Benson, Bill

[Demosthenes]

FREEDOM ABOVE FORTUNE NEWS

Historic Litigation Continues

Dear Friends:

I recently spoke with Jeffrey Dickstein, the lead trial counsel in my 2005 trial, and he provided me with an update of his legal efforts on behalf of Bill Benson, author of The Law That Never Was, a book full of evidence supporting the contention that proving the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment. If you are able to provide any financial assistance to Bill and Jeff's historic efforts, please do so. They really need your help. Bill's mailing address is P.O. Box 550, South Holland, Illinois 60473 . Donations can be made payable to "BILL BENSON" . Place a note in the envelope that your donation is meant for the "16th Amendment litigation".

Jeff's update is below:

***************************

On May 10, 2007, the district court held the continued telephonic status conference originally requested by the IRS. The IRS sought the status conference because it wants information from Benson, including the names and addresses of those who may have purchased Benson's Reliance Defense Package. This info is typically given as part of the injunction under Section 6700 of Title 26. The IRS also wants information regarding the "16th Amendment Reliance Package" offered by FES. The court has not ruled on the IRS's motion for summary judgment for more than 18 months, and the IRS is apparently tired of waiting for the names. Prior to the original status conference, Benson filed Defendant's Reply to United States' Motion for Telephonic Status Hearing raising, among other issues, 5th Amendment protection from being compelled to give discovery. Each sale, if any, would be subject to a penalty. Furthermore, Section 6700 embraces elements of Section 7212, which makes the same conduct criminal. At the original status conference, the court suggested the government give Benson immunity to overcome his 5th amendment objections.

Prior to the status conference, Benson filed "Defendant's Memorandum re May 10, 2007 Status Conference" in which he took the position that he was in essence being charged with criminal seditious libel, without indictment, and was therefore entitled to exercise a criminal defendant's right to remain silent as opposed to a witness' privilege not to incriminate oneself, which privilege may be overcome by a governmental grant of immunity. Benson also took the position that the government cannot be trusted with immunity protocol when it has taken the position that Benson's speech is false and the facts showing it is not false have been ruled "irrelevant."

At the May 10th conference, the attorney for the government reported that it is in the process of seeking immunity for Benson. The court had not read Benson's Memorandum. Twice during the conference the court mentioned the grand jury, obviously totally confused/ignorant of the facts of the case. The court continued the status conference until June 6, 2007 to give the IRS the opportunity to continue its request for immunity. Benson asked the court to carefully read the Memorandum.

I would find it difficult to believe the attorney general will not grant the IRS's request for immunity. The court has previously mentioned it will give Benson an opportunity to brief the issue if the immunity is given. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. If immunity is given, Benson's refusal to answer questions on 5th Amendment grounds would subject him to imprisonment for contempt.

Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law

[Dezcad]

Just another one who will give it up to save his skin.

[Demosthenes]

FREEDOM ABOVE FORTUNE NEWS

Dear Friends,

I am passing along an urgent appeal from Attorney Jeff Dickstein. As many of you know, I was blessed with having Jeff in my corner in my criminal trial and he has been in Bill Benson s corner for a long, long time. Bill s 16th Amendment research influenced me a great deal when I was investigating the claims made by so-called tax protesters while working for the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. That influence resulted from cold, hard FACTS that Bill had accumulated and shared with me. These FACTS caused me to look closer at what the IRS had to back up THEIR claims about Bill and others. My resignation from the IRS obviously shows who I believed was better able to back up their claims to speaking and writing the truth.

Helping Bill helps us all. Please be as generous as you can. If you write to Bill and/or Jeff, please thank them for all the sacrifices they have made in fighting to make the truth known to all.

