“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

 

Follow @LostHorizons1 Tweet

 

The Lost Horizons News

Mid-Edition Update for June 13, 2015

 

Please Start Here

Featured In This Update:

The Irrelevance And Futility Of "Common-Law" Arguments

***

Leading A Mule To Water

***

WARRIOR BRIAN WRIGHT has set up a 'GoFundMe' account for legal expense donations for Doreen from those who prefer to contribute using plastic (and those who would like to share a comment). Find his article and the link to the GoFundMe page here. Updates on Doreen's case can be found here.

BY AN INTERESTING COINCIDENCE all three of the videos I shared on Thursday: Shane Trejo's 'Free Speech on Trial: IRS v. Hendrickson'; Brady Ness's CtC Warrior Testimonial and new victory announcement; and Tim Kendrick's Warrior Testimonial all dropped to zero view-counts on their respective YouTube pages within 18 hours of my emailer going out. All have somewhat recovered due to continued viewings, but as you know, view-count affects placement, and that matters. If you viewed these videos only on Thursday evening or Friday morning after first getting my email, please consider having a second look.

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

 

My Friday, May 29 appearance on 'Freedom for All' radio with Jim and Jennifer Ellis can be heard here. It's a worthwhile half-hour.

 

The Irrelevance and Futility Of "Common-Law" Arguments*

...and why they are actually harmful to individual adherents and to the cause...

HERE IT IS IN A NUTSHELL, PEOPLE: Allegations about someone having profitably used government stuff-- whether made on "information returns" like W-2s and 1099s or otherwise-- invoke the presumption that the allegee has agreed (or in any event is properly subject) to myriad related obligations of reporting, self-assessment and liability to the government for its piece of the action, letting papers and records get poked through, criminal penalties for certain behaviors, etc.. In short, if a W-2 or 1099 is created about you saying that you chose to engage in taxable activities in excess of the relevant exemption amounts, it also says that you have (effectively) agreed to be bound by every statute and regulation associated with the tax.

This is straightforward enough, I think. No one has great difficulty grasping this. After all, since income-taxable activities all involve the exercise of federal privilege, there is nothing surprising about the fact that exercising it comes with some strings, particularly reporting requirements. Thus, if you are said to have done the exercising and reaped enough of a benefit, you are also being said, automatically, to have (effectively agreed to) become bound by the adverse obligations, just as someone who says you went swimming is also saying you chose to get wet.

Now for the part that those fixated on "common-law solutions" just can't get: Extricating oneself from that thicket of presumed statutory obligations can only be accomplished by going through the statutory door provided for that purpose.

I know, it's galling. But it's also rational, in its perverse way. A sworn allegation has been made about you, on the basis of which you are deemed subject to a batch of statutory requirements. That statutory structure, by which, remember, you are at this point presumed bound, allows for one exclusive means by which you can say "No, it didn't happen, I'm not bound by any of this." Until this gets said in the particular fashion that the administrators of the structure are legally authorized and required to recognize, why would-- or even should-- those administrators (and the entire apparatus of the state with which they are associated) decline to treat you as bound by the structure?

They won't.

It's this simple: Unless and until you rebut the initial allegations of your having done what calls the structure down upon you, you are subject to that structure, and the only way to make that rebuttal is as provided-for by the structure. At that point, you are in their building, and you can only leave by their door.

No amount of "common-law" pleading or protests or citations of "Roman civil" practices or "acceptances for value" or denials of what one imagines to be citizenship or residency infirmities or anything else is going to do anything for you. If there were no door provided, you would have a case for your contrary arguments. The basic principles of law require that there be a door. But when there is one, it is the only recourse.

Understand, until you go through the statutory door, you are presumed to be in a relationship with the state to which "common-law" and all the rest is irrelevant. Attempting to use such arguments or instruments might buy some time now and then for some folks, while the bureaucracy tries to figure out whether whatever got said or sent could be taken as relevant to, or satisfaction of, some statutory requirement, but that all. Such things will not serve as the exit door.

