the jury was specifically relieved from a
requirement that any verdict of guilt as to any alleged act of
contempt be unanimous;
the jury was instructed by the judge that
it was to disregard the un-Constitutionality of the orders
Doreen was accused of resisting;
Doreen was prevented from presenting to the
jury any rulings by the Supreme Court and other courts
concerning rights of speech and conscience;
Doreen was prevented from showing, or even
testifying about, the
endless acknowledgements by the federal and state
governments of the accuracy of CtC and their relevance to her
state of mind;
Doreen was prevented from defending the
evidentiary basis (the relevance to the case) of portions of her
testimony and proffered exhibits (such as
the endless acknowledgements by the federal and state
governments of the accuracy of CtC) in response to
a government attorney made, in my humble
opinion, an overt (and, it would appear, entirely deliberate)
false representation of fact at a key point in the proceedings;
Doreen was endlessly hectored and
disparaged by the judge, prevented from controlling her
witnesses, and chastised for "deliberately prolonging the trial"
(or words to that effect) by testifying in a manner no different
than how the same judge insisted that she let government
attorneys respond to Doreen's questions on cross-examination;
Doreen was stopped and made to sit down
before getting through the first ten minutes of her Opening
Statement (and that ten minutes was perforated by repeated
objections from the government attorneys and the judge herself,
even though it was basically the same statement with which
Doreen had opened her case, without interference, in the first
Doreen was repeatedly interrupted during
her Closing Argument, and made to stop before finishing that
I am now working on efforts to undo this new
crime against the rule of law.
Happily, the current articles below on this page and
the Mid-Edition Update contain exceptionally-important content,
all of which merits the extended posting time and everyone's close
At the same time, this assault on Doreen, the
truth, everyone's speech rights and the substance of trial by jury
offers an important lesson. Everyone still suffering from some form
of "CtC denial" should take note:
The ONLY "rebuttals" the government (and its
shills in certain professions) have EVER offered to what
CtC reveals about the tax have been two (neither of
which ever involve dispute of any
CtC revelation about the content of the law or any
of the historical facts concerning the tax).
The first variety of these imaginary rebuttals
are pompous assertions that "no court has ever upheld what
CtC says about the tax". This is a patently false
and ridiculous outright lie, as demonstrated in the most
authoritative way possible both
here and in
the lead article of this newsletter, as well as throughout
CtC itself, of course.
None of the government's pet courts have ever
actually addressed what
CtC actually reveals. Those faced with any
CtC-revelations simply evade them (and everyone on
that side of the field does their best to ignore the fact that the
federal and dozens of state and local governments have routinely, if
been acknowledging CtC for more than ten years in the most concrete
fashion possible-- complete, never-before-in-American-history
refunds of EVERYTHING withheld or paid-in in connection with the
So here's the lesson offered by this assault on
Doreen: The gross behavior by the other side in her case reveals
more glaringly than ever before that the government and its tools
have no legitimate game to bring against
CtC, and have nothing to work with but corruption
and evasion and lawlessness.
Every single thing done in its long effort to
frighten Americans away from
CtC has been a sustained lie, and what's being done
to try to keep this vicious assault alive by way of the charge
against Doreen is the most open evidence of that fact to date. Don't
mistake the significance of this lesson-- when the other side
cheats, it is clear evidence that it can't win on the facts and the
USE THIS ADMISSION IN YOUR TRUTH-SPREADING
ACTIVITIES!!. Even the most head-in-the-sand denier can't
misunderstand that the government and the court are way outside the
law in what is being done here. Thus, none can mistake the
implications that this is being done both because the government
can't win otherwise, and because
CtCIS the one and
only real and imminent sharpened stake hanging over the vampire
Leviathan's breast, needing only enough
CtC-awakened Americans to add their weight and drive
SPREAD THE TRUTH!
And thank you so
much, all of you that were there for this second trial!! You
have helped support Doreen's spirit throughout
this ordeal more than words can express.
I'd very much appreciate your affidavits
memorializing what you saw happen during the trial last week. They
will be most helpful and important. Please contact me for more on
this if you didn't already get an email from me about it.
By the way, I want to extend much love and
appreciation to everyone involved in the first CtC Symposium earlier
this month! All of you-- presenters and attendees
alike-- made it the wonderful event that it was. What a great
inauguration of what will indeed become an ongoing series of events!
A few attendees share some words with the world at
it would mean the government's been concealing and
denying the truth for years
and everybody knows THAT would never happen...
(Edward Snowden, come home! It was all just a bad dream; there really is
No Such Agency!)
know someone truly steeped in the Kool-Aid?
someone who finds it easier to believe that the far-better-educated,
far-more-suspicious-of-government Americans of a hundred years ago were
complete morons who granted authority to the state to take whatever it
wished from themselves and their posterity than to imagine that they
themselves simply misunderstand the true nature of the income tax? Even
while knowing that their beliefs about the tax are derived entirely from
the representations of those who profit from those beliefs (like tax
bureaucrats and "tax professionals")?
know someone like that? Shake them awake with the latest (thirteenth)
I'm delighted when anyone wishes to share what I have posted here with
others! Sharing this page is an important means of moving toward the
restoration of the rule of law-- PLEASE DO IT!! But I'd appreciate your
doing so by directing your friends here themselves, rather than by copying
and emailing the material.
July 13- In 1787, the
Continental Congress enacts the Northwest Ordinance, creating--
with the agreement of the several states-- the first "United
States territory" and providing for the division of the
territory into new union states fully equal in legal status to
the original 13 as soon as certain specified conditions are
met. In 1863, anti-conscription rioting begins in New York
City. The riots, regarded as the worst civil unrest in American
history, ran for three days, and were of such ferocity and size
that authorities declared themselves unable to consider martial
law for lack of sufficient means to enforce it.
Anniversaries of interest for
each day of this week will be found throughout the newsletter
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CONCEDES THE "INCLUDES"
POINT IN A CtC-RELATED RULING
My friends, I consider this to be an especially important
article. Please read it through carefully, and then carefully consider
each of its implications.
THIS SHOULDN'T BE NEWS, OF COURSE-- the appellate court has
never ruled WRONG concerning the definition of "includes"-- even in
income tax cases, as will be shown in a moment. The only exceptions have
been cases which have been part of the
sustained statist campaign to discourage the spread of
revelations about the tax by high-visibility assaults on me (and
sometimes my wife, too).
Actually, even in those "special interests of the state at
stake" cases it would be too much to say the court "ruled wrong". In
fact, what the court did in those cases was simply pretend to have not
noticed the issues involving the tax-law relevant meaning of "includes",
and so issued no ruling on the point at all (see, for instance, the
But finally, having been made incapable of evading the
issue, the court has issued an actual ruling and has been forced to
acknowledge-- even in a case with "Hendrickson" in the caption-- that
"includes" has precisely the limited expansion,
distinguished-sub-class-creating meaning explained in
here). Hooray! About time!!
Of course, the court didn't just wave the white flag, note
that its entire body of precedent (and that of every other circuit and
the Supreme Court) supported the proper (CtC-stated) construction of
"includes", and admit outright that this construction applies even where
its doing so is adverse to the state's corrupt interests in as
substantial a way as is true concerning
CtC's revelations. Instead, the
court did its very best to make its acknowledgement hard to see...
