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 May 17, 2015


Please Start Here

Featured In This Update:

An Open Letter To Despicable Hypocrites


Were You At Doreen's Sentencing? A Video Is Being Made And You Are Needed


About "Article III" Courts; Distractions Generally; And A New Policy For This Site


A New Flyer: Give Yourself A 30% Raise


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


An Open Letter to ALL the Despicable Hypocrites

THIS PAST THURSDAY I EMAILED TO YOU ALL an "open letter" addressed to the despicable hypocrites at the ACLU. I have gotten a fair number of comments back, all appreciated. Among them, though were a few that prompted this follow-up.

These comments were along the line of, "Yes, the ACLU is a hypocritical fraud, but have you tried [...]." In the brackets will be-- your pick-- the Rutherford Institute, Institute for Justice, Judicial Watch, etc.. Here it is, people: While I have probably not begged EVERY organization that purports to be an activist watchdog on behalf of American's rights, I've tried all these and more. All are non-responsive.

THUS, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT re-drafted individualized versions, please read where ACLU appears in that "open letter" each and every such organization in its place, along with every journalist with a significant voice who poses as a deeply-concerned American observers and heralds of onrushing tyranny. Every one of them who have ignored my entreaties and my message are hypocrites.

It isn't necessary to even know or care about the truth about the income tax to recognize in a heartbeat that what is being done to my wife is a grave and unprecedented assault on everyone's rule of law.

This assault is the most easily explained, red-meat offense against the Constitution and the rule of law that any of these folks will ever see or have seen in their lifetimes, and the most easy to make into a rallying cry for every American concerned about his rights and where this country is going. It is a teed-up out-of-the-park homerun for the liberty community and a gold-plated, hand-delivered ticket to slapping down the over-reaching Leviathan. Walloping such a home-run ball into the parking lot is always good for the people whenever it can be done, and it will never be more easily-done than in this case.

Anyone who has been alerted to this assault and has not raised a finger to at least help sound the alarm is thereby revealed as co-opted or independently corrupt. At the least they are too blind to the main chance, or too easily cowed by rogue government to really belong in their chosen line of work.

*All that said, however, if every one of you reading these words were to contact these folks and demand that they take an interest, they would do so... But only if you do so... Do you know that there are nearly ten thousand American households getting the emailer you got tonight? Do you realize if YOU act-- each of you-- and don't leave it to someone else, so that ALL of you write to [the ACLU, IJ, Greenwald, etc.], this story WOULD get the attention it deserves? All it takes is fifteen minutes of your time. See here and here.

UPDATE: Received Wednesday from someone who stepped up to this request:


I just sent a letter, similar to the one I cc'ed you on to John Stossel, to all the addresses below.  It'd be nice if just 5% of your newsletter readers would do this as well.


Glenn Greenwald- glenn.greenwald@theintercept.com

Lew Rockwell- lew@lewrockwell.com

Tom Woods- woods@mises.org

Thomas DiLorenzo- TDilo@aol.com

Jacob Hornberger- jhornberger@fff.org

Will Grigg- wngrigg@msn.com

Chuck Baldwin- chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

John Whitehead- johnw@rutherford.org

William Anderson- anderwl@prodigy.net

Justin Raimondo- justin@antiwar.com

Karen Kwiatkowski- ksusiek@shentel.net

Paul Rosenberg- p.rosenberg@cryptohippie.com

Tom Englehardt- tomdispatch@yahoo.com

Laura Poitras- laura.poitras@theintercept.com

John Stossel- john.stossel@foxnews.com

Here is Brian's letter:

Dear Mr. Stossel,

I am writing to inform you about a very newsworthy item involving shocking corruption by a couple of federal judges and DOJ attorneys in the kangaroo court of the century.  Pete Hendrickson is one of the most hated people by the IRS because for more than ten years, readers of his book 'Cracking The Code The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' have been receiving 100% tax refunds-- Social security and Medicare contributions included.  His book has been showing honest, law-abiding Americans how to obey the letter and intent of the tax laws in this country such that the IRS has been obligated to give billions of dollars in 100% tax refunds to Americans who use the proper legal instruments to declare that their earnings are derived from activities not subject to the indirect excise known as the federal income tax.

