Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact

“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



The Lost Horizons News

Mid-Edition Update for April 11, 2016


Please Start Here


My Vote For Scalia's Seat: Alex Kozinski Of The Ninth Circuit


Breaking Irony: Longtime US Tax Court Judge Indicted For... Tax Evasion

Featured In This Update:

A Few Tips For Educated Filers...


...And A Few Words About What Is Taxed


The Rule Of Law Is Being Murdered In Cincinnati


About Trump


Regarding "Astroturf" And Trolls


WANTED! Your Articles!!


Watching The Watchmen- Updated


Updates on Doreen's case can be found here.

And Don't Miss These:

Regarding State Group Membership


The Educated American's Tax Filing Flow Chart


Why Are You Not Doing This?


Project Paradigm-Shift


Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


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


Illuminating Anniversaries For This Week


Your Comments


...and much, much more!


Hot Topics In The News:


The Fourteenth Edition of CtC is Now Available!

On Obamacare

And Hey! Don't miss the great stuff in the main page of this edition!




Breaking Irony: Longtime US Tax Court Judge Indicted For... Tax Evasion

222 YEARS AGO, Tom Paine observed that, "It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime."

Long-time Judge of the US Tax Court Diane Kroupa may prove to be a great living example of Paine's wisdom. During years of service in an institution in which the law is viewed with contempt and disdain, crimes against American citizens are business as usual, and conspiracy is part of the job description, Kroupa decided the if the law doesn't apply to the government overall, then it needn't apply to her personally, according to the indictment in which Kroupa and her husband are charged with multiple counts of tax evasion, conspiracy, false returns and obstruction.

See the indictment here. A DOJ press release can be found here.

Nothing said by the DOJ, especially the Tax Division should be taken on faith as honest or reliable, of course. This includes things said by way of an indictment managed by that crowd.

But unless Kroupa had recently announced her intentions to tell all and reveal the crimes of her organization, her position as a "made man" would have successfully shielded her from this kind of attention unless her crimes were seriously egregious and too big and obvious to be successfully swept under the rug (or there is a rare honest soul at the DOJ who got on to them and just couldn't be persuaded to let them go). Thus, the declarations and accusations in this indictment and press release are probably sincere, and the irony here can be enjoyed without restraint.

Pity Kroupa wasn't indicted for crimes committed from the bench, though... Maybe next time.

 Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents


"The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are TYRANTS. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves….."

-James Madison


A Few Tips For Educated Filers...

Useful reminders for the last week before "tax day".

"TAX DAY" IS UPON US, and in light of that fact I want to take this opportunity to share a few reminders concerning certain aspects of the educated filing process that I have seen occasionally forgotten or foregone, with some consequent inconveniences to the errant filer. What follows may or may not be of any use to any particular person, but good fellowship encourages everyone to pass this page along to others (the link is http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm).

1. If "information returns" by a payer make what are believed to be erroneous allegations of the payment of "wages", "non-employee-compensation" or other revenue purportedly in connection with the conduct of an "income-taxable" activity, a filing intended to be true, complete and correct would seek to rebut the erroneous allegations and provide what the filer believes to be the correct amounts. This might be done by, for instance:

A. Attaching sworn statements specifically rebutting the errors on those forms with correct entries to one's federal (and/or state and local) 1040. Examples are Forms 4852 (to rebut and replace errant W-2s or 1099-Rs), or photocopies of errant original 1099-MISCs (or any other type of 1099 other than the 1099-R) with correct information replacing incorrect entries, and a sworn statement added declaring the instrument to be a rebuttal of an erroneous 1099-(xx) known to have been submitted by the listed payer.


B. Using the rebuttal instruments as replacements for the erroneous "information returns" and the correct information from the rebutting instruments to complete one's 1040. For instance, if one has received erroneous W-2s and has created a rebutting 4852, where a 1040 asks for "wages received" and says to attach a W-2, one would declare the "wage" entry from line 7(a) of the 4852, and attach that form instead of the erroneous W-2.

Instruments rebutting erroneous 1099s (other than 1099-Rs) are attached to the return by themselves-- that is, not with some kind of schedule-- unless one really IS operating some kind of tax-relevant business or other activity, and one is acknowledging having had SOME "trade or business" "income", but just a different amount than what was reported on the erroneous 1099.

• If one engaged in no tax-relevant activities during the year there are likely no schedules that are appropriate for one's filing (unless, I suppose, one has something being carried over from a previous year in which something taxable WAS done...).

• If erroneous forms were included with a filing in which those erroneous forms are rebutted it would cause a contradiction in entries and make the return invalid and "frivolous", since everything included with a return is presumed to be attested to as correct by the filer.

• Failing to combine all amounts withheld as or for any kind of federal tax as a single figure on the line designated for "Federal income tax withheld", and/or failing to include and claim back any withheld amount while claiming back other amounts, is to create an apparent contradiction.

For instance, to report $0 "wages" and claim back amounts listed as withheld on a W-2 or 4852 as nominal "federal income tax" but to not also claim back amounts withheld as "Social Security tax" and "Medicare tax" would be to declare oneself to have not received "wages" as defined in 26 USC 3401(a) but to HAVE received "wages" as defined in 3121(a). Since both designations of "wages" refer to the same receipts and activities which produce them (with the latter being merely a surtax on a portion of the former) the declarations are contradictory of each other.

The same contradiction would arise if one listed anything as "Excess social security and tier 1 RRTA tax withheld", while denying having received 3121(a) "wages". One can only have "excess SS tax withheld" if one has had "SS tax" properly withheld up to the amount at which anything further becomes "excess".

2. A return is NOT an appropriate document for making legal arguments of any kind. To include a cover letter explaining what is seen in the return (such as that erroneous "information returns" have been rebutted with instruments completed and attached for that purpose) does no harm, but this is neither the time nor the place to be making assertions about whether one is or isn't an "employee", arguments about the nature of the tax, and so forth. A return is just a statement of the amounts one knows and believes to be true, complete and correct in regard to each item inquired-about on the 1040, properly-understood as to its statutory meaning. It's neither a soap-box nor a legal brief; further, some kinds of arguments can actually invite a "frivolous" assertion.

3. Amounts improperly or erroneously collected, withheld, paid-in, what-have-you can only be claimed for refund looking back three years. On the other hand, rebuttals/corrections of erroneous assertions for their own sake, or as a response to collections efforts based on erroneous information returns, have no look-back limit. Learn more about both issues here.

4. Returns varying from (or attempting to supplement) the principles and points listed here, and/or reflecting notions not presented in CtC or on this site (exclusive of forum pages)-- such as adding "UCC" references to jurats, or otherwise marking-up or adding-to a return-- invite problems. I believe such variations are sometimes seen as reflecting an uncertainty (and therefore an insincerity) about one's filing, which can create a pretext for treating a return as "frivolous" and invalid. They also make one appear to be a soft target for harassment, ill-equipped to stand one's ground and deal competently with pushback, which is therefore more likely to be attempted.

5. Most all of the above has long been posted amongst much other useful material on the FAQ pages. Make a point of staying up to date with those pages, and everything linked from the Site Map!

6. For those new to filing educated returns and claims, the Bulletin Board has well over a thousand victories posted, hundreds of which include not only the check or notice or transcript, but also everything filed to make it happen. Examining any given half-dozen of these complete filings should equip anyone with a pretty clear picture of what's involved and what to do.

 Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents


...And A Few Words About What Is Taxed

The "what" is just as important as the "how"...


"…in Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880), it was held that [the] tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional."

Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601, (1895);

"…taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such,"

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), quoting and reiterating Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust.

"The income tax... ...is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the [gains] which they produce. ... [T]he [16th] amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty..."

F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Dept. Legislative Draftsman, House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580

"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."

Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16);

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…"

Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws'

"If [a] tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Whether the [income] tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of critical importance [for this analysis]. If not that, it is an "impost", or a "duty". A capitation or other "direct" tax it certainly is not."

Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (citations omitted.)

An excise (indeed, any kind of indirect tax, whether an 'excise', 'duty' or 'tariff') is a tax on the happening of an event, as distinguished from a tax on a person; and specifically, the exercise of a privilege granted by the taxer:

"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege..."