IN ORDER TO LAY BARE THE SIXTH CIRCUIT'S ADMISSION, it will
be helpful to first take note of a basic legal principle articulated by
the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in
Gray v. Great American Recreation Association, Inc.,
970 F.2d 1081 (2nd Circuit, 1992):
“‘The law creates a presumption, where the burden is on a
party to prove a material fact peculiarly within his knowledge and he
fails without excuse to testify, that his testimony, if introduced,
would be adverse to his interests.’' Meier v. CIR, 199 F.2d 392,
396 (8th Cir. 1952) (quoting 20 Am.Jur., Evidence §190, page 193).”
The Supreme Court put is this way in Baxter v.
Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976):
"[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a
unanimous court in the Tod case, ...: "Silence is often evidence
of the most persuasive character." 263 U.S. at 153-154. And just last
Term, in Hale, supra, the Court recognized that "[f]ailure to
contest an assertion . . . is considered evidence of acquiescence . . .
if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the
assertion in question."
The Fifth Circuit cuts straight to the chase:
“Silence can ... be equated with fraud where there is a
legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would
be intentionally misleading. . .” U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032
(5th Circuit, 1970).
To summarize this well-settled (and self-evident) legal
principle: When a proposition is clearly stated and it is the duty of
the respondent to address it, or would be in the respondent's interests
to dispute or rebut it if possible, a failure to do so
is an admission of the proposition. In
the rules of evidence, this is known as "admission by silence".
A popular judicial version of "admission by silence" is the
evasion, in which the proposition asserted is conveniently misunderstood
as being something else which the court CAN dispute or rebut, and an
adverse ruling is declared in the matter. What has REALLY happened is
that the actual proposition has been met by silence, and thus,
admitted to be correct.
NOW KEEPING IN MIND THE "ADMISSION BY SILENCE OR BY
STRAW-MAN EVASION" PRINCIPLE,
let's look at the Sixth Circuit's December, 2013 ruling concerning an
argument hinging on the construction of "includes" in a Title 26
statutory definition. Recognize as we go that there
could be no case or occasion more demanding of a flat rebuttal to the
proposition that "includes" provides only for a limited expansion of a
sub-class distinguished by the characteristics unique to the listed
exemplars than this one, IF such a rebuttal could be made...
Here's some background. The ruling was on a motion by which
I make a jurisdictional challenge to my
2009 kangaroo-court conviction for allegedly not really believing my
earnings don't qualify as "wages" when I said I did on my tax returns.
My challenge, in relevant part, was over the government's
failure to allege or even attempt to prove in trial that I am among the
custom-defined sub-class of persons to which the charges in the
indictment against me are able to apply. The statutory definition of
that sub-class deploys the [also] statutorily-defined term "includes".
I had moved the trial court to dismiss the charges based on
my not being in the sub-class specified. The trial court made the absurd
decision in response to that motion that the statutory definition was
unlimited in meaning (and thus completely and incomprehensibly
superfluous). Rosen did not deny that the definition did, in fact, control
the class of persons capable of violating the statute I was accused of
violating; he simply said that sub-class was NOT a sub-class, but was
I appealed that decision in my initial appeal of
the conviction, and the appellate court contrived to overlook
the issue entirely. In late 2012, I filed a Motion to Vacate on
these and a couple other grounds. Gerald Rosen, as before,
denied that motion, and I presented the motion directly to the
appellate court, which therefore could not pretend to not notice
the issue this time.
The relevant person sub-class IS a sub-class, of course. The use of
"includes" in its definition does not change that fact; I am not in that
sub-class (and the government never even made an effort to prove the
contrary regarding this key element of the offense, in any event); and
the Sixth Circuit has now admitted each of these things by silence and
HERE IS MY MOTION, in relevant part. Please don't be
intimidated by the fact that this is a portion of a legal brief!
It IS a little long, and some of the supporting authority
and requisite logic-chaining may seem a bit tedious. But as you'll see,
in order to make the issues incapable of being misunderstood, I not only
kept things simple but also included illustrations.
What's more, all you really need to get from your
read-through is that what is being argued is simply that a relevant
statutory definition of subject persons exists in the law; that because
this is so, one can only be subject to the affected statutes if within
that definition; and that the deployment of "includes" in the statutory
definition does not expand that definition into superfluity or
meaninglessness by having the constructive meaning of "also includes".
(Click on the images below in sequence, or view
as a .pdf
here. Start at "BACKGROUND")
Again, now, all you really needed to get from your
read-through is that what is being argued is simply that a relevant
statutory definition of subject persons exists in the law; that because
this is so, one can only be subject to the affected statutes if within
that definition; and that the deployment of "includes" in the statutory
definition does not expand that definition into superfluity or
meaninglessness by having the constructive meaning of "also includes".
Now, here is the language by which the appellate
court denied my appeal:
"The term "person" as used in the tax code has been
consistently, and plainly defined as any individual. 26 U.S.C. §
7701(a)(1); United States v. Maggi, No. 98-5570 WL 96651,
at *2 (6th Cir. Feb 5, 1999)" says the court. Well sir... Kinda
sounds like a ruling disputing my arguments, doesn't it... "Any
Actually, the Maggi court
never said what this excerpt from the
ruling is meant to suggest.
We almost don't need to look at what the Maggi
court actually said in
its unpublished decision. An assertion that "The term "person" as
used in the tax code has been consistently, and plainly defined
as any individual"-- meant to be taken as a reference to the
§ 7343 (as it is misleadingly presented
here)-- would be (and is) outright nonsense. You just saw that
in the repeated citations in my brief of cases saying exactly
the opposite. You also saw the Supreme Court holdings by which
the appellate court's claim HAS to be the nonsense that it is.
In fact, there are NO cases saying what the
appellate court wants it to be imagined that the Maggi
court, to which it is deferring authority, said.
Not one, including the Maggi
First of all, the Maggi court isn't referring to
§ 7343 at all. Look closely. The "person" definition to
which it refers is the code-wide, undistinguished definition of
"person" at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).
Second, look at ALL of what the Maggi court
says, not just the superficially suggestive, misleading excerpt
presented by the court in its pretense of citing a precedent
standing against my argument:
The final issue is Maggi's contention that his
status as a federal employee removes him from the definition of
a "person" who may be guilty of a felony under 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
The term "person" as used in the tax code has been consistently,
and plainly, defined as any individual. 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1).
Get it? The Maggi court
never addressed the question
of whether the
§ 7343 definition of "person" is limited, and
never said it was not (or that it is "any individual").
All the Maggi court ruled is that federal
employees are not excluded from a "person" definition simply
because they are federal employees. The court is in no way
saying that "any individual"
automatically qualifies for
the § 7343 definition. The court is only
observing that being a federal employee-- or any other KIND of
individual-- doesn't automatically DIS-qualify someone for the
definition. Certainly true, because that kind of status is not a
What qualifies one for 7343, as has been shown, are
one's particular duties relative to
the alleged offense, not one's broadly-painted
employment status. Any individual can theoretically have such
duties (or at least, no individual is barred from the
possibility), but it is the having of the duty that makes one a
"person" in 7343 and limits those "persons" accordingly,
and the Maggi
court says nothing whatever to the contrary.
