Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Famspear »

On 29 September 2008, Bob Hurt wrote, at http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen:
Bill Benson and Jeff Dickstein sent out this appeal for support and money. The issue? The IRS and DOJ have tried to stomp Benson into a flat spitball, and a Chicago court hears the appeal in less than a month.

I think the case deserves your support. Jeff will handle the litigation for the defense free. But we need a mass demonstration in front of the courthouse, and we need to get the press involved. If Benson wins, it will benefit YOU because it means the 16th amendment could head for its day of demise as a result.

You might not remember Bill's book about the fraud of the 16th amendment and how the states never ratified it. See more of the story below. This case needs a win for the People of America, not for the criminals in the DOJ, IRS, and courts.

Bob Hurt
Bob then includes a message (apparently dated 27 September 2008) from Jeffrey Dickstein:
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has set oral argument on Benson's appeal for October 28, 2008 at 10:00 a.m in the main courtroom, Rm. 2721, at 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL.

I have previously spoken with several of you about helping to arrange a mass demonstration and notifying the press regarding this historical case. I have also issued a Call to Arms on my website (http://jeffdickstein.com) with a list of actions that could be taken. To date, not much has happened. Now there is just about 30 days.

This is the last chance. We can either put political pressure on the 7th Cir, Congress and notify the press or not. Its up to you.

We can do a mass press release for about $2,000 by hiring a PR firm that specializes in that type of work. I already have the contact. If you want that to happen, you need to send the money, now. (http://jeffdickstein.com/donate).

If you want to organize a protest and mass get together outside the 7th Cir, you need to do that, now. You will need permits and figure out how to get people to show up.

Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
[address, etc., deleted]

16th Amendment - The Sixteenth Amendment Bill Benson Litigation
JEFFREY A. DICKSTEIN
(Bolding added by Famspear; additional material showing Dickstein's "legal" analysis, such as it is, has not been reproduced.)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Dezcad »

Maybe they should invite Shultz for a "Death Fast" protest in support.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Famspear »

The case is United States v. William J. Benson, no. 08-1586, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

....
This is the last chance. We can either put political pressure on the 7th Cir, Congress and notify the press or not. Its up to you.
Sure, Easterbrook's a real soft touch. :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol:
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
Bashful

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Bashful »

And congress has nothing to do right now anyway, with the bail out and all....
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by LPC »

Jeffrey Dickstein wrote:We can either put political pressure on the 7th Cir,

[...]

If you want to organize a protest and mass get together outside the 7th Cir,[/b].
This looks unethical to me.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(a) states:

"A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."

Dickstein obviously wants to prejudice the 7th Circuit, otherwise what is the point of "political pressure" and "mass demonstrations." And communicating with the public in ways that he knows (or hopes) will be distributed is a violation of the rule.

It is equally obvious that his efforts will fail, because the public either doesn't really care or disagrees with Benson et al., but Dickstein's intentions might be of interest to the 7th Circuit or Dickstein's disciplinary authority.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Cpt Banjo »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:Sure, Easterbrook's a real soft touch. :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol:
Yeah, and I've heard Posner's a veritable pussycat.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5773
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Demosthenes »

Bashful wrote:And congress has nothing to do right now anyway, with the bail out and all....
SImultaneous bailout and tax bills. It's nuts here right now.
Demo.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by grixit »

How about this-- ask each supporter to get a sign. Then, during commercials, they go out onto their fronmt sidewalk. wave the sign at traffic, shout a few slogans, then go back in.

Go, Sovereign Warriors!
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Famspear »

On 24 October 2008, Bob Hurt included this "press release" (possibly written by someone else, of course), on his "lawmen" google group:
Benson & Dickstein Put 16th Amendment On Trial in Chicago, 28 Oct 2008

16th Amendment On Trial in Chicago

Be sure to mark your calendars and show up for this landmark court case.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO ALL MEDIA AND MAILING LISTS

*7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals to Hear Landmark Sixteenth Amendment (Income Tax) Case***

Court to determine whether proof of non-ratification of the Sixteen Amendment Irrelevant.

Chicago, Oct. 27 [sic; this appears to have been written as an advanced press release for October 27]. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument in the government's case against William J. Benson, author of The Law That Never Was–The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax, for Oct. 28th at 10:00 a.m. in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721 of the United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. Among other issues, the Court will decide whether the several states sufficiently ratified the 16th Amendment, and whether evidence of non-ratification constitutes legally admissible evidence in a court of law.