 Though the IRS has failed in several attempts at injunctions to enjoin Pete from publishing his book and website, they have not stopped attacking him.  And they just sent his wife to prison, not on any tax crimes, but for being unwilling to obey a corrupt judge's orders to commit a felony

It took two trials, crimes by a federal judge and DOJ lawyers, a non-unanimous jury, corrupt orders to the jury to the effect that "it is not a defense of the crime of contempt that the order the defendant is accused of violating is unlawful or unconstitutional", and the preclusion of Mrs. Hendrickson completing her closing statement to achieve a declaration of guilt.  Now she is behind bars, a mother and high school chemistry teacher, being treated as a hardened criminal.

Please research losthorizons.com and learn about the crimes against all humanity that were perpetrated against Doreen Hendrickson.  Then, please report on this and give it publicity and use your influence and intellect to effect some change.

Kind regards,

How about you be one of those 5% (or more) Brian is calling on?

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



Were You At Doreen's Sentencing?

GORDON DYE WANTS TO MAKE A VIDEO recording the comments of everyone who attended Doreen's sentencing. I will let his words tell the rest:

WERE YOU BY ANY CHANCE at the sentencing of Doreen Hendrickson?

Did you get the impression you were in Russia or Germany in the 1940's?

Can you believe someone in US Federal Court actually sentenced someone for refusing to sign a paper? Well neither can many people in the alternative media. It's just too preposterous. 

SO NOW YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!! No, I'm not asking you for money. I'm asking you to spend 2 minutes in front of a camera expressing your opinion about what you saw that day. 

Mark you calendar and plan to be at:

Jimi's Restaurant 714 S Washington Ave Royal Oak, MI 48067 Saturday afternoon May 23rd, at 3PM. We will be screening from 3 PM to 5 PM. 

You will have 2 minutes to identify yourself and provide your opinion of what went on in that courtroom. You will be asked for permission to put the video in the public domain, which means anyone can download it or show it.



P. S. Please forward to anyone who might have attended the court session. Thanks.

Gordon can be contacted at gordon.dye[fill in the appropriate symbol]gmail.com. PLEASE DO AS HE ASKS!!!


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

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


About "Article III" Courts; Distractions Generally; And A New Policy


About "Article III" Courts

THERE IS A PERSISTENT NOTION IN SOME CIRCLES that the United States District Court for the [] District of [] is not an actual "Article III" court-- that is, not a Constitutionally-authorized judicial-branch court. This notion is grounded in large part on a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of two Supreme Court rulings from early in the Twentieth Century, Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1921) and Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938).

The misunderstanding of these cases appears to hinge on looking only at snippets from these cases, in which courts established in and for Puerto Pico and Hawaii (when still a territory) are discussed and labeled as ____,  leading to the erroneous conclusion that these rulings distinguish between "district courts of the United States" and "United States District Courts", with the former being "Article III" (judicial branch) courts and the latter being only Article IV ("territorial") courts. Actually read in context, these snippets, and the cases form which they are drawn, say nothing of the sort.

Further, Balzac and Mookini were not cases dealing directly with the issue of what each kind of court is labeled. There ARE some cases that DO deal directly with that question, which we'll look at to show that the distinction meant to be drawn from the snippets of Balzac and Mookini is incorrect.

Here is the portion excerpted and misrepresented from Mookini without the benefit of context:

The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 154; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453 , 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268 , 10 S.Ct. 762; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182 , 183 S., 11 S.Ct. 949; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476 , 477 S., 19 S.Ct. 722; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101 , 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163 , 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.

Here is what is omitted:

In order to aid the Court in exercising its authority under the statute, the Attorney General of the United States at the request of the Court submitted on May 26, 1933, a draft of proposed rules. These were expressly limited to proceedings in cases brought in the District Courts of the United States and in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The reason for this limitation was thus stated by the Attorney General: 'The Rules are limited in their application to proceedings in cases instituted in the District Courts of the United States and in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. There is not sufficient data at hand upon which to predicate proposals at this time relative to practice and procedure in cases instituted in the District Courts of Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Canal Zone, and Virgin Islands, or in the Supreme Courts of Hawaii and Puerto Rico, or in the United States Court for China. It is thought that it would be the part of wisdom to establish the rules for practice and procedure for Continental United States before attempting to provide for the Territories, Insular Possessions and Consular Courts, as these situations will undoubtedly require special treatment because of local conditions and the distance separating the trial court from the Appellate Court.'

