“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 January 25, 2015

 

Please Start Here

Featured In This Update:

Fallacies, Falsehoods and Evasions

***

A Few More 'This and Thats'

***

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

On the "Minimum Wage"

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

 

Fallacies, Falsehoods and Evasions

LAST WEEK I POSTED AN ARTICLE DISCUSSING 'THE CONSPIRACY THAT IS'-- the sporadic, disorganized but coincidentally-complementary web of corrupt practices deployed by disparate unscrupulous state actors attempting to preserve a convenient but unauthorized status quo in the face of Americans who have learned the liberating, state-restraining truth about the income tax. This week I want to drill down on a few of the common fallacies and falsehoods that make regular appearances in these efforts.

For the most part, each incident of agency and judicial bad behavior is independent of all others. Nonetheless, because the core issues involved in any tax-related contest brought by, or involving, an educated litigant are always essentially the same, there are a handful of legal and logical fallacies and falsehoods resorted-to by pretty much all corrupt government lawyers and judges. These same fallacies and falsehoods are also used by defenders of the status quo among the sycophantic intellectual class, as well.

I'm going to review and debunk a few of these fallacies and falsehoods here. It is my hope that everyone will study the process by which this is done so as to be able to apply the same methods in other situations at need, and also in order to cement the understanding that court rulings relying on these fallacies and falsehoods don't actually provide any authority for the propositions on behalf of which they are deployed, and that these fallacies, falsehoods and evasions WOULD NEVER BE DEPLOYED IF THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS AND THE CO-CONSPIRATOR COURTS COULD ACTUALLY DEFEND THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THEIR USE.

That is, the use of fallacies, falsehoods and evasions is itself proof-positive that the conclusions on behalf of which they are deployed are wrong-- and not only simply wrong, but deliberately wrong. Nobody subjects himself to the scorn and shame attendant upon the use of this sort of nonsense other than for the deliberate purpose of evasion.

The other side of that coin, of course, is that the conclusions against which the fallacies and falsehoods are deployed are correct. At a minimum, those conclusions attacked only with fallacies, falsehoods and evasions stand undisputed.

So, let's start with one of the most ridiculous and easily-debunked, but very common fallacies:

"Includes" and "including" in a definition mean "also includes" and "also including".

One of the easiest ways to demonstrate the fallacious character of this false assertion is by showing a typical occasion in which this fallacy is invoked.

Here is one from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in the unpublished case of Sytsma v. Comm'r., #All-269 (Minn. 2011). A Minnesota district court had summarily dismissed appellant John Sytsma's suit to compel Minnesota's Department of Revenue to issue a claimed refund, and in order to affirm the dismissal, the appellate court has to deal with Sytsma's perfectly correct (and case-dispositive)observation that what qualify as "wages" to be reported and accounted for as such on a Minnesota tax return are only those paid to workers within the limited-scope subclass exemplified by the enumerated list in the relevant "employee" definition.

The court first tries to confuse the issue:

290.92 subd. 3 does indeed say that, but its doing so is irrelevant to the issue the court is pretending to address. Subd. 3 has nothing to do with the definition of "wages" involved here.

Here are the relevant portions of 290.92, in their entirety:

290.92 TAX WITHHELD AT SOURCE UPON WAGES; OTHER PAYMENTS.

Subdivision 1.Definitions.

(1) Wages. For purposes of this section, the term "wages" means the same as that term is defined in section 3401(a) and (f) of the Internal Revenue Code.

...

(3) Employee. For purposes of this section the term "employee" means any resident individual performing services for an employer, either within or without, or both within and without the state of Minnesota, and every nonresident individual performing services within the state of Minnesota, the performance of which services constitute, establish, and determine the relationship between the parties as that of employer and employee. As used in the preceding sentence, the term "employee" includes an officer of a corporation, and an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.

As specified in subd. 1, what qualifies as "wages" for purposes of Minnesota's tax structure is NOT controlled by the "employee" definition in subd. 3, as the appellate court tries to suggest in its Sytsma ruling. Rather, what qualifies as the "wages" relevant to the Sytsma case is controlled by the definition in 26 USC 3401(a) and (f), as subd. 1 plainly and unequivocally declares.