Patriots generally agree that the 16th Amendment falsely alleged to allow Congress to impose an unapportioned, direct, personal income tax on virtually all American earners. The Supreme Court claimed the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new taxing powers, but merely put the income tax in the class of an excise. The IRS and its advocated [sic] claim the 16th Amendment allows Congress to impose a direct unapportioned tax upon people's property. The Constitution specifically requries that Congress apportion direct taxes among the states according to percentage of population. That would mean every taxpayer would owe the same amount of tax, and the states would have the responsibility of allocating, assessing, and collecting the tax. Then the states would give the money to Congress. That has not happened since the times of the War of Northern Agression (Civil War), possibly because the 17th Amendment removed the state legislatures from the power to choose US Senators, and thereby deprived the states of representation in the "United States" government.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on what constitutes the actual subject of the income tax, and it has stymied patriot efforts to get the courts to compel the IRS and other government entities truthfully and fully to respond to petitions for redress of grievance regarding income tax and the work of the IRS in unlawfully imposing it directly upon the people. Furthermore, the Supreme Court refused to address the legality of the 16th Amendment, claiming its ratification by the states and approval in Congress is a "political" issue. The issue at stake has nothing to do with what the 16th Amendment means. It has to do only with whether the 16th Amendment exists lawfully.

The Department of Justice charged William J. Benson with falsely telling the American People that the several states did not ratify the Sixteenth Amendment and that the implementation of a direct unapportioned income tax violates the Constitution. The US District Court struck evidence of the truth of his statement from the record, claiming it "irrelevant and immaterial." The appeal before the 7th Circuit raises the question of whether American Citizens may prove their innocence in the courts of this country.

[ . . . ]

The appeal before the 7th Circuit raises four fundamental questions of national significance:

1. whether an American, charged with making a false statement, is entitled to present evidence that his statement is true;

2. whether the injunction violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech;

3. whether Secretary of State Knox committed fraud in proclaiming the Sixteenth Amendment ratified; and

4. whether the federal income tax is unconstitutional.

Testimonials:

Wanza & Gene Webb - "William Benson Has been one of the finest men we have ever known. He never dropped the ball on this lie that the 16th Amendment had been ratified. He is a true American and it is a privilege to know him. Gene and I feel blessed to see his efforts will now bring the TRUTH to light."

Davis Mauldin - "Jeff Dickstein was my defense attorney in IRS vs. Holland & Mauldin (we hung the jury... 5 of our 12 jurors joined our activist organization following our 30 day criminal trial in Tulsa... Sep-Oct, 1990)... the Benson appeal is a landmark case on several Constitutional issues... please distribute this widely... the government doesn't want this case to get any press for obvious reasons."

--
Bob Hurt
(bolding added).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Gregg »

I'm sorry, does this nutball think the 7th Circuit is going to rule the 16th Amendment null?

Is there anyone involved here who went to law school, preferably someone who latter passed a bar exam and hasn't been disbarred?

I'm just a poor little accountant from Argillite Kentucky and I know that dog ain't gonna hunt.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

...the Benson appeal is a landmark case on several Constitutional issues... please distribute this widely... the government doesn't want this case to get any press for obvious reasons."
Yea. It's such a landmark case they're keeping it secret. Despite the fact that the whole trial docket is available on PACER. Major blunder on the government's part. :roll:
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by grixit »

Somehow i don't think the official title or description of the case says anything about "the 16th amendment on trial".
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7624
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by wserra »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:Yea. It's such a landmark case they're keeping it secret. Despite the fact that the whole trial docket is available on PACER. Major blunder on the government's part.
grixit wrote:Somehow i don't think the official title or description of the case says anything about "the 16th amendment on trial".
SEE?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Famspear »

...the Benson appeal is a landmark case on several Constitutional issues... please distribute this widely... the government doesn't want this case to get any press for obvious reasons."
You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and hypothesize that people like Bill Benson and Bob Hurt and Bob Schulz imagine that almost every one of these tax protester cases is a "landmark case" while it's being argued. Then, when (as inevitably happens every single time) the tax protester and his nitwit argument are blasted to smithereens by the Court's judgment, these people somehow lose their regard for the "landmarkedness" (coinage of a new word?) of the case. Like PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson, they try to rationalize every defeat as somehow not being on point, or as involving "wording" by the Court that just doesn't quite fit their fancy. Once the case is lost, it somehow loses its importance in their minds, and the Bensons, Hurts and Schulzes go on to formulate plans for still another floppy, flaccid, impotent thrust at the windmill -- as part of the seemingly endless series of floppy, flaccid, impotent thrusts.

