BILL BENSON'S FIRST AMENDMENT CASE UPDATE

[|\/۞\/|]

"As of my last report, the government had moved for summary judgment. In response, we submitted several facts to support our defenses that: 1) case law of the Seventh and other Circuits are not entitled to stare decisis on the grounds that the underlying facts supporting those cases were erroneous, and 2) Bill was not falsely telling people the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified; he was telling the truth because less than the constitutionally required number of states failed to vote for its ratification. The government refused to admit to the facts, and instead argued the facts were immaterial, impertinent and scandalous. We filed a motion to strike those allegations and a motion to have our facts deemed admitted. There the case sat for the past nine months.

"The district court, in a lengthy memo, denied both of our motions, essentially holding that the issue of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is beyond review per the Seventh and other Circuit court cases. The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated. One can only reflect back to the time of Galileo when the official position of the state was that the sun revolved around the earth, and proffering the incontrovertible facts establishing the truth of the contrary position was it self a high crime. Indeed history repeats itself, but who in their wildest imaginations would believe such a denial of due process of law could exist in the United States. Let him who has ears hear.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd214.htm

In summary, Bill Benson, a former tax investigator himself, compiled documentary proof that US Secretary of State Philander Knox lied to the US Congress when he announce that the 16th Amendment was "in effect" (Knox pointedly avoided using the word 'ratified' in his letter of transmittal to Congress).

For example, Knox claimed Kentucky voted for ratification, but state records show that Kentucky voted the amendment down, 22 to 9.

Knox claimed California ratified the Amendment, but there is no record of a vote in the California legislative archives.

Knox claimed Minnesota ratified the 16th amendment, but there is no evidence that Minnesota ever responded to the bill, one way or the other.

The US Government, which cites the 16th Amendment as authority to dip into your pocket, had taken Bill Benson to court for "falsely" claiming that the 16th Amendment was not ratified. Yet the same courts refuse to allow Benson to produce the certified state records (and the memorandums of Knox's own Solicitor General) that support his theory. This is another classic case of the judges declaring what is truth and punishing those who refuse to believe.

Of course, the judges are hardly impartial. They and their courts are funded by tax money. A clear conflict of interest exists. Rarely and only in the most obvious cases of malpractice have the courts ever ruled against tax authorities.

But in the end, the burden of proof is on the government that it acts within the laws and within the Constitution. And judges are NOT authorized to declare an amendment ratified if in fact it is not so. Under and standards of judicial decency, the court must prove Bill Benson wrong by documenting the full ratification of the 16th amendment. That means providing certified copies from all the state legislatures of the bills of ratification passed by 3/4 of the states which existed at the time.

Were the 16th amendment properly ratified, there should be no trouble at all for the necessary documents to be produced from the National Archives. Yet for more than a decade, the US Government has continued to act like it has something to hide; taking the repeated position that it is under no obligation whatsoever to prove anything about any amendment to anybody.