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 August 2 and 16, 2015


Please Start Here

Featured In This Update:

Rootin' For The "Real Tax"


Becraft's Blind-Spot: Why Gary North Got It Wrong On The Tax


A New Victory-Video, and My Birthday Rant


Someone's Been Busy-- It Seems A Complaint Has Been Filed Against Edmunds And Roberts, et al...


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!



"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


Rootin' For The "Real Tax"

WITH ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN in full swing now (at least on the Republican side), we are predictably seeing plumping for various versions of what is called "tax reform". Most prominent are the barkers for the "Fair Tax" and the "Flat Tax"-- two purported reforms that are not reforms at all, but just shells in a sideshow con-game meant to divert the attention of the marks from real issues.

Both the so-called "Fair Tax" and the so-called "Flat Tax" are designed to be "revenue neutral"-- that is, they are meant to continue diverting just as much of the wealth produced by individual American men and women to the sticky fingers of state actors and their cronies and clients, so these good folks can continue using it to finance the further and more creative exploitation of everyone else (by way of subsidies, support for rent-seeking ventures, purchasing votes by pandering to special-interest constituencies, punishing or suppressing competitors with "legal" and regulatory assaults, and so on). So, neither would make a lick of difference in restoring the restraint of the state that for our first 140 years made America the most brightly-shining beacon of freedom and prosperity ever seen in human history.

The one thing supposedly offered by these two "reform" proposals is a restraint on the evil behavior of the IRS. This is a concept as bizarre as it is false. If the IRS is acting lawlessly, then its bad actors should be punished where appropriate, and it should be made to follow the law. If these things can't be done now, why would anyone in his or her right mind thing they can be done under a "reformed" version of a tax structure that continues to operate under the notion that the state has a rightful claim on whatever part of what everyone earns that it wishes to take? This is ridiculous.

Some respond that the "IRS" would or could be "abolished" under one or the other of these plans, but that just means a different name would be given to an agency which would have the same mission and same incentives and support within the state institutional structure as the one we have now. There would be no change. Only a temporary relief of pressure against the tax structure as the marks are successfully taken-in for a bit.

Further, both of the "reforms" would integrate federal taxation much more deeply into our social and economic structure than the existing income tax, becoming much more difficult for the average person to understand and to deal with. Both would also add layers of intrusion into the average person's affairs beyond those already rankling the sensibilities of anyone with a hint of self-respect.

BUT HERE'S THE REAL POINT: All the problems of the current income tax-- the rankling intrusions, the enormous extraction of wealth, the apparent lawlessness of the tax collection and accounting agencies and procedures-- all are simply a result of the existing tax being widely misunderstood, and exploitatively misapplied. We don't need any "reform" or replacement tax to rid ourselves of the problems of today's tax. We just need to enforce the tax as it is really designed (meaning we need to enforce the law on the tax collectors).

So I say, forget the "Fair Tax" and the "Flat Tax."

Let's go for the "Real Tax"-- the benign, actually highly-desirable income tax we have today, just confined in its application to what the law has always said it really falls upon.

To learn about the "Real Tax", click here.

To see a few more thoughts about "tax reform", click here.

"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



Becraft's Blind-Spot: Why Gary North Got It Wrong On The Tax

I HAVE BEEN RECEIVING MANY COMMENTS about my recent article on Gary North's misrepresentation of the income tax as a direct tax (and about other "pundits" who do the same), and the great harm it does to all of us. One correspondent offers an explanation of North's error as proceeding from his reading of a post by attorney Larry Becraft, who has long been an active member of what likes to call itself the "tax honesty" community.

Here is the relevant material from Becraft's post by which it is imagined that North was misled:

A little more than a week after the opinion in Brushaber, similar issues were present for decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916), which involved the question of whether an inadequate depletion allowance for a mining company constituted a direct tax on the company's property. As to Baltic's contention that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment," the Court rejected it by stating that this contention:

"... manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation."

The Court clearly held that income taxes inherently belonged to the indirect/excise tax class, but had been converted by Pollock to direct taxes by considering the source of the income; the 16th Amendment merely banished the rule in Pollock. See also Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 36 S.Ct. 281 (1916), decided the same day.

