Thread: BILL BENSON'S FIRST AMENDMENT CASE UPDATE

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd214.htm

BILL BENSON'S FIRST AMENDMENT CASE UPDATE

By: Devvy Kidd
September 21, 2006
© 2006 - NewsWithViews.com

On Judicial Depotism from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114: "This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
This is on going coverage of Bill Benson's legal war with a corrupt U.S. Department of Justice. If you are unfamiliar with Bill Benson and his work, please see here and here for the history of this case. It is most unfortunate that media giants like the "fair and balanced" FOX, owned by anti-American globalist Rupert Murdoch, have no interest in even mentioning Bill's important case. However, as someone who has been in the trenches since 1991, I long ago learned who owns and controls the media. The only free press in this country today is the Internet and a few great print publications like The Idaho Observer.
As I have said in many past columns, federal judges have been dumping on the U.S. Constitution for decades. The counterfeit U.S. Senate has done NOTHING to remedy this cancer: impeach these justices and federal judges. In his great wisdom, Thom Jefferson said: Congress can issue a warning (protestation), but if these black robed miscreants continue destroying the God-given rights of we the people, private property ownership, violating existing federal law by unconstitutionally giving YOUR money to illegal aliens, and on and on and on, then by God, you "set the whole adrift." This means you boot them off the bench via impeachment. The government won't come to an end if the process is handled efficiently and without a bunch of partisan BS.
Despite some of the most horrible decisions ever to come out of the U.S. Supreme Court, i.e., the Kelo disaster, the 100 counterfeit U.S. Senators sitting in office right now don't have the guts to do what must be done in order to save this republic. All they did after Kelo is moan and groan on friendly talk shows and did nothing to execute the solution; their priority is protecting their own $pecial interest$ above the law of the land. What I wouldn't give for just a handful of real statesmen and orators with the courage of Patrick Henry and Andy Jackson.
Bill's legal team of Jeff Dickstein and Robert Bernhoff are exceptional Americans and highly qualified legal experts. I received permission from Bill to reprint Jeff's comments regarding the latest by the court on his case:
"Status of Bill Benson's 16th Amendment Case, August 18, 2006 From the desk of Jeffrey A. Dickstein
"As of my last report, the government had moved for summary judgment. In response, we submitted several facts to support our defenses that: 1) case law of the Seventh and other Circuits are not entitled to stare decisis on the grounds that the underlying facts supporting those cases were erroneous, and 2) Bill was not falsely telling people the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified; he was telling the truth because less than the constitutionally required number of states failed to vote for its ratification. The government refused to admit to the facts, and instead argued the facts were immaterial, impertinent and scandalous. We filed a motion to strike those allegations and a motion to have our facts deemed admitted. There the case sat for the past nine months.
"The district court, in a lengthy memo, denied both of our motions, essentially holding that the issue of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is beyond review per the Seventh and other Circuit court cases. The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated. One can only reflect back to the time of Galileo when the official position of the state was that the sun revolved around the earth, and proffering the incontrovertible facts establishing the truth of the contrary position was it self a high crime. Indeed history repeats itself, but who in their wildest imaginations would believe such a denial of due process of law could exist in the United States. Let him who has ears hear.
"The next step will be for the court to decide the summary judgment issue. As noted in the court's opinion, it will either be with or without an evidentiary hearing. I anticipate the court will move quickly.
"The Court's opinion is attached in pdf format"
Bill Benson's case isn't just a run of the mill streak through the federal courts. It is of monumental importance, more so than most people realize. I say this from following Bill's case from the beginning and from having the honor of knowing him for more than a decade and watched his tireless fight to expose two of the biggest lies ever shoved down the throats of the American people: the fraudulent ratification of both the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. Many people don't know that Bill did both the amendments at the same time. I have been hammering on the Seventeenth for a decade, its importance and why the people of the Several States of the Union must demand their state legislatures force a show down; see here.