THUS, THE STATEMENT BY THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN ITS
RULING ON MY MOTION WAS COMPLETELY INAPT, and deliberately so.
It is not the least bit credible that the court mistook my
argument as being that the code-wide definition of "person" was
limited, or that I was inherently excluded from that definition
the § 7343 definition because of something about my status.
Now, here's the "money" line: the Sixth
Circuit plainly resorted to this sleazy pretense BECAUSE IT HAD
NO CHOICE. It does not dare attempt to dispute the "limited
expansion only" effect of "includes" on its own
because it cannot dispute it.
The circuit court couldn't come up with
a single precedent from any
other court disputing
the "limited expansion only" effect of "includes",
or supporting the proposition that
the § 7343 definition is automatically all-inclusive
because there are none.
Instead of disputing my arguments, the court admits
their correctness by default and by its cheap "straw-man"
last Term, in Hale, supra, the Court recognized that "[f]ailure to
contest an assertion . . . is considered evidence of acquiescence . . .
if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the
assertion in question."
Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)
AS I NOTED EARLIER, THERE COULD BE NO CASE more demanding
of a rebuttal to
CtC's teaching on the meaning and effect of "includes"
if such a rebuttal could be made. The government devotes a huge body of
resources and effort to trying to persuade those who don't yet know
better that what
CtC says about the law is wrong. A number of
judges have done the same, spending both ink and moral capital issuing
rulings intended to discourage and intimidate Americans who have learned
Thus, an opportunity to issue a flat-out
circuit-court-level ruling squarely debunking what
CtC teaches about
"includes" as presented in my motion-- which is a very key element in
the structure of the laws by which the tax is kept in conformity with
its Constitutional limits-- would be
seized on firmly, IF what
CtC teaches about "includes" COULD be
All the court would have needed to do, if it could
have done so, is declare that "includes" means "also includes",
and I'm therefore wrong-- denied, end of story. Instead, the
court engages in this elaborate contrivance designed to make it
APPEAR to have said this, while actually NOT saying it.
In light of these considerations, and the manifest
desire of the court to register opposition to my arguments at
any cost, the court's failure to issue that debunking (or even
attempt it) and its resort to a "straw-man" evasion instead, is
not merely a judicial affirmation of my arguments (and
It is a RESOUNDING judicial affirmation of the correctness of my
and all the more so for amounting to an
"admission against interest" (however corrupt it is for the
court to harbor an "interest" in defiance of the truth and the
The court, and those it serves, are just hoping no
one will look past the "Denied" to discover what its decision
Think about the implications of this admission of the
CtC on this very significant issue.
Recognize, thoroughly, that what
teaches about the law IS CORRECT. Think about the broader
implications of a federal court feeling compelled to resort to evasions when faced with
CtC's revelations about the tax and the law.
Think about our responsibility as grown-up Americans to not let our rule
of law vanish away by sitting idly while corruption does its dirty
THE ADMISSION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT of
correctness on "includes" is gratifying, even though it occurs
in the context of a contrivance by which the court denies my
motion to vacate my bogus conviction on the very grounds the
court admits to be valid. More, the admission is important-- but
only if it gets used both to expose the corruption in the courts
and to support the truth about the law. Doing both is easy.
CITE THIS CASE! Wherever appropriate, in
administrative proceedings, in litigations, in newsgroups and
forums! Here's some sample language:
"In Peter Hendrickson v. United States, No.
13-1630 (6th Cir. 2013), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
acknowledges that "includes" provides only for limited expansion
of a defined term to embrace unlisted members of the special
class defined by the unique characteristics of the listed
exemplars, by its deliberate evasion of Hendrickson's actual
argument on the issue, and its careful erection of a "straw-man"
to which it actually directed its ruling. Thus, the court's
actual legal decision in the case was that "includes" is a
"limited expansion" modifier as described above, consistent with
ALL of the circuit's precedents, and those of all other circuits
and the Supreme Court, as well."
Invite any argument to the contrary, and then lay
out the truth. Your legal argument concerning "includes" (and/or
that involving any term in whose definition it is deployed) will
be supported, and the corruption of the courts-- and of anyone
arguing against you-- will be exposed.
Bad men need nothing more to compass their
ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.
-John Stuart Mill
P. S. If any court or agency has made admissions by silence
or "straw-man" evasion to YOUR educated assertions, positions or
propositions, and you haven't exposed and trumpeted them in every
newsgroup, forum and local newspaper, you are watching softballs go by
that you should be banging out of the park to change the game
Here's an example to add to the one I discuss
above: An IRS CDPH officer, or anyone else, declares something
to the effect of, "Taxpayer argues that his wages are not income
(yadda, yadda yadda)..." when what you REALLY said was that your
earnings are not "wages" (and that it's the other side's burden
to prove the contrary, if it can). This is a flat-out admission
that not all earnings are "wages", and, by extension, that any
earnings whose alleged "wage" status has been formally disputed
must be proven to be in that special sub-class.
If your declarant believed the contrary to be true,
and that all earnings ARE "wages" he she or it would have simply
said that. NOT saying it when that is plainly the actual
proposition in play, is an admission by silence. Substituting an
inaccurate "straw-man" and declaring against it instead of
against the actual proposition is a further, more deliberate and
ANALYZE any adverse stuff to which you have been
subjected. WRITE IT UP!! USE IT!!
P. P. S. Because I know that there has long been
misunderstanding among many folks on the subject, I'll take a
moment to mention that "individual" in the tax law DOES include,
among other possibilities, "natural persons". Please see
this for more on that subject if necessary.
P. P. P. S. Those who are interested can see my
entire motion to vacate
here, the utterly mendacious government response to it
here, and my reply to that response
here. The appellate decision can be seen in its entirety
After reviewing my motion, the govt. response
and my reply, you'll note that the appellate court's ruling on
my 6020(b) argument is as dodgy as its "includes" evasion. On
this issue, too, the appellate court cites to the unpublished
Maggi decision as its precedential authority. Maggi
itself only makes the Stafford argument, which is limited
to "failure to file" situations, and inapposite to my arguments,
as revealed definitively in my reply to the government's
response. The Maggi
ruling can be seen in its entirety
What Exactly IS The "Security" The United States
Is Supposed To Ensure For Americans?
THE WHOLE IDEA OF "NATIONAL SECURITY" IN AMERICA, under our
system of government, is the securing of American men, women and
children from any compromise of each individual's personal security
interests. The only degree to which security of the state apparatus
itself is a legitimate national security interest is insofar as it is
necessary to preserve the state's ability to help each individual
maintain his or her personal security.