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

Case law recognizes no distinction between a privilege tax and an excise tax. See Bank of Commerce Trust Co. v. Senter, 260 S.W. 144, 148 (Tenn. 1924) (“Whether the tax be characterized in the statute as a privilege tax or an excise tax is but a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is an indirect or privilege tax.”); American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880 (M.D. Tenn. 1937) (“The terms ‘excise’ tax and 'privilege’ tax are synonymous and the two are often used interchangeably.”); see also 71 AM JUR. 2d State and Local Taxation §24, (“The term ‘excise tax’ is synonymous with ‘privilege tax,’ and the two have been used interchangeably. Whether a tax is characterized in the statute imposing it as a privilege tax or an excise tax is merely a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is a privilege tax.”) Thus, the excise tax now before us is, by more complete description, purportedly an excise upon a particular privilege, assessed according to the quantity of substance possessed in enjoyment of such privilege.

Waters, et al. v. Chumley No. E2006-02225-COA-RV-CV, Court of Appeals of Tennessee

It is the "privilege" element that creates the nexus on which a legitimate claim of liability is grounded-- permission to do the thing (the privilege) comes with a price-- a percentage of the proceeds.

Confusion has arisen in some quarters over the years about just what constitutes the "privilege" that can be taxed. As instructed by all the foregoing authority, the simple answer is, "Any gainful activity [event] in which, by its nature, one cannot engage without the permission of the federal government."

From this definition several things can be seen. One is that anything done by right cannot be taxed under the income excise. Plainly, anything done by right needs no permission from the government.

Similarly obvious is that the enjoyment of services which the government is required to provide by the Constitution, or practices imposed or made effectively unavoidable by government policy do not qualify as excise-taxable activities or events, nor does their influence convert otherwise untaxable activities or events into taxable ones. Examples would include such things as the providing (or enjoying the benefits of) a common defense, or the use of Federal Reserve Notes.

Another thing made obvious by the nature of an excise is that the "status" of the one doing the thing taxed (such as citizenship or residency or artificial versus natural) is irrelevant. A "status"-relevant tax would be a tax on being something rather than on doing something, and as has been shown, an excise falls on doing something privileged, not on being privileged.

(SADLY, A LOT OF "TAX HONESTY" FOLKS BECOME non-filers, or attempt to substitute useless alternative instruments such as "rescission affidavits" for the returns which are the only rebuttal instruments the taxing authorities will actually recognize, due to being taken in by specious theorizing about "status" being relevant to the tax. These folks imagine that to sign a "US Individual Income Tax Return" is to declare oneself a "US Individual", a theorist-invented term which does not appear in the law but which they imagine to denominate a "privileged status".

Somehow those taken in by this "status" misunderstanding are unable to perceive that the title of an individual 1040 means "US Tax Return For An Individual". Somehow they also fail to recognize that if a "status" like this is the reason they can be taxed on the same economic activity for which someone else could not be, this "status" is hardly a "privilege".

These folks also seem oblivious to the fact that even non-resident aliens are taxed on their gainful use of federal stuff, making pretty opaque any special tax-relevance imagined to attend being whatever they think a "US Individual" might be...

"The normal tax shall be withheld at the source from income accrued to nonresident aliens from corporate obligations and shall be returned and paid to the Government by debtor corporations and withholding agents as in the case of citizens and resident aliens,..."

"The liability, under the provisions of the law, to render personal returns, on or before March 1 next succeeding the tax year, of annual net income accrued to them from sources within the United States during the preceding calendar year, attaches to nonresident aliens as in the case of returns required from citizens and resident aliens."

"Nonresident aliens are held to be subject to the liabilities and requirements of all administrative, special, and general provisions of law in relation to the assessment, remission, collection, and refund of the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913, and collectors of internal revenue will make collection of the tax by distraint, garnishment, execution, or other appropriate process provided by law."

Treasury Decision 2313 (1916)

(b) Income connected with United States business - graduated rate of tax

(1) Imposition of tax

A nonresident alien individual engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year shall be taxable as provided in section 1 [regular tax rates and rules] or 55 [alternative minimum tax rates and rules] on his taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

26 USC § 871 (current as of 2016)

I hope everyone with clearer eyes will help guide those taken in by this "status" notion back onto the right path. Three analyses and commentaries that might help can be found here, here and here.)

SO, THERE'S A GOOD WORKING SUMMARY of the "what" factor. Now let's all go forth and apply our knowledge, claim our rights, and invoke and uphold the law!

"All that is necessary for the defeat of evil is that good men should do something."

-Pete Hendrickson

NOTE: For an in-depth study of the "what" (and the "why", too), see (and widely share) this page.

NOTE I: Anticipating the question from some quarters, let me point out that being found not disqualified to work (due to being an illegal immigrant), such as by application of the I-9-related protocols, is not the granting of permission to work. Without getting into the legitimacy or proper scope of the authority asserted in such a program (and the sloppy use of the expression "authorization" found in the related paperwork), it involves a vetting, not a permitting. Anyone not disqualified is thereby free to exercise his or her right to work without hindrance, whether the feds like it or not.

NOTE III: Working for a company which had to secure permission from the government to engage in a given business activity is not something for which the worker needed permission, except in specialized circumstances. While ABC Timber Co. needed permission to log federal forestland, company worker Joe Smith cuts trees with ABC Timber's pernmission, not that of the feds.

NOTE IV: As difficult as it sometimes is for some folks to come to terms with (due to a truly despicable fraud in its implementation and marketing), "social security" benefits are just gifts given by government permission, to which the recipients are not legally entitled (that is, in which the recipients have no ownership interest). Receiving them is a taxable event. See this for more on that subject.

Check the FAQ pages for additional specialized notes related to this subject.

 Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents



The Rule Of Law Is Being Murdered In Cincinnati, And No One Is Saying A Word

The failure to sound the alarm-bells now means funeral bells will soon be ringing

ON MARCH 11, 2016, a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision denying Doreen Hendrickson's appeal of her 2014 conviction on a single count of "criminal contempt of court". The decision upholds unprecedented orders compelling a government adversary in a legal contest to make government-dictated, government-benefitting false testimony.

Also upheld is an equally-unprecedented jury instruction relieving the government of the burden of proving a statutory element of a charged offense: "[I]t is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order that the defendant is accused of violating was unlawful or unconstitutional."

The charge in the case concerned orders made to Mrs. Hendrickson by a federal district court judge in 2007. The orders were written by, and issued at the request of, the DOJ in the context of a lawsuit seeking the return of purportedly "erroneous refunds" of amounts withheld from Mrs. Hendrickson's husband, Peter, during 2002 and 2003.

In fact, the refunds were not errors. They had been made by an unusually well-informed, eyes-wide-open United States, and only after a bit of resistance and a great deal of scrutiny. What's more, they had been made even while the DOJ was struggling in several courts around the country to suppress Pete Hendrickson's first book, 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America', in which he reveals information about the income tax which the government does not wish to be widely known.

After losing in that series of earlier efforts, the DOJ tried to work around its lack of a legitimate and lawful way of suppressing 'Cracking the Code'. The "work-around" was a bogus "lawsuit" in which it falsely claimed the refunds it had made to the Hendricksons-- the first of their kind in American history, but by 2006 being routinely issued to tens of thousands of 'Cracking the Code' readers by the feds and dozens of state governments-- were just big mistakes made by an IRS that had been caught napping.

As a key part of its new book-suppression "work-around", the ruling written by the DOJ for the signature of the presiding judge in the lawsuit included false "findings" about the Hendricksons' tax liabilities for 2002 and 2003 based on a fictional IRS "examination report". The ruling also included false "findings" about what 'Cracking the Code' says about the tax*-- by a judge who never read the book, and didn't even hold a single hearing in the case before issuing these official "facts" as requested by the government.

Most importantly, the "work-around" signature-stamped ruling contained two orders to Peter and Doreen Hendrickson. The orders are designed to compel the Hendricksons to personally repudiate Pete Hendrickson's research into the true nature of the income tax, and to create for the government a fictional basis for the application of the tax to the Hendricksons' 2002 and 2003 earnings (which the government would then be able to treat as a retroactive validation of its fraudulent lawsuit).

It is these orders Doreen Hendrickson is accused of "criminally" violating in the contempt charge for which she was convicted after two trials (the first having ended in a hung jury), and which was the focus of her appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

ONE ORDER COMMANDS MRS. HENDRICKSON TO DECLARE-- over her signature and under oath-- that she believes her earnings during 2002 and 2003 as a private tutor, and those of her husband as a purchasing director of a private-sector property-management firm, qualify as "income" as that term is meant in tax law. Mrs. Hendrickson does NOT believe these earnings qualify, and has testified repeatedly to that fact.

The government also does not believe the Hendricksons' earnings qualify. If the government believed the earnings qualify, 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b) requires it to produce sworn returns of its own making this allegation (a fact about which both government prosecutors and the presiding judge lied during Mrs. Hendrickson's second trial).

