|
Constitution Class - Happy 4th of July (pg. 31)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
845 F.2d 43
61 A.F.T.R.2d 88-1117, 88-1 USTC P 9308
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
George S. SITKA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 864, Docket 87-1505.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued March 10, 1988.
Decided April 20, 1988.
| quote: |
In this appeal, we are asked to address a question that we had thought was long settled. We are asked to rule that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was never properly ratified in accordance with Article V of the Constitution, and that federal courts therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain tax evasion prosecutions under the criminal penalty provisions of Title 26 of the United States Code. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Blumenfeld, J., held that such a claim presented a nonjusticiable political question and that the Secretary of State's certification of the valid ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 was binding upon the courts. See United States v. Sitka, 666 F.Supp. 19 (D.Conn.1987). For the following reasons, we affirm. |
| quote: |
Such an inquiry would be particularly unwise and unnecessary now, after federal courts have upheld and relied on the Sixteenth Amendment for more than seventy-five years. See Stahl, 792 F.2d at 1440-41; United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 273, 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986); House, 617 F.Supp. at 239-40. The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in accordance with procedures set out in Article V of the Constitution, and its ratification was then certified after careful scrutiny by a member of the executive branch acting pursuant to statutory duty. The validity of that process and of the resulting constitutional amendment are no longer open questions. |
the full decision can be read here:
http://www.case-law.us/$CROSSREF/USCodeSurf.com/01/106b
In what ways do you think the court of appeals (and before them, the US district court) erred in their judgement iTranscendence? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified |
| quote: |
Benson was an "investigator" (really an informant) for the Illinois Department of Revenue when he was indicted and convicted for income tax evasion and Social Security fraud.
Benson was the original proponent of the idea, and still claims, that the 16th Amendment was not property ratified. He has been selling a "Reliance Defense Package" while doing business as "Constitutional Research Associates."
He is the co-author of The Law That Never Was (1985), which claims that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
Benson's "evidence" that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified did not prevent him from being convicted of willfully failing to file tax returns and tax evasion, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991).
More recently, Benson was sued by the United States to enjoin him from continuing to promote an "abusive tax shelter" by selling a "reliance defense package" based on his claim that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. 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, 2007 WL 4838232, 101 A.F.T.R.2d 2008-422, No. 04-C-7403 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. 12/17/2007), aff'd 561 F.3d 718, 2009 TNT 64-26, Nos. 08-1312, 08-1586 (7th Cir. 4/6/2009), rehearing denied (7/21/2009), cert. den. No. 09-464 (11/30/2009).
Benson is frequently cited by tax protesters, and many people have been fined or convicted for relying on his claims. See, for example, United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986). More recently, Charles E. Hughes, of Dansville, Michigan, who had purchased Benson's "16th Amendment Defense Reliance Package," was convicted of four counts of tax evasion and sentenced to 15 months in prison. United States v. Charles Evans Hughes, No. 1:07-cr-00085-GJQ (U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 3/6/2008). |
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/william-benson
| quote: |
Our 100Q Woopoo chips commemorate famous tax scam artists. One of the most famous is William J. Benson, co-author of the infamous "The Law that Never Was" which claims that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the states. Benson was indicted for tax evasion in 1980 and 1981 and a jury convicted him on all counts. Benson appealed his conviction on a variety of grounds, and won a reversal by the Seventh Circuit on a technicality. On retrial, a new jury also convicted him. Oh, well.
Idiots who have attempted Benson's defense in court have batted .000 and had the same results as Benson himself -- convictions for tax evasion. In the first of these cases, United States v. Thomas the Seventh Circuit held dispelled Benson's groundless assertion that the 16th Amendment was never ratified because some of the versions ratified had typos or insubstantial changes to the language of the amendment. The Seventh Circuit commented:
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.
Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same test, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L. Ed. 294, 12 S. Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L. Ed. 505, 42 S. Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 10-12 & n.6, we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.
Not impressed with Benson's research, Thomas was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to prison for 8 years and a fine of $30,000. Everybody thought that this statement by the Seventh Circuit which thoroughly de-bunked Benson's bogus arguments had put the matter to bed, and indeed after Thomas' conviction, even most tax protestors looked askance at his research and mostly avoided using it as a defense.
Nonethess, like a bad social disease, Benson and his theories have returned in recent years and been used in tax scams run by some of the worst tax scam artists, such as Global Prosperity...
Relevant Case Law:
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - the court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified. |
http://www.quatlosers.com/bill_benson.htm
i would greatly appreciate what you make of all this iTranscendence. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| PKC, they are kangaroo courts beholden to the IRS and their ultimate lackeye, the Federal Reserve, ruled and controlled by a secret cabal of ultra wealthy bankers who after convicting these men of tax evasion/fraud, deviously wring their hands in pleasure, while gritting their teeth with evil in their eyes. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
Self-preservation is the most basic human instinct. even if you had a shred of cognitive dissonance about this, I highly doubt you would ever voice it in open forum.
|
Presumably you meant to say that even if I had "a shred of honesty about this" I would not voice it in an open forum for the sole sake of self preservation. However, because I am a so called practicioner of cognitive dissonance, according to you, your sic is humorously relevant.
| quote: |
Are you part of some conspiracy as the trolls at the table would intimate, no. You are just a guy who spent a lot of money to go to school to learn an economic world view that is based on fraud and deception, and that fraud and deception now pays your bills.
|
I'm thinking you don't have the faintest clue as to what I learned, what I know, what I do, or how I pay my bills. But clearly you feel otherwise, so by all means ... please educate me on what it is I do to pay my bills.
| quote: |
So even under the best circumstances of discourse we would just agree to disagree about it. But this is the of TA, filled with ing idiots, who harangue endlessly if anyone doesn't ascribe to their ty collectivist ideals.
tl;dr, Meaningful debate on TA = colossal waste of time, and I'd much rather just stir the tepid pot that is the CoR from time to time for my own personal amusement. |
You should have started your post with this last paragraph. I really wish I knew you considered yourself as a self-admitted troll long ago.