Jeff s message is below.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are currently seeking individuals to join in as cross-complainants in the government's law suit against Bill Benson.
Over the past couple of years the government has stepped up its efforts to silence the protest over the income tax. Not only have they criminally prosecuted the most vocal of the protesters, such as Irwin Schiff, Larkin Rose, Joe Bannister, etc., they have sought civil injunctions to stop the dissemination of information using the abusive tax shelter law found at 26 U.S.C. Sections 6700 and 7402.
The government has sued Bill Benson alleging he is selling abusive tax shelters in the form of his reliance defense package and is falsely telling people that the 16th Amendment has not been ratified. They are seeking an injunction against him as well as the names of everybody that purchased from Bill a reliance defense package.
The government moved for summary judgment. Bill responded by showing the facts he relied upon to show that he is telling the truth, i.e., the facts that demonstrate that less than 3/4 of the states then in the union voted to ratify the 16th amendment as it was proposed. The government moved to strike these facts as irrelevant on the grounds that the courts have held whether the 16th amendment was or was not ratified is a political question beyond the review of the courts.
Also in response to the government's motion for summary judgment, Bill raised 1st amendment issues. Obviously if the question of the ratification of the 16th amendment is a political question, Bill talking about it is pure political speech that should not fall within the commercial speech exception to the First Amendment.
The Court has not ruled on the government's motion for summary judgment for well over 18 months now. We have no idea why the Court has not yet ruled.
As part of the injunctive relief requested by the government, they asked for the names and addresses of Bill's "customers." Because of the delay in the Court granting the injunction, and Bill's poor health, the government has asked to take Bill's deposition and to request documents from him in order to obtain this information. We responded by stating Bill would exercise his right to remain silent. The government responded by requesting, and obtaining, immunity for Bill.
Our next move, as soon as the government files its formal discovery requests, is to seek a protective order on first amendment grounds, necessary because the court has not yet ruled on our first amendment defenses as part of the motion for summary judgment.
Under the first amendment, not only is there a right for Bill to speak on political issues, but there are reciprocal rights of the listeners. These include the right to hear (or read) what Bill has to say, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and the right to freely associate and not be put on a list merely for purchasing Bill's material.
Bill cannot raise these rights because he does not have "standing" to raise the constitutional rights of others. Hence, we are looking for people to file motions to intervene into the lawsuit. That intervention will consist of cross-complaints seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief to prohibit the government from violating their first amendment rights.
We are looking for three categories of people:
1) People who purchased a reliance package from Bill but who still file tax returns and pay tax. These are people who will complain about being put on a list merely for purchasing and reading what Bill has to say.
2) People who want to purchase a reliance package from Bill. These people will contact Bill and ask to purchase a package. They will be turned down because of the government's law suit. They will then complain they are being prevented from reading what Bill has to say about the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
3) People who purchased a reliance package from Bill and wrote to the IRS stating they don't owe taxes because the 16th amendment wasn't ratified. These people will complain about being put on a list for exercising their right to petition for redress.
We will have a very short time in which to file the motion for protective order to prevent the discovery. We need to be ready to file the motions to intervene immediately after the government's discovery requests come out if we are to have a chance at preventing the first amendment violations.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet raised any of these issues or adopted any of these strategies in an abusive tax shelter case. I believe this strategy offers the best opportunity to bring Bill, his research, and the tyrannical nature of government to the attention of the people and the legal community.
Not since the Star Chamber and Galileo and the seditious libel trial of Peter Zinger has the government decided the truth, and facts of the truth, just don't matter. As a nation of people we need to act before things get even more out of hand. This case represents the best opportunity to litigate the 16th amendment issue, an issue that affects millions and millions of people. Its one thing to go after tax cheats; its something altogether different to make criminal or subject to civil penalty the people's right to debate government conduct in fraudulently ratifying the 16th amendment and the court's cover up of the fraud.
Many of the pleadings already filed in Bill's case can be read on his website, http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com. The complete list can be obtained off of the governments electronic case filing system: http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/. The case is United States v. William J. Benson, Case No. 04 C 7403, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
This case has been carefully orchestrated from the beginning. It is the only case in which the actual facts of the non-ratification of the 16th amendment has been briefed in full and a showing has been made why prior case law is wrong. It also raises the constitutionality of the enrolled bill rule as authorizing ratification of an amendment contrary to constitutional mandate. The district court and the 7th Circuit state they are bound by Supreme Court precedent. This opens the door for bypassing the 7th Circuit and appealing directly to the Supreme Court.
We are not looking for people to join the lawsuit pro se and screw things up with frivolous arguments and non-artfully drawn pleadings. We are looking for people to be represented by me or other attorneys willing to take my lead. I've represented Bill in his original criminal case almost 20 years ago. I represented Joe Bannister together with Attorney Robert Bernhoft and engineered his acquittal. I have more criminal wins against the IRS than any other attorney in the United States. This is serious litigation of extremely important issues and must be done properly.
We are looking for a few people to intervene who have funds to support the litigation with an initial retainer of $20,000. That retainer will include the preparation and filing of the motion to intervene, the proposed cross-complaint, defense of any government motion in opposition of the motion to intervene or motion to strike the cross-complaint, including court appearances, the drafting and filing of an amended complaint, if necessary, and joining in the motion for a protective order.
This is the opportunity to support Bill, support the litigation, and to stand tall and make a difference. Its an opportunity of a lifetime at a time in life when action to protect your freedom is mandated by a government gone wild. Once it is established that the government can accuse anyone of wrongdoing and absolutely prevent facts of non-wrongdoing from being heard, the Constitution, freedom and liberty is dead.
I can be reached at the contact points below. In the event you don't want to join the lawsuit, we still need funding. Donations are necessary. Bill is quite ill and all other sources of financing his litigation have dried up. Please, do not let the government get away with this. Do not let the past 30 years of Bill's life and dedication to your well being be for naught. He needs your emotional, philosophical, moral and financial support. Show him you appreciate his efforts, his work, and his dedication. He is one of the finest people to stand up and be counted. He is a true patriot.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264
jdlaw@wi.rr.com