In the case of the income tax, that door is a 1040 (and sometimes specific rebuttal documents oriented toward specific allegations). Nothing you do will afford you any relief except saying your piece on that piece of paper. If any other piece of paper could do it, it would only be because it duplicates the 1040 in every functional respect, meaning that it IS a 1040, legally. (See here for more on this, and discover that it actually doesn't matter whether a 1040 is used, what matters is what gets said.)

And when you do submit that 1040, you win. If allegations about you having engaged in taxable activities are incorrect, saying so on a 1040 is your ticket to freedom.

Trying to say so in any other way is an exercise in futility. Ultimately, the tax bill will come due, for the necessary "No!" will not have been said in the manner in which the collectors are able to hear it.

THIS BRINGS US TO PART TWO-- why keeping you from saying what's true on a 1040 is second only to keeping you from knowing what's true on the hierarchy of critical tasks for the ignorance-tax-scamsters (now that the truth is out there).

The most successful trick in the scammers' book is the false notion regularly injected into the communities who tend to go for the "common-law" silver-bullet will-o-the-wisps that saying the door-opening truth on a 1040 somehow has the opposite of its actual effect, and somehow validates the allegation that began the process. It's hard to imagine a more clever lie.

What could better accomplish the tax-scammers' goal of keeping you from walking through the "out" door than convincing you that it's really a door from the frying pan into the fire? That's why the myths that the tax is "status"-based (rather than activity-based, as it really is) and that a 1040 is only for use by a variety of person who is subject to the tax (and that using it constitutes evidence of that status) have been being steadily injected into circulation for years, and never more vigorously than since the advent of CtC.**

Happily, an army of CtC-educated Americans has been massively disproving the myths about the nature of the tax and the use of 1040s for more than a decade now. This, in turn, is why there has been another myth-project for a good part of that decade devoted to convincing people that those who walk through the door to freedom have actually done wrong under the law and will suffer dire consequences for their temerity.

The rebuttal of this myth is also readily at hand. One powerful rebuttal to that myth is the fact that every single CtC-educated claim is thoroughly vetted by the government before being honored. Plainly, not one of these claims, which in almost every case show no earnings whatever reported as "income", and yet which frequently show and reclaim amounts withheld, including Social Security and Medicare 'contributions" and everything else-- in their entirety-- ever is or ever could be issued by mistake. Further, even were mistakes possible, the idea that such mistakes would be repeated hundreds of thousands of times, by federal and state tax agencies alike, and for 12 years now without interruption, is utterly ludicrous.

These refunds are issuing because they are correct in substance, and because the claims for them-- made as they are on those scary 1040s-- are proper walks through the real "out" door.

Then there are the even more dramatically-definitive rebuttals of the CtC-is-wrong-and-will-lead-to-trouble myth found in the handful of cases in which a real effort is made by the tax agencies to cow a CtC-educated filer into rescission after their educated "No" has been properly spoken. The clarity of the event, and the dramatic dis-ambiguity of the outcome makes these episodes of such a character as to constitute even more than the passive acknowledgements of vetted refund claims being honored. These resistance-and-then-surrender episodes constitute express declarations by the government of the correctness of CtC. (See some examples here, here and here.)

LET'S NOT FORGET THE HOAXES to which the government resorts-- plainly bogus threats ungrounded in the law which are issued to some educated filers either before or after issuing their refunds, in the (all-too-often-gratified) hope that the targets of this attention, or others made aware of it, will be taken in by the ploy and imagine something is actually wrong with the filing with which the scary letters are associated. Unfortunately, some folks don't think deeply enough to recognize that if there was something wrong with a CtC-educated filing, there wouldn't be vague and deeply-ambiguous "frivolous penalty" notices and outright fabrications of Treasury Department listings, or a scattershot harassment of perhaps a tenth of one percent of educated filers.

There CERTAINLY wouldn't be an effort to punish an American woman for refusing to change her filings to suit the government's preferences, instead of charging her for having made them:

(Find and share this on YouTube at http://youtu.be/IagZzFIIymw)

Do such efforts of fiction, fraud, ambiguity and manifest desperation speak of CtC being wrong, or of it being right? The answer is obvious.