Americans' individual security interests themselves
are not some vague abstraction. On the contrary, we actually wrote them
out in the course of creating the state apparatus intended to help us
Among them are, in no particular order:
Security from unwarranted invasions of privacy by any
Security of our right to keep and bear arms
Security of our property against seizure by governments
without just compensation
Security of our rights to freely worship, publish and
speak or not speak according to the dictates of our consciences, to
assemble and associate as we wish, and to petition our governments for
redress of grievances
Security of our right to an impartial judiciary-- even
in disputes with government
Security of our right to the meaningful shield
of no indictment of alleged criminal offenses other than by
an independent grand jury of our peers, and no trial but by
a petit jury of our peers acting as the final authority on
whether the state can employ violence against us
Security of our right to trial by jury in any
civil matter in which the amounts at stake exceed $20
Security against infringement of any of our
other rights, or the states exercise of powers not delegated
In order to achieve this security, we delegated
certain powers to the state. Our delegation was the totality of
what we have authorized the state to do, and of the methods the
state can deploy in doing so.
The state cannot protect our security by violating
any of the specifications listed above, or by exercising powers
not delegated. Either one of those things would be BREACHES of
So let's keep it straight in the debate.
Neither the state nor
any of its officials or operators get to decide what is
necessary or proper to achieve our security, except in
conformity to the foregoing specifications.
We've done that "deciding"; we wrote it down
plainly; and that's the law of the land.
IF YOU'RE NOT SPREADING THIS LINK with every bit of
energy you can, to school libraries, homeschool
families and community groups, your neighbors, your
family members, your pastors and
co-congregationalists, journalists, lawyers, CPAs,
members of congress, tax-agency workers, Wikipedia,
Anonymous, WikiLeaks, the Tax Foundation, everyone
in the "tax honesty" movement, the 9/11 truth
movement, other activist movements
you have only yourself to blame for your
troubles with the tax, and a whole lot else of which
you might complain. It's on you.
WRITE A NICE, FRIENDLY AND BRIEF introductory note
explaining what will be seen at the link-- cryptic
is bad; excited is good-- and then send this WMI
(weapon of mass instruction) far and wide.
"I am a great believer in luck, and I find the
harder I work, the more I have of it."
Bitcoin holders can donate in that medium by clicking
the button below:
A teacher asked
her 6th grade class how many of them were fans of Big Government.
Not really knowing what a Big Government fan is, but wanting to be liked by
teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little TJ.
The teacher asked Little TJ why he has decided to be different...again.
Little TJ said, "Because I'm not a fan of Big Government."
The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Big Government?"
Little TJ said, "Because I'm a libertarian."
The teacher asked him why he's a libertarian. Little TJ answered, "Well,
my Dad's a libertarian and my Mom's a libertarian, so I'm a libertarian."
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your dad were a moron and
your mom were an idiot, what would that make you?"
With a big smile, Little TJ replied, "That would make me a fan of Big
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
July 14- In 1789,
citizens of Paris storm the Bastille (the national government
prison in the city), release its prisoners and begin the French
Revolution. In 1798, the Sedition Act (part of of "Alien and
Sedition Acts"), an unconstitutional measure intended to stifle
criticism of the undeclared war on France being conducted by the
Federalist faction then in control of Congress and the
Presidency, becomes "law". Widespread opposition to these acts
(and the policies they were intended to shield) led to the
extinction of the Federalist Party within a few short years.
(See 'Strolling Down Memory Lane' in 'Upholding
the Law And Other Observations' for more on this subject.)
In 1881, Billy the Kid is shot and killed by Pat Garrett. In
1969, United States Federal Reserve Notes in $500, $1,000,
$5,000 and $10,000 denominations are officially withdrawn from
Real Americans don't accommodate fog, lies and a sliding scale of
adherence to the rule of law. Real American men and women stand up for the
truth and the law, come what may, knowing that it is only by setting the bar
at the top and enforcing it, come what may, that liberties are secured.
AN OTHERWISE GOOD COMMENTARY by the ACLU's Jameel
Jaffer recently, I had to suppress a groan before the
end of the second paragraph. Like far too many
journalists and pundits do routinely today, Jaffer had
adopted the false validating language deployed by the
law-defying community to keep the rest of us from
recognizing its offenses.
Here is the offending passage in this
article about the federal government's contempt for the
Fourth Amendment (and the Constitution in general):
In two significant but almost-completely
overlooked legal briefs filed last week, the US
government defended the constitutionality of the FISA
Amendments Act, the controversial 2008 law that codified
the Bush administration's warrantless-wiretapping
program. That law permits the government to monitor
Americans' international communications without first
obtaining individualized court orders or establishing
any suspicion of wrongdoing.
Ouch! Word to the very good Mr. Jaffer and
all others putting fingertips to keyboards in the
interest of speaking truth: That "law" DOES NOT "permit
the government to monitor Americans' international
communications without first obtaining individualized
court orders or establishing any suspicion of
wrongdoing." Congress can make no such law-- the Fourth
prohibits warrantless searches (and says nothing
about that prohibition protecting only Americans from
such searches, by the way).
What that "law" does is
deny victims of illegal
government searches from recourse to American courts in
order to enjoin or punish the transgressors. It
doesn't "permit" what is impermissible; it simply thumbs
the state's nose at the rules, and instructs the state's
courts to do the same.
The difference between the reality of this
contempt for Constitution and the fiction that the
enactment somehow authorizes the plainly illegal
behavior on behalf of which it was sought and passed is
night and day. But the daylight is hidden when
journalists and commentators don't give a little thought
to what they're really describing, and say it plainly.
In this case, Mr. Jaffer spends his entire
commentary very properly criticizing the government's
position, but only after having surrendered the argument
at the very beginning. Those of us who respect the law
can't afford to be giving it up in this fashion.
WE HAVE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE DEBATE, and
we can only do so by thinking clearly and speaking
plainly, and never letting the law-defiers' ambitions be
the measure of our reality.
"Political language... is designed to make
lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give
an appearance of solidity to pure wind." "In a time of
universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary
SanDiegoScott has put together a great little 20-question quiz
to test your knowledge of the law regarding the United States
"income" tax. Test yourself, test your friends and family!
Test your accountant and tax attorney, and help them learn the
It is so easy to gull the pack, the herd. It just takes
a bit of theater. A brass band on the Fourth of July, flags whipping
in the wind, young soldiers marching down Main Street, rhythmic
thump-thump-thump of boots. There comes that glorious sense of
common purpose, the adrenal thrill of collective power,
thump-thump-thump. Martial ceremony is heady stuff, appealing to
things deep and limbic. When Johnny comes marching home again,
hoorah, hurrah. We are all together now, made whole, no petty
divisions. The fanged herd.
Always the herd. It is in the genes. The herd.
Basketball championship night, in a rural high-school: Bright
lights, electrified crowd, cheerleaders twirling, skirts riding
high. “Johnny, Johnny, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, nobody can!”
Wild applause. Striplings dash onto the court, swirl into smooth
fast lay-ups, cocky, confident. Long jump-shots, swish! Yaayyyy!
Common purpose, unity.
For the seniors, next year in Afghanistan. Johnny comes
rolling home again, hoorah, hoorah, minus his legs. From this we
avert our eyes.
The herd. In a thousand Legion halls across the nation
veterans gather on Memorial Day to make patriotic speeches. There
are are clichés about the ultimate sacrifice, defending our
freedoms, God, duty, and country, our American way of life.
Legionnaires are friendly, decent people, well-meaning—now, anyway.