[LPC]

The government's motion for summary judgment was filed in August of 2005 and is still pending.

On 11/19/2007, Judge Mark Filip was removed from the case (and every other case in which the US was a party) and a new judge assigned. (Judge Filip has apparently been nominated to be a Deputy Assistant to the Attorney General, so it would not be proper for him to preside over government cases while his nomination is pending.)

Let's hope a new broom sweeps clean.

[LPC]

The government's motion for summary judgment was granted on 12/17/2007, the court stating:

The Government argues that Benson knew or had reason to know that the Reliance Defense Package contained false or fraudulent information concerning tax advice. Benson has not pointed to evidence that contradicts the Government’s assertion that Benson himself was prosecuted and convicted for failing to file federal returns while pursuing the very defense that he advocates in the Reliance Defense Package. Benson also admits that the Reliance Defense Package contains a copy of the decision in United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991). (R SF Par. 22). In Benson, the Seventh Circuit explicitly rejected Benson’s arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. Id. at 607. Thus, the undisputed evidence shows that Benson had actual knowledge that the information in the Reliance Defense Package was false or fraudulent. Benson has also failed to explain how he could have reasonably believed his statements in the Reliance Defense Package to be true and lawful when his position had been previously rejected by the courts. [Citations omitted.] Therefore, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude other than that Benson had actual and constructive knowledge of the fact that the Reliance Defense Package contained statements concerning tax advice that were false and misleading.

United States v. William J. Benson, No. 04-C-7403 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. 12/17/2007).

[Demosthenes]

