Dickstein Trolls

[LPC]

Our buddy Jeff Dickstein is out trolling for new fees:

From: Jeffrey A. Dickstein
To:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:26 PM
Subject: Bill Benson Update

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]

Dickstein is right about the government's motion for summary judgment pending for 18 months.

A "status hearing" has been scheduled for 7/10, but there have been similar hearings scheduled in the past and nothing has come of them.

[Disilloosianed]

We are not looking for people to join the lawsuit pro se and screw things up with frivolous arguments and non-artfully drawn pleadings.

What if they are artfully drawn with the whole range of crayola colors?

$20,000? Geez.....three plaintiffs and he already makes more than most of our gubmint lawyers.

[Imalawman]

We are not looking for people to join the lawsuit pro se and screw things up with frivolous arguments and non-artfully drawn pleadings.

What if they are artfully drawn with the whole range of crayola colors?

$20,000? Geez.....three plaintiffs and he already makes more than most of our gubmint lawyers.

Wah Wah..geez, you're a real downer....

[Disilloosianed]

Oh, come on.....you know I'm right.

[Imalawman]

Oh, come on.....you know I'm right.

Oh, i'm not denying it. That's why I married a lawyer in the private sector.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Our buddy Jeff Dickstein is out trolling for new fees:

From: Jeffrey A. Dickstein
To:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:26 PM
Subject: Bill Benson Update

Pardon me, Dan, but is this even remotely kosher with the Rules?

[LPC]

Pardon me, Dan, but is this even remotely kosher with the Rules?

It looks like it to me.

The Wisconsin rules are different from the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and there appears to me to be problems in both the content and form of the email.

Wis. SCR 20:7.1, like ABA MRPC 7.1, prohibits any "false or misleading communication" about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. The Wisconsin rules define "false or misleading" as including "a material misrepresentation of fact or law" or "is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve." Both of those standards seem to be violated by Dicksteins email, because he is proposing a legal remedy (intervention to obtain "declaratory relief and injunctive relief to prohibit the government from violating their first amendment rights") which does not really exist, and he fails to point out that obtaining that relief is highly unlikely to say the least.

Wis. SCR 20:7.3(a) generally allows "written communication, not involving personal or telephone contact, with persons known to need legal services of the kind provided by the lawyer in a particular matter, for the purpose of obtaining professional employment." However, paragraph (b) provides that "A written communication under par. (a) shall be conspicuously labeled with the word 'Advertisement' and a copy of it shall be filed with the office of lawyer regulation within 5 days of its
dissemination."

So Dickstein has probably committed a violation of SCR 20:7.3(b) because he failed to include the words "Advertisement" in the email. (And he probably also failed to file a copy with disciplinary board.)

I'd rather try to nail him on the grounds that his email is "misleading" because it suggests a possible legal remedy that does not really exist. If Dickstein were selling securities, there would be no question but that he is selling "blue sky" and I don't know why lawyers should be held to a lower standard.