Dickstein and Bernhoff also represented Joseph Banister which resulted in a successful acquittal. Because of the enormous cost of fighting off the government dragoons who care nothing about the law any longer, only their civil service paychecks, these two attorneys ended up not being able to bill a ton of hours. They represented Joseph because his case was so important and the same situation applies to Bill Benson's case. Bill is 79 years old. This man has suffered more than most people can even imagine in his fight to bring the truth to the American people and force the hand of the federal government.
Today I had a phone conversation with a wonderful gentleman about purchasing gold. He offered to make a donation to my project, which I declined because I would ask those financially blessed, if you can, please help with these astronomical legal costs. So much is at stake and if necessary, this case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Please send cash or money orders to the defense fund at: Bill Benson, Box 550, South Holland, Illinois 60473. I also encourage folks to visit his website here.
It is beyond reprehensible that honest, decent Americans are forced to spend what little money they have trying to defend themselves against a corrupt government. There are more victims of state and federal governments than there are advocates and it will continue to get worse. However, we must fight and we must continue to educate our fellow Americans at every opportunity - especially about fully informed juries and jury nullification.
© 2006 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

http://www.devvy.com/pdf/2006_September ... doc_60.pdf


04C7403 United States of America vs. William J. Benson Page 1 of 6
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge Mark Filip Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 04 C 7403 DATE 8/15/2006
CASE
TITLE
United States of America vs. William J. Benson
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The United States brings this action under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 and 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) to enjoin and restrain
William J. Benson from engaging in activity subject to penalty under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 § 6700,
namely promoting allegedly abusive tax shelters. (D.E. 1.) Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment (D.E.
37), which Defendant opposes. (D.E. 50.) Defendant has filed a motion to strike paragraphs 31-51 of the
Government’s “Response to Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts” and to have paragraphs 31-51 of
his statement of material facts (D.E. 53) deemed admitted. (D.E. 56-1.) For the reasons stated below, the Court
respectfully denies Mr. Benson’s motion to strike and motion to have facts deemed admitted. (D.E. 56-1.)
O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
The United States (also “Plaintiff” or “Government”) brings this action under 26 U.S.C. § 7408
(“Claim I”) and 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) (“Claim II”) to enjoin and restrain William J. Benson (“Mr. Benson” or
“Defendant”) from allegedly engaging in activity subject to penalty under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
§ 6700. (D.E. 1.) Particularly, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from promoting allegedly abusive tax
shelters called the “Reliance Defense Package.” (Id.) Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment
(D.E. 37), which Defendant opposes. (D.E. 50.) Defendant has filed a motion to strike paragraphs 31-51 of
the Government’s “Response to Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts” and to have
paragraphs 31-51 of his statement of material facts (D.E. 53) deemed admitted. (D.E. 56-1.) For the reasons
stated herein, the Court respectfully denies Benson’s motion to strike and to have alleged facts deemed
admitted. (D.E. 56-1.)
I. BACKGROUND
A. General Background and Allegations in the Complaint
The Government alleges that Mr. Benson has offered to sell, and has sold, a set of documents that he
has authored, which he calls the “Reliance Defense Package.” (D.E. 1 ¶¶ 5, 7.) The Government alleges that
Mr. Benson has held out The Reliance Defense Package as a “compendium of information giving you the
education and choice toward not filing an Income tax return.” (Id. ¶ 6.) This compendium offers buyers the
alleged education to say, when refusing to pay taxes to the United States government, that “[b]ased on my
state-of-mind, frame of mine [sic], reliance and belief I am obeying the dictates of Constitutional law’” (Id. ¶
6.) The Reliance Defense Package, according to the Government, posits that the federal income tax is
unconstitutional because the sixteenth amendment, which permits Congress to impose a federal income tax,
was not properly ratified by the several states. (Id. ¶ 8.) Mr. Benson authored a book on this subject, titled
Case 1:04-cv-07403 Document 60 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 6
STATEMENT
Page 2 of 6 04C7403 United States of America vs. William J. Benson
The Law That Never Was—which the Seventh Circuit, in the course of rejecting similar claims to those Mr.
Benson would seek to interpose here, has referred to as the “manifesto” of the “tax protester” movement.