And what do these behaviors say about the use of 1040s? All are efforts to evade the educated 1040.

All of these behaviors in response to educated 1040s are either capitulation (the vast majority) or are attempts to intimidate the filer into reversal, or to establish pretexts for treating an educated filing as insincere and therefore able to be ignored. All are back-door acknowledgements of the correctness of CtC and the use of the 1040.

SO HERE'S THE PROVERBIAL "BOTTOM LINE": Don't be fooled by the myths of the matrix-masters about the tax, the 1040 and the terrors of CtC which infest the internet; and don't be a fool-- time spent at the feet of a "common-law" guru is time in service to the tax scammers, because it is time not spent escalating the real solution to their law-defying ignorance-tax cancer on our American heritage of liberty and the rule of law.***

***

*I'm using the income tax as an example here because it's far and any the most significant area in which most Americans have interaction with government of the sort being discussed in this article. But the principle applies in just exactly the same way in other areas of citizen interaction with the state.

**These are, in fact, myths that keep the "common-law" gurus in followers. Such followers are drawn from the ranks of people who believe it is necessary to find a substitute door to the 1040, and who are overlooking the fact that if they DID succeed in saying "No" in some other manner but with the same legal effect they'd have done everything they fear from the use of a 1040. They'd have engaged with the bureaucracy on its own terms and in acknowledgement of the obligation to do so; and they'd have exposed themselves to all adverse consequences. if any, of saying "No".

***Further, any and all errant notions circulating about the tax, such as those dicussed in this article, fuel the reflexive and default perception of average Americans and members of the legal professions and judiciary that any challenge to the general misunderstanding of the income tax is "tax protestor" nonsense which can be disregarded out of hand without so much as a read-through, much less serious consideration.

Every time some "landmark petition of the supreme court" making arguments about territorial limitations to the application of the tax-- or "section 83" gibberish, or anything else discussed here-- infects the tax honesty community, the persistence of misunderstanding and resistance to learning the truth gets a boost. YOU will never be free of efforts to mis-apply the tax until every notion about the tax other than what is revealed in CtC is excised from public dialogue.

Think of it this way: How long would it be before anyone succeeded in getting orbiting communication satellites up and in service to society if flat-earth-believers were tolerated voices in the engineering dialogue?

One more thing: Please, anyone being taken in by these silver-bullet salesmen, put your thinking-cap on! (That's the one without the tin-foil lining).

If what was argued or advocated by these folks was sound, they would have a ton of evidence to show you-- hard evidence of actual successful applications of their assertions (like I have to show you). They don't.

When seriously pressed on this point recently, one of the more popular of these common-law silver-bullet men, a fellow by the name of Karl Lentz, was able to produce nothing but this-- a context-free indication of a decision not to prosecute in one case (with no evidence that whatever may have happened here it had anything to do with this guru's advocated methods), and this (crappy resolution as furnished by the guru)-- a document referring to a "diversion agreement", again for what, and to what, remaining a mystery, but notably done on the state's motion, not the defendant's. You're crazy if you don't recognize what such a lack of evidence, and the reliance on such ambiguous-at-best "evidence", mean.

In fact, you're crazy if you don't run away fast the very first time you hear the ridiculous explanations given for that lack of evidence, which tend to be some variation on the theme of, "There's no evidence because this magic process stops everything before it gets to the point of there being any evidence!" or, "Of course there's no evidence! You don't think the Man is going to let anyone see what's happening, do you?"

Please! If there's one thing the state does well, and even obsessively, it is produce and keep records. Anytime anyone interacts with the state in any way whatever, there are records, and they are produced contemporaneously as well as after the fact, so many of them end up in the hands of the citizen involved in the affair even before the state knows where the affair is going.

Indeed, the "affair", whatever it is, starts out with, and almost always arises because of, the production and delivery of a legal instrument of some kind-- be it an "information return" or something else. The other records are available, in one fashion or another.