Hmmm.......
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Famspear »

According to the case docket in Benson's case no. 08-1586, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the case was indeed argued on October 28th, and was taken under advisement by the panel consisting of William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge; Kenneth F. Ripple, Circuit Judge and Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5773
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Demosthenes »

A TP decription of events:
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Report From Bill Benson's Hearing
U.S. v. William Benson, 08-1312 and 08-1586

Report of Oral Arguments

On Tuesday, Oct. 28th, 2008, oral arguments were held in the 7th Cir. Court of Appeals for the appeal of U.S. v. Benson. The District Court issued an injunction, enjoining Bill Benson from selling his “Reliance Defense” package, but denied the government the list of people who purchased the package from Bill. A complete explanation of the case and why it is so important, can be read at http://jeffdickstein.com/ . Bill appealed, and the government filed a cross appeal.

The oral arguments were before Judges Bauer, Evans, and Ripple. Between 25 and 30 Patriots were there to show support for Bill Benson and the First Amendment. The court was announced into session by a man with a heavy Eastern European [Communist] accent, which was very appropriate for a case where the government is banning books and information.

Bill’s attorney, Jeff Dickstein delivered a spectacular and stunning argument. When the case was called, Jeff sprang to the podium and immediately picked up a stack of documents in each hand and said, “these are certified public documents from the National Archive... and this is a government report. The government says Bill Benson can’t sell these!” Initially, Judges Evans and Bauer had smirks on their faces and almost mocked Dickstein, until they made the mistake of challenging him. Bauer sarcastically said, “you have to pay taxes or go to jail”. Bauer stated, “the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment was ratified”. Dickstein cut him off and hollered, “Name the case! What case?” Judge Bauer stuttered, “duh duh duh”. Judge Evans came to Bauer’s rescue by saying, “we will ask the questions here”.

Dickstein brilliantly argued that Bill has the right to disseminate information, especially when it is true. Judges Evans and Bauer attempted to make the case solely into a 16th Amendment case, instead of a First Amendment case. While rolling his eyes, Evans asked Dickstein if he could cite one case saying the 16th Amendment was not ratified, and is he aware that this issue has been before all the courts several times and the courts have ruled against it. Dickstein cried out that “Mr. Benson believes the courts are wrong! And it his right to say the courts are wrong. Mr Benson believes you have committed TREASON!” At this point Evans and Bauer lost their arrogant attitude and the smirks were wiped clean off their faces as Dickstein proceed to rip them a new bunghole.

Dickstein correctly argued that Bill Benson has the right to change the political thinking by showing people the material he has researched and that the government cannot silence any person’s attempt to educate the public simply because the government doesn’t agree.

In a loud commanding tone, Dickstein lifted his arm, pointed to the black bailiff and said, “this man was property because of bad decisions of this court!” Wow! You could have heard a fish fart in that court room at that point. Dickstein repeatedly slammed the judges for their erroneous decisions and refusal to allow the 16th Amendment issue to reach it’s merits. Dickstein’s argument was razor sharp and he knows the issue and the law. Dickstein’s arguments were so compelling that I almost stood up and cheered. It didn’t take long for the judges to see what a mistake it was to ask Dickstein anything. Dickstein was the only attorney in all the cases heard that day to be told “your time is up”.

On behalf of the government, a female U.S. Attorney gave an unconvincing argument that Bill Benson’s “Reliance Defense” package directed people to stop paying income taxes. It was at this time that the silent Judge Ripple came to life. He stated that the act of selling documents does not mean it is “commercial speech”, and that any person can read the material and decide for himself whether to act on it or not. Embarrassingly, the U.S. Attorney said that the material being sold [separately] was ok, but when packaged together, it was illegal. This argument is ludicrous, if not funny.

After referring to the Bell case [3rd Cir.], Judge Ripple told the U.S. Attorney that “the language in Bell is terribly broad.” Finally, Judges Bauer and Evans joined in on challenging the U.S. Attorney about the First Amendment implications. The U.S. Attorney also stated that the government “needs the list of names” of everyone Bill sold the Reliance Defense package to, because “those people are victims”. What a laugh. If the government gets those names, then they will surely be victims.

Bill was sitting front and center, and as the U.S. Attorney would make false statements [which was most of the time], Bill would adamantly shake his head “no” while groaning in disapproval.

Although the judges put on a good First Amendment show for the audience, we will not know how they will rule until the opinion is handed down [quietly and out of public view]. But one thing I do know, Bill Benson and Jeff Dickstein are Heros! I was very proud to stand beside them. For those of you not there, you missed one of the greatest oral arguments of our day. As one Patriot in attendance stated, “that was definitely worth the price of admission!”

R.W.
Demo.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Famspear »

from above:
The court was announced into session by a man with a heavy Eastern European [Communist] accent [ . . . ]
Yeah, if you're like me, you can pick out any "Communist" accent a mile away.....
Bauer sarcastically said, “you have to pay taxes or go to jail”. Bauer stated, “the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment was ratified”. Dickstein cut him off and hollered, “Name the case! What case?” Judge Bauer stuttered, “duh duh duh”. Judge Evans came to Bauer’s rescue by saying, “we will ask the questions here”.
Dickstein is correct in that the United States Supreme Court has never ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified. The Court has never heard a case where that argument was raised. Indeed, the vast majority of frivolous arguments are never heard by the Supreme Court, for reasons that should be obvious.

