Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact


The News

Current Events and Continuing Education for June 22 through August 3, 2014

FOLKS, THIS NEWSLETTER WILL STILL BE IT for a little while longer. The outrageous, corrupt assault on my wife, on the truth, and on all our speech and due process rights last week ended with a finding of guilt after a trial in which, among much else,

  • 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 government objections;

  • 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 trial); and

  • Doreen was repeatedly interrupted during her Closing Argument, and made to stop before finishing that one, too...

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 in the Mid-Edition Update contain exceptionally-important content, all of which merits the extended posting time and everyone's close attention.

HOWEVER, THE ASSAULT ON DOREEN SHOULD ALSO be occupying everyone's attention. This assault is the most corrupt and pernicious effort yet in the government's ten-year campaign to thwart the spread of simple, undisputedly-accurate information about the tax. If this one sticks, it will set a precedent which guts the entire structure of due process in all future legal contests over any issue, not just tax-related contests.

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.

The other variety of "rebuttal" is the equally pompous and false assertion that "courts have ruled against CtC". This is a lie reliant on its targets not ever looking past deceptive misrepresentation in DOJ press releases, 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 quietly, 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 income tax).

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 law.

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 CtC IS 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 it home.


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

or at http://youtu.be/nbkTIGIKzFI.

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

-James Madison


Please Start Here

Features in this edition:

(Click on the underlined text to jump to each feature. To return, use your browser's "back" button, or close the new tab or window to which you have jumped.)

One dodge too far, finally...

The Sixth Circuit Concedes The "Includes" Issue


Keeping control of the terms of the debate...

What Does National Security Mean In America?


And the hits just keep on comin'!

Symposium Update


This week's recommended reading:

The Bergdahl Thing- One Vet's Take


Putin threatens to release 9/11 satellite photos; something to think about; IRS claims to have lost Lerner emails; more...

On This And That...


Now, here's a good idea:

A "Taxpayers" Bill Of Rights


The most important question facing Americans today:

What Do The People Do About The Rogue State?


Guess what? There are only two possibilities:

You Either Stand Up For The Truth, Or You've Surrendered To The Lie


Spotlights on the past that help bring clarity to the present:

Illuminating Anniversaries for this week


Got something to say?

Your Comments


...and much, much more!


My interview by Lana Lotkeff for Radio 3Fourteen can be found here.


The Fourteenth Edition of CtC is Now Available!

Get The Short, Easy Intro To The Liberating Truth About The Tax

'Real Americans Walk The Walk' is now on YouTube



Click here for the current Mid-Edition Update posts

Featured In This Update:

I Said I Wasn't Going To Post This Week, But...


Who's Going To Rule? The People Or The State?


Got Business In A Courtroom? Here Are Some Tools


A Brief History Of Iraq For Westerners


Every Now And Then...


What Makes YOU A Warrior For The Truth?


Project Paradigm-Shift


Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


A "Pragmatic" Perspective On The Tax And The Rule Of Law


Your Comments


...and much, much more!


"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes."

- Thomas Paine


C'mon! CtC can't be right! You're crazy!

If CtC were actually right,

it would mean the government's been concealing and denying the truth for years on end,

and everybody knows THAT would never happen...

(Edward Snowden, come home! It was all just a bad dream; there really is No Such Agency!)



Do you know someone truly steeped in the Kool-Aid?


 I mean 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")?


Do you know someone like that? Shake them awake with the latest (thirteenth) edition of CtC!



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.




You can't understand the present if you don't understand the past...

Illuminating anniversaries of this week:

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 below.


"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams



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 CtC's 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 evasions detailed here).

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 CtC (and elaborated upon here, here here and 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 "straw-man" 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 everybody.

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 straw-man evasion.

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".

The Brief

(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 individual..." Kinda...

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 scope of § 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 court.

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 relevant consideration.

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 or 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" evasion.

[J]ust 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."

Baxter v. 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 what CtC teaches.

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 debunked.

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 CtC). It is a RESOUNDING judicial affirmation of the correctness of my arguments and CtC, 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 law).

The court, and those it serves, are just hoping no one will look past the "Denied" to discover what its decision really upholds.

Think about the implications of this admission of the correctness of CtC on this very significant issue. Recognize, thoroughly, that what CtC 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 business.

THE ADMISSION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT of CtC's 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. Get BUSY!!

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 explicit admission.

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 here.