As previously reported, the newly assigned judge in the Bill Benson case wasted no time in continuing the political attack against Bill Benson and his uncontroverted evidence that several states intentionally amended the proposed Sixteenth Amendment during the ratification process. As noted by the Solicitor of the United States in his memorandum to Secretary of State Knox, the states have no power to amend a proposed constitutional amendment; the only power the states have is to vote for, or against, ratification.
The Court's Memorandum Opinion, Doc. 106, is, in our opinion, fatally flawed in logic, common sense, and understanding of the law. Yesterday we filed our Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment because of the numerous "manifest errors" of fact and law. The motion, and supporting memorandum of points and authorities, may be viewed on my website: http://jeffdickstein.com, as Doc. Nos. 107 and 108.
Despite attempting to discredit Bill and his research, the Court did not order Bill to turn over to the government the names and addresses of Bill's "customers." This was a major victory for all of us. The government still has a few days to ask the court to reconsider; my gut reaction is that the government will merely lick it wounds and be satisfied with what it achieved. We, however, will not give up, as demonstrated by our Motion to Alter or Amend. Each new pleading filed by the government or order of the court only serves to allow us to refine and narrow our position, and make a more complete record of the utter fallacy of the government's position.
I know many of you are disappointed by the order granting summary judgment. But, this isn't over by a long shot. We all know the government has lost all semblence of understanding what its function is and its requirement to be bound by the chains of the constitution. The only way the government wins this battle is when we give up.
Bill Benson will never give up. He didn't give up after his first conviction, which was reversed on appeal. He didn't give up after his second conviction when he was imprisoned and almost killed. He didn't give up when he came out of prison confined to a wheel chair. He didn't give up when the government tried to put him back in prison in violation of the double jeopardy clause. He didn't give up when the government tried to violate the First Amendment and obtain your names and addresses. And he hasn't given up now.
We have come a long way in this litigation. As noted in our Motion to Alter or Amend, this is the first case in the more than 20 year history of 16th Amenement litigation where we have the proper argument, and evidence to support it, before a trial court. The court had to stand on its head and make ridiculous findings of both fact and law to allow the issuance of the summary judgment. Political change takes a long time and is a mighty struggle.
Political struggles, like all wars, require funding. We are in desperate need of funds for basic necessities like food and rent. We will need filing fees and printing costs for the appeal, and to conduct research. There is only so much we can do by ourselves. With your help, we can do so much more. Please, reach into your pocket and make whatever donation you can to allow this case to continue.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264

[Famspear]

Dickstein wrote:

Bill Benson will never give up. He didn't give up after his first conviction, which was reversed on appeal. He didn't give up after his second conviction when he was imprisoned and almost killed. He didn't give up when he came out of prison confined to a wheel chair. He didn't give up when the government tried to put him back in prison in violation of the double jeopardy clause. He didn't give up when the government tried to violate the First Amendment and obtain your names and addresses. And he hasn't given up now.

(bolding added).

Or, to put it another way:

Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Otter: [whispering] Germans?

Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns]

--from ''Animal House", screenplay by Douglas Kenney, Chris Miller and Harold Ramis (bolding added).

In "Animal House" the John Belushi character (Bluto) and his fraternity brothers were ultimately successful. Unfortunately, "Animal House," like Benson's non-ratification argument, was a fantasy.

[Famspear]

Jeff Dickstein wrote:

The Court's Memorandum Opinion, Doc. 106, is, in our opinion, fatally flawed in logic, common sense, and understanding of the law. Yesterday we filed our Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment because of the numerous "manifest errors" of fact and law.

Yeah, great job, Jeff. I’m sure that will work as well as Benson’s non-ratification argument worked in:

United States v. House, 617 F. Supp. 237, 87-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9562 (W.D. Mich. 1985), and in

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9184 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), and of course

United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), or in

Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9103 (2d Cir. 1984), and

Sisk v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 58, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9433 (6th Cir. 1986), not to mention

United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 88-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9308 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 827 (1988), and

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9518 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987),

and of course in Benson’s own criminal case.

Dickstein writes:

Each new pleading filed by the government or order of the court only serves to allow us to refine and narrow our position, and make a more complete record of the utter fallacy of the government's position.

(bolding added).

Wow, Dickstein, so with every defeat your client suffers, the government is playing right into your client’s hands, right? Are you gonna take credit for all the defeats of the non-ratification argument since the House case in 1985? Oh, no wait ---

Dickstein wrote:

this is the first case in the more than 20 year history of 16th Amenement litigation where we have the proper argument, and evidence to support it, before a trial court.

Oh, yes, the old tax protester refrain of “yes, we know everyone else before us screwed it up or didn’t have just the right facts or just the right argument or just the right lawyer, or just didn’t say the arguments quite right, but this time we really mean it, we’ll gonna get that ol’ evil guv’mint.”