However, the victory of defining what the 16th Amendment meant was short lived and later decisions commenced a course which appears to have changed the meaning of Brushaber, or at least provided fertile grounds for an entirely different and opposite construction of it. In William E. Peck and Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-73, 38 S.Ct. 432, 433 (1918), which involved a tax imposed on export earnings, the Court seemed to indicate that what was accomplished by the amendment was the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax, an argument rejected in Baltic:

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removed all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another."

The drift away from the position of the Court that the income tax via the 16th Amendment fell within the excise tax category became more pronounced with the decision in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920), which involved the application of this tax to a stock dividend. Here, the Court plainly stated what many lawyers and some judges today think was accomplished by means of this amendment, the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax. In deciding this case, the Court quoted the amendment and then redeclared its meaning:

"As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber....," 252 U.S., at 206.

"A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal."

Is this the resurfacing of the argument that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment" condemned in Baltic?

From a study of Brushaber, it is thus possible for someone to rely upon those portions of the two phrases at the beginning and ending of 240 U.S. 19 to believe that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment." If one fell into that error, this belief would be magnified by the above highlighted portions of Eisner. Confusion abounds as to the correct interpretation of Brushaber, and this is obvious because various courts of this nation have relied upon this line of authority to reach diametrically opposing results.

THIS IS A NICE, SCHOLARLY-SOUNDING collection of material. But Becraft misunderstands what these courts are saying.

The misunderstanding is due to Becraft's failure to understand that the expression "income", when used in the context of the tax, NEVER means "what comes in", and ALWAYS means "the proceeds of federally-connected and excisable activities". Thus, in the ruling in Peck v. Lowe, the court is NOT saying, "...but merely removed all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on whatever comes in, whether it be derived from one source or another."

Instead, the court is actually saying: "...but merely removed all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on the proceeds of federally-connected and excisable activities, whether [they] be derived from one source or another." No conflict with Brushaber there; rather, this is a straightforward agreement with Brushaber, which said the tax remains an excise after the 16th Amendment, just as it had been before the amendment, and all the 16th did was correct the Pollock court's mistaken treatment of the application of the tax to federally-connected and otherwise excisable proceeds from rent and stock ownership as a property tax rather than an income tax.

Likewise, the Eisner court, in saying, "...this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal," is not saying that the income tax is a direct tax.

The Eisner court is merely saying that while the Pollock court found the tax to be a direct property tax (in its actual operation) rather than a normal income tax when applied to the proceeds from the personal property of real estate and stock (and the Eisner court might agree with that view, in theory-- several courts have stubbornly clung to this view; see the very first entry in the NOTES section of this document), the 16th amendment simply overruled that singular theory and said that even those gains, despite being derived from personal property sources, will be treated like normal "income".

In fact, 17 years after Eisner, during what Becraft suggests to the credulous reader is a "drift" by the courts into viewing the income tax as "direct", the Supreme Court demonstrates that Becraft's notion is simply a product of his mis-reading of Eisner and other rulings. The court very plainly declares the well-settled fact that the 16th Amendment changed nothing with regard to the apportionment requirement for all direct taxes, and the income excise has never changed from the time of its inception in 1862 to the present day:

"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."

U.S. Supreme Court, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (Emphasis added; citations omitted.)

ALL IN ALL, WHAT BECRAFT IMAGINES TO BE ambiguity or contradiction or even just plausible grounds for uncertainty actually is not. In fact, there is no actual doubt about the nature of the tax in any competent mind considering the subject-- which means one that grasps the meaning of "income" within the context of the tax-- because there are no actual grounds for doubt.

Instead, there is only deceit, by those who wish the tax to be misunderstood so that misunderstanding can be exploited.

 Thus, Becraft's confusing nonsense serves no purpose except to confuse incompetent minds, and take those who deceive the American people about the true nature of the tax off the moral (or legal) hook by suggesting that they are plausibly honorable but just misled. It's a shame that he has posted it (or not taken it down since better scholarship debunked it).

It's also a shame that someone like Gary North might turn to someone like Larry Becraft for guidance on matters related to the tax. Why anyone would do so is beyond me.

While I like to believe Larry's heart is in the right place, his sole claim to fame in this area is successfully managing a couple (maybe three) acquittals of "failure to file" cases based only on establishing a lack of "willfulness" on the part of his clients, rather than proving anything about the tax. Otherwise he seems to spend his time distracting Americans from the simple truth about the tax with pointless and erroneous writings like the one discussed here.