 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 here.


Copy and post this one around, people!


Care to post a comment on this article?


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Return to contents




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 secure them.

Among them are, in no particular order:

  • Security from unwarranted invasions of privacy by any governmental entity

  • 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 our security.

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.


Care to post a comment on this article?


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Return to contents



The Liberating Truth About The 16th Amendment

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 and everyone else, 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."

-Thomas Jefferson

Bitcoin holders can donate in that medium by clicking the button below:

Donate Bitcoins

(A suggested donation amount of $100 shows-- change this to whatever you wish.)


Return to contents


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 the
 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 Government."


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 circulation.


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.


"Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."

-Thomas Paine


Keeping Control Of The Terms Of The Debate

READING 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 Amendment 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 act."

-George Orwell


Care to post a comment on this article?


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Return to contents



The Honor Roll 

Do you have a victory to share?  Click here to learn how to do so.

If you're working on one, and just getting stonewalled or speed-bumped, you can still be recognized! Go here to learn what to do.


Care to post a comment on this article?


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Return to contents


Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

CtC Warrior 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 liberating truth!!


Click here to take the test


Click here for more Tax IQ tests


“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

-James Madison


How About You?


Are You Governing Yourself?


Get The Knowledge, Reclaim Your Power, And Stand With The Founders


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend




The Bergdahl Thing- One Vet's Take

by Fred Reed

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 suspected it.

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.


Click here to read the rest of this article


Aren't you REALLY, REALLY glad YOU'VE taken control of how much of YOUR WEALTH facilitates Washington's misbehavior?!


If you haven't, what the hell is wrong with you?!


Do you not understand how IRRESPONSIBLE YOU ARE for not having done so?




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 means..."


Held over:

Disinformation-How it works

by Brandon Smith


'The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude'

by Étienne de la Boétie


Return to contents


Illuminating anniversaries of this week:

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, John 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 to 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..




Want to get on the Newsletter mailing list?  Just email your name to SubscribeMe 'at' losthorizons.com using the address you want added!


Page Two

This And That

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 when 30 million other Americans-- or even just 3 million-- know what you know about the "income" tax?

 Leviathan thinks about it-- a lot.

You should, too.


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 just askin'...


CtC WARRIOR DAVE SCOTESE has posted a nice little commentary and analysis of a "frivolous positions" issue. See it here.


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 to 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.

 Care to post a comment on this article?


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Return to contents 

Are You Ready For "Obamacare"? Not Unless You've Read This...


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Hey, Great Idea: A Taxpayer's Bill of Rights!

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 in 1998.

 I 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 purpose).

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

For Example…

  • 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

For example...

  • 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

For example...

  • 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

For Example...

  • 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 § 6511

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 "[explanation] 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?

Care to post a comment on this article?


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Return to contents 


It's YOUR LAW, People-- But Only If YOU Insist It Be Respected

Here's a way to do that, and a proper occasion:

Dear [Editor, Mom, Journalist, Buddy, Pastor, Colleague...]

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 October 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 to convict.

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, banana-republic-level corruption?)

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 authority.

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. Tomorrow...

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 barbarism.

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.

Sincerely Yours,

Where Are All The Journalists? Where Is Your Outrage?

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 with her seditious beliefs.

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 at all).

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 kindergarten.

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 facts.

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"-- returns which, in their tens of thousands over a full decade now and even 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 thoughts 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…”

-Frederick Douglass


*These motions reveal something of the nature of the charge and the history of the issues involved: Motion To Dismiss, Govt. Response, Reply; Motion to Dismiss or Revise Indictment, Govt. Response, Reply.


Care to post a comment on this article?


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Return to contents


Illuminating anniversaries of this week:

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??

The 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 highly-politically-accountable, highly-politically-vulnerable 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 #21:

“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.

All we have to do is stop playing along with the rogue state's false (and rather embarrassingly crude) paradigm  concerning who owns what, and what powers to tax have really been granted. As soon as enough of us quit endorsing that nonsense, it's all good

Care to post a comment on this article?


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Return to contents




Are You Ready For More Power?



"Peter Hendrickson has done it again!  'Upholding The Law' does for individual liberties what 'Cracking the Code' did for tax law compliance: exposes the reader to the unalienable truth!"

-Jesse Herron, Bill Of Rights Press, Fort Collins, Colorado



A brief look at 100 years of Fiscal Folly; and a nice confirmation of CtC scholarship using four-generation-old data from the IRS itself.