Dickstein wrote:

We are in desperate need of funds for basic necessities like food and rent. We will need filing fees and printing costs for the appeal, and to conduct research.

The check is in the mail.

[Cpt Banjo]

I note that Mr. Dickstein has a Wisconsin address, so I assume he's admitted to the Wisconsin bar. I wonder if he's familiar with the following rule of the Wisconsin Code of Professional Responsibility:

SCR 20:3.1 Meritorious claims and contentions. (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:

(1) knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law...

I know that courts have occasionally sanctioned lawyers for advancing frivolous arguments in income tax cases, but has any attorney ever been disciplined by the appropriate state bar for doing so?

[Demosthenes]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TAX
FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 2008

FEDERAL COURT BARS ILLINOIS MAN FROM PROMOTING
FRAUDULENT TAX SCAM

William J. Benson Sold Bogus “Defenses” to Criminal Tax Prosecution

WASHINGTON - A federal court in Chicago has permanently barred William J. Benson, of South Holland, Ill., from selling a fraudulent tax scheme. The permanent injunction order was signed by U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The court held that Benson falsely told customers they did not have to file federal income tax returns or pay tax. Additionally, he falsely told them that by buying Benson’s products they could be shielded from criminal prosecution. The order notes that Benson had reason to know his statements about the tax laws were false because of his prior federal convictions for tax evasion and failure to file tax returns.

The court order requires Benson to send copies of the order to his customers and post a copy of the order on his website.

Since 2001 the Justice Department has obtained injunctions against more than 305 tax-fraud promoters and tax preparers. Information about these cases and about the Justice Department’s Tax Division is available on the Justice Department website.

http://www.cheatingfenzy.com/bensonperm.pdf

[Famspear]

Yes, but the court's order did not require that Benson be boiled in oil, so it's a tax protester victory.

[Dr. Caligari]

Actually, the court did not grant the Government's request that Benson be ordered to turn over his customer list. So it is a victory-- at least for the customers.

[Nikki]

Actually, the court did not grant the Government's request that Benson be ordered to turn over his customer list. So it is a victory-- at least for the customers.

However, since he IS required to notify each of his customers via mail and/or e-mail what's to stop the omnipresent government snoops from monitoring the associated addressees?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...However, since he IS required to notify each of his customers via mail and/or e-mail what's to stop the omnipresent government snoops from monitoring the associated addressees?

They may have maxed out their credit cards.

[LPC]

The 7th Circuit has affirmed the injunction against Bill Benson for selling his 16th Amendment "Reliance Defense Package" (finally!). But the District Court had denied the government's request for a customer list, and that part of the order was reversed and remanded.

United States v. William J. Benson, 2009 TNT 64-26, Nos. 08-1312, 08-1586 (7th Cir. 4/6/2009).

[LPC]

Benson has filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, appealing the affirmation of the injunction by the 7th Circuit. No. 09-464 (10/16/2009).

Larry Becraft join Jeffrey Dickstein as counsel on the petition.

The US has waived its right to respond, and the petition is being distributed for the 11/24 conference.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Benson has filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, appealing the affirmation of the injunction by the 7th Circuit. No. 09-464 (10/16/2009).

Larry Becraft join Jeffrey Dickstein as counsel on the petition.

The US has waived its right to respond, and the petition is being distributed for the 11/24 conference.

Game, set, match.

Really, really long match.

[Pottapaug1938]

Benson has filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, appealing the affirmation of the injunction by the 7th Circuit. No. 09-464 (10/16/2009).

The US has waived its right to respond....

I'm not surprised. That quote, from various legal opinions, about not responding to TP allegations, with copious citations, because that would indicate that the allegations had any merit comes to mind.

[Paul]

I think it proves they're AFRAID to respond to him. Or is that Hendrickson they're afraid to confront?

[Pottapaug1938]

I think it proves they're AFRAID to respond to him. Or is that Hendrickson they're afraid to confront?

Well, then, if the government won't respond, then I guess that Benson should have an easy time winning (of -- that's right. The judges are all so scared of IRS audits that they'l rule against Benson, or something like that...).