The "wage" definitions at 26 USC 3401(a) and (f), which Minnesota explicitly adopts, are in turn controlled by the definition of "employee" at 26 USC 3401(c), not the one at 290.92 subd. 3. And that 26 USC 3401(c) definition contains none of the language excerpted by the court from 290.92 subd. 3:

26 USC 3401

(a) Wages

For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer,...

(f) Tips

For purposes of subsection (a), the term “wages” includes tips received by an employee in the course of his employment.

(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

"Wages" for Minnesota are what are defined above in 26 USC 3401(a) and (f), which are remuneration and tips received by "employees" as defined above in 26 USC 3401(c), not "employees" as defined in M.S. 290.92 subd. 3.

The court is playing a shell game, directing the mark's eyes at an irrelevancy in hopes that the real heart of the matter will be overlooked. In so doing, the court concedes Sytsma's argument on this point, and effectively acknowledges that Sytsma has prevailed in his suit on the merits, however much it may be reluctant to admit the fact honestly and forthrightly.

 But let's continue with this section of the ruling in order to address the "also includes" fallacy deployed by the court as another element of its overall dodge. We find it in the next declaration by the court:

Remember now, the court is still discussing the irrelevant 290.92 subd. 3, still pretending it controls the "wages" definition because it figures if that line is swallowed, what it says here will set the hook. Though at this point we're just considering this for entertainment purposes, since the subd. 1 specs make subd. 3 moot, let me ask you: is it logical that the language that the court omitted from its subd. 3 excerpt-- "As used in the preceding sentence, the term "employee" includes an officer of a corporation, and an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."-- is 1. a mere "reference", and 2. provided in order to "expand the definition to specifically include those political and public employees"?

This proposition, mind, is that the portion of subd. 3 which the court DID quote must be incomplete, even though it "defines "employee" as "any resident individual performing services for an employer, either within or without, or both within and without the state of Minnesota..." If this is a definition of "employee", does it need to be "expanded"? Indeed, CAN it be expanded?

This quoted language says ANY. IF this quoted portion of subd. 3 is "the definition" in regard to which the portion omitted by the court is merely a relevant reference, is it logical or fallacious to suggest that the omitted portion "expands" the quoted portion?

The proposition is that under Minnesota's statutory definition, "employee"  means "any employee" (which is to say, ALL (resident) employees), and ALSO includes (resident) officers of corporations, officers, employees, or elected officials of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing performing services for an employer which constitute, establish, and determine the relationship between the parties as that of employer and employee. That is, this proposition is that under Minnesota's definition, "employee" means ALL employees PLUS OTHER EMPLOYEES.

Methinks we have stepped into the realm of the supernatural...

Or, this proposition is a fallacy, and the enumerated list in the omitted portion of 290.92 subd. 3 gives the meaning to the term "employee" appearing in the otherwise all-inclusive-appearing sentence which precedes it, just as it says it does ("As used in the preceding sentence,...). Taken in this non-self-contradictory way, subd. 3 is seen to define "employee" for purposes of the section as "any officer of a corporation, officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing who resides in Minnesota or, though non-resident, performs his services in Minnesota."

Wait a minute! Now we ARE matching the 26 USC 3401(c) definition of "employee" relevant to the "wages" definition specified in 290.92 subd. 1, just with Minnesota-relevance attached. How about that!

Okay, sorry about the snark. But really, this "also includes" fallacy is SO ridiculous.

If a definition really says or means "all" (or "any", or is just deemed to have the common meaning of a word like 'employee', which is inherently all-inclusive of any and all employees), it cannot be supplemented. On the other hand, if a definition CAN be "supplemented" (or "expanded"), then it DOES NOT mean "all" or "any" (or have the common definition of the word) in the first place, and anything not enumerated in the "supplement" or "expansion" cannot be presumed to be included, just as those which ARE enumerated are not presumed to be included.