The government has never made 6020(b) returns concerning the Hendrickson's 2002 and 2003 earnings, as can be seen on Treasury Department certificates of assessment and IRS Master File transcripts for those years. These official records not only show that no 6020(b) returns have been created, but explicitly show the government's agreement that nothing the couple earned for those years qualified as "income" other than the $28.34 in interest from a national bank which the Hendricksons had duly reported.

Nonetheless, the government asked that the Hendricksons be compelled to replace their sworn tax returns for 2002 and 2003 with new ones. The couple was ordered to list their tutoring and property-management earnings for those years as "income", and to sign the forms indicating, under oath, that they believe this characterization of those earnings to be true and correct to the best of their own knowledge and belief.

The couple was given a second order, as well. This one enjoins the Hendricksons from filing tax documents "based on the false and frivolous claims in [the book] 'Cracking the Code' that only federal, state and local government workers are subject to the income tax," even though, as noted previously, the book makes no such claims, and the judge issuing this order, which was based on a "finding" as to the book's contents, has admitted to never having actually read the book.

The practical effect of this second order is to compel the Hendricksons to declare any and all earnings to be "income" on any future forms they complete, and to declare their belief in the truth of this characterization, since any failure to do so will be alleged to be based on the falsely-ascribed "claims made in 'Cracking the Code'...", and thus, a violation of this second order. This false construct was, in fact, deployed in the charge against Doreen Hendrickson, which included an allegation of contemptuous violation of this second order for her failure to declare a belief that $65 she earned in 2008 from a day's work as a movie extra qualifies as "income".

PLAINLY, BOTH ORDERS DOREEN HENDRICKSON WAS CHARGED with a crime for disobeying attempt to take control of two Americans' expressions of belief. Both orders try to force these Americans to declare beliefs for the government's benefit, and more, things the coerced speakers believe to be false.

Plainly, both orders are transparent violations of the speech rights the government is prohibited from abridging by the First Amendment, and lack even a pretense of validity.

Both orders are plainly fraudulent, as well. As has been shown, the government admits that what it wants the Hendricksons to say they believe is untrue even in its own mind. Further, the second order is constructed of a false ascription of content to a book the order-issuing judge has never even read.

The Hendricksons have refused to obey these fraudulent, rights-trampling, transparently invalid orders, just as would any decent, law-abiding American. Nonetheless, in 2013, Doreen Hendrickson was indicted on a charge of contempt of court for her courageous exercise of her right to control her own expressions even in the face of this executive and judicial corruption.

In trial, the government requested, and the judge issued, an instruction to the jury that, "[I]t is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order that the defendant is accused of violating was unlawful or unconstitutional."  By this instruction-- which invokes a doctrine of generic character, equally applicable to any court order as much as to these particular orders-- government-requested court orders are elevated to the level of divine edicts, to be suffered without recourse no matter what they command.

This doctrine will equally shield from challenge and correction an order to confess to alleged child abuse as much as it shields these orders to commit tax-law perjury. This doctrine says, "It doesn't matter what the state commands you to do. The state can command anything, legal or illegal, authorized by the Constitution or in defiance of the Constitution, it doesn't matter. You must simply do whatever you're told. If you do not, you go to prison, period."

This instruction has never been made in any trial before in American history. But now it has, and it has been upheld by the Sixth Circuit in a decision originally unpublished, but now published on the government's motion and therefore a formal precedent which can be used to argue for the same instruction in every other case involving orders issued by any judge.

IN ITS DECISION, THE APPELLATE PANEL argues for exactly what I have just described. Refusing to address the question of the lawfulness of the orders involved, the panel spends several pages arguing that it need not conduct any such analysis, finishing with, "[T]he constitutionality of the underlying order is not at issue in this case." Doreen Hendrickson should have just done what she was told, the panel says, whether the orders were illegal or not.

Upholding the instruction keeping the question from the jury the panel "reasons" that if the jury were to consider "lawfulness" it would invade the authority of the court. Again, the argument is, orders of a court are not to be questioned by mere citizens.

If told to jump, all a citizen can say is "How high, m'lord?" The pretense of a jury trial will be conducted for the ostensible purpose of getting the People's agreement that a crime was committed, but, well... not really.

Perhaps recognizing the inanity of its own positions in this regard and as in its own refusal to strike down the orders, the panel then digs deeper still. It goes so far as to argue that "lawful" is not an element of criminal contempt anyway, despite its explicit inclusion in the statute under which Doreen Hendrickson was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 401(3):

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as--

(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

The details of these arguments and positions of the appellate panel can be seen laid out in concise detail in this filed "Petition for En Banc Re-Hearing" of the appeal (or in this more accessible, and slightly warmer "journalist's version").*

AT BOTTOM, THEN, A FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT has held that an American can be ordered to declare beliefs she does not hold. It has further held that when tried for disobedience her jury can be prevented from considering the unlawfulness of the orders, and an appellate court needn't consider that issue. In short, a federal circuit court has established a precedent upholding an unchallengeable judicially-administered tyranny.

This decision has been out there for more than three weeks now. And yet, there has not been a single word about it on any website other than this one, to my knowledge, and not a speck of media attention.

No one has expressed an opinion about the legitimacy of this decision, or about its deadly threat to the rule of law. No one has spent a pixel asking why the Sixth Circuit would resort to these absurd and unprecedented arguments in this particular case, why the DOJ sought these bizarre, plainly illegal orders in the first place, or why one district court judge went along with them back in 2007, and another went along with this prosecution in 2013 and 2014.

Instead, everyone is just standing there watching.

The rule of law is being murdered here, in an effort to cover up information critically-important to the preservation (or restoration) of liberty and limited government in America.

And so far, everyone is just letting it happen.

Has America become the land of the sheep and home of the knave?

I hope not.

I hope people will finally start raising their voices, before it's too late.

PLEASE RECOGNIZE WHAT IS AT STAKE in all this. I say without any hyperbole at all that the preservation of even a hint of liberty for you and your kids rests on immediate action. We must slam shut the new door to despotism pushed open by the Sixth Circuit in this barbaric decision RIGHT NOW!  

You know how this goes. If the state gets away with dictating Doreen's testimony in this case, it will soon be dictating the testimony and "admissions" of anyone it chooses to target for property-seizure, compelled waiver of rights or simple punishment. If the damning "testimony" is not made, trial for "contempt" follows, and the unlawfulness of the order will be off the table for the jury, just as in Doreen's trials. The only thing that will matter is that the false testimony was not made as commanded.

This ploy will be used to control testimony about others, or concerning matters of public policy, also. And the public will never know. One feature of Doreen's case was that she was ordered not only to swear she believes what she does not, but to conceal the fact that what she said was not her own testimony, and that she was forced to say it.

The potential for evil here is unprecedented. Please, PLEASE get involved in helping to publicize this outrage and demanding the overturning of Doreen's conviction, if not the impeachment of every judge responsible for the whole ugly affair.


In the list below you'll find some of the people to whom you should send emails. Attach this file: http://losthorizons.com/TheRuleOfLawIsBeingMurderedInCincinnati.pdf; or paste in the link.  Make your email a personal message asking the recipient to read the 4-page .pdf and the exhibits linked from within it, and explaining that it concerns an unprecedented government assault on speech rights and the rule of law in general that you want to see publicized.

Glenn Greenwald- glenn.greenwald@theintercept.com

Lew Rockwell- lew@lewrockwell.com

Tom Woods- woods@mises.org

Thomas DiLorenzo- TDilo@aol.com

Jacob Hornberger- jhornberger@fff.org

Will Grigg- wngrigg@msn.com

Chuck Baldwin- chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

John Whitehead- johnw@rutherford.org

William Anderson- anderwl@prodigy.net

Justin Raimondo- justin@antiwar.com

Karen Kwiatkowski- ksusiek@shentel.net

Paul Rosenberg- p.rosenberg@cryptohippie.com

Tom Englehardt- tomdispatch@yahoo.com

Laura Poitras- laura.poitras@theintercept.com

John Stossel- john.stossel@foxnews.com

KrisAnne Hall- thepastorjchall@gmail.com

Maury Jones- jonesy@reagan.com

Robert Parry- consortnew@aol.com

Paul Craig Roberts- instituteforpe@gmail.com

Jeff Rense- webmaster@rense.com

Amber Lyon- amberlyonlive@gmail.com

George Noory- george@coasttocoastam.com

Jonathan Turley- jturley@law.gwu.edu

G. Edward Griffin- griffin@realityzone.com

Doug Owen- doug@oraclebroadcasting.com

Letters to the editor of your local (or favorite larger) paper would be great, too. So would letters and emails to lawyer's organizations and law professors across the country. Keep in mind that EVERYONE will recognize their own stake in this issue, if it is properly put to them.