I'd have to double check, but the Court may have indirectly indicated in dicta in Cheek that the 16th Amendment non-ratification argument is frivolous. I think the non-ratification argument may have been one of John Cheek's arguments on tax returns or at a lower court, but the argument was not presented to the Supreme Court in his case, as far as I know.
While rolling his eyes, Evans asked Dickstein .....
The judge was rolling his eyes!!! Oh, nnnoooooo! Lack of adequate judicial temperament! Lack of adequate judicial temperament!
........[Evans asked Dickstein] if he [Dickstein] could cite one case saying the 16th Amendment was not ratified, and is he aware that this issue has been before all the courts several times and the courts have ruled against it. Dickstein cried out that “Mr. Benson believes the courts are wrong! And it his right to say the courts are wrong. Mr Benson believes you have committed TREASON!”
Wow, Dickstein, and how much are you charging Benson for this finely tuned appellate argument?
At this point Evans and Bauer lost their arrogant attitude and the smirks were wiped clean off their faces as Dickstein proceed to rip them a new bunghole.
Yeah, right. And I have a big orange bridge in San Francisco for sale.......
Dickstein correctly argued that Bill Benson has the right to change the political thinking by showing people the material he has researched and that the government cannot silence any person’s attempt to educate the public simply because the government doesn’t agree.
Unfortunately for Dickstein's client, that's not what the case is about.
In a loud commanding tone, Dickstein lifted his arm, pointed to the black bailiff and said, “this man was property because of bad decisions of this court!” Wow!
Yeah. Wow.
Dickstein repeatedly slammed the judges for their erroneous decisions and refusal to allow the 16th Amendment issue to reach it’s [sic] merits. Dickstein’s argument was razor sharp and he knows the issue and the law.
And I, Famspear, am the world's foremost authority on Women.
Dickstein’s arguments were so compelling that I almost stood up and cheered.
You are easily impressed.
. . . Bill Benson and Jeff Dickstein are Heros! I was very proud to stand beside them. For those of you not there, you missed one of the greatest oral arguments of our day. As one Patriot in attendance stated, “that was definitely worth the price of admission!”
And the price of admission was.... what?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Famspear »

Here's a sample of what this particular Court has previously said with regard to the non-ratification argument:
This is hardly [the taxpayer] Lysiak's first contact with this Court, or even the first time he has been sanctioned for making frivolous arguments in appeals related to the federal tax laws. In Lysiak v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 774 F.2d 1168 (7th Cir.1985), we imposed sanctions against Lysiak and his attorney for frivolous arguments made in support of Lysiak's claim that he was exempt from taxation as a member of a certain religious order. We also note that on May 1, 1986 we denied Lysiak's petition for a writ of mandamus in Lysiak v. U.S. Tax Court, Case No. 86-1404, in which he sought an order directing the Tax Court to reinstate a petition that had been dismissed for lack of prosecution. Although the arguments Lysiak made in support of his petition for mandamus were entirely without foundation, we imposed no sanction in that proceeding.

3
Lysiak has yet another appeal pending in this Court, and this one is frivolous as well. In Lysiak v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al., Case No. 86-2454, Lysiak appeals an order of the district court dismissing his complaint for injunctive relief against officials of the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Tax Court. In this lawsuit Lysiak seeks no less than to restrain those officials from enforcing the federal tax laws. In this Court and in the court below, Lysiak claims that the government is without power to tax him because the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was never properly ratified, an argument that this court has repeatedly rejected. See United States v. Ferguson, 793 F.2d 828, 831 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-1254 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-463 (7th Cir.1986). Although we suggested in Foster that this claim might be cognizable if "an exceptionally strong showing of unconstitutional ratification" were made, 789 F.2d at 463, Lysiak, like Foster and Thomas and Ferguson before him, has not even approached such a showing. Lysiak has now filed his brief in No. 86-2454, and it provides no reason to disturb the district court's decision. We will therefore affirm that judgment.
--from Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987) (bolding added).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Nikki

Re: Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

Post by Nikki »

Bauer sarcastically said, “you have to pay taxes or go to jail”. Bauer stated, “the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment was ratified”. Dickstein cut him off and hollered, “Name the case! What case?” Judge Bauer stuttered, “duh duh duh”. Judge Evans came to Bauer’s rescue by saying, “we will ask the questions here”.
I guess cert. denied doesn't count to Dickhe<<<stein.