 As can be seen, the court in Mookini was NOT saying that "district court of the United States refers only to "Article III" courts-- the phrase is also used to describe territorial (Article IV) courts.


The United States district court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, § 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.

But of course the question arises: WHICH "United States district court" is being spoken of here, that is not "a true United States court established under Article III"? The excerpt is presented to suggest that the reference to "The United States district court" is a reference to any court that might be presented under that name, but looking a little more broadly into the ruling we find that:

These are two prosecutions for criminal libel, brought against the same defendant, Jesus M. Balzac, on informations filed in the District Court for Arecibo, Porto Rico, by the district attorney for that district. 

Thus, the "United States district court" to which the misrepresented snippet refers is "the District Court for Arecibo". The simple fact is, "district court of the United States" and "United States district court" are interchangeable terms, with Article III and Article IV courts both being known by either appellation. The distinction between an Article III variety and an Article IV variety can only be drawn by the specification of the location in which the court has jurisdiction.

NOW LET'S LOOK AT SOME RULINGS focusing on the distinctions. Here, for instance, is the US Supreme Court in Nguyen v. United States, No. 01-10873 (2003):

Petitioners were tried, convicted, and sentenced on federal narcotics charges in the District Court of Guam, a territorial court with subject matter jurisdiction over both federal-law and local-law causes. The Ninth Circuit panel convened to hear their appeals included two judges from that court, both of whom are life-tenured Article III judges, and the Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, an Article IV territorial-court judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 10-year term.


In light of the relevant statutory provisions and historical usage, it is evident that Congress did not contemplate the judges of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to be "district judges" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 292(a), which authorizes the assignment of "one or more district judges within [a] circuit" to sit on the court of appeals "whenever the business of that court so requires." As used throughout Title 28, "district court" means a "'court of the United States'" "constituted by chapter 5 of this title." §451. Among other things, Chapter 5 creates a "United States District Court" for each judicial district, § 132(a), exhaustively enumerates the districts so constituted, § 133(a), and describes "district judges" as holding office "during good behavior," § 134(a). Significantly, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands is not one of the enumerated courts, nor is it even mentioned in Chapter 5.

Then there is Mobley v. CIR, No. 07-2019 (Sixth Circuit, 2008), a case in which the issue was whether Tax Court has the authority to transfer a case to a federal district court-- something that can only be done between courts included in the definition of "courts" in 28 USC § 610:

As used in this chapter the word “courts” includes the courts of appeals and district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of International Trade.

 As the Mobley court observes:

The Tax Court also rejected the Mobleys' request to “transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky"...

[T]he court to which the Mobleys want the case transferred is a court as defined in § 610-namely, a “district court[ ] of the United States.”

So the Mobley court identifies the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky as a district court of the United States.

The court goes on to identify that court as an Article III court. Ruminating over whether the Tax Court's denial of the request, which was based on its conclusion that as an Article I court it was not among those in 28 USC § 610, was sound, the Mobley court identifies the Article of authority for each listed variety:

One might think, for example, that all of the “include[d]” courts listed in § 610 are Article III courts, which would exclude the Tax Court-an Article I court, see 26 U.S.C. § 7441. But that is not the case. The list also mentions an Article I court (the Court of Federal Claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 171(a)) and three Article IV courts (the district courts of the Canal Zone, of Guam and of the Virgin Islands...

So, as the Mobley court says, § 610 covers an Article I court (the Court of Federal Claims) and three Article IV courts (the district courts of the Canal Zone, Guam and the Virgin Islands) with all the others listed-- the courts of appeals and district courts of the United States (one of which is the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky) being Article III courts.

P. S. By coincidence, the same day I posted this article I was copied by several people on a petition to the Supreme Court by someone named John Trowbridge which is being circulated with much hyperbole about its significance. Trowbridge's petition concerns a challenge to federal court jurisdiction over tax matters, and happens to include arguments involving the distinction between Article III and Article IV courts.