But these absurd protests that no records exist for one reason or another are relied on by those taking in the gullible with complicated jargon and sweeping rhetoric, and accepted by the marks. Nothing but harm is done by all this, with good folks effectively sidelined from the real contest, which is making real claims based on actual realities about the law, and denouncing and defeating bad behavior by the law's institutional enemies whenever and where ever it takes place.

     

Post a comment on this article

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

Return to contents

PRO TIP: Under the provision of 26 USC § 7701(c), "includes" doesn't exclude everything not listed. Rather it excludes anything not sharing the special characteristic(s) that distinguish the listed exemplars as a class from the commonly-defined overall class or classes to which they otherwise belong.

*****

 

Leading A Mule To Water

CtC WARRIOR AND SCHOLAR GREG SUTTON is a guy who doesn't shy from a challenge. This week, though, Greg took on a contest reminiscent of the labors of Hercules: Trying to get Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation to engage in an honest dialogue about the income tax. Greg's hope was that upon learning of his mistaken notions about the tax, Hornberger would cease being a regular and loudly-voiced purveyor of harmful myths about the tax by which all of us suffer, and perhaps even become an advocate of the liberating truth.

Greg put in a yeoman-like effort, politely beginning with the assumption that his interlocutor was sincere, informed and well-meaning, and remaining courteous, patient and forgiving for far longer than most folks would have been able to manage. As you can tell from these expressions about the exchange, Greg's good-will and good behavior were misplaced and wasted.

Among other things Hornberger simply refuses to grasp that while liability for an direct tax arises as an imposition by the tax-taker, liability for an indirect tax, such as an excise, arises due to the voluntary election of the tax-payer. It is impossible (in my mind) that such obtuseness in a man clearly not a drooling idiot in general could be other than deliberate, but I will leave that to each reader's own conclusions.

I POST GREG'S EXCHANGE WITH HORNBERGER BELOW, for the edification of readers generally, but more, in hope that it will prompt others to take up this challenge while Greg takes a breather. The fact is, I like most of Bumper Hornberger's work, and think that despite occasionally apparent evidence to the contrary, his heart is actually in the right place, even if sclerotic with a certain junior-high-school-level cock-suredness rooted in simply not knowing what he doesn't know and being incapable of imagining that this could be the case due to what he thinks he does know.

Here is the exchange-- beginning with a little pre-amble from Greg. Hornberger's email address, for those stepping up to this challenge, is jhornberger "@" fff.org (take out the spaces and the quotemarks).