If there were an earthquake, they would pull the wounded from the
rubble until they dropped from fatigue. They are not complex. They
listen to the patriotic speeches with a sense of being a band of
brothers. And if you told them they were suckers, conned by experts,
used, they would erupt in fury, because somewhere inside many have
The herd. The pack. Whip’em up. It’s for God, for
democracy, onward Christian soldiers. We are a light to the world, a
shining city on a hill, what all the earth would like to be if only
they shared our values. We, knights in armor in a savage land, we
fight fascism, Nazis, terror, Islam, it doesn’t matter what as we
can always find something to fight, some sanctifying evil.
Aren't you REALLY, REALLY glad YOU'VE
of how much of YOUR WEALTH facilitates Washington's
If you haven't, what the hell is wrong with
Do you not understand how IRRESPONSIBLE YOU ARE
for not having done so?
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU??!!
Even as ardent a statist as Abraham Lincoln, in announcing his
willingness to burn the Southern states to the ground in order to
keep them paying the tariff for the benefit of Northern interests in
his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, paid at least lip
service to the Founders design of leaving control over the fuel
available to feed the fires Washington wants to light in the hands
of the individual citizenry when he said, "Doing this I deem to
be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, unless my
rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite
July 15- In 1799, the
Rosetta Stone is found in Rosetta, Egypt by members of
Napoleon's army. In 1959, 500,000 American steelworkers begin a
119-day strike, leading to the first, and ongoing, significant
importation of foreign steel into the country. In 2002,
Walker Lindh makes a coerced "guilty" plea as part of one of
the first of a series of criminal acts related to the neocon
"War on Terrorism" for which the Bush administration attempted
retroactively immunize its operatives and office-holders as
part of the 2006 Military Commissions Act.
There is little more important to the long-term health of America than
how our children are educated..
Putin threatens to release 9/11 satellite photos; something to think about;
IRS claims to have lost Lerner emails; more...
WHAT MIGHT BE THE MOST INTRIGUING RUMOR OF THE DECADE
has Vladimir Putin making noises about releasing Russian spy
satellite photos of the events of 9/11 in the US. Putin's certainly
got them-- his capability is as good as the US spy state's.
I imagine that from his perspective, Putin's got
increasingly solid motivation to do this, too. At long last we might
see what actually happened, after years of US failure to produce any
meaningful photographic evidence backing
its ridiculous story...
HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN
30 million other Americans-- or even just 3 million-- know what you
know about the "income" tax?
Leviathan thinks about it-- a lot.
IN THE LATEST EXPRESSION OF THE BURGEONING TYRANNY'S UTTER CONTEMPT
for the American people-- or latest test of the peoples' blindness
to the process-- the IRS has announced that it has surgically
deleted Lois Lerner's emails to the White House concerning state
operators' efforts to hinder libertarian political activists in
delivering their messages to voters during the 2012 election cycle.
I have not seen a corresponding claim that the White House email
servers have been similarly purged, so the missing emails should
still be theoretically available-- which is to say, this ridiculous
story is insufficient to get the conspirators off the hook. Also, as
some wag on another site pointed out, the missing emails should be
available from the NSA's Utah database, as well...
The availability of this evidence is almost immaterial now, though.
The very floating of this patently un-credible story is itself a
crime, and is itself evidence of the crime the story is intended to
protect from further attention or accountability.
In light of this contemptuous bitch-slap to the rule of law, and it
being just one among an endless series of events of the same
character, one has to begin wondering if anything coming out of
Washington should be taken as having any real authority at all. Rule
conducted in defiance of the rules is illegitimate, is it not? I'm
CtC WARRIOR DAVE SCOTESE has posted a nice little commentary and
analysis of a "frivolous positions" issue. See it
DO YOU KNOW WHY THE LIBERATING TRUTH ABOUT THE INCOME
TAX is spreading so slowly, and not being taken up and trumpeted by
the alt-media (at least)? Do you know why that truth is not a big
presence in public consciousness, supporting you in your
conversations on the subject with your friends, family, co-workers,
bosses and professional service-providers?
The reason is that very often when someone first hears
about that truth, the next thing he or she does is go to the
internet and "google"
CtC or me. What comes up in greatest number or most prominence
can strongly influence whether that person moves forward or
backward, and unfortunately, what often comes up most strongly are
DOJ and troll posts rich with disparaging and misleading propaganda
about either subject. The reason this is so is because YOU are not
posting contrary material rebutting the lies and misrepresentations.
If we are all going to get the benefit of this
liberating truth, I cannot be the only voice correcting the record
on the internet about "what the courts have REALLY ruled" in regard
CtC. I can't be the only one debunking
the efforts to disparage
CtC by misrepresentations of the
kangaroo-court assaults on me.
Whether the truth wins out here involves a battle of
pens, not swords. YOU HAVE TO BE IN THIS BATTLE, or it may not be
won for years. On the other hand, if you DO get into this battle and
get thoughtful posts up all over the internet designed to address
the specific problem I describe here, it can be won very quickly
indeed. Please do your part.
ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, ON JUNE 10, THE TAXPAYER ADVOCATE'S
OFFICE ANNOUNCED the IRS's adoption of a new, improved,
actually-incorporated-into-the-IRC "Taxpayer's Bill of Rights". This is
a supposed upgrade from the last TBOR announced with great fanfare back
know, some of you are scratching your heads over this one, just as you
did 16 years ago, saying, "I thought we already HAD a Bill of
Rights-- from all the way back to 1791!" Ah, well, no. That other one is
the citizen's Bill of Rights. Here, we're
only talking about "taxpayers" (26 USC §
7701(a)(14): Taxpayer: The term ‘taxpayer’ means any
person subject to any internal revenue tax.) --
and those are not the same thing.
Indeed, the very roll-out of this "Taxpayer's Bill of
Rights" should help make clear to those who have resisted
understanding that there IS a difference: "taxpayer" doesn't mean
"American". On the contrary, "taxpayer" means a distinguished sub-class
of Americans (and others) who have chosen to
make money exercising certain federal privileges and have accepted
certain conditions which accompany that choice.
That's why the IRS (and often its lapdog federal courts)
endlessly refer to those they wish to hobble with these special
conditions (at the expense of their REAL Bill-of-Rights rights) as
"taxpayers". It is "taxpayers" who are subject to those hindering
conditions; they want to hinder everyone with them; so they endlessly pretend
that it's been established that each person with whom they deal is a "taxpayer" even in a contest
in which what is challenged and unproven are the allegations on which
"taxpayer" status would be based in regard to any particular receipts.
This should also help illuminate the fact
that merely making money, or merely filing a tax return-- regardless of
its content-- aren't qualifications for "taxpayer" status.
If making money or filing a tax return were all that are necessary, the IRS and its lapdog
courts and DOJ attorneys would never bother with the manifestly
awkward (and awkwardly revealing) practice of calling everyone who has
filed a return or not disputed having made money a
"taxpayer". Targets and litigants would just be called by their names,
as in every other lawsuit or administrative proceeding (other than those
where similar special infirmities could be said to apply, in which other
special designations might also be deployed in the same way for the same
There would be no
reason and nothing to be gained by the insistent, suspicion-raising
drum-beat appellation of "taxpayer". If someone IS one, he doesn't need
to be CALLED one, over and over and over.