A serious and sustained clamor right now might succeed in helping the en banc Sixth Circuit decide to do the right thing, being thus informed that what they do will not have the cover of darkness and public disregard. Please make that noise.

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

-Thomas Jefferson

* As good as it is, the odds of the full court re-hearing the case per this petition are vanishingly small absent a hue and cry from the public. The courts in general have already shown their stripes, and even in cases not being managed by the DOJ there is an institutional disinclination against repudiating decisions once made.

This article is permalinked at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/SelectedCuts.htm#14




About The Trump Candidacy

SOMETIMES GREAT POLITICAL THEATER offers more than just entertainment. The responses of the electorate and the political establishment to the candidacy of Donald Trump make for a great case-in-point, as they highlight some very important truths to the discerning eye:

Truth No. 1: Americans are sick of war and the costs of war and the lies about the reasons for war.

Donald Trump is NOT doing so well because he appeals to some vulgarity in the character of lots of Americans. Or, more accurately, Trump is not doing so well because he makes any meaningfully-greater appeal to such vulgarity than any other candidate. They ALL speak like ill-bred and ill-educated boobs on matters of Muslims, trade agreements and economics in general, and most of the rest of what establishment politicians and their media shills use to hypocritically criticize Trump.

Rather, Trump is doing so well because he appears to be the candidate least likely to perpetuate and expand United States military aggression, and also because he therefore appears to be the candidate most likely to break the military-industrial-congressional complex's grip on Americans' shoulders, by which it pins them in place with one hand while the other digs in their pockets for cash in between assaults on the Constitution.

Truth No. 2: Americans are sick of the neo-cons and their bs.

The electorate has awakened to the fact that even if the bogeymen and alleged "threats to national interests" cited by the neo-con cabal to justify its perpetual-war policies and demands for ever-greater sacrifices of liberty, blood and treasure are actually true, the damage from these "solutions" is greater than anything those hobgoblins could inflict. And increasing numbers of Americans are awakening to the fact that the hobgoblins aren't real anyway.

Truth No. 3: The threat felt by the elite from Trump, just as from any candidate outside their ranks, is a threat to THEIR interests, not yours and mine.

The foaming-at-the-mouth opposition to Trump  by "establishment" candidates and their media shills has nothing to do with concern for the well-being of you, me, or America. The reason for that rabid, maniacal opposition is the threat Trump represents to 1) the neo-con agenda, 2) the gravy-train of the "made-men" of the political establishment, 3)  the continued ascendancy of the military-industrial-congressional complex, and 4) the police-state that ascendancy brings in its wake.

While a Trump presidency may well be dangerous for the rest of us in some fashion or another, solicitude for the interests of flyover-country is not what's on the minds of the John Kasichs and the Hillary Clintons and the folks at NPR or the RNC. People in those places got where they are by a close and exclusive attention to the interests of "number one" (and those of their special-interest clients who reward "number one" for good service) and that's what we're seeing from them now.

NONE OF THE FOREGOING is a commentary on the virtues of a Trump presidency in any other respect than the apparently lower threat he poses than the other candidates of pushing us into a war with Russia or of perpetuating and expending the so-called "war on terror" and all its domestic political pathologies. But, of course, this is a VERY important respect...

Otherwise though, as mentioned above, Trump is an econmic illiterate, like all the others. Like all others, he presents at least a facade of cultural and political vulgarity.

Trump is in no way a White Knight who is going to shut down the fed, broom out the corrupt federal judiciary, hand walking-papers to a few million federal bureaucrats or restore the republic in any other way-- at least not deliberately and as part of a plan. In short, Donald Trump is no Ron Paul.

THAT SAID, HOWEVER, THERE IS one important difference between Trump and the others. Unlike the rest, what is bad about Trump's positions is not because the badness serves his (or his owner's) agenda, as is true of all the rest.

In Trump's case, he just doesn't know any better. Unlike Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio, who are how they are because they've been paid to be, or whose rise to their current spots in the political hierarchy is due to their actual embrace of the evil policies of statism, Trump is not a dyed-in-the-wool statist, and he can learn and change bad positions, where these others never will, by predisposition or by policy.

Further, because Trump's positions are not deliberately wrong-headed, while those of his detractors and competitors are, Trump is least likely of the bunch of them to expand and worsen the problems caused by past policies, even if he learns nothing going forward. Bombastic Donald Trump isn't going to channel "Silent Cal" Coolidge from the standpoint of personal style, but he might from a policy point-of-view

FINALLY, THERE EXISTS THE REMOTE POSSIBILITY that Trump might actually do a little housecleaning of Mordor-on-the-Potomac, rather than just not make things steadily worse, as all the others would certainly do. One other feature Trump offers to an angry America that is reaching limits of its restraint with institutional corruption and the steady assault on the rule of law by government is his lack of ingrained, this-is-how-I-got-here habits of log-rolling and back-scratching and looking the other way with a wink and a nod.

The American political culture has become an unfunny satire, well-exemplified by each occasion on which some public official or another declares him- or herself to "take responsibility" for some evil or disastrous failure, and then nothing happens. No resignation; no impeachment; no charges; no changes.

That farcical play-acting at statesmanship is what everyone in authority in Washington is used to, and it never even occurs to them that it isn't good enough. Or they look on it as what protects them, too.

But Donald Trump might actually hand out some red cards or some pink slips. If he were to do so every time an executive office-holder or bureaucrat messed up, a million bad apples would be chucked out of the barrel, even if Trump only got one term in office.

So here's my bottom line: GO TRUMP!

BTW, ANYONE WHO THINKS it has been Bernie Sanders supporters disrupting Trump campaign events is naive enough to BE a Bernie Sanders supporter. Bernie Sanders supporters are not the culprits here.

Those with reason to fear the pissed-off Americans Trump's candidacy is arousing are pros at "false flag" operations, and anyone can buy a box of "Feel the Bern" T-shirts. These disruptions have the fingerprints of establishment spin-meisters all over them, and again, they're the ones with the motive. If disruptions were happening at Clinton rallies, it might be rational to buy the notion that Sanders supporters are responsible. But not when the targets are Trump events.


Pete, I’ve been looking for a physical mailing address for Trump and have contacted his campaign headquarters. I left a message and hope they’ll contact me.

I’ve thought we CtC educated folk might Buy a Book for Trump. If we flood his campaign headquarters with your book, somebody, many-bodies, may read it and inform Trump.

Trump is not happy with the tax structure. He has said in campaign that he gets audited every year. I’m sure he’d like that to stop also. He might find that he has a lot of revenue that is not taxable. He’d love knowing that.


Send to:

Donald Trump,  c/o The Trump Organization, Inc. 725 Fifth Ave 26th Flr. New York, NY, 10022


Why Does The Government Lie About 'Cracking the Code'?




Another Recent Victory

IT'S ALWAYS ESPECIALLY PLEASING to post victories produced by amended returns. These are instances in which someone has already, maybe years ago, kissed the hard-earned fruit of their labors good-bye.

That good person had to struggle to come to terms with the expropriation of what is rightfully theirs, but at the time was forced by lack of knowledge of any solution to resign him- or herself to the conclusion that nothing could be done. Odds are fair that a dive was taken into some pool of eyewash formulated to make it all seem ok-- "social contract" nonsense, or something of the sort.

In fact, this good person had probably talked himself into looking forward to the "refund" he had calculated on his "ignorance tax" return, while papering over the fact that it amounted to an interest-free loan to the state. Even more paper will have been laid over the fact that notwithstanding that little "refund", the state was being left with far-and-away the lion's share of what had been withheld or paid-in.

So, when someone who has learned the truth goes back and makes all this as it always should have been by way of a "re-do", it's especially gratifying. This week's featured victory is just such a happy event.

MIKE MYERS HAD FILED a conventional shake-down permission-slip concerning 2013 to begin with. He can't be blamed-- everyone from his parents to those friendly folks at H.R. Block helped him believe that doing things that way was just somehow right and proper, even in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

But then Mike learned the truth. Being a proper and fit inhabitant of the land of the free and the home of the brave, Mike promptly got up off all fours and kicked open the barn door with this educated amended return.*

The prompt result? Just what it should be, the return of that "lion's share" that have been resting in the wrong belly for a few years, along with the interest that should have been accumulating in MIKE'S bank account during the intervening years:


Mike's righteous action has not only made HIM whole. It has also tipped the scales of power a little bit back in the People's favor, toward the way the Founders mean for things to be, and the only way Americans' liberty and security can be preserved.

