.

The proposed amendment was sent to the governors of the forty-eight several states, who submitted the proposed amendment to each states’ legislative body. The various legislatures acted on the proposed amendment, and certificates of ratification of forty-two states were thereafter sent by the governors to then Secretary of State Philander Knox. The states of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Utah rejected the proposed amendment.

Secretary of State Knox noticed that the vast majority of the certificates of ratification he received contained language different from the language of the amendment proposed by Congress. He then asked the Office of the Solicitor of the United States to give him a legal opinion as to whether the proposed amendment could be certified as having been ratified.

On February 15, 1913, the Solicitor sent a Memorandum to Knox. The Memorandum contained this language:

In no case has any legislature signified in any way its deliberate intention to change the wording of the proposed amendment. The errors appear in most cases to have been merely typographical and incident to an attempt to make an accurate quotation.

Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment.

It, therefore, seems a necessary presumption, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, that a legislature did not intend to do something that it had not the power to do, but rather that it intended to do something that it had the power to do, namely, where its action has been affirmative, to ratify the amendment proposed by Congress. Moreover, it could not be presumed that by a mere change of wording, probably inadvertent, the legislature had intended to reject the amendment as proposed by Congress where all parts of the resolution either than those merely reciting the proposed amendment had set forth an affirmative action by the legislature.

Secretary of State Knox then officially certified the 16th Amendment had been ratified, and it became a part of the United States Constitution.

In 1984, Bill Benson, former Department of Revenue investigator for the State of Illinois, took it upon himself to visit the Capitols of all forty-eight states where he obtained certified copies of the legislative journals pertaining to the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment. He also traveled to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. where he obtained a certified copy of the Solicitor’s Memorandum of February 15, 1913. He published his findings in a two-volume book entitled “The Law That Never Was.”

The legislative journals Bill obtained conclusively show that the states of Oklahoma, Missouri and Washington intentionally amended the language proposed by Congress, thereby committing an act that the Solicitor of the United States recognized was in violation of the United States Constitution. Bill also discovered that numerous other states voted to ratify language different from that proposed by Congress, that there is no record of some houses of the states’ legislatures voting at all, that the Senate’s vote in Kentucky, nine to ratify and twenty-two not to ratify was incorrectly reported at twenty-two to ratify and nine not to ratify, and that numerous states violated their constitutionally required procedures during the ratification process.

These issues soon came to the attention of the courts. Each court to consider the issue held it lacks the judicial authority to hear the issue. See United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Ferguson, 793 F.2d 828 (7th Cir. 1986); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988); Lysiak v. C.I.R., 816 F;2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd. Cir. 1988), United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986); and United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991.)

The reason for the courts’ conclusion that it lacks authority to hear the issue is the Enrolled Bill Rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in three cases: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Laser V. Gannett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); and Coleman V. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Each of those courts held that certification by the Secretary of State under Revised Statute 205 creates a conclusive presumption of ratification which is beyond review by the courts, and therefore the issue is a political question, not a judicial question.

It took our federal judiciary only eighty-nine years, from Marbury v. Madison to Field v. Clark to move from law to tyranny. Article V requires actual ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment by the several states; the Enrolled Bill Rule allows ratification by presumption of one man.

The tyranny was too much for Bill Benson. He put together the Reliance Defense Package and encouraged people, through his website and his speaking engagements, to obtain his material, study it, and if they thought it true, to exercise their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress. This proved too much for the federal government.

On November 16, 2004, the government sued Bill Benson to obtain an injunction to prohibit him from falsely telling people that the 16th Amendment was not in fact ratified, and to obtain the names and addresses of those who obtained his information. The government argued that under the Enrolled Bill Rule, the 16th Amendment was conclusively presumed ratified, and therefore his statements were false as a matter of law. In response, Bill submitted the facts showing the proposed amendment was passed by the false presumption of Secretary of State Knox and that less than three-fourths of the several states voted for ratification. Bill argued that Revised Statute 205, as applied under the facts he adduced, was an unconstitutional legislative act which had the effect of amending Article V of the Constitution. He argued that the various courts that previously heard the issue never had before them the truth that several states had intentionally modified the language proposed by Congress. Bill also argued that the cases of Field v. Clark, Leser v. Garnett and Coleman v. Miller could not be the law if it allowed amendments of the Constitution by presumption. Bill argued that if the question were a political one, then his speech on the subject was political speech, and protected by the First Amendment. And finally, Bill argued that the refusal of the Court to allow him to present the facts to prove his statements were true violated due process of law.

The court struck all of Bill’s facts from the record as irrelevant, and failed to address any of his other questions. On January 10, 2008, the court granted the government’s requested injunction. As of now, the government may prosecute you for lying and prevent you from presenting a defense. As of now, speaking about a political question is against the law. As of now, there is no due process of law. As of now, there is no First Amendment right to speak or to petition the government for redress of grievance. As of now, the words of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison are like the words of the United States Constitution; mere words that have no meaning.

The only bright spot is that we convinced the court that the names and addresses sought by the government were protected. We did this by having three people, John Doe I, John Doe II and Jane Roe, file a motion to intervene and file a motion for a protective order to protect their names from being disclosed. The strategy worked. The government’s attorney advised us, however, they intend to appeal the decision in order to obtain the names and addresses.

I am writing this to solicit your help to put together a unified, winning team, to end the federal income tax, which as we all know, is a major part of Ron Paul’s platform. Many of you, like me, were alive in the 60's and watched the civil rights movement. We learned that it takes a unique combination of political activism and awareness coupled with court action to change the minds of the courts and the politicians. Ron Paul’s campaign provides the necessary political action, and the Bill Benson litigation provides the court action.

The Bill Benson litigation is perhaps the single most important tax case since Pollock. It has the capacity to do away with the income tax once and for all. The timing is perfect because of Dr. Paul’s presidential campaign. The case fell into our hands because the government raised the issue of the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment. For the first time ever, we have the facts in evidence that several states actually amended the proposed 16th Amendment. We have a beautiful first amendment issue as well as a fifth amendment due process issue to get the attention of the Supreme Court, not to mention the issue that the government believes it can amend the constitution by the presumption of one man instead of actual ratification. We have an opportunity to move the Supreme Court back into protectors of the Constitution instead of protectors of the political system.

If we are to win this monumental case, and win the battle with the federal government, we need to do the same thing those in the civil rights movement did. The Ron Paul campaign teaches us the populace can be reached and funds raised, if only we go out and do it.

To make this a reality, we have to advertise our needs and have various motions and amicus briefs available for download from numerous websites. To that end, please contact me to find out what you can do to help out.

Jeffrey Dickstein, Attorney at Law

500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208

Fox Point, WI 53217

jdlaw@wi.rr.com

http://jeffdickstein.com