Department of [in]Justice…

By: James Burge

OK so I came across this article and haven’t had the time yet to read it in it’s entirety but thought that something mentioned strikes me as extremely odd.

William J. Benson was charged with falsely telling the American people the 16th Amendment was not ratified and therefore the income tax is unconstitutional. The evidence of the truth of his statement was struck from the record as “irrelevant and immaterial.” The appeal before the 7th Circuit raises the question of whether American citizens will continue to be allowed to prove their innocence in the courts of this country.

What is really amazing here is not the claims that none of the states properly ratified the 16th Amendment allowing for the government to collect from forced slave labour citizens income. It’s the fact that this man is not being allowed to defend himself!!! It also makes one wonder what they had to hide that is had to be struck from the record, because if it was truly irrelevant and immaterial, why not leave it in so anyone reviewing the case could make similar decisions about the validity of his evidence. Is it because the department of justice is funded by revenue from taxes? Seems like a miscarriage of justice AND a conflict of interest all rolled into one.

Take a closer look at that one. Benson is charged with falsely claiming that the 16th Amendment was never ratified, then the court declares any and all proof that might vindicate him as “irrelevant and immaterial.”

This is, of course, the logical outcome of a court system which is itself funded by tax dollars. There is a clear conflict of interest which precludes justice being done in this case.

The government’s attitude towards the 16th is that it no longer matters if it was really ratified or not, the tax system depends on it, therefore by fiat it is legal. Judge James C. Fox, in Sullivan Versus United States, admits right in the court record that examination shows that the 16th Amendment was not actually ratified, then goes on to say that since the nation has acted as if it was ratified all this time, there is no reason to change things at this late date. This is akin to saying that if a man get away with a murder for, let us say, twenty years, there is no reason to go back and prosecute him even if the evidence proves his guilt. [emphasis added]

Source: www.whatreallyhappened.com