We all owe Mike gratitude for his effort. I hope everyone who knows him gives him a clap on the back and a heartfelt, "Thank you!", just as we all should do to any and every one of the tens of thousands of other true American heroes whose ranks Mike has joined.

*It will be noted that Mike worked for railroad companies during 2013. But apparently whatever particular work he did lacks the federally-privileged character often true of activities associated with such companies, as Mike averred on his amended return with the subsequent manifest agreement of the IRS.

 Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents

A Michigan Version Of The "Watching The Watchmen" Amendment Has Been Proposed



A Serendipitous Find

WHILE DOING SOME RESEARCH FOR YET ANOTHER ARTICLE on misunderstandings of jurisdictional aspects of the income tax, I came across a Supreme Court ruling from a couple of decades back that I'd never read before. Happily, it proves to contain very useful information that ought to help debunk another batch of infectious misunderstandings long-embedded in certain segments of the "tax honesty" community-- the "strawman", "everyone is presumed to be a corporation by the state", "income only means corporate profit" and "ALL CAPS" myths (all of which are intertwined with each other in one complex way or another).

I found this ruling cited in the opinion of the district court judge making an early partial judgment against John Trowbridge in what Trowbridge has called "The Lufkin Case" and which will be the subject of that upcoming article. (The final judgment in the case was issued 11 days ago.)

While explaining why summary judgment was found in the government's favor in regard to two corporations apparently owned by the other Trowbridge, the judge points out that under the federal rules, any kind of artificial person MUST be represented by an attorney in order to have standing as either plaintiff or defendant. It is because this was not done that summary judgment was issued for the government against these two defendants, who effectively never showed up and offered no defense.

 The case to which the judge cites is Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993), which makes the following observation:

"It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829 (1824); see Turner v. American Bar Assn., 407 F. Supp. 451, 476 (ND Tex., 1975) (citing the "long line of cases" from 1824 to the present holding that a corporation may only be represented by licensed counsel), affirmance order sub nom. Taylor v. Montgomery, 539 F. 2d 715 (CA7 1976), and aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. American Bar Assn., 542 F. 2d 56 (CA8 1976)."

Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (This is also a great case for making clear that "individual" means "natural person", by the way.)

 A pretty straightforward debunk of the nonsensical assertion that everyone in a federal court is presumed to be a corporation (i.e., those captive to the "ALL-CAPS" nonsense-- long-since thoroughly-debunked here; the "tax only falls on corporate profits" nonsense-- long-since debunked here; and the "strawman" nonsense-- long-since debunked here). Those who have fallen prey to these various flavors of nonsense ought to take careful note.

Plainly, if any of this stuff which they have clung-to and striven to spread like a virus were true, every legal contest in which they acted pro se (which is pretty much all of them) or any in which they observed anyone acting pro se, would have ended with the same simple ruling issued against Trowbridge in this case-- that is, that the defendant lost by default for having never shown up, legally speaking.

Or, to put it another way, not one of these pro se litigants would have been allowed to proceed in prosecuting or defending their cases, if they were all being presumed to be corporations in order to be taxed, or to be dealt with by the government in any fashion, as the various nonsense theories argue. Every one of them coming into court "pro se" would be told they must have a licensed attorney represent them. Where they are defendants, the court would invariably appoint an attorney, and refuse to allow self-representation (making the "Faretta" ruling and doctrine an absurdity, of course, but at this point, who's counting...).

Of course, none of these things have ever happened (except where, as in this "Lufkin" case, actual corporations WERE involved, and were accordingly deemed to have offered no defense due to no attorney acting on their behalf, per this rule). So, anyone harboring (and promoting) these foolishnesses really need to just deep-six their erroneous notions and learn the real truth about the law (and especially about the income tax).

The happy fact is, if every person pulled off into the woods by "strawman" or "ALL CAPS" gibberish, or any of the rest of the troll-spawned distractions pushed out into the "tax honesty" community (for exactly the purpose of sending folks off on wild goose chases so they become harmless to the real problem) were to stay on the real field of battle and get busy with the real fight, we would win in a month.

Please help make that happen. Remember, friends don't let friends chase after will o' the wisps.

 Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents


What Life Is Like When The Truth Revealed In CtC Is Widely Understood


Did you know…

 …The US may be the only country in the world where people must commit perjury in order to owe and pay ‘God’s things to Caesar’?

If you work in the private sector, stop falsely swearing that your private-sector earnings are federal “income”1.  Perjury is a crime.  Exercise the law’s provision for protecting your private-sector earnings from the 154-year-old2 indirect excise known as the federal income tax.  Rebut fraudulent allegations made by your payers regarding the legal nature of your work and the earnings derived therefrom, so that you pay only your fair share.  Join the hundreds of thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans who have been doing so for more than a decade.  Learn how for free at losthorizons.com.

1--“We must reject… …the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts—everything that comes in—are income…”.

United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

2—The income tax in the United States was first instituted into law on July 1, 1862, during Lincoln’s presidency under the excise laws of the United States.   The preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code traces its roots to this original income tax law.


Get this flyer as a printable .pdf here


Poisonous Pieties

Now click here to learn the truth about the myths that have kept you from knowing the truth about the income tax

Now share these links with everyone in your address book and help turn this year's Season of Lies (now until April 15th) into a Season of Truth.

Another Featured Victory

I'M PLEASED TO ADD A VICTORY TO THE POSTED TOTAL that had actually been won a few years ago but had never been shared until now. Prompted, perhaps, by my very seriously-meant admonition here, Q. Z. has belatedly shared a $24K+ complete federal refund of everything withheld during 2012, plus interest. Well done, Q.!

By itself, Q.'s victory is wonderful, of course. ALL such victories for the rule of law over a revenue-collection structure that is 75 years into systemic misapplication of the tax whenever ignorance or intimidation can be exploited are wonderful, and worthy of celebration.

However, in this case, Q. happens to have included a cover letter very explicitly laying out the meaning of her filing. This feature makes her newly-shared victory particularly worthy of attention.

Q.'s cover letter makes crystal-clear that her refund was issued by an open-eyed government agency. The IRS was fully apprised of exactly what was being claimed, and why, before it agreed with the claim and cut that $24,317.53 check returning every penny withheld from Q. during 2012, Social security and Medicare taxes included-- plus interest. Here is the letter:

Here's the check:

The filing accompanied by the cover letter above (with Schedule A omitted) can be seen here.

MY HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS TO Q. on her victory on behalf of the rule of law. Had she not gotten educated about the real nature of the income tax, and stood up and acted, the unscrupulous state would have happily kept her money with a smirk at its success in "working-around" critically-important Constitutional provisions through the exploitation of ignorance and intimidation.

ON THE OTHER HAND, my heartiest denunciations for those incomprehensibly-stubborn people who persist in mindless denial of the truth about the tax revealed exclusively in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America.' Were they to acknowledge that endlessly-proven truth I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of posting yet more evidence like that above, over and over and over.

More, were those deniers to stop lying to themselves about CtC and the truth about the tax, all of us would be living RIGHT NOW in a transformed America. If you or anyone you know is suffering any injustice or outrage at the hands of the arrogant, overgrown, law-defying state, blame the CtC deniers.

"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."

-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

(BTW, there is no special benefit or virtue to cover letters generally, or to Q.'s in particular, from any kind of legal standpoint. Such letters do not prompt lawful responses from government agencies which otherwise wouldn't be forthcoming. A properly-made claim using only the government-published forms for that purpose is all that is needed to get that lawful response, as is amply demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands of such lawful responses and complete refunds secured with only those instruments.

BTW II, Q.s cover letter furnished me with a nice opportunity to make the point about CtC-educated refunds never being "slips through some crack", as those in denial yet cling-to with a degree of absurdity that became mind-bogglingly indefensible years ago, after the first ten or twenty thousand refunds were issued. But the IRS's own program documentation has always made clear to anyone not dedicated to blindness that every such refund has always been thoroughly vetted before being issued. See this.)

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents


Have I Ever Mentioned That The Revelations Of CtC Are Targeted By Trolls?

FORMER CBS REPORTER SHERYL ATKISSON describes how this kind of dis-information campaign is done. Despite the annoying preliminary 15 seconds or so of advertising, this video of her presentation is very much worth watching:

(H/T to Greg Belcher for finding and forwarding this great presentation.)

Losthorizons.com is one of those websites specifically-targeted by the corrupt interests at Wikipedia described by Atkisson. The behind-the-scenes folks at that site won't allow links on their pages to anything posted at losthorizons.com, nor even just text corrections of misinformation in their pages about the income tax.

