In 1894 Congress passed an income tax act very similar to the current income tax
law. That law was challenged on the basis that a tax on income is a direct tax,
the United States Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned and the
act passed by Congress was not apportioned. The United States Supreme Court agreed
and held the income tax act was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan
& Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
In 1909 President Taft called a special session of Congress. Taft asked Congress
to propose a constitutional amendment to overcome the Supreme Court's Pollock
decision. Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment, which was then sent, by Secretary
of State Knox, to the States for ratification. Certificates, known as enrolled resolutions,
were sent back to Knox by the States; but the language on the certificates differed
from the 16th Amendment language passed by Congress. Knox sent the certificates
to the Solicitor of the United States and asked for a legal opinion as to whether
the States had ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment.
The Solicitor noted the differences between what Congress proposed and the states
ratified and presumed that, because States do not have the authority to alter a
proposed Constitutional amendment, none did.
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
www.TheLawThatNeverWas.com. 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.
Bill has now filed a petition
with the Supreme Court asking them to hear his case.
The District Court pleadings are here: www.jeffdickstein.com/pleadings.aspx
The Court of Appeals pleadings are here: www.jeffdickstein.com/7thcir.aspx
The oral argument before the Seventh Circuit may be heard here:
listen now
Here are samples of the official, certified documents Bill obtained: Kentucky / South Dakota
Details of the 16th Amendment argument are here: www.jeffdickstein.com/hirmer.aspx