CtC-Educated Lawyers: It's Way Past Time For You All To Queue Up!


[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 Constitution?


Renew Your Promise




Illuminating anniversaries of this week:

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.


  IGNORANCE TAX: An unnecessary exaction suffered out of ignorance as to its lawful objects and the means of its application by someone too lazy, frightened or misled to learn how it really works and to what it really applies.  See "Income Tax", "Social Security Tax", "Medicare Tax" and "Federal Unemployment Tax".


An Introduction To The Liberating Truth In Ten Easy Segments

Tom Bottaro, ChFC, 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.

Here is the compilation in printable .pdf format. I hope everyone will indeed share it widely. 


"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."

-United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson





CtC Warrior David Sides says, "Bumper stickers?  Nice, but NOT BIG ENOUGH!"


(By 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 his workplace:



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:



Very sweet!




'Don't Tread On Me' Polo Shirts Say It All!



Click Here To Get Yours Now!







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.


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend



(How our forefathers responded to arrogant "Rule of Law defiers"...)




LostHorizons.com traffic stats now available for the past year (March 1, 2012 to March 1, 2013) show approximately:

6,000,000 hits and 2,000,000 page views during that period!






“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

-Arthur Schopenhauer


Get your FREE* CtC bumper sticker and help spread the word!

Just send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Lost Horizons, Bumper Sticker Offer, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382

(*If you want to throw a few bucks into the envelope to help with costs, that'd be nice, but it's entirely optional...)




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 America.


However, unless YOU send those victories I can't post them. Unless YOU stand up, your courage and commitment can't inspire anyone.


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.


More than half the American population views government as a threat. As mainstream a publication as Forbes magazine is posting articles about massive DHS ammunition and armored vehicle purchases. Denunciations of the NSA violations are features in every major MSM organ.


Even before Edward Snowden's documentation of particular crimes being committed against the American people the LA Times, NY Times, 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.


Concurrently, this 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 district court.


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 FULL-COURT PRESS.


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 here.




The Willingness Of Some People To Trade Liberty For Convenience Is Without Limit

Some Observations About Current Political Efforts To Evade The Truth, Such As The "Fair Tax" Scheme


Regarding "Tax Reform"


"Taxes are not raised to carry on wars, wars are raised to carry on taxes."

-Thomas Paine


Where To Find Things On This Site


Law Professor James Duane Says: "Don't Talk To The Police.  Period."


Honest Cope Agree




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.




Films That Belong In Every Home Library




Ever Wonder How Much An Unrestrained FedState Would Like To Tap You For?





Warrior David 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'?"


Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics






Illuminating anniversaries of this week:

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 ever.


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend


Last Word


"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."

-Samuel 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:


Peter Hendrickson

232 Oriole St.

Commerce Twp., MI  48382


Order Books, Warrior-Wear, or The CtC Companion CD


An "Income" Tax Related Site Map


E-mail this Newsletter to a friend


Want to get on the Newsletter mailing list?  Just send an email from the address you want added to SubscribeMe 'at' losthorizons.com with "Subscribe me" in the subject line, and your name in the body!






Your Comments

To comment on any article in this newsletter (or to read comments of others), click on the talk balloon below.

(It may take a few moments for your newly-posted comments to appear.)


Return to contents




About The Author


Pete Hendrickson is possibly the most effective lawyer in history, even while never having set foot in a law school, nor ever being a card-carrying member of "the bar". He is the first American in history to secure a complete refund of Social Security and Medicare ‘contributions’ withheld from his earnings (along with all other property taken for federal taxes); further, since 2003 students of his legal analyses and arguments in ‘Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’ (CtC), and its sequel, 'Was Grandpa Really a Moron?' have been routinely retaining and recovering billions of dollars which otherwise-- wrongly, but as a matter of course-- would have gone to federal or state government treasuries. This despite concerted efforts by government to suppress his work, and in some cases vigorously oppose the claims by his students.


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 Mensa; an 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.


On rather the other end of the spectrum, amidst these more mundane pursuits Hendrickson co-founded and was the primary creative force behind a small board- and card-game company that enjoyed a modest success for several years.


 Hendrickson makes his home in southeast Michigan, with his wife and two children.  He is currently working on his next book.


© All written and graphic material on this page and website are copyrighted by Peter E. Hendrickson, unless otherwise attributed