I have been writing to Jacob Hornberger, the top-dog at the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF), for years now, trying to get him off of his knees and out of the barn. I would typically get in return to my emails those annoying canned responses which more than likely meant he hadn’t read as much as a word of my letter. Well, as the  chronicle below proves, even though he responds without the use of canned letters, as he did this time, you can’t help but conclude that his reading comprehension is intentionally bad. His game has one end, it appears, to cause the writer so much frustration that he stops writing. He won me over. It’s time that this tool of the income tax mythology, who hides behind his otherwise admirable libertarian principles, be exposed for the hypocrite that he is. Perhaps the publication of this email exchange will help in that end. I approached him a little differently than usual this time. I played on his hope that Rand Paul’s courageous and victorious stand against the PATRIOT Act was just the start of the complete dismantling of the national-security/surveillance state apparatus as expressed in this blog post: http://fff.org/2015/06/01/rand-paul-profile-courage/ Following is the exchange in its entirety, without the dates and to/from info, and with a little needed editing. Gregory Sutton, CtC Warrior __________________________ Great article Jacob! Rand Paul did us right, rare for a politician, but he is the son of Ron Paul, after all. Hoorah! You wrote: "Wouldn’t it be great if the end of the Patriot Act was just the start of the dismantling of the entire Cold War-era national-security state apparatus?" Sorry, but that won't happen significantly until each and every citizen stands up and takes responsibility for the proper disposition of his property by learning the truth about the income tax. Hint: It's an excise and is enforced as such. So long as there is a seemingly endless flow of revenue into the treasury as a result of Boobus americanus ignorantly self-assessing the income tax upon himself because he has been lied to about the true nature of the tax and its actual constitutional authority, then the maxim that ‘revenue is the life of the state’ will continue to assure that big intrusive government, in whatever form, will continue to dominate the political scene. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the building of this Cold War-era national-security state apparatus and military/industrial complex occurred at the same time that the percentage of the income tax filing population went from 8.9% on average from 1914 to 1939 to 90% in 1945 and has remained in that range ever since? Best regards,   Gregory Sutton ---------------------------- Hi Greg, Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting email. I agree with you: The income tax, along with the IRS, need to be abolished. That's in fact the title of our book Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax." We'll be launching our spring fundraising drive soon. Any chance that you'll support our efforts with a donation? We would be very appreciative. Best regards, Jacob _______________________ Hi Jacob, I'm confused??? How can you agree with something I've never said? The word abolish or some other like synonym doesn't appear in my e-mail below, or in any other that I have repeatedly sent to you concerning the income tax. I'm not willing to discard the nearly 300 years of history and practice that the income tax as an excise offers to public finance. And that is just going back to when the British established it as one of the extraordinary excises of perpetual use by Parliament. The British probably borrowed it from the Dutch who had been using an indirect taxation system 200 years before the British went to one in 1688. Blackstone had it as the ninth excise in his list of excises in use in Britain up to his time. He described it as a popular tax. Considering that the tax applies to the political class exclusively, it is easy to see why the vast majority of the population operating in the private sector and therefore not liable to the tax would think it was the best tax ever. Do you think I want any part of throwing that away? But it's apparently easy for you because you think the income tax is something that it is not, and clueless as to any history or practice of the income tax as an excise. And apparently have an economic incentive to stay that way. Best regards, Greg _______________________ Hi Greg, Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were an opponent, not a supporter, of income taxation and that you were writing to express agreement with our position. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this particular issue. Nonetheless, I hope you will consider supporting our work for liberty. Thanks again for writing to share your perspectives with me. Best regards, Jacob ________________________ Hi Jacob, It's not that cut and dried. I'm a big supporter of government privilege taxation measured by the resulting annual income that the exercise of that privilege brings in. In America that type of tax has been generally called an income tax (despite its original designation as a duty or excise). Secretary Dallas first suggested one in 1815. On the other hand, I'm an opponent, as any classical liberal worth his salt would be, of direct taxation at the federal level. Especially capitations or as Bovier would say: a tax upon the annual revenue. Was it not the French version of this tax that led to the French Revolution? Luckily I was born and raised in a country whose founder's were radical classical liberals who felt the same about direct taxation at the federal level and who in their Constitution essentially regulated away any practical use of a direct tax as a revenue source. I see no need to flail at windmills and heedlessly oppose a tax which the Supreme Law of the land has essentially already abolished. (There I used the word!) So the only tax left to oppose or support is the income tax as an indirect tax or excise. As an excise or privilege tax the American income tax reaches