REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE - 16TH AMENDMENT NOT RATIFIED
The petition
IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
In Re:
WE THE PEOPLE,Petitioners,
v.
CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was not Ratified in Accordance with the Provisions of U.S. Const. art. V, and is Null and Void
DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIVE HEARING
DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION OF NULLIFICATION
Come now the below signatories, representing the People of the United States, who hereby Petition the Congress of the United States for redress of grievance, and demand Congress commence an investigation into the fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and issue a resolution declaring the Sixteenth Amendment to be null and void, ab initio, in that less than the required number of States voted to ratify same, in violation of U.S. Const. art. V.
WHEREAS, U.S. Const. art. V requires proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States must be ratified by three-fourths of the States then in the Union; and
WHEREAS, the States are without jurisdiction to alter or amend the language of a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress (see Ames, The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of The United States, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1886, at 294 (Vol. II, Gov. Printing Office (1897); Amending the Federal Constitution-Procedures of the General Services Administration and of the State Legislatures, Report No. 80-89 A 731/77 at 8, Congressional Research Service (April 18, 1980); Memo from the Office of the United States Solicitor to Secretary of State Knox (Feb. 15, 1913)(on file with the National Archives), and
WHEREAS, at all times relevant hereto, Revised Statute 205 imposed an administrative duty on Secretary of State Knox to review the "official notices" received at the Department of State to insure the proposed Sixteenth Amendment had been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the States submitted their "official notice" of their respective action in the form of enrolled resolutions, duly signed by the appropriate officers of the houses of each State's Legislature; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has held that such duly enrolled resolutions constitute the official authentication of the action of the respective houses of legislative bodies, which are conclusive as a matter of law (see Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Lesser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)); and
WHEREAS, the "official notices" received at the Department of State show on their face that what the States ratified is different from what Congress proposed; and
WHEREAS, Secretary of State Knox knew there were differences, and
WHEREAS, Secretary of State Knox obtained an opinion from the Solicitor of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Solicitor acknowledged States have no jurisdiction to alter the language proposed by Congress; and
WHEREAS, the Solicitor relied upon a presumption that the States did not intentionally modify the language of the proposed Sixteenth Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Solicitor relied upon a presumption that the changes in the enrolled resolutions were merely typographical errors; and
WHEREAS, in 1984 William J. Benson went to the capitols of all forty-eight States then in the Union in 1913; and
WHEREAS, William J. Benson obtained certified copies of the Legislative Journals from all forty-eight States, and
WHEREAS William J. Benson also traveled to the Offices of the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and obtained certified copies of the State Department documents; and
WHEREAS, the certified documents conclusively establish that the presumptions relied upon by Secretary of State Knox and the Solicitor are false because States, in fact, intentionally amended the language of the amendment proposed by Congress; and
WHEREAS, subtracting those States from the official tally of the States that voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, less than the constitutionally required number of States ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment; and
WHEREAS, only four States voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment according to the provisions of the Constitution, and;
WHEREAS, in numerous federal District Court and Court of Appeals cases the federal judiciary has refused to look at the certified documents contending the issue of the ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment is a "political question" for Congress; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal income tax found at Title 26, United States Code, is a non-apportioned direct tax which violates the taxing provisions of the United States Constitution (see Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, aff. Reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895));
NOW THEREFORE, the People of the United States demand the United States Congress conduct an investigation into the above allegations, and thereafter, being satisfied the declaration of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment by Secretary of State Knox is fraudulent, and that less than thirty-six States voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment according to the provisions of the Constitution, issue its resolution declaring the Sixteenth Amendment null and void ab initio.
Prepared this 23rd day of October, 2009 by:
JEFFREY A. DICKSTEIN
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264
jdlaw1@wi.rr.com
Sign the petition
 |
Petition sponsor
This Petition for Redress of Grievance was prepared by Jeffrey A. Dickstein, Attorney at Law, 500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208, Fox Point, WI 53217.E-mail: jdlaw1 at wi.rr.com
Full details of the Benson litigation is available here: jeffdickstein.com
Links
To send e-mails to local and national newspapers, radio stations and TV stations, and to learn more about the Crisis in America, visit FightBackNow.us
The views expressed in this petition are solely those of the petition's sponsor and do not in any way reflect the views of iPetitions. iPetitions is solely a provider of technical services to the petition sponsor and cannot be held liable for any damages or injury or other harm arising from this petition. In the event no adequate sponsor is named, iPetitions will consider the individual account holder with which the petition was created as the lawful sponsor.
