Mark and Laura Sato's “Reliance” on Benson (1989)
By: Bill E. Branscum
Copyrights 2003

In January, 1989, the United States District Court For The Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division disposed of Case No. 88 C 6487, United States Of America, Plaintiff, v. Mark Sato And Laura Sato, Defendants as reported at 704 F. Supp. 816; 1989.

This case should be particularly interesting to those who report that Benson has claimed, and continues to claim, that no court has ever addressed the material he provides in his “Reliance” package regarding the 16th Amendment. Evidently, the Sato’s believed that too.

The Sato’s pro se Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was premised on the purported invalidity of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Note that the Sato’s were aware that other courts had held that the 16th Amendment was valid, but they argued that the prior court decisions should not be controlling because,

“They were decided without the benefit of the research compiled by W. Benson & M. Beckman, in The Law That Never Was.”

This assertion echoes the claims that Benson makes to the effect that the courts have engaged in some sort of conspiracy to avoid dealing with his “evidence” as compiled in his “Reliance” package.

In addressing the Sato's assertion that no prior case had been decided in light of Benson's research, the Court responded,

“First, it simply is not true that The Law That Never Was was not presented to the Seventh Circuit.”

The Court went on to explain that the information compiled in The Law That Never Was has been known since 1913, and the Court found that it presented no grounds for invalidating the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court said,

“As the Seventh Circuit has stated, "the Sixteenth Amendment has been in existence for 73 years and has been applied by the Supreme Court in countless cases. This Court is not inclined to revisit the amendment's validity at this time in the absence of the most compelling reasons. Defendants' arguments concerning The Law That Never Was do not constitute such compelling reasons.”

Sadly, it was the Satos, not Bill Benson, that paid the price for the misguided faith and trust they placed in him. Rather than expect your Clients to accept your word for it, you can let them read the Decision and Order for themselves. See Exhibit.

I welcome your comments, questions and suggestions.

© Copyright 2002 - Bill E. Branscum. All Rights Reserved.