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
The debate took many twists and turns, that's for sure. I was hoping you would want to talk about some things on a one on one basis, just for that reason. Helps keep the discussion on just a couple of topics. But I understand if you don't have the time.
|
Absolutely ... no I would enjoy any such conversations. I just prefer peicemeal debates these days as opposed to debates arguing about the entirety of laissez faire economics, the merits of the concept of fiscal policy, monetary policy, etc. That's like arguing string theory. I'm not an economist by trade so I can't comment intelligently on those macro issues.
| quote: |
When it comes to externalities and the Austrian position, I'm not exactly sure where it stands. I'm not so much concerned with that though, other then doing the research and then taking a position on it myself after I feel like I have enough grasp on the idea. This wouldn't be the first time it has popped up in an economic discussion I have participated in so maybe it will be something I spend some more time on in the future.
|
My impression is that the Austrian school typically hold beliefs that the complexity of human behavior makes mathematical modeling of an evolving market extremely difficult (or undecidable) and advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy. I disagree with the idea that beahvior cannnot be generally modelled. I disagree with this concept but even if the Austrians believe that human behavior cannot be modeled, that only encourages the entire concept of market externalities where free markets do not lead to the most efficient allocation of capital.
| quote: |
I'm sure we will cross paths again here so I look forward to some more thought provoking discussions and maybe we'll be able to settle into something where we spend less time criticizing and instead learn a thing or two from some of the different positions that we hold on these topics.
|
Agreed. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| The idea that markets are perfect is no less fallacious than the idea of a class-less society. Markets are not perfect and therefore, need something of a, referee, to keep things from getting out of control. Government wasn't responsible for stock market crashes like the one in the 1987. Or the flash crash a couple months ago. That was the market ing up. Is the market the best arbiter of determining the value of an asset? Most of the time, yes. But that doesn't make it a perfect arbiter of valuing an asset and so therefore, laissez-faire capitalism, in its purest form, is bound to fail miserably. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
The idea that markets are perfect is no less fallacious than the idea of a class-less society. Markets are not perfect and therefore, need something of a, referee, to keep things from getting out of control. Government wasn't responsible for stock market crashes like the one in the 1987. Or the flash crash a couple months ago. That was the market ing up. Is the market the best arbiter of determining the value of an asset? Most of the time, yes. But that doesn't make it a perfect arbiter of valuing an asset and so therefore, laissez-faire capitalism, in its purest form, is bound to fail miserably. |
Most conservative "free marketers" decided to skip economics class when it came to the topic where perfect competition requires no barriers to entry, perfect information, no transaction costs or transaction lag times, no tragedy of commons or any other kind of negative externalities ... in other words, they selectively choose to ignore basic, fundamental concepts of economics such as monopolies, monopsonies, etc. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
Take a look at this bad boy...delusional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| Where did our NWO-fighting friends go? iTranscendence vanishes after getting pounded by PKC. |
|
|
| iTranscendence |
You are so absurd it's laughable, this group has more superstitions about libertarianism the free-market and Austrian economics than 17th century Christians in Salem.
No need for me, in a futile fashion, to argue to this gaggle of fever-pitched morons that common sense isn't witchcraft, because the mindless horde doesn't listen to reason, they only listen to their own grossly overblown fears of what they don't know or don't understand.
To continue the analogy statements such as believing that libertarians believe anything is perfect, let alone a market is akin to crying "WITCHCRAFT".
But thanks for bringing this thread up on top of this pot to piss in, tard.
:haha: |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
You are so absurd it's laughable, this group has more superstitions about libertarianism the free-market and Austrian economics than 17th century Christians in Salem. |
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Baaaaa
Baaaaaaaaaaa baaa baaa baaa ba
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
No need for me, in a futile fashion, to argue to this gaggle of fever-pitched morons that common sense isn't witchcraft, because the mindless horde doesn't listen to reason, they only listen to their own grossly overblown fears of what they don't know or don't understand. |
Bahahahaha baa bah bbahahahahah bah bah
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
To continue the analogy statements such as believing that libertarians believe anything is perfect, let alone a market is akin to crying "WITCHCRAFT". |
Bahahahahah, "oink, oink, oink" bahahahaha baaaaaaa bah
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
But thanks for bringing this thread up on top of this pot to piss in, tard.
:haha: |
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
You are so absurd it's laughable, this group has more superstitions about libertarianism the free-market and Austrian economics than 17th century Christians in Salem.
No need for me, in a futile fashion, to argue to this gaggle of fever-pitched morons that common sense isn't witchcraft, because the mindless horde doesn't listen to reason, they only listen to their own grossly overblown fears of what they don't know or don't understand.
To continue the analogy statements such as believing that libertarians believe anything is perfect, let alone a market is akin to crying "WITCHCRAFT".
But thanks for bringing this thread up on top of this pot to piss in, tard.
:haha: |
There you are! Tell us how it feels to know the "truth". It must feel great right? Like 99% of us are the tards, but you, you are the "enlightened" one. Wow, props to you. Going against the grain man, yeaaaaa....... 
What's funny is, your dumb ass had nothing to say to PKC's, "I would greatly appreciate what you make of all this iTranscendence." He even bolded the parts so you wouldn't have to read a huge block of text. Wish you could do the same... :-/ |
|
|
|
|