If Larry actually understood the tax, it would be HIS readers who would have been securing billions of dollars in refunds and retentions from the feds and the states in the course of hundreds of thousands of events (as my readers have been doing for more than a dozen years now), and it would be HIM in the crosshairs of a desperate government apparatus trying vainly to turn back the tide of his work (as I have been for the same dozen years).

Hopefully, Gary North and others like him will learn where to look for the actual truth about the tax, and stop being taken in by those who appear to talk a good talk, but whose record tells a different story, and whose words just serve to distract and confuse.

It's this simple: Americans will never be free of bad behavior by corrupt and exploitative state actors until the noise of the deceivers is overcome by enough loud, proud and confident voices putting out the same clear and correct signal. Anyone who writes on the subject of the tax and does anything other than direct his readers to the endlessly-proven unique accuracy of CtC is doing harm to us all.

See a follow-up to this article below.

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 Victory-Video, and My Birthday Rant

Aug. 14: JOE H. HAS SHARED HIS STORY of "red pill" wake-up and action in the field on behalf of the rule of law. Find Joe's video here.

The educated filing Joe made to secure the federal victory for 2014 he displays in his film can be found in the post here.

More videos by CtC-educated-and-activated American grown-ups can be found here. How and why you should film and share YOUR story and give YOUR inspiration to others can be found here.


SO, I DON'T KNOW HOW I'VE MADE IT THIS FAR, but Sunday I hit the big Six-O. TJ has made plans for me which fill up the whole weekend, and as a consequence, this single, early-posted article will be in lieu of a regular mid-edition update this week.

In a way, this works out well, though, because the main thing I want to say this week is a supplement of the article above (and the previous article to which it relates).

In those earlier articles, I focus on the actual facts about the income tax and the hugely harmful tendency of some to confuse, obscure and evade those facts. Today I want to say a few words about why this is done, and here they are: Moral cowardice.

We'll look at some facts, their implications, and the shameful and harmful way in which moral cowards try to evade them.

The Facts

Here is one of those indisputable facts: The income tax IS an EXCISE:

"[T]axation on income [is] in its nature an excise..."

A unanimous United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

It's not just CALLED an excise, and "excise" is not some kind of "label of convenience" or meaningless bit of esoterica. An excise is a particular kind of tax, which is inherently and inescapably limited to certain kinds of objects by its nature.

An excise CANNOT apply to unprivileged activities or the gains from unprivileged activities. This is not because Congress hasn't chosen to so apply it, or for any other reason of option or election. Again, the limitation is inherent.

An excise cannot lawfully apply to unprivileged activities for the same reason a woman can't be a little bit pregnant. If you're pregnant, you're all the way pregnant, by the nature of the thing; and if it's an excise, it can only apply to privileged activity, by the nature of the thing.

"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

We know the limited nature of the income tax (in particular, as distinct from other excises) by another fact, as well-- any tax on UN-privileged gains or the activities that produce them is what is know as a "capitation". Capitations are required to be apportioned by unchanged, still-the-supreme-law Constitutional provisions (two of them). Therefore any tax on gains from activities which is not apportioned cannot be on non-privileged activities, and must be confined to privileged ones.

There isn't even a pretense of an effort to dispute any of this at any level of government:

"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."

U.S. Supreme Court, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (citations omitted.) (The bracketed material is mine, of course-- the court here was discussing one of the FICA income taxes, and rebutting the plaintiff's argument that the tax was an impermissible non-apportioned direct tax.)

"[The Sixteenth] 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 with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income."

Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943 (Think clearly here: Hubbard is not saying that carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces money is now suddenly a "privilege"-- he is speaking in the context of the income tax, in which "income" refers only to the gains from privileged activity, and observing that this fundamental characteristic of the tax was not changed by the 16th Amendment.)

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White [Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co.] , 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'

The Implications

NOW I HOPE EVERYBODY MADE IT through that short collection of citations* with eyes unglazed, because we want to keep the point center-screen: The tax is an excise, and an excise is only on specialized stuff, which BY THE FACT THAT IT IS SPECIALIZED STUFF means that it is NOT on ALL stuff. This is clear and unambiguous even without knowing what qualifies as "specialized" and what does not.

Again, we KNOW this; it is a FACT: only some kinds of gains from economic activities are subject to the tax-- others are not. Let that sink in and take root. Now...