the members of the political class that enrich themselves with the help of the federal government. And as such the tax reaches only a small percentage of the population as a whole and with high minimum thresholds reaches only those that are doing especially well financially due to their alliance with the feds. Graduation in this case works in the same manner that one pays a higher price for better seats at the theater. It is a tax that brings in a ton of revenue in a short amount of time and costs almost nothing to administer. It is also elastic, in that its rates may be increased without affecting its production. It also provides a prohibitive effect upon economic self-interest towards government. All these positive attributes are hard to argue against, leading me and classical liberal public finance experts to support this tax with gusto. Maybe it's time to notice the man behind the curtain and realize your being played like a fool. Best regards, Greg ________________________ Greg, I must confess that I'm a bit surprised at your position. Doesn't your tax involve the initiation of force against people? If so, how does that make you feel? Jacob ________________________ Jacob, Come on Jacob you are smarter than that, or maybe it's just that your reading comprehension sucks! The whole concept of benefit/privilege taxation finds its basis in contractual consent. Take for example that you are an officer or employee of the federal government. The required oath binds you, the consenting individual, to the myriad of rules and regulations governing that office, which include taxation of your earnings. As the Supreme Court put it: "The 'Government' is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed..." U. S. v. County of Allegheny, 322 US 174 (1944). Did the millions of individuals operating in the private sector free market force you to consent to contract as an officer or employee with the federal government? Of course not, that was your free will choice entirely. Do you feel that you are being discriminated against because you are paying a tax on your earnings which no one in the private sector is liable for? Then don't contract with the federal government and eschew the benefits, privileges and disabilities which go along with it. As I said in a previous post in this thread: One of the purposes of the income excise (tax), other than to raise large amounts of revenue with very little enforcement costs, is to place a prohibitive barrier or disincentive against public service sought strictly for personal gain, especially, through the use of steep graduation, upon those that are reaping large gains, profits or incomes from the public trough. (Such was the case with the railroads, as federal instrumentalities, when Congress in 1894 imposed an income tax with the intent to reach those favored and generally corrupt corporations.) There is no violation of the NAP (non-aggression principle) if one can wrap their head around the true nature and incidence of the tax: federal government granted contractual privilege! What really gets my feelers outraged is when individuals, such as yourself, who are obviously operating in the private sector, stubbornly and ignorantly produce testimony under penalties of perjury (1040's) that their earnings are from privileged sources, when in fact they are not. This, sir, is a lie and is a violation of well established law. But the government looks the other way because its economic incentive, when multiplied by the millions of government school educated idiots joining you in your fractured moral boat, far outweighs any law abiding moral imperative to correct that lie. Greg __________________________ Greg, You wrote: "I'm a big supporter of government privilege taxation." Doesn't that involve the initiation of force? Jacob _______________________ Jacob, That's why the classical liberals developed privilege/benefit indirect taxation because its basis is contractual consent not force. That is the ultimate distinction between direct taxes and indirect taxes. Direct taxation finds its incidence upon the ownership of property. The classical liberal ideology finds its basis upon private ownership of property as the means of production. Thus direct taxation would negatively affect production in the private sector free market economy and is contradictory and destructive to classical liberalism's fundamental tenet, not to mention that it requires the forceful taking of private property to enforce. On the other hand, indirect taxation finds its incidence in a voluntarily consented to action, event or use. The British, whose indirect taxation system was incorporated into the Constitution by the words "duties, imposts and excises", added the practice of specificity of subject matter, correcting the Dutch practice of generality of subject matter which wound up acting just like a direct tax would. These specific indirect taxes are chosen, using the long history and practice of indirect taxation as a guide, with the intent to have the least negative affect upon the free market and yet still provide a modest revenue to support a very limited government.  One of those was the Office Duty or the excise on the exercise of government privilege, later to be called an income tax (because it is measured by the income that the privilege exercised produces). Blackstone called it a popular tax. Why, because it taxed the generally mistrusted denizens of public service, the political class, not the general public in the private sector. Greg ________________________ Greg, How is your tax collected? Jacob ________________________ Jacob, Stoppage-at-source and self-assessment. It's not my tax, it's an Anglo-American tax nearly 300 years old. I'm rather surprised you haven't noticed it yet. Greg ________________________ Greg, What happens if someone refuses to pay this tax that you support? Jacob ________________________ Jacob, All the nasty stuff associated with tax collection. But it's not brought upon the recalcitrant individual because of his ownership of property but because he consensually engaged in the exercise of federal