There is a lot of internet traffic from you who ask why, if the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power, as stated by the Supreme Court in Brushaber, it is necessary to litigate whether the 16th Amendment was ratified?
The supreme court ruled in Pollock that the income tax enacted by Congress in 1894 was a direct tax, the act passed by congress wasn’t apportioned, and therefore the tax was unconstitutional. The decision wasn’t unanimous. The court split 5 to 4. Those in the minority believed a tax on income was not a direct tax, but an indirect, excise tax. One of the dissenters was associate justice White.
Notwithstanding the decision was split 5 to 4, the results was that the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned was upheld. To overcome the holding of Pollock, Congress proposed the 16th Amendment. It was allegedly ratified.
Subsequent to the alleged ratification, the Supreme Court does not agree on exactly what the 16th Amendment did:
According to the Eisner court, the amendment removed the requirement of apportionment for the direct income tax. That is, direct taxes still had to be apportioned except the direct tax on income.
According to Brushaber, written by Justice White who by that time had become the chief justice, the 16th Amendment prevented courts from doing what he claimed the Pollock court did–consider the source of the income to take the tax on that income out of the class of excises, to which he claimed it belonged, and placing it in the class of direct taxes. That is, a tax on income, regardless of the source, is an indirect tax; because the tax is not a direct tax, it does not have to be apportioned.
Whether you agree with Brushaber that the tax is an excise tax that doesn’t have to be apportioned, or agree with Eisner that the tax is a direct tax that doesn’t have to be apportioned, without the 16th Amendment, the law reverts back to Pollock.
For the serious student, my book, Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, fully discusses the history of the income tax, has two chapters devoted to the issue of direct and indirect taxes, and an in depth analysis of the Pollock and Brushaber cases. I have a few copies left; contact me if you would like to acquire one.
The issues in Bill Benson’s case, however, transcend whether or not the 16th Amendment was ratified. More important is the issue that the government believes it can take a position and punish someone who disagree with that position, without affording the defendant any opportunity to prove the government’s position is wrong. If this posture is allowed to stand, every semblance of justice in America will be trashed. It is un-conceivable that the Star Chamber becomes the type of court justice to be utilized to solve disputes between the people and the government.
Equally disturbing is the position of the federal government that it has the unfettered right to obtain the names and addresses of any person who so much as ordered Benson’s material, read it or possesses it. The pleadings filed by the government make it perfectly clear the government intends to obtain the names and investigate any person whose name they obtain.
The issue of taxation is a political question. We, as Americans, supposedly have an inalienable right to the free debate of these issues without government interference. We, as Americans, supposedly have the right to require the government to answer our questions. We, as Americans, supposedly have the right to require the government to prove its allegations against us in Court. We as Americans, supposedly have the right, when charged with a crime, to present a defense.
Any of you who follow our martyrs into the courtroom know, first hand, that our sacred rights are quickly disappearing. That Becraft, Bernhoft and I occasionally win a trial is not enough. If we don’t take a stand, together, we lose. Its that simple. Bill Benson’s litigation is perhaps the single most important litigation in the court today. The issues affect YOU, just as much as they affect Bill Benson.
I have in the past, and have again, asked for your donations to keep me in housing and with food and supplies while this litigation is pending. I represent Bill Benson and three other interveners in this litigation for free. Many of you have graciously made donations, and Bill and I are very appreciative of your support. Others of you choose to complain because I need to eat and have a place to sleep, or am making legal arguments you don’t agree with, or am in a legislative court and have agreed to vest the judicial power in a single judge of a district court, or any number of other reasons which allow you to be right and Bill and I wrong.
This litigation is not about one of us being right or wrong. This litigation is about preserving YOUR freedom. It is about your right to even have an opinion and express it without fear of government retaliation. Our country is in serious distress, as we now have East German like checkpoints at our airports, and wholesale government disrespect of, and contempt for, our Constitution.
I am asking you, from the deepest levels of my soul, to rally around and support me in defending Bill Benson, and you, in this litigation. If we don’t stand together, we will certainly all hang separately.
As you know, I have posted all of the pleadings in Bill’s litigation on my website: http://home.wi.rr.com/jdlaw. Unfortunately my ISP has a server problem which prevents the page from loading. They assure me they are working on it. I am currently working on posting the information on another website.
There is a hearing on August 30, 2007, at approximately 10:00 a.m., in Chicago, on Bill’s case. Still outstanding is the government’s motion for summary judgment, our motion to intervene, our motion for a protective order, and the government motion for an order granting Bill immunity. We will have to wait to see which, if any, of these issues the Court wants to deal with at the hearing.
Should we lose any of these and the court orders Bill to disclose the names and addresses of his so called customers, we intend to file a motion to stay the disclosure pending appeal and to file an immediate appeal. We are not going to lay down and have the First Amendment trashed. We are in this for the long haul.
Please continue the support. It is desperately needed. Send your donations to me at the name and address below.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264
jdlaw@wi.rr.com