The gains that ARE subject to the tax are only those that some folks get from the exercise of privilege. This is a FACT.

Gains from the exercise of anyone-and-everyone's right to produce wealth and engage in trade (the normal kind of economic activity engaged in by most folks) are NOT subject to the tax. This is a FACT (and that's why those who know the difference, and know how to say so, don't pay the tax).

Now here's where we get to the point about moral cowardice:

Because the tax falls only on some kinds of gains and not others, every person who fills out a tax form must decide whether or not (or which, if any, of) his gains are of the "privileged" variety subject to the tax, and therefore to be listed on one or another of the "income" lines on the form. If gains are listed, and exceed the exemptions available, that person must apply the tax to his listed "income" and agree that the amount calculated is lawfully and properly owed by him to the government.

Every person is likewise entitled to express a conclusion that he received $0 "income" (gains of the privileged variety) if that is what he determines to be true (and to assess $0 tax accordingly, and reclaim any and all amounts withheld from what he has determined to be non-"income" relevant to the excise tax).

Thus, every person filling out a tax return and listing his earnings as "income" and putting down a "tax owed" figure is declaring himself to have gainfully exercised a federal privilege and to be liable for the tax. (For those who can't get that the "privilege" involved has to be one extended by the taxing authority, 'cause that where its claim to a piece of the action arises, let it be enough to say that they are declaring their gains to be from privileged activities of some kind, as distinct from those conducted by right-- that's good enough for purposes of this commentary.)

The Shameful, Harmful Efforts To Evade

KNOWING THAT THE JUNK-YARD DOG that is the state really WANTS everyone to pay the tax on ALL their gains, whether those gains are actually taxable or not, some folks just can't muster the stones to fill out tax forms honestly and accurately. They prefer, in abject cowardice and immorality, to LIE ON THEM and falsely declare-- over their own signatures-- that they believe that all their gains of a given year are from the exercise of a privilege by virtue of which the state gets to take part of the proceeds, simply to please the dog.

However, being moral cowards as well as the more general kind, these folks can't admit their shame. Therefore, they do all they can to confuse and obscure the truth about the tax.

They moan that the tax is theft, and forced upon them. They claim that the tax is some kind of unapportioned direct tax inexplicably agreed-to by Americans of 1913, or that whether this is true is frustratingly unclear. They say whatever-- anything to keep everyone else from realizing they're just shit-in-their-pants appeasers and enablers of the rogue state's ambitions to be freed of all restraints.

It's been twelve years since CtC appeared and laid the truth about the tax bare. It's been twelve years since braver men and women began demonstrating that the junk-yard dog is, after all, just a dog, and that the law rules as it should when invoked by grown-ups who take it seriously. These shameful dissemblers have no excuse of ignorance to rely on.

And frankly, even if they've never heard a thing about the truth about the tax, these dissemblers would still be covered in shame. They claim to believe the tax is theft and illegitimate and wrong. Leaving aside the error of these characterizations of an actually legitimate and highly-desirable tax on private profits from the voluntary exploitation of public resources, which is what the income tax actually is, if these folks believe it to be what they say it is, why are they signing those 1040s declaring, under oath, that they believe its application to their earnings to be "true, complete and correct"?

Every time these folks sign a 1040 with their earnings listed as "income", they are saying, regardless of whether they know what "income" really is, "Yes, it's true and correct that I received $XXX of what is relevant to list on an income tax calculation and self-assessment form"; and then later, "Yes, it is true and correct that the tax I owe this year is $XXX." Can there be any greater hypocrisy than these folks calling the tax theft and illegitimate and wrong, while still making those declarations?

And so, these frightened dissemblers sow confusion about the tax, try to scare others away from knowledge and upright behavior, and attack people like me with name-calling and smears. But they never tackle the facts. To do that would lead right to the logic laid-out above, and that just wouldn't do for these folks. Instead, they do all they can to distract everyone else away from those facts, to the great harm of us all.

SO, THAT'S MY BIRTHDAY RANT-- and my birthday wish is that I won't need to do another one next year. That wish will come true if you you all will give me the gift of spreading this email around to everyone you can, and do all you can to encourage the moral cowards sharing space here in America with the rest of us to, "Buck up, Sissy-pants!" and start telling the truth.

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

-Martin Luther King, Jr.


"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."