government privilege which the government as granting party has full knowledge of. Greg ________________________ Greg, By "all the nasty stuff associated with tax collection" are you referring to the initiation of force? Jacob ________________________ Jacob, Brought on by a failure to meet ones contractual obligations. Greg _________________________ Greg, What?! If someone breaches a contract, he's not subject to a tax. He's subject to being sued by the person who he has the contract with. You're saying that you support a tax. Give me the tax that you support--you know, the one that has those "nasty" consequences. I'm getting the feeling that you're thinking is very muddled. Jacob __________________________ Jacob, What if that contract is with the federal government? Like I have previously and repeatedly directly stated and/or eluded to. Can the government not tax, or require that an obligation be met, as the terms of a contract that ultimately produces net income, or gain, or profit? It's been going on for centuries, where have you been? Trapped in some myth and fear dominated myopic conception of federal taxation that NO honest, reasoning, rule-of-law abiding, freedom-loving individual could possibly maintain with the facts, the hard-cold facts, with the history, the hard-cold history, that I have provided to you and that Pete Hendrickson has made available to you at losthorizons.com! Jacob, push the fear aside and open your eyes to the truth about the tax. I know it's hard for a public figure and one who has an economic interest in the promotion of income tax myths, but as one who professes to love liberty and freedom and yet refuses to stand up for the obvious individual-liberating and state-restraining truth about the income tax, might cast a hypocritical stain upon your image and that of FFF. Do the right thing. As far as a monetary donation in your direction is concerned, that won't happen until you and Richman stop spreading your particular brand of malicious myths about the tax. Though, please consider this thread as a gift of knowledge, the power and significance of which you have only caught a glimmer. You'll have to open your mind and expend a little energy in focused study to appreciate the full brightness and intensity of the truth. I urge you to go for it. Greg _________________________ Greg, That makes no sense at all. If someone enters into a contract with the federal government, that's a contract, not a tax. Suppose someone enters into a contract to sell a tract of land to the government. The contract is signed and executed. The government gives the money to the seller. The seller gives a deed to the government. That's a contract, not a tax. Is that what you're calling a tax? I'm trying to understand the nature of the tax that you support. Please don't get angry over that. Jacob ________________________ Jacob, Sorry, my mistake. I wrote: "...as the terms of a contract..." I should have written: ...as part of the terms of a contract... Here's the nature of the federal income tax in logical progression: 1) It's an indirect tax. 2) It's a privilege or excise tax. Privilege taxes are inherently contractual in nature. 3) Its subject is the exercise of federal government privilege. 4) Its incidence, or who it falls upon, is individuals or corporations world wide that exercise federal government privilege. 5) It's measured by the "gain, profit, or income" that a myriad of federal privileged sources produce. 6) It's enforced by stoppage-at-source and self-assessment. The federal government has knowledge of and maintains scrupulous records of every privilege it grants, this is why total evasion is nearly nonexistent. But if an ignoramus should self-assess a liability, when none actually exists, the federal government gladly accepts the damning testimony and money as if excisable income had actually been earned. Have you read the document below? Do so! Also go to the notes section in the back and read the excerpts from Blackstone and Dowell that I provide. They describe the tax (duty) very clearly. Greg Visit http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm and learn the individual-empowering and state-restraining truth about the income tax. Then spread it like your liberty depends on your effort (which it does)! _________________________ Greg, You're answering a question that hasn't been asked. I'm not asking you about the income tax. I understand that you oppose it, just as I do. I'm asking you about your tax--the tax you support--the one with the nefarious consequences. That's the one I'm having a tough time understanding primarily because you're having a tough time explaining it. Please explain the tax you support. Give me an example. Are you saying your tax is a contract? Jacob __________________________ Jacob, It appears that you have a subconscious-induced learning disability. Your malady is best described by the old saying: You can take a horse to the water but you can't make him drink. When you decide, should that ever happen, to overcome the cognitive dissonance and finally take a drink or two by taking advantage of the vast knowledge available at losthorizons.com, and maybe even buy and read Pete Hendrickson's myth-shattering book Cracking the Code, then get back to me and we'll continue the conversation. Until then there is no reason for me to waste my time trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn. In Liberty, Greg

An Honest But Mistaken Man, Upon Learning Of His Error...

*****

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’

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

     

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.

       

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.

     

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.

 

Remember: INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE, ENERGIZE.

 

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 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

     

Care to post a comment on this article?

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

Return to contents