The new TBOR can be found at
this page. Among other things that will be of interest to some, the
new, improved TBOR allegedly mandates that "taxpayers" are entitled to:
1. The Right to Be Informed
Certain notices must include the amount (if any) of the
tax, interest, and certain penalties you owe and must explain why you
owe these amounts. IRC § 7522
All notices fully or partially disallowing your refund
claim must explain the specific reasons why the claim is being
disallowed. IRC § 6402(l)
If the IRS proposes to assess tax against you, it must
provide you in its initial letter, which allows for review by an Appeals
officer, an explanation of the entire process from examination (audit)
through collection and explain that the Taxpayer Advocate Service may be
able to assist you. RRA § 3504
4. Pay no more than correct amount of tax
If you believe you have overpaid your taxes, you can
file a refund claim asking for the money back. IRC § 6402
5. The Right to an Appeal
Generally, if you have fully paid the tax and your tax
refund claim is denied or if no action is taken on the claim within six
months, then you may file a refund suit in a United States District
Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims. IRC § 7422
6. The Right to Finality
The IRS generally has three years from the date your return
was filed to assess the tax. There are some limited exceptions to the
3-year rule, however, including not filing a return or filing a
fraudulent return. IRC § 6501
The IRS generally has ten years from the assessment date to
collect unpaid taxes from you. This ten-year period cannot be extended
unless you are entering into an installment agreement or unless the IRS
reduces the lien to a judgment. IRC § 6502
If you believe you have overpaid your taxes, you can file a
refund claim asking for the money back. Generally, you must file a
refund claim within 3 years from the date you filed your original return
or 2 years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later. IRC §
I think some who have been deemed to be
"taxpayers" by those who wish to take their money will
find some of these "rights" very interesting.
These protections/guarantees should apply
and be honored right up until the point at which it is
admitted that one is NOT a "taxpayer" in regard to any
particular controversy or dispute (by the honoring of
their rebuttals and claims), at which point none of them
are of any interest.
Strangely though, some folks who have had
their claims stalled on the apparent institutional
premise that they ARE "taxpayers" in regard to a given
payment(s) have somehow never seen that promised
why you owe these amounts" or any "specific
reasons why the claim is being disallowed" or a number
of other things promised on this list...
Could it be
that's because they really ARE being properly recognized
as NOT being "taxpayers", and so are not entitled to
these particular specified benefits? And that
the delays in honoring their claims are just corrupt
misbehaviors by revenue-hungry bureaucrats?
I never thought I would see the day in this
country when I could be ordered to sign my name to words
dictated by the United States government, not to mention
words I believe to be false. I've seen this sort of thing on
TV where American hostages are giving testimonials with
ski-masked, armed captors ensuring that the Americans spoke
the words that would spare their lives.
With considerable dismay, I now see our
judiciary employing the same tactics that terrorists impose
on their victims. Doreen Hendrickson has been ordered to
perjure herself, that is to sign her name to documents that
say things the government wants said, even though she
believe these things to be false.
Seven years ago, Federal Judge Nancy Edmunds
(ED Michigan) ordered Doreen to make this false testimony,
and to declare that it is her own testimony.
Three-and-a-half years later Edmunds added a requirement
that the fact that the testimony is coerced and not Doreen's
own be concealed (as asked of her by the IRS and DOJ).
Doreen now faces trial on charges of criminal
contempt of court for resisting these plainly illegal
orders. This is not the first trial, though-- it is the
second government shot at Doreen.
The trial judge in Doreen's first trial last
actually ordered the jury to disregard the
unconstitutionality of the orders Doreen is accused of
"criminally resisting" (at the request of the team of
attorneys from Washington flown in to prosecute her).
Doreen, completely a legal amateur in every way, took on the
government's conviction-by-any-means-necessary specialists
all by herself. Still, the government could not get the jury
Despite the huge effort put on by the team of
three DOJ attorneys during the four-day trial, at least some
members of the jury recognized that the law and the facts
are entirely on Doreen's side. But the government
desperately wants this conviction. It views the preservation
of certain key myths about the income tax to be at stake,
and so it is coming back at Doreen again.
Let me be clear. Doreen is not being put
through this for refusing to testify. She HAS already
testified. The government just doesn't like what she said,
and is trying to coerce her into saying things more to its
interests. (Can you say: suborning perjury? How about: raw,
Though the testimony involved is on tax
returns, this fact is not relevant. The only relevant issue
is that a federal judge has completely overstepped her
No one in this country can legally compel
custom testimony...Not on a tax form...Not on a contract...
NOT ON ANYTHING!!!
Please help to uphold the principles on which
this country was founded. Today, it's Doreen and a tax form.
Please join me in taking serious notice of this
precipitous descent into Stalinism in an America already
dangerously far down the road to complete lawlessness and
Read the document that follows. Some of the
material will be easy, some will call for a little more
effort, but all will be crystal clear, even the legal briefs
linked at the end.
Remember, in this country, the law is YOUR law,
and the only ones who can enforce it against government
operatives who take liberties with the rules are the rest of
us. They can't be relied upon to police themselves, as what
you are about to read will make obvious.
Where Are All The Journalists? Where Is
We haven't ever before had a trial for heresy in America,
but one is on the docket now...
BACK IN WHAT WE ALL LIKE TO THINK OF AS A DISTANT PAST, the
ways of which are universally viewed with derision, contempt
and condemnation as both simple-minded and barbaric, people
were sometimes accused of "heresy".
The crime was the profession of a belief which "the
authorities" wished to go unspoken.
The fictional pretext for criminalizing heresy was that the
heretic really knew better than what she errantly professed,
because the officially-approved beliefs are presumed to be
unmistakable established truths. They wouldn't be the
"officially-approved" beliefs otherwise, don't you see, and
anyone too dense to recognize them like everyone else has
done must know them to be such truths anyway, because of
that "official approval".
A heretic could therefore be properly punished for lying and
properly made to declare instead what the authorities knew
she really knew to be true. Further, the crime wasn't just
an individual perjury; a heretic's continued profession of
her errant beliefs, and her failure to recant and instead
profess the favored view, would infect the minds of others
Perhaps the best known victim of this tyrannical practice
was Galileo Galilei. Galileo was accused of heresy for
declaring his belief that the Earth revolved around the Sun,
contrary to the official view at the time.
Sorry to say, Galileo recanted his perfectly correct
conclusions and was spared being burned at the stake. (He
was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life
anyway, for having lied in the first place as proven by his
recantation, and as warning against the next person who
might be tempted to publicly declare a belief contrary to
the "official" one that everybody knows to be true,
the right to do so having been something else Galileo had
asserted as part of his "heresy").
Popular resistance to this manifestly improper
rationalization for the exercise of state power against an
individual was overcome with the sly claim that it was all
about saving the souls of the accused, since heresies were
purportedly rejections of God. This was combined with the
unspoken but obvious threat that anyone who objected too
strongly to the assault on any "heretic" could be readily
tarred as being a heretic himself, and would become the next
in line for the attention of the inquisitor.
The real goal, of course, was the suppression of
information, conclusions and beliefs which threatened to
take hold in the minds of others and undermine the status
quo. Those in power understand that the reason things
are the way they are, with themselves on top, is because of
the way things are. They strive mightily to prevent change--
especially change in the perceptions of those capable of
taking away their power.