That's the least of it. Click here for some specific discussion of the enormous campaign that's been actively spreading false information in hope of discouraging legitimate media attention, as well as men and women simply seeking the truth about the tax and liberty from the scourge of the "ignorance tax".

PLEASE GIVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT to the fact that YOU being secure in your own freedom rests on others learning the truth as well, and recognize that it falls to you to help overcome the dis-information campaign. Post and share your videos; share your victories; help silence the agents-provocateur and distraction-injectors whose nonsense is discussed and debunked here; and widely (and frankly, impatiently) share this page, this page and this page, challenging everyone in your address book to disconnect the phone and the TV for an afternoon and get educated.

Doing these things will be what makes it happen, Cap'n.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents


A Housekeeping Note

OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS I've heard from a number of folks that a firewall known as "Comodo" blocks access to this website. This is apparently a glitch in that program. This site is safe, as can be seen by going to https://google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagnostic/index.html#url=losthorizons.com.

Please share this info with others in your own address book so it gets around-- obviously those suffering the ill effects of this defect in Comodo won't be able to see it here themselves until they go into their firewall settings and manually whitelist losthorizons.com.

ALSO!!! Please go to the trouble of sharing the email you got alerting you to this new newsletter posting with as many people as possible.

Over the course of time the ISP I use (Yahoo) is periodically put on "spam" blacklists. If I do a sending of newsletter announcements during such an interval, my address can get tagged that way, too, and my email can then end up disappearing into spam folders in the email systems of what are actually newsletter subscribers. Unless told to look for them and whitelist mail from @losthorizons.com, some of these folks won't ever know that this has happened.


 Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents




WANTED! Your Article!!

Sharpen those pens, people!

MY FRIENDS, THIS NEWSLETTER NEEDS your creativity, your clear thinking, and your expressive energy! In short, this newsletter needs your journalism!

I know that writing for public consumption isn't everyone's cup of tea. But those who CAN string a few words together can importantly serve the educated, activist community by writing and submitting thoughtful, well-researched and persuasive articles on certain topics for posting on these pages.

Here are several topics for which submissions are desired:

  • Why the media is silent about the astonishing 12-year history of government acknowledgements of the accuracy of CtC's revelations and its simultaneous efforts to keep Americans from knowing about those revelations.

  • Why educating more Americans about the true history and actual provisions of the income tax is the most important thing that anyone seeking to restrain the state and restore the republic can do today.

  • Why "tax honesty gurus" stay mum about CtC and its unprecedented accomplishments in freeing people from improper application of the tax.

  • Why hunkering down in every-man-for-himself silence in the face of statist and fascist assaults on the rule of law leads to greater harm than what is hunkered-down against; that is, how fearful behavior just strengthens the thing feared.

  • How much better it is to encourage (and practice) bravery, honesty and openness than to counsel (and succumb to) fear, lies and concealment.

Articles should be 1500 words or less, with working titles and author's name at the beginning. Composition should strive for two and three sentence paragraphs organized in the form of a theme paper. Intend to persuade and inspire, not browbeat. Format should be either .doc or .odt. All submissions selected for posting may be subject to editing.

BTW, CtC Warrior Greg Sutton has just had a good educational/inspirational article published here.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents


Why Aren't People Suing?

SO, I WONDER HOW MANY FOLKS have thought about the fact that the First Amendment prohibits even a bogus "frivolous return penalty" threat, such as the customized "3176C" notices that a few educated filers have received over the years (see here, here and here for some examples)? After all, a "frivolous penalty" threat amounts to a threat by the government to punish someone for saying what the government wishes they would not say (or for not saying what the government wishes they would say).

Even when the threat is entirely reliant on the timidity and cooperation of the target for its effect or an outright hoax, the object of the exercise is to control the target's speech. Thus even when technically toothless it remains a gross violation of the Constitution and the victim's rights.

The threat is also intended to influence the target into at least withdrawing a claim to the refund of withheld or paid-in property, which would then default to government ownership (and really, the threat is meant to coerce an active endorsement of a government claim to the property, giving the appearance that the government's taking control of that property is proper and beyond legal challenge). Thus, these "frivolous penalty" threats are doubly criminal.

AFTER ALL, PROHIBITING INHERENTLY CORRUPT exercises of state power of precisely this sort is the reason we have a "freedom of speech" element in the First Amendment. Americans can't be made to say things for the government's benefit, nor punished for saying things the government finds inconvenient or at its expense-- this is perhaps the most thoroughly-settled aspect of Constitutional law there is. See a nice summary of Supreme Court case-law on this point in sections A., B. and C. of this paper.

Plainly, there is no exception to the amendment's provision whereby the government can simply argue, "We can punish you until you say what we want you to say, either directly or by being silent in the face of the allegations of others, as long as we call your expressions "frivolous", or exercise the coercion in the context of taxation..."

I think people subjected to this rights violation should be furious and in a suing mood, don't you?

(BTW, as an interesting side note, consider the limiting factor built in to the legitimate application of the 'frivolous return penalty" provisions, confining their application to those who are speaking not for themselves, and not as sovereign individuals in their own capacity, but on behalf of someone else, and as a legal duty, not an elective act:

26 USC § 6671 - Rule for application of assessable penalties

 (b) Person defined The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

The relevant speech of those within this specialized sub-class of "person" can perhaps be deemed outside the First Amendment's ambit. By this mechanism the "frivolous return penalty" is harmonized with the Constitution.

By the same token, the First Amendment prohibition of government speech-violations against undistinguished persons means that the sub-class defined at 26 USSC § 6671 must necessarily be confined to those described in that definition, per CtC scholarship. If that sub-class were not so confined, but deemed to extend to any kind of persons other than those circumscribed by a "limited-expansion-only" construction of the definition, the "frivolous penalty" would be unconstitutional.)

"Like a muddied stream or a polluted fountain is the righteous man who gives way before the wicked."

-Proverbs 25:26

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents

In Passing... Three cheers for Russia, which has stepped up to join Iran in aid of its long-time ally Syria against the noxious "Islamic State" nutcases that have sprung up like toadstools in the wake of the destabilization of the Middle East by the noxious neocon nutcases running Washington for the last 15 years.

More Educated Americans Testify, Showing Why The Deep State Fears CtC

"If the taxpayers of this country ever discovered that we operate on 98% bluff, the entire system will collapse."

-Reported remark by an internal revenue service officer to Sen. Henry E. Bellmon (R. Okla.) on April 15, 1971.


"The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction...  The IRS has never really known why people pay the income tax... The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through FEAR."

-Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’

CtC-EDUCATED, AMERICAN HERITAGE-LOVING grown-up Joe Black shares his testimony here. Tom Romin shares his testimony here. Greg Sutton shares his here. Enjoy Robert Harvey's testimony here. Tom's and Greg's and Robert's words, like those of others here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and all those whose evidence has been shared here, are solid examples of why the Deep State fears CtC.

It's this simple: If you study CtC you will know the truth about the tax. Further, you will know that you know the truth, beyond any doubt.

ONLY CtC will give you that certainty, because CtC is exclusively and uniquely complete and correct, as can be seen by any of thousands of different acknowledgements of every possible kind, from this to this to this to this.

Most telling, in its own way, is the government robotically resorting for years now to the strawman of falsely ascribing to CtC the ridiculous arguments that "wages are not income" and that only federal, state and local government workers are subject to the tax. This false ascription is then used as the basis for claiming the book is "false and frivolous"-- a lame and transparent dodge begging the question of why the state won't acknowledge what the book REALLY says and then attempt to dispute THAT.

Once you know the truth revealed in CtC, acting in accordance with that truth WILL liberate you from being an ignorance tax serf. This, the deep state fears mightily.

FURTHER, ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT deeply-known truth can NEVER legitimately qualify as any kind of a "tax crime", or for any penalties or fines. This is not only because what CtC teaches about the law and the tax is technically and legally correct, but also because all tax crimes are crimes of "intent" and all penalties rest for their legitimacy on "intent".

An educated filing in sincere accordance with what is known and believed to be true and correct cannot be lawfully treated as invalid, criminal or subject to penalty. Any effort by the state to claim otherwise is inherently corrupt.

Nor can any accurate and truthful filing be overcome by any lawful means, which is why the state is so focused on forcing Doreen to declare that she doesn't believe what CtC teaches, with the openly-declared hope that her doing so would discourage other Americans from acting on what they also believe.