I will take this opportunity to post a few comments concerning Mr. Trowbridge's seemingly widely-distributed mistaken ideas in order to forestall time being wasted on it by recipients, just as I posted the article above debunking a different set of mistakes concerning the different classes of courts for the same reason (see the commentary that follows, 'About Distractions Generally' for more on this).

Mr. Trowbridge, unfortunately, is not CtC-educated. He therefore does not understand the basis for assertions of federal tax liability, and appears to imagine that basis to involve citizenship or residency, as indicated by this passage from early in his petition:

In Petitioner’s February 4, 2014, answer to Plaintiff’s January 7, 2014, complaint, Petitioner tacitly admits to all facts alleged in the complaint via solemn covenant to discharge in full the obligation alleged therein upon Plaintiff’s production of evidence that Petitioner is a citizen or resident of the Title 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) geographical United States and therefore of the subject, and Petitioner’s property of the object, of Title 26 U.S.C. To this offer to settle Plaintiff stands mute, rather opting for pretrial motions and filings that continue for four months.

Overall, therefore, Trowbridge's petition is neither ground-breaking, as those distributing it breathlessly assert, nor useful.

Indeed, Trowbridge's petition is, rather, counter-productive. Like any and all of the ill-informed notions discussed here, it simply fuels 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.

I hope everyone seeing this thing will respond to the sender and any known recipients with a sharp rebuke for the damage being done; and I hope anyone who knows Mr. Trowbridge will do him the favor of promptly introducing him to CtC. He writes very well, and appears to have an excellent grasp of what legal issues he actually does understand. My guess is he could be an asset to this community if he comes to accurately understand the tax.


About Distractions Generally

SO, HERE'S THE THING... I've had a debunk of this "district courts of the United States v. United States District Court" nonsense posted for quite some time. I didn't have it written out this extensively, but I had it out there. And yet, people in the "liberty" community keep wasting time and spinning wheels-- their own and those of folks they influence or burden-- on this very nonsense. A bunch of it is circulating right now, cluttering inboxes and chat-rooms everywhere.

This drives me crazy. Do you think that the truth is going to prevail while everyone who brings energy to the exercise is running in a different direction (and half of them end up mired in tar pits of mis- dis-information)?

PEOPLE!!! Stop wasting your energy!

If you were at Doreen's sentencing, you heard DOJ Tax Division attorney Jeffrey McClelland's left-handed but unambiguous acknowledgement that billions of dollars have been refunded to CtC-educated Americans-- an aggregate total of federal, state and local tax agency admissions on tens of thousands of occasions taking place continuously for 12 years now.

You heard McClelland's admission that none of these victors for the rule of law are facing legal challenges as a consequence of their CtC-educated filings (even though some few are being harassed with bogus "frivolous" nonsense), and that the IRS is "seemingly vulnerable" to CtC.

 Word to the non-sleeping: A tax collection agency is only "vulnerable" TO THE TRUTH, and billions of dollars only flow back to claimants over tens of thousands of occasions over 12 years and still going strong WHEN THE BASIS FOR THOSE CLAIMS IS VALID.

Are you shouting this from the rooftops? No? WHY NOT?! Why are you not telling everyone you know that liberty from the destructive scourge of the misapplied income tax is in hand, while the corrupt state engages in an unprecedented assault on our rule of law in an effort to keep it from their eyes? Why are you not standing loud and proud, bearing witness to the truth (more on that in a moment)?

At the very least, why are any of you looking anywhere but on losthorizons.com and in my books for any information relevant to the tax? I don't know everything, of course. BUT I KNOW THE TAX.

Where the tax and issues related to that subject that I have addressed are concerned, PLEASE! Stop wasting your energy. PLEASE! denounce and drive from the public square everyone and anyone peddling ANYTHING I have indicated here is not true, and ANYTHING that conflicts with anything that I have said IS true in any of my own revelatory work.



A New Policy

FINALLY, THE POLICY CHANGE, which is sort of related in my mind to the stuff above, because it is born out of frustration, just as is my having felt the need to write the longer "Article III piece at the expense of an afternoon in which I could have been doing other things, and the admittedly rather exasperated comments immediately above...

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.

Everyone's failure to step up and fulfill this simple request is really getting to me, now...

"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.


So, please make and send those videos right away! 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 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.

(((I(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