A "TRIAL" FOR HERESY WAS SOMETIMES KNOWN AS an "auto de
fe"-- an "act of faith". Once the relevant tribunal (the
"inquisitor", generally) had determined that the charged
expression qualified as heresy, the accused would be given a
chance to recant her disfavored belief and declare her
adherence to a position the powers-that-be found more to
their liking. If stubborn, the accused would be tortured for
a while to help her remember that deep down inside she knew
the truth of the favored view and the error of her own (or
that deep down, she really didn't believe her professed view
If an accused heretic were to recant (under the influence,
or anticipatory fear, of the torture or other penalties of
continued contumaciousness), she might still be punished,
but not so badly as otherwise. If she did not, things would
be the worse for her...
Barbaric and simple-minded, right? Thing of the past, yes?
Indeed, this kind of thing is expressly prohibited in
America by virtue of the First Amendment guarantee of
freedom of expression and conscience, isn't it?
This very day Doreen Hendrickson faces a charge of heresy.
Doreen has been charged with criminal contempt of court for
refusing to recant a belief about a matter of law which she
has repeatedly declared under oath, and to replace it with a
contrary statement declaring that she believes something the
government would prefer her to say.*
Doreen was ordered to declare this government-dictated
"belief" over her sworn signature attesting that it is her
own belief. She was also ordered to lie about the fact that
the recantation and contrary, government-dictated
declaration are by command of the court, so as to perfect
the appearance that these are things done of her own accord
and truly reflect what she herself really believes to be
true and correct.
What's more, the "belief" that Doreen was ordered to declare
is that her earnings qualify for the "income tax". Plainly,
this is something either objectively true or not,
irrespective of Doreen Hendrickson's beliefs, meaning that
the order can have no legitimate practical or legal purpose.
Further, Doreen is ordered to declare this "belief" on her
own tax form, the legal effect of which is to authorize the
government to impose a tax on those earnings. The government
has been unable to assess a tax on these earnings, even over
the course of the 11 years that have passed since some of
them were received-- because, in fact, her earnings do NOT
qualify for the tax, as this history, and the very fact that
the government is trying to force Doreen to agree that they
do, should make clear to anyone old enough to be out of
Thus, the coerced lies ordered by the government and the
court assault not only the very core of liberty-- freedom of
speech and conscience. They also assault the principle of
"due process" as well, under which no one can be forced to
declare agreement with a legal adversary's view of the
More, these corrupt orders don't simply serve the state's
corrupt political interest overtly declared in the court's
order, which explained itself as intended to discourage
others who "imitate" Doreen and "file false tax returns"--
in their tens of thousands over a full decade now and
when striven mightily against, the government has been
unable to overcome by any legal means and which are plainly
NOT "false", like
the educated amended return that produced this complete
refund-- with interest-- for Henry and Kathleen:
No, these corrupt orders have the added dimension of serving
the direct and immediate financial interest of those in
control of the state, as well, because that's really what
this is all about.
I THINK EVERY RATIONAL AMERICAN CAN AGREE that it's one
thing for the state to tell someone that she must declare
what she believes, and it's rather another for the state to
tell someone WHAT she must declare she believes. The one is
mere "discovery". The other is rankest tyranny.
Doreen's trial ended in a hung jury, thanks to her good
fortune in ending up with one or more real Americans being
among those into whose hands this case was put. But if
everyone's right to freedom of speech and conscience is to
still be preserved when the government comes back at her
again next summer, we all need to make some noise about this
assault, and keep on making it.
“Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s
and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is
the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of
all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions,
principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong,
are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason…”
July 16- In 1790, the
District of Columbia is established as the capital of the United
States. In 1935, the world's first parking meter is installed
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. In 1945, the first nuclear weapon is
exploded in a test at Trinity, New Mexico. In 1957, John Glenn
sets a transcontinental speed record, flying from California to
New York in 3 hours, 23 minutes and 8 seconds. In 1969, Apollo
11 is launched from the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral,
Florida. In 1999, JFK Jr., is killed in a plane crash in the
Atlantic with his wife and sister-in-law.
What Do The People Do About The Rogue State??
most important question facing Americans today
I HAD THIS QUESTION POSED TO ME BY AN EMAIL CORRESPONDENT the other
day. I guess this just shows how poor a job I've done at
communicating, because I have been trying to shout the answer to
this one from the rooftops for a long time.
That answer is simple: The People impose restraint on the rogue
state by choosing-- one by one-- to cease voluntarily turning
control over their resources to the state, and choosing instead to
retain control over those resources. This is done by refusing-- one
by one-- to engage in "income tax" excisable activities (and
refusing to blindly or fearfully allow their activities to be
treated or taken as excisable activities upon which the tax arises,
when they really are not).
The refusal of individual Americans to voluntarily engage in
excisable activities forces the state to resort to
alternatives revenue sources. These include options like direct,
apportioned taxes (which will not be tolerated by the people or
approved by Congress at $multi-trillion annual volumes), and/or
increased revenue tariffs (which can raise amounts adequate for
legitimate state needs, but are very self-regulating, since
consumers naturally choose domestic product alternatives when higher
tariffs raise the prices of imports beyond a certain point).
This solution is precisely the one intended and provided for by the
Founders-- who didn't impose the taxation rules in the US
Constitution just so they could admire their handwriting. They put
those rules in place in direct anticipation of state behavior of the
sort with which we are now plagued.
As even so odious a character as Hamilton pointed out in Federalist
“Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles
of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time,
find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be
contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own
option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources.
...If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the
collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so
great as when they are confined within proper and moderate
bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material
oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself
a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
What we've got today is simply the direct (and perfectly
predictable) consequences of NOT adhering to the Founders' plan. As
Frederick Douglass trenchantly observed,
“Find out just what any people
will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the
injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."
We've got plenty of injustice and wrong these days. But our fix to
the problem was bought for us with blood a few hundred years ago.
[Y]ou really need to familiarize yourself with Pete
Hendrickson's absolutely magnificent work at his website and in
his book(s). He has, brilliantly and lucidly, "cracked the
code" regarding the federal income EXCISE tax(es)."
-Mark C. Phillips, JD
"...I find your work fascinatingly simple to understand."
-Jerry Arnowitz, JD
"Your book is a masterpiece!"
-Michael Carver, JD
"Received your book yesterday. Started reading at 11
PM, finished at 4 AM." "I have 16 feet (literally 16'
4.5") of documents supporting just about everything in your
book." "Your book should be required reading for every lawyer
before being admitted to any Bar." "I hope you sell a
million of them."
-John O'Neil Green, JD
“Thanks again for your efforts, Pete. They mean an awful lot
to a lot of people.” “…as an attorney, I am humbled by your
knowledge and ability in navigating the law. THANK YOU for
your hard work and sacrifice.”
-Eric Smithers, JD
"I am an attorney and want to give a testimonial to your
book, which I find to be compelling. I am exercising these
rights for myself and my adult children. I'm even considering
making this my new avenue of law practice."
Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD
Learn what these colleagues already know, then step forward and
become part of a coordinated, mutually-supportive squadron
focused on developing strategy and deploying the law in
courtrooms across the country. There's a lot of suing that
needs doing right now.