LIKE HENRY BELLMON WAS TOLD, the "ignorance tax" scheme relies on bluff-- pretending that the truth is what the government suggests that it is (despite what the law and the courts and every other authority have actually been saying about it for 150 years). And like Jack Warren Wade, Jr. says, the scheme relies on fear-- doing everything possible to make people afraid to act on their scheme-shattering knowledge of the truth.

In short, the "ignorance tax" scheme can only survive if Americans can be bluffed into not seeking out the truth, and if those who learn that truth can be discouraged from acting on that truth.

But those who know the truth, and know they know the truth, cannot not act.

Acting on the truth is a moral imperative, as well as a legal imperative.

The undaunted actions of those who know the truth are "calls" against the bluff. Each "call" ratchets-up the spread of the truth exponentially and forces state acknowledgement of that truth, one way or another; and each such acknowledgment takes America one step closer to freedom from the 75-year state-unleashing, people-restraining "ignorance tax" scheme.

And THAT's why the deep state fears CtC.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

-Mohandas Gandhi

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents

A New Policy

I HAVE DONE MY BEST to lead this country to liberty from the mis-applied income tax. I have labored hard. I've shed a lot of sweat, a fair bit of blood and more than a few tears. But I seem to be pretty poor at that kind of work, because...

Right now, having just been forced to deliver my beloved bride to a prison camp, I'm bleeding pretty heavily. And yet, when I have asked all of you for what I firmly believe is a necessary resource to move the ball downfield and give my darling wife (and all the rest of us) the best chance at justice and an end to the assault on the rule of law-- simple testimonial videos requiring nothing from any of you but the phone in your pocket and three minutes of speaking from the heart-- I have had only a handful of people answer my call.

I CAN'T KEEP GOING THIS WAY. I have to be able to turn my attention away from writing new persuasive or skepticism-addressing articles week after week, and toward research, analysis and educational presentations that will benefit everyone already in this community. I need time to do some suing, and to bring together the resources and talent toward that end.

As said, it is my firm belief that your testimonial videos are the resource that I need to make big things happen, and they are unquestionably the thing I need to allow me to turn my attention away from trying to get horses to drink at the waterhole to which I have led them. Your words, in your great numbers and all in your own different ways, will do that better than anything I write possibly could.

And yet, you are not providing them, even despite my having been asking you for them for many years now (I renewed my entreaties as a front-page item just lately, in response to the media skepticism over what has been done to Doreen, but I first posted my request for these something along the lines of eight years ago...).

Therefore, with enormous reluctance, I am making portions of this website restricted access only. People have been urging me to do this for years now, telling me I should impose a charge to access my work-product, so as to enable me to keep producing. I have never been inclined to do so. I ask for donations, and will continue to do that, and if they do not come, then I will conclude that my work is of no value to anyone, and I will close shop.

But I now WILL charge a special something for access to some key portions of that work-- testimonial videos, as discussed, described and demonstrated here.

STARTING TODAY, SELECTED PAGES CONSTITUTING primarily "legal resources" pages will require passwords for access, and to get a password, I need your video. Similarly, if an email comes my way asking for guidance or assistance, it had best have a video attached, if I don't already have yours posted.

I hate to play it this way, but I want to win.

I'll tell you a story from when I was coaching my kids in soccer. Both of my kids at a certain age in their careers had run into a wall common to all but the very exceptional. They had gotten to be pretty good, and they wanted to enjoy the benefits of their hard work. But the arrival of this interest coincided with a new self-consciousness which made them reluctant to risk failing and looking foolish. So, they were hanging back from seizing the main chance when it appeared, and driving for the goal.

My solution was to post on the wall of our dining room a couple of simple points about self-discipline, the chief of which is this: You can't score a goal if you don't take a shot.

That's how it is here, too. If you don't stand up, you are laying down, and you'll never score that goal.

Here is what my kids live by now, in their own version of that lesson. I hear it from them all the time as they excel (accompanied by the sound of a father's breast swelling with pride): Go hard, or go home.

You, too. Go hard, or go home. Send those videos.

Do I ask for a lot? I want your victories to post, your financial support, your efforts spreading the word, and your beautiful faces and inspiring words, too. It IS a lot.

But I'll let Frederick Douglas explain:

"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

Fear nothing but God.

 Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents


Give Yourself A 30% Raise: A New Flyer


Get this flyer (h/t BH) as a .pdf here, cut out the sections and spread 'em around to EVERYONE.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents


What Makes YOU A Warrior For The Truth?

We each have our reasons, and our story. It's time, and it's needed, for you to share yours with the world.


"The day we see truth and do not speak is the day we begin to die."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

What does it for you?

Is it simply because no moral and upstanding person has any choice when it comes to telling the truth over his or her signature, whether on tax forms or anywhere else?


Is it recognition of the critical importance of the rule of law, and the knowledge that if everybody leaves its caretaking to someone else, it will soon be lost to us completely?


Is it the money?


Maybe it's just simple respect for your own rights as a human being, who is not and cannot be not involuntarily subordinated to others?


Maybe it's just simple respect for your general civic responsibility to be the grown-up and enforce frugality and restraint on a big, powerful creature of our own devising which otherwise is like a badly-raised teenage boy given whiskey and car keys and let loose on the road to wreak havoc?


Or is it, perhaps, a more acute anxiety that if our bonfire of a state isn't damped, and quickly, it'll soon burn down the house around us all?


What IS it that firms up your jaw and stiffens your resolve?


It's time to take off the bushel and share your light!


I would like you to think about what it is that motivates you for a few moments (or all day, if you like), and then send me your thoughts. I want to put YOUR reasons to work inspiring folks who don't yet understand what this is all about.


In this day and age, the most effective way for you to share your thinking for the benefit of others is to video-record yourself talking about how you feel, and explaining what inspires and motivates YOU.


All you need is a webcam or cell-phone equipped with a camera. If you don't have, or know how to use, one of these, have a friend help.


If needed, write a little script for yourself. Better, though, to just speak extemporaneously, after spending a little time sorting out your thoughts and getting down into your heart. Perhaps make it a video of someone in your family, or a close friend, interviewing you.


Keep yourself to no more than 2 or 3 minutes, and keep in mind that the purpose is not to educate, but to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE. Your video will be one of many to be shared.


You needn't feel any obligation to be profound, and you shouldn't try to explain anything about the law, other than to say that you have read it and you know it's on your side. You just need to be sincere, and uplifting. Your object is to make your audience want to have what you have, and to be where you are in your heart.


Keep in mind that you're speaking to an audience that doesn't yet know ANYTHING about the subject, and whose first reaction is, "This must be illegal; this must be dangerous; this is too good to be true." You want to pull that audience right past such things, and straight to a focus on truth, morality, and our American heritage of liberty and the rule of law.




Speak about rights. Speak about morality, and the obligation of a grown-up and responsible person to speak the truth and to enforce the Constitution. Speak about everyone's duty to give to God what is God's, always, and to Caesar only what is really Caesar's. Speak of your obligation to respect yourself, and to look out for the current and future well-being of your children and your fellow citizens. Speak of CtC, and what its information has done for your understanding and resolve. Show the book.


If you have had victories, describe them. Better still, show them, if possible.


Be clear about just what you accomplished: EVERYTHING back-- Social Security, Medicare and all; a "notice of deficiency" closing notice; an on-paper agreement or acknowledgment that your earnings weren't subject to the tax and everything withheld or paid-in was an "overpayment"; a transcript showing all $0s; or whatever happened.


When you speak of state victories, name the state. If you had to overcome balkiness from a tax agency before winning any victory, describe that, too!


If you're in a battle now, speak of your resolve to uphold the law, come what may. If you haven't yet begun to act, speak of your decision to do so, and your plans.


Remember, your purpose is to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE.


If you're dealing with ongoing balkiness, describe that, too, if you wish-- but be sure to explain why you're not discouraged, and why you are not standing down, not slinking back into the barn, and not choosing to endorse the lies.


Mention what you do for a living, whether you're a doctor, homemaker, lawyer, trucker, IT guy or gal, or a retiree or student. Help people understand that the company of grown-up activist Americans they are being invited to join cuts across all demographics and all interests-- with the common denominator being respect for the law and love of the principles on which this great country was founded.


This is your chance to get a LOT accomplished.


We've all had frustrating occasions of trying to explain all this to a friend, neighbor, family member or co-worker, only to pile up against the wall of a mind not yet ready to listen and learn. Here is your chance to address a self-selected audience of folks who have themselves decided that it's time for them to begin paying attention, and have clicked on your testimonial for exactly that reason.