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 240 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see also id. at 241 (“We find it hard
to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth
amendment generally, and those specifically rejecting the argument 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.”); D.E. 35 at 2 (Mr. Benson discussing The Law That Never Was). The Government
alleges that “the Reliance Defense Package” is specifically designed to advise customers to violate the
internal revenue laws, which harms both Mr. Benson’s customers and the United States and its citizenry.
(D.E. 1 ¶¶14-18.) The Government, therefore, seeks an injunction. (Id. ¶ 1.) Specifically, in Count I the
Government seeks to enjoin Mr. Benson from continuing to sell “the Reliance Defense Package” by invoking
26 U.S.C. § 7408, which grants a district court the authority to enter a permanent injunction against a
defendant if the court finds “(1) that the person has engaged in any [] conduct [subject to penalty under, inter
alia, section 6700] . . ., and (2) that injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent recurrence of such conduct.”
26 U.S.C. § 7408(b). In Count II, the Government alleges that Mr. Benson unlawfully interfered with
enforcement of the Internal Revenue Laws under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). Section 7402(a) provides that “[t]he
district courts . . . shall have such jurisdiction to make and issue in civil actions, writs and orders of
injunction . . . and such other orders and processes, and to render such . . . decrees as may be necessary or
appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a).
B. Defendant’s Motion to Strike and to Have Facts Deemed Admitted
As stated above, Defendant has moved to strike paragraphs 31-51 of the Government’s “Response to
Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts” and to have paragraphs 31-51 of his statement of
material facts (D.E. 53) deemed admitted. (D.E. 56-1.) Paragraphs 31-51 of Defendant’s Local Rule 56.1
Statement of Material Facts relate to Defendant’s claims that the sixteenth amendment was not properly
ratified. (D.E. 53.) For example, paragraph 31 states that “Philander Knox’s certification of the ratification
of the Sixteenth Amendment was premised upon presumptions that because no state has the authority to
amend a proposed constitutional amendment, that no state did so.” (D.E. 53 ¶ 31.) Paragraphs 32-37 detail
Mr. Benson’s alleged support for the contention in paragraph 38 that “[t]he presumption relied upon by
Secretary of State Knox was and is false.” (D.E. 53 ¶ ¶ 32-37; Id. ¶ 38.) Paragraph 39 further alleges that
Secretary of State Knox’s certification may have been “fraudulent” and “false.” (D.E. 53 ¶ 39.) Paragraphs
40-42 state that Mr. Benson may have discovered information that Secretary Knox did not know regarding
the ratification of the sixteenth amendment and, again, that Secretary Knox was incorrect in certifying it.
(D.E. 53 ¶ 40.) Paragraphs 43-51 detail, inter alia, the ways various states allegedly went about ratifying, or
not ratifying, the sixteenth amendment. (D.E. 53 ¶¶ 43-51.)
Rather than respond to paragraphs 31-51 of Mr. Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts
individually, the Government collectively objected to these paragraphs. (D.E. 54.) In so doing, the
Government stated that “[t]hese ‘facts,’ which relate solely to defendant’s contention that the Sixteenth
Amendment was never ratified, constitute matters that are irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous
with respect to the issues and the subject matter of this civil action.” (Id.) The Government asserts that no
response is necessary to paragraphs 31-51 of Mr. Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts
because the ratification of the sixteenth amendment is, according to binding precedent, a “non-justiciable
political question . . . beyond judicial review.” (D.E. 57 at 3-4.) For this reason, the Government argues that
the contentions in paragraphs 31-51 of Mr. Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts are
irrelevant because “this Court cannot entertain facts or evidence regarding the ratification and validity of the
Case 1:04-cv-07403 Document 60 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 2 of 6
STATEMENT
Page 3 of 6 04C7403 United States of America vs. William J. Benson
Sixteenth Amendment . . . .” (D.E. 57 at 4.) In addition, the Government contends that paragraphs 31-51 of
Mr. Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts contain allegations that are impertinent and
scandalous, and therefore do not necessitate a response. (Id.)
II. LOCAL RULE 56.1
Local Rule 56.1 (“L.R.56.1”) requires that statements of facts contain allegations of material fact, and
the factual allegations must be supported by admissible record evidence. See, e.g., L.R. 56.1; Malec v.
Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 583 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (“[T]he 56.1(a) statement should be limited to material facts”)
(emphasis in original). The Seventh Circuit teaches that a district court has broad discretion to require strict
compliance with L.R. 56.1. See, e.g., Koszola v. Bd. of Ed. of City of Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104, 1109 (7th Cir.
2004) (collecting cases); Curran v. Kwon, 153 F.3d 481, 486 (7th Cir. 199 (citing Midwest Imports, Ltd. v.
Coval, 71 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995) (collecting cases)). For purposes of summary judgment analysis
under L.R. 56.1, where a party has alleged facts that, even if true, are irrelevant, failure to respond to such
allegations will not be deemed an admission. See Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension
Fund v. Bomar Nat’l, Inc., 253 F.3d 1011, 1018 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Because the facts cited by Hi-Way were
not material, Central States’ failure to deny them, but instead to assert their irrelevance, was not an
admission. To characterize Central States’ response in this manner as an admission would be ludicrous.
Hi-Way’s argument is therefore without merit.”). The question before the Court, therefore, is whether
paragraphs 31-51 of Mr. Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts contain material facts and
cite to admissible record evidence. Precedent teaches that they do not.
III. DISCUSSION
As the Court previously discussed at length in its opinion denying Mr. Benson’s motion to dismiss,
Seventh Circuit precedent holds that the sixteenth amendment is valid and was properly adopted and ratified.
For example, in United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), the criminal defendant/appellant
argued that the sixteenth amendment “was not properly ratified . . . repeating the argument of W. Benson
[i.e., Defendant in the case sub judice] & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was.” Id. at 1253. The
appellant/Thomas sought to advance arguments, quite similar if not identical to those Mr. Benson would seek
to interpose here, about various alleged technicalities and deficiencies in the States’ processes for ratifying
the sixteenth amendment, as chronicled in Mr. Benson’s The Law That Never Was. See id. The Seventh
Circuit emphatically and unequivocally rejected this argument: “Benson and Beckman did not discover
anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. [. . . .] The Solicitor of the
Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments [from the States] 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 [sixteenth] amendment
adopted. The Secretary did so.” Id. The Seventh Circuit further held that: “[i]n United States v. Foster, 789
F.2d 457, 462-63 & n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser [v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922)], as well as on
the inconsequential nature of objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the
sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’s.” Id. (citation omitted). (In Leser, a unanimous
Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Brandeis, addressed a claim that the nineteenth amendment, which
extended suffrage to women voters, had not validly become part of the Constitution because of, inter alia,
alleged procedural defects in certain state ratification processes. Id., 258 U.S. at 136-37. The Supreme Court
held that because the Secretary of State had reviewed the state proclamations and ratification notifications,
and had proclaimed the nineteenth amendment effective, “his [i.e., the Secretary’s] proclamation, is
conclusive upon the courts.” Id. at 137 (collecting cases).) Accordingly, in Thomas, the Seventh Circuit,
Case 1:04-cv-07403 Document 60 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 3 of 6
STATEMENT
Page 4 of 6 04C7403 United States of America vs. William J. Benson
speaking through Judge Easterbrook, explained that similarly “Secretary Knox’s decision [concerning the
validity of the sixteenth amendment] is now beyond review.” Id., 788 F.2d at 1254.
The Seventh Circuit similarly recognized the validity of the sixteenth amendment again in United
States v. Ferguson, 793 F.2d 828 (7th Cir. 1986):
Ferguson invites our review of the validity of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment. Two recent
panels of this Court have considered the arguments and evidence presented by Ferguson in the instant
appeal. Because those two opinions analyze Ferguson’s present claim and find it to be lacking, we,
for the reasons stated in Thomas and Foster, reject Ferguson’s contention that the amendment was
improperly ratified.
Id. at 831 (internal citations omitted).
In Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), the Seventh Circuit again
held that the sixteenth amendment was valid and part of United States law. The defendant/appellant
presented (or at least attempted to present) the arguments grounded in Mr. Benson’s The Law That Never
Was. Id. at 240-41. Miller reviewed the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Thomas that Secretary Knox’s decision
that the sixteenth amendment was validly ratified is “‘beyond review.’” Id. at 241 (quoting Thomas, 788 F.2d
at 1253), and citing United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986), which held that the propriety
of the ratification process is a non-justiciable political question). The Seventh Circuit rejected the
defendant’s attempt to litigate the validity of the sixteenth amendment and stated that, “we find it hard to
understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth
amendment generally, 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.” Id., 868 F.2d at 241 (internal citations omitted). The Seventh Circuit held that
Mr. Miller’s Law That Never Was argument was precluded by binding precedent (see id.), and specifically
underscored that Mr. “Miller and his fellow protesters would be well advised to take their objections to the
federal income tax structure to a more appropriate forum.” Id.
Lastly in this regard, and also centrally relevant, in United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir.
1991), amended as to other issues by 957 F.2d 301—which was an appeal of a criminal conviction involving
the same parties as in the case sub judice—the Seventh Circuit again stated its view concerning the validity of
the sixteenth amendment:
As the district court noted, we have repeatedly rejected the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was
improperly ratified. One would think this repeated rejection of Benson’s Sixteenth Amendment
argument would put the matter to rest. But Benson seizes on language in Foster in which, after
rejecting the Sixteenth Amendment argument, we stated that “an exceptionally strong showing of
unconstitutional ratification” would be necessary to show that the Sixteenth Amendment was not
properly ratified. [. . . .] Benson insists that as the co-author of The Law That Never Was, and the
man who actually reviewed the state documents “proving” improper ratification, he is uniquely
qualified to make the “exceptionally strong showing” we spoke of in Foster. Because of this, Benson
insists, the district court should have at least granted him an evidentiary hearing on the Sixteenth
Amendment issue.
Benson is wrong. In Thomas, we specifically examined the arguments made in The Law That Never
Case 1:04-cv-07403 Document 60 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 4 of 6
STATEMENT
Page 5 of 6 04C7403 United States of America vs. William J. Benson
Was, and concluded that “Benson . . . did not discover anything.” We concluded that Secretary [of
State] Knox’s declaration that sufficient states had ratified the Sixteenth Amendment was conclusive,
and that “Secretary Knox’s decision is now beyond review.” It necessarily follows that the district
court correctly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing; no hearing is necessary to consider an issue
that is “beyond review.”
Id. at 607 (collecting cases; emphases added; certain internal citations omitted for clarity). Lest the import of
Mr. Benson’s criminal appeal be obscured in the long block-quote, in Benson, the Seventh Circuit held that
the district court properly denied Mr. Benson’s request for a hearing concerning the validity of the sixteenth
amendment or the propriety of its adoption because such a subject, under Seventh Circuit precedent, is
“beyond review.” Id., 941 F.2d at 607.
In light of this precedent, the Court finds, as it did in its opinion denying Mr. Benson’s motion to
dismiss, that the question of whether the sixteenth amendment was properly ratified has been resolved for
purposes of this litigation, as the validity of the sixteenth amendment is now “beyond review.” Thomas, 788
F.2d at 1254; Benson, 941 F.2d at 607 (quoting Thomas, 788 F.2d at 1254). The Court is bound by this
precedent and will apply it here. Accord, e.g., Miller, 868 F.2d at 241 (discussing stare decisis). Therefore,
in accordance with binding precedent, this Court will not allow the admission of evidence regarding the
validity of the sixteenth amendment in this matter. That issue has been conclusively decided, is “beyond
review,” and is therefore not at issue here. See Benson, 941 F.2d at 607; Miller, 868 F.2d at 241.
The Court feels compelled to address an argument Mr. Benson presents in trying, with all respect, to
whipsaw the judiciary with the Seventh Circuit precedent discussed above. Specifically, Mr. Benson
suggests that if the Government’s opposition to his motion to strike and deem facts admitted (i.e., the facts
allegedly showing that the sixteenth amendment is not a valid part of U.S. law) is credited, as is required by
Seventh Circuit precedent, then “Benson is to have no defense.” (D.E. 56-1 at 2.) From this, Mr. Benson
suggests that his due process rights would be violated. This argument is not well taken. As the Court has
previously explained, Mr. Benson, as appropriate, will have an opportunity to present testimony concerning
other issues, as relevant to the case. See United States v. Benson, No. 04 C 7403, 2005 WL 947291, *4 (N.D.