Are you ready for a challenge that'll put some real meaning
behind all the effort you went through to get your credentials?
Send me an email.
Have You Taken
A Military, Law Enforcement or Public Office Oath To Uphold And Defend The
July 17- In 1794,
sixteen Carmelite nuns are guillotined by the Jacobins during
the waning days of the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France.
In 1918, Tsar Nicholas II and his family and retainers are
murdered by the Bolsheviks. In 1955, Disneyland opens. In
1996, TWA flight 800 mysteriously explodes off the coast of Log
Island, resulting in the deaths of all 230 aboard. In 1997,
Woolworth's closes its last store, after 117 years in business.
An Introduction To The Liberating Truth In Ten Easy Segments
CtCW, author of 'Secrets
of the Income Tax Code- A Guide for Businessmen',
has shared another fine outreach effort. Tom has been writing and
sending a series of short wake-up and educational essays to friends
and family, one by one, for some time. When Tom told me about this,
I asked him to compile the pieces and let me post them for everyone
to enjoy and share with their own people. Tom, good guy and warrior
for the truth that he is, was perfectly agreeable.
CtC Warrior David Sides says, "Bumper stickers?
Nice, but NOT BIG ENOUGH!"
the way, Dave's got it precisely right-- If you want your power
to be secure, your neighbors have to be empowered with the same
knowledge that you've acquired. Click
here for ideas about
spreading the truth-- which include normal bumper stickers
available for free, by the way....)
Photographed on 1-70 in Missouri
At a rally outside the Alamo
CtC Warrior Brian H. in Alaska has a great INDOOR approach
to spreading the transformational truth. Here's Brian's desk at
You notice the big glass container to the right of the CtC
in the first pic above?
Tasty freebies for Brian's co-workers-- candy and brain-candy
all in one:
More Than Two Thirds Of The Several States That Collect "Income" Taxes
Have Now Acknowledged The Truth About The Law As Revealed In
CtC, And Have
Issued Complete Refunds Accordingly! See The Following Chart...
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
July 18- In 1925,
Adolph Hitler publishes 'Mein Kampf'. In 1942, the German
military test flies the first jet-engine aircraft. In 1962,
Intel is founded. In 1969, Senator Ted Kennedy takes a drunken
drive off a bridge. Freeing himself from the sinking vehicle,
he leaves his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, to drown.
If You're Not Standing Up, Then You're Standing Down
...and "standing down" means "going down"...
MY FRIENDS, IT IS MY SINCERE BELIEF that this community of
activists has been encouraged, inspired, enlightened and
expanded over the years by the steady posting here of
your ongoing victories on behalf of the rule of law.
Certainly, it has been my pride and my joy to help you share
with the world your honorable testament to the liberating truth
about the tax, widespread knowledge of which is so critical to
the well-being of ourselves, our children, and our beloved
However, unless YOU send those victories I can't post them.
Unless YOU stand up, your courage and commitment can't inspire
YOU WILL RECALL THAT FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO I've been telling
you that we are in a transformational moment. Look around at
what is going on today and recognize the truth of what I say.
Even before Edward Snowden's documentation of particular crimes
being committed against the American people the
Washington Times and other mainstream organs were
editorializing about Leviathan having grown too big, and gotten
dangerously out-of-hand (see stories at each of the preceding
links). In the Spring Rand Paul's filibuster denouncing the
lawlessness of Mordor-on-the-Potomac prompted a major buzz
across the country, and in July Justin Amash shocked Washington
by very nearly defunding a huge portion of the illegal
surveillance state's crimes.
CtC community has been winning legal victories and refunds
which are ever-more significant and telling. Consider, for
instance, the victories which have qualified for
the EWWBL collection. Every one of these is an especially
illuminating acknowledgement of the truth about the tax, and now
include a very significant two-time victory in a federal
Things are happening!
HOW IT ALL SHAKES OUT is still up for grabs, though. This is not
the time for either complacency or paralysis, because both of
those don't amount to "doing nothing"-- instead they amount to
"standing down". And standing down means conceding the fight,
letting all these eleventh-hour sparks of light burn out
unnurtured and the moment be a transformation for the worse.
This is not the time for standing down. This is the time for a
This is the time for educated American grown-ups to stand up
tall and firm, pulling others to their feet by their very
gravity. This is the time for leading the way.
STAND UP! SEND THOSE VICTORIES-- the new ones, and those of the
last few years as well. Click
here to learn how. Even if you don't have checks to scan,
send your testimonials. Learn how to do that
The Newsletter is interested in your work! If
you are a writer, scholar, or just a dedicated Warrior with a worth-while
story to tell, please consider sharing your words and your wisdom with our
thousands of readers!
Click here to learn how.
'Letters to the Editor' should be addressed to 'feedback 'at'
losthorizons.com', with "Editor" in the subject line.
Larson shares this beautiful little farce, wryly observing that,
"Depositors have "..not lost one penny.." - OK we could agree on that simple
statement ..how about the purchasing power of
that same penny 'not lost'?"
July 19- In 1588, the Spanish Armada is sighted
in the English Channel. In 1979, the Sandinistas overthrow the
U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua. In 1990, Pete
Rose is sentenced to five months imprisonment for tax evasion.
In 2007, the Dow Jones closes above 14,000 for the first time
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We
seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
Adams, Architect of the First American Revolution
OK, Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Programming:
Is this newsletter of any value to you? If so, please
consider a donation
to help keep it available, or it soon won't be. Donations can
be sent to:
Hendrickson is also a widely-read essayist on matters of
politics, public policy and law; many of these works are
collected in his second book, ‘Upholding
the Law And Other Observations’. He is a member of
award-winning artist; and has paid his dues as a youth
soccer coach. He is a long-time political activist as
well, and has served as co-chair and platform convention
delegate of Michigan’s largest county Libertarian Party
organization; as a consultant to the National Right to Work
Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy; as a member of the
Heartland Institute; and as a member of the International
Society for Individual Liberty. He is a frequent
radio-show guest on stations across the country.
Hendrickson's business career has included nearly a
decade-and-a-half at the leading edge of the renewable-energy
industry, both as Director of Purchasing and Materials
Management and member of the R&D board at Starpak Energy
Systems, the mid-west's then-largest solar heating and
energy-recovery-and re-utilization company; and as founder and
president of AFJ Inc., a high-efficiency lighting design,
manufacture and installation firm.
Beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing for the twelve years
before his present full-time focus on the restoration of the
rule of law in America, Hendrickson directed purchasing
activities for the $84 million-a-year multi-family-housing
division of the Farmington Hills, Michigan branch of Edward Rose
and Sons, with responsibility for 18,000+ apartments, direct
supervision of 35 technicians and agents, and incidental
authority over several hundred divisional workers. He also
ran the division's 10 cable television earth-station and
distribution systems in four states, and designed and
administered the company's website.
rather the other end of the spectrum, amidst these more mundane
pursuits Hendrickson co-founded and was the primary creative
force behind a small
card-game company that enjoyed a modest success for several
Hendrickson makes his home in southeast Michigan, with his wife
and two children. He is currently working on his next