Further, think about this: You want judges, bureaucrats, CPAs, lawyers, the HR people where you work, your pastors, your neighbors and everyone else to acknowledge the truth about the tax openly and straightforwardly. How and why would these folks do this if YOU won't?

You want these folks to learn the truth. Why would they even recognize that there is a truth to be learned if you won't attest to having learned it yourself? You've got to stand up, face forward and chin up and tell these folks that you have studied and checked and verified and seen the evidence and seen the government evasions and you know that the tax is not the capitation that the beneficiary government wants everyone to think it is but a benign, but strictly limited thing, and that they need to study and learn that, too.

Again, if you have victories to show, that's nice, and powerful, too. But you don't have to have victories to display in order to declare your knowledge of what the law says. I've never flown around the world, but I've seen the evidence and considered the arguments, and I'm not hesitant to declare it a sphere...

Even those of you who haven't yet studied CtC have surely read this short document, and have verified everything in it for yourself. You should therefore be declaring its veracity and its message, loud and proud. Again, if you won't say it, how can you hope that others will ever even bother to look at the facts?

Be the change you want to see in the world, or there won't be any change.

So, please make anSo, please make and send those videos right away! You can share them with me via a cloud-based drive space like OneDrive.Live.com or GoogleDrive, or mail DVDs to me at 232 Oriole St., Commerce Twp., Michigan 48382, or even email to me if each file is no more than 20 megs (and you can break a video up if need be-- I can reassemble them). Render as .mpg or mp4, if possible; if not, send them how you have them and I'll make them work.


Remember, the restoration of institutional respect for individual rights and the rule of law depends on enough individuals insisting upon it. Do your part to let those starting to rub the sleep from their eyes know that there is a community already waiting for their fellowship with open arms and open hearts and shining spirits.


See how some of your fellow warriors for the truth have done their parts in videos sent over the years: Forrest Anderson, Brian Harriss, Joe Black, Jeremy Lee, Guy Placencio, Joe H., Robert Harvey, Kennard van Camp, Greg Sutton, Paul Eberle, Tim Kendrick, Christine Schrock, Brady Ness, Barry Sullivan, Brian Farmer, Greg Belcher, Patrick Hart and Ryan Latila, Abbott Morgan, Val Smithson, Sandor Bors, Erik Segelstrom, The Mystery Woman, Matt Zelina, Rod Schimdt, Tom Romin, Glenn H.f="https://youtu.be/P8pmhuwmgAc" target="_blank">Ms. B. Ms. B., Paul Smith and Patrick Mooney/span>


"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

-Margaret Mead

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Care to post a comment on this article?

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

Return to contents

The Crime of the Misapplied Income Tax



Was Grandpa Really a Moron?

Critical Inquiries for a New American Century


Bob’s Bicycles


Getting Free Of The "Income" Tax Scheme Is As Easy As Falling Off A Bike




To get an idea of how today's "income" tax scheme works, try this little exercise:


Think of the federal government as a guy named Bob, who lives down the street from you in a town that is really big on bicycles. Bikes get used for commuting, deliveries, shopping, etc.. In fact, other than walking, bicycles are the exclusive form of transportation in your town.

Your neighbor Bob has a by-the-mile bicycle-renting business-- "Bob's Bicycles". Bob's Bicycles is far and away the biggest business in town.

Part of Bob’s success is because he does a lot of contract business. However, Bob doesn't just get paid by riders who have signed an agreement with him, or even just those using Bob's bikes. Bob gets something every time anybody in town does any riding at all, through an odd combination of circumstances that took many years to come together.


Here's how it happened...


Bob's Bicycles was launched long ago by the great grandfather of the present Bob (Bob IV). Great Grandpa Bob started out not only with a main location for his contract business-- he also had the bright idea of setting up spots around town where he parked some of his bikes for use by the more occasional rider, on an "honor system". Anyone could take and use one of these bikes, but they were expected to keep track of their mileage, and send Bob a "1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due Form" (and the appropriate rent), periodically. The initial design of the form was like this:


I, ______________, rode a Bob's Bicycle a total of _____ miles this year.

At Bob's rental rate of $.15 per mile, I owe Bob $______


I said that Great Grandpa Bob planned to deal with these occasional riders on the "honor system", and that's true. But he liked his money, too, and didn't want to miss anything that was due him. So, after setting up the "self-serve" locations, Great Grandpa Bob went around handing out "W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms" to every other business in town. The forms-- accompanied by notices that if Bob didn't get his rent from someone riding a bicycle in connection with any business, he would sue the company involved-- said:


Click here to enjoy the rest of this illuminating little parable

(and if you want to see a liberating transformation take place THIS YEAR, forward this file to everyone in your address book)

Care to post a comment on this article?

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

Return to contents


You Can’t Fight Well When You Don’t Know What You’re Fighting About


If you are having an argument with the IRS or any other tax agency,

  • You are NOT being presumed to have made “corporate profit”.

  • You are NOT being alleged to have received “foreign income”.

  • You are NOT entangled in an invisible “adhesion contract”.

  • You are NOT being obligated by a law whose subject is never identified.

You are being targeted because REAL EVIDENCE exists that YOU PERSONALLY HAD “INCOME” to which the revenue laws apply-- even though that evidence is almost certainly incorrect, and CAN be corrected.


There IS "A Law" By Which You Can Be Made Liable, And This Is How It Works


Now Learn How To Be Master Of The Situation


See the Proof


Care to post a comment on this article?

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

Return to contents




Photographed on 1-70 in Missouri. America is waking up.


Do You Know What Happens When YOU Decide To "Let Someone Else Do It"?



"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do."

-Everett Hale

(...and every other person who ever really deserved liberty)


"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."

-Daniel Webster


"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

-Edward R. Murrow







Get this graphic as a printable/postable/mailable .pdf


Browse other transformational-truth-spreading tools


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


Find more quizzes here

Care to post a comment on this article?

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

Return to contents



CtC Videos And Audio Resources



"Never must thou take up a false cry, or join hands with the guilty by giving false witness in their favor. Never must thou follow with the crowd in doing wrong, or be swayed by many voices so as to give false judgment; even pity for the poor must not sway thee when judgment is to be given."

-Exodus 23:1-3


Doing A Little High-Payoff Math


If each person receiving this newsletter each week distributed as few as 100 of any of the great outreach tools featured here to co-workers, friends, neighbors and family members (or just strangers on the street, in the mall, etc...), we could have SEVERAL MILLION new Americans suddenly introduced to the liberating truth about the tax!


Just like that! In one week!


C'mon, people, let's roll on this!


“Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.”

‑Dale Carnegie

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

Return to contents




Spread The Truth




A Few Tips For Making Best Use Of This WebSite






When directed to a page by topic or link, read everything.


I know that this can mean the investment of a lot of time, attention and effort, but although some may imagine otherwise, I don't write as much as I do because I can't think of any other way to spend my time...


Furthermore, when you encounter a hyperlink within, or associated with, the text you are reading, follow it!


It is pretty common these days for web-based material to be littered with hyperlinks. Sometimes the purpose is to provide definitions or examples, in order to ensure that folks reading the original material aren't presented with a word or reference which they don't understand. Sometimes the links lead to illustrations pertinent to the original text.


It is common-- and perfectly understandable-- for folks who are confident that they are familiar with language or references within the main text they are reading to get in the habit of skipping over included links. I do it all the time, myself!


However, I very rarely include links for definitional or explanatory purposes; and when I DO make a link out of text in one page it is generally to another self-contained page, rather than merely illustrative material. These other pages contain material the clear understanding of which I deem highly important for the proper and complete understanding of the original page. (Links to CtC, the Victories pages, CtC Warriors and so on are obvious exceptions to this general rule. On the other hand, a link to the victory Highlights or 'Every Which Way But Loose' pages, which might seem like such exceptions, are not. The special selection of victories on those pages, and the filed docs and tax-agency correspondences included therewith, themselves constitute highly instructive material which merits careful attention. Thus care needs to be taken in all cases.)/p>


Please make a habit of clicking on all provided links and at least looking briefly to ensure that the linked page is one with which you are completely familiar from another study session.


Finally, please keep in mind that, annoying though it may seem at first blush (but not, I trust, upon reflection), I constantly tweak material already posted. Obviously this doesn't mean that every page is in flux at all times, but it does mean that if you are directed to a page that IS familiar, it's worthwhile to read it through again if it's been a while since your last having done so.




Your Comments

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

(It may take a while for your newly-posted comments to appear; also, please understand that this is NOT a place for posing questions about individual tax situations.)

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

Return to contents


"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

-George Gordon (Lord) Byron