-Thomas Paine

*Those who need MORE citations and authorities to really take in the true nature of the income tax and the meaning of excise, and of capitation, and so on, can find it all at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm.

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 Call For Action By The Senate Judicial Committee?  Cool!

IT SEEMS SOMEONE HAS BEEN BUSY taking care of serious business...

 A reader in Alaska wrote his congressman earlier in the week about the corrupt behavior of federal judges Nancy Edmunds and Victoria Roberts, both of whom have played big parts in the 12-year effort to keep CtC's revelations from widespread public knowledge. It turns out this good activist had to get in line. Here is what he got back from this gratifyingly-responsive congressional office:

Thank you for contacting Congressman Young about the allegations of corruption by Federal judges in Michigan.  Since I handle judicial issues for Congressman Young, he asked me to follow up with you directly.

First, let me personally apologize for the late response.  Congressman Young’s office received over 100,000 emails and letters last year, far more than any other year.  This pace has now slowed and we are endeavoring to get a response to each and every person that wrote in.  Thank you for your understanding.

I recognize your desire for justice and honorable actions within the courtroom. Judge Nancy Edmunds was nominated by President H. W. Bush on September 11, 1991 to serve in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Victoria Roberts was nominated by President Clinton on June 26, 1998 to serve in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On March 4, 2015 a class action complaint requesting a formal probe into Federal and State Judicial Corruption in the Senate about these judges in  Michigan was submitted to the House Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The complaint was 52 pages long, with 690 pages of evidence. According to these documents, Michigan’s Federal and State judges have been participating in various forms of malfeasance and political corruption. Your desire for justice has not gone unheard, and these matters will be investigated thoroughly.

Please rest assured knowing that Congressman Young will keep your thoughts in mind should a piece of legislation regarding these Michigan judges come to the House Floor.

Thank you again for contacting our office.  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Once again, thank you again for contacting our office.

HOW ABOUT THAT! Although I get from this language that the complaint to which this staffer, Jakob Johnsen, refers concerns more villains than just Edmunds and Roberts, they are seemingly a part of the group being denounced, and I have to imagine that their offenses against Doreen and me, and their participation in efforts to suppress CtC generally, are prominent features of the complaint and its exhibits. I certainly hope so, anyway.

In any event, whether the crimes of these two against Doreen and me and the people's right to know the truth about the 75-year-old "ignorance tax" scam are front and center in this complaint already or not, now is the time to make sure that they are, and/or that the heat rises on this complaint. Please write YOUR congressperson (and senators) and demand diligent attention to the bad behavior by federal judges Nancy Edmunds and Victoria Roberts of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. Let's get and keep some momentum going here and follow this through to impeachments, thereby both doing some much-needed housecleaning and at the same time sending an important message to all the other corrupt tools of the ambitious state.

A New Story In The Tribune On Doreen's Case

P. S. Speaking of dealing with corruption and bad behavior, my correspondent here followed up by responding to the reply above with a call for Rep. Young to support the 'Watching the Watchmen Amendment' (aka 'Doreen's Amendment'):

"And while I have your attention, given that you are a legislative assistant, here is a 28th Amendment that I would like made to the Constitution, which would make it easier for the citizenry to hold accountable criminals such as the two federal judges in question: [followed by the text of the amendment]"

I STRONGLY urge everyone out there to do the same. Ultimately what we all want is for corrupt and bad behavior to be deterred. THE MERE KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN AND GAINING ATTENTION WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT DETERRENCE TO A GREAT DEGREE EVEN LONG BEFORE IT GET TO WHERE IT HAS ANY HOPE OF BEING ADOPTED. There's a reason for the "no statute of limitations" and "in any capacity" provisions.

Contact your state and federal representatives, urge their sponsorship and support of this amendment, and help make this happen. (Find help for doing so here.)

The People can really and truly be the masters of their servant government (and that servant government really and truly CAN again be shrunken and restrained by the law). All it takes is for the People to bestir themselves in a meaningful way now and then.

This is very much the time, and the 'Watching the Watchmen Amendment" is very much a meaningful and necessary way.

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

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

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 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 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 form any of you but the phone in your pocket and three minutes of speaking from the heart-- I have had only two 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 to 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. 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 and described 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 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 here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.


"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/a>



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.)


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 frienda>p>

Return to contents


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

-George Gordon (Lord) Byron