Ill. Apr. 19, 2005) (suggesting that Mr. Benson might contend, for example, that he was unaware of Seventh
Circuit precedent about the validity of the sixteenth amendment). This situation will be no different than was
the case in United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991), where the Seventh Circuit explained that
Mr. Benson was not entitled to a hearing on the validity of the sixteenth amendment, but otherwise reviewed
the propriety of the criminal trial that took place, in which Mr. Benson was convicted. Id. at 607. Mr.
Benson appears to suggest that this civil judicial proceeding cannot go forward if the validity vel non of the
sixteenth amendment is not open to debate because it is a non-justiciable political question. He cites no
precedent to that effect, and the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Benson, as well as all the other Seventh Circuit
precedent cited herein (to say nothing of other circuit precedent consistent with Seventh Circuit law) would
appear to preclude any such argument. As previously stated, Mr. Benson, if appropriate, will have a chance
to present evidence as to other open issues—but one of those issues will not be whether the sixteenth
amendment is a valid part of U.S. law.
Where Local Rule 56.1 statements contain immaterial and inadmissible allegations, an objection based
on irrelevance can be proper. See Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 253 F.3d at
1018 (“Central States’ response asserting that the facts were irrelevant is sufficient because the local rule
requires a moving party to submit material facts”) (emphasis in original); see also McLaughlin Equipment
Co., Inc. v. Servaas, No. IP98-0127-C-T/K, 2004 WL 1629603, *13 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2004) (denying
Case 1:04-cv-07403 Document 60 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 5 of 6
STATEMENT
Page 6 of 6 04C7403 United States of America vs. William J. Benson
motion to strike objections to a statement of additional material facts and finding that where “materiality
objections are, for the most part, briefly stated and without extensive argument,” they are not “improper
under L.R. 56.1(f)”). That is the case here, and Mr. Benson’s motion accordingly is respectfully rejected.
Moreover, and as an independent reason for denying Defendant’s motion, precedent instructs the Court
not to consider irrelevant, and thus inadmissible, facts when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, be
those facts objected to, admitted, or denied. “Evidence presented to defeat a summary judgment motion need
not be in admissible form, but it must be admissible in content.” Juarez v. Menard, Inc., 366 F.3d 479, 484
n.4 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 775 n.3 (7th Cir. 2003)). The Court is capable of
determining for itself which alleged facts are relevant to its decision on summary judgment without striking
or deeming admitted immaterial facts alleged in a Rule 56.1 statement. See Stark v. PPM America, Inc., No.
01 C 1494, 2002 WL 31155083, *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2002) (Hibbler, J.) (denying a motion to strike
allegedly immaterial facts because “the Court is fully capable of parsing through the parties’ factual
statements and deciding which facts should be considered and which should not”) (citing Ogborn v. United
Food and Commercial Workers, Local No. 881, No. 98 C 4623, 2000 WL 1409855, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25,
2000) (Hart, J.) (“[T]o the extent any factual assertion has been inadequately or improperly supported, such
assertions will not be incorporated into the facts taken to be true” for purposes of summary judgment)).
Where, as here, a party’s L.R.56.1 statement contains immaterial allegations, the Court simply will not
consider them, regardless of the opposing party’s response. Id.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, the Government’s objection to paragraphs 31-51 of Mr. Benson’s
Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts is well-taken and shall not be deemed an admission of the
allegations contained in those paragraphs. For the same reason, the Government’s Response to Mr. Benson’s
Statement of Material Facts shall not be stricken under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Finally, the Court does not, at
this time, rule on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (D.E. 37) Ruling on that motion shall be
forthcoming by mail in the ordinary course. The Court may hold an evidentiary hearing, as appropriate, to
resolve other parts of the case, but there will not be any hearing to resolve whether the sixteenth amendment
is actually part of U.S. law. Accord, e.g., Benson, 941 F.2d at 607.
Case 1:04-cv-07403 Document 60 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 6 of 6