Putting that latter point another way, if federal employees have to be listed in order to be found within the meaning of the term, then so do Sears employees, and by the same token so do any and all other employees. Such a definition is actually not being "expanded" by such an enumeration-- it is being ESTABLISHED by the enumeration (and just exactly as all the courts that have actually addressed this issue, rather than dodging it like the Sytsma court, have plainly said.)

In short, "also includes" (or "expands", as in this version) IS AXIOMATICALLY FALLACIOUS.

I'LL BE CONTINUING IN FUTURE NEWSLETTER POSTS with examples and analyses of other commonly-deployed fallacies, falsehoods and evasions. In the meantime, and always, keep very much in mind that the best way to stop the bad behavior on behalf of which these fallacies are deployed is to subject them and their purveyors to scorn and ridicule at every opportunity.

Rulings like that of the Sytsma court should be a laughingstock, and both denounced and disdained. Those responsible should be the objects of scorn and derision, and whenever the opportunity arises in a legal contest or in a debate the fallacies and falsehoods and evasions in this ruling (and others similarly polluted with mendacity) should be revealed as such both pre-emptively when possible and in response to their citation by an adversary (here are some tips for doing so).

Laughter and exposure are powerful weapons. Use them.

Care to post a comment on this article?

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

Return to contents

***** Warrior David LaRocque's Press Release:   Friends, Doreen Hendrickson, wife of the author of the book that exposes the income tax fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people, is being subjected to malicious prosecution by government thugs. The charge is “contempt of court” for her refusal to sign a statement drafted by the government attesting to facts which she knows to be untrue – specifically that she has a tax liability to the federal government under the government’s fraudulent interpretation of the law regarding the income tax, when in fact she knows that the statement she has been ordered to sign is false. Pete Hendrickson’s book “Cracking the Code” shows, through penetrating analysis and in great detail, how the U.S. Constitution provides, in Article I of that document, for only two classes of taxes on the American people – direct taxes which are subject to apportionment, and indirect taxes (“duties, imposts, and excises”) which are subject to the requirement of uniformity. Notwithstanding government assertions to the contrary, the United States Supreme Court ruled (in the Brushaber case) that the Sixteenth Amendment created no new power of taxation which did not exist prior to the amendment, and that the income tax authorized by that amendment is an excise tax applicable only to government-connected activities. Accordingly, while the government has no authority to impose income taxes (direct taxes or “capitations”) on private sector activity, the Internal Revenue Code has been carefully manipulated to create the appearance of tax liability when no such liability exists. When one reads Pete’s book and learns how this is done, the effect is tantamount to being struck by lightning. For anyone who was educated to believe in the essential legitimacy of the American government and its operation, this revelation is beyond shocking. The only conclusion one can reach is that the level of corruption has become so great in our system of government that heroic measures will be needed to save it from the rot and corruption which has been allowed to penetrate it, and take root in its foundation. Pete Hendrickson has taken it upon himself, at great personal sacrifice, to sound the alarm about the governmental fraud that is destroying the greatest economic system the world has ever seen. This is Pete’s battle, not Doreen’s. But the government was unsuccessful in its assault on Pete, so it attacked his wife, who has nothing to do with the battle to bring out the truth to the American people. While this fact in itself is highly disturbing, the government’s line of attack on Doreen is nothing short of outrageous. The government is trying to use the enormous power of the federal government to force Doreen to accept a version of official truth which she knows to be a lie. This behavior by the government is the behavior of a tyrannical regime – nothing more, nothing less - and is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law. This assault on Doreen Hendrickson is of a type familiar to anyone who has studied the history of Communist and Fascist regimes in recent world history. This is not something one would have thought possible in America. Yet this is exactly what is happening in our country today. The Doreen Hendrickson case, as little known as it is, could be seen as one of the most important cases taking place in America today. If Doreen Hendrickson is sentenced to prison for refusing to sign a statement, under court order, which is demonstrably false and contrary to Doreen’s deeply held belief, then the constitutional protections afforded us by the Founders to preserve and protect our liberty may no longer exist. If you do not understand what is happening to Doreen and Peter Hendrickson, I urge you to investigate further at www.losthorizons.com/TheAssaultOnDoreen.htm. Contact Pete Hendrickson at newscritter@losthorizons.com Doreen's sentencing is scheduled for April 9, at 10:30AM in the courtroom of Victoria Roberts at the Theodore Levin Federal Building in downtown Detroit. Your attendance will be much appreciated. Click here to get this press release as a .pdf for easy distribution Click here to get the alternative press release as a .pdf for easy distribution Care to post a comment on this article? Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend Return to contents ***** A Few More 'This and Thats' EARLIER THIS WEEK TJ SCORED US SOME FREE PASSES TO AN ADVANCED SCREENING of 'The Kingsmen', a new action film due for general release on Feb. 13. Great movie! Anyone who enjoys the super-slick and savoir faire-drenched style of the James Bond series will love this film as an outstanding effort in that genre. But this one goes the Bond school one much, much better with the "secret service" involved here being an entirely private-sector affair, and as likely to spank "Her Majesty's Government" when needed as any other villain.  I also recommend 'The Kingsmen' to everyone for its satisfying political themes... SPOILER ALERT: The villain is a rich "climate change" obsessive whose plan, in collusion with the "Bilderberg" crowd, is to cull the planetary human population of all the riff-raff (that is, you and me) by a means involving control of everyone's telecom devices; and the film features an artistic rendering of the one-by-one come-uppance of this evil crew reminiscent of the final scene in 'V'. See this one. *** MONDAY WAS THE CELEBRATION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY-- an American hero worthy of the respect shown to him. It's a pity that the state and its symbiotic parasites have so successfully distorted King's message and his accomplishments into the weapons against prosperity and respect of which the welfare state is composed-- a success the thoroughness and depth of which can be measured by the prominence in the public square of someone like Al Sharpton. But my comment here is not about King or the corruption of his legacy; today I have only a very mundane observation to make: I had occasion to be out on Monday, and was struck by the unusually pleasant mood of everyone I encountered. Since this could not have been due it being Martin Luther King Day per se, Dr. King's struggle and eventual murder, and the co-opting of his accomplishments by state-power hustlers being hardly an occasion for smiles, it occurred to me that this was simply due to the fact that federal offices and activities were shut down for the day. This meant that for that day, the American people were being spared the affliction of what has become a swarm of stinging flies pouring forth every other workday from Mordor-on-the-Potomac and its outpost fortresses scattered across the country like buboes on a plague victim and that, it seems, is recognized at least subconsciously by most folks as cause for better spirits. Oh, I look forward to the day enough Americans have woken up and are taking the cure... *** HERE'S AN IRONY FOR YOU... Remember that 1983 pop song "Every Breath You Take"? The one with the lyrics, "Every breath you take and every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take, I'll be watching you; every single day, and every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay, I'll be watching you"? Do you remember the name of the band? It was The Police... Care to post a comment on this article? Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend Return to contents ***** Be sure to wait and see both panels of this animated graphic, and please paste it into emails and share it widely. Most folks will "get it" without a word of explanation necessary. Care to post a comment on this article? Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend Return to contents ***** *****   American Understanding Of The 16th Amendment At The Time Of Adoption WERE YOU AWARE THAT OUT OF A POPULATION OF 122 MILLION+, with more than 45 million gainfully-occupied, only 4.171 million tax returns were filed by Americans in 1925? That is, were you aware that the America of 1925, consisting of the generation that had adopted the 16th Amendment 12 years before, found that only about 9% of its adult, working citizens were subject to the tax, even though a vastly higher percentage of these folks earned more money than the very low exemption figure of $1,500? Watch this new film about Americans from the time when everyone knew the meaning of "capitation" and "excise" and knew what the 16th Amendment really did (and didn't do). Get the liberty-enhancing facts, Jack... SHARE THIS VIDEO WIDELY!! You've got to be the teachers, my friends-- or the lessons will not be taught. Share this page, or at least the video link at: http://youtu.be/qd46hg4Wj0Y, and when you do, direct your correspondent to follow-up by taking in the all-important big-picture context for these revelations. Here are links to other recent educational films: 'Educated Americans Love The Income Tax' and 'Busting The Myth-Mongers'. And don't forget this one: 'Now, More Than Ever, It's Time To Learn The Truth About The Income Tax'. "All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed." -I. F. Stone Care to post a comment on this article? Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend Return to contents ***** In The End, It's A Question Of Morality THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THOSE IN DENIAL OF THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCOME TAX laid out in cold, hard, unambiguous documentation on the previous pages has always fascinated me.  These folks are presented with a simple choice between an obvious, patently ridiculous fiction and a plain, thoroughly-documented truth which has been being continuously acknowledged for years now even by the peddlers of the absurd fiction.  Yet the deniers still manage to avoid choosing to embrace the truth. On the one hand, these deniers are invited to imagine that their ancestors were drooling idiots, who inexplicably authorized their government agents to seize any portion of anybody’s and everybody’s earnings, at the whim of those agents, in perpetuity.  According to this myth, the only "control" imposed on this utterly despotic power is that those who abuse it can be turned out of office afterwards (by what might then be an utterly ruined and subjugated population).  Simply to describe this fantasy in plain words reveals it to be nonsense-- indeed, even after what most of them would admit has been a life-time of conditioning to the acceptance of mammoth government, not one of the deniers themselves would be so daft as to grant such authority to the state. Click here for the rest of this article ***** The Motor City Witchcraft Trial(s) A NEW BOOK CHRONICLING DOREEN HENDRICKSON'S heresy trial has hit the presses. Find it here, and read all about it! *****   See and hear from some others who "did", too, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Learn how to share YOUR testimonial here.   ***** "[T]axes are not raised to carry on wars; [it is, rather,] that wars are raised to carry on taxes." -Tom Paine   Return to contents   Some Folks Have Already Surrendered To The State's War Of Terror... I'm proud to be a member of our ever-growing CtC community of grown-up Americans who have not. To learn how the Founders anticipated this kind of internal assault on our liberties-- and provided against it-- read 'The Shield' (and share it around widely)! "Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right." -Martin Luther King Jr. Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend   Don't Keep A Bushel Over Your Candle!! I HAD A CONVERSATION THE OTHER DAY with a warrior still waiting for his first victory, and who is instead being put through an obnoxious stall-and-distract "frivolous" routine (along with his warrior wife). This recently-retired professional man has done everything to comprehensively uphold the law, even going back as far as possible to correct his business filings as well as his personal ones, but so far with no joy. My correspondent had suing on his mind, and wisely so-- the stall-and-distract "frivolous" assertions are calculated to occupy their target while the two-year window to launch a suit to compel the issuance of a thus-far unmade refund closes, and these folks aren't going to get foiled by that cheap ploy. So, I encouraged my friend to proceed, with all possible dispatch. At the same time, though, and more vehemently still, I urged this good man to another, parallel activity which I think even more virtuous, since it offers direct benefit to everyone: WRITING UP HIS STORY FOR PUBLICATION!! Thinking about what this wonderful couple has been put through, I was struck hard by how compelling their story is as evidence of the truth about the tax-- just as is the story of every carefully-scrupulous educated filer and claimant whose claims are being evaded with the manifestly inapt, obviously-dodgy "frivolous" bs. I was also struck by the realization that those who have been victimized by this run-around don't understand the power of their stories! My correspondent said as much to me when I brought up the idea of him writing up his story for his local paper, and/or posting in one place or another on the internet; his initial response was that, 1. He HAD thought about writing it up, but as a book; and 2. He didn't want to write it up until he had gotten a favorable resolution of the matter, thinking that only then would it be a virtuous story to tell. No, no, NO! Both of these notions-- that the whole tale could fill a book, and that it is desirable to be able to report a victory at the end of the story-- are understandable. But both overlook the very important facts that a 1500-word article will get read, while a book might not; a 1500-word article will get written, while a book might never be (and in any event, won't get written and out there NOW, while the need is immediate and high); and the story of illegitimate resistance to a CtC-educated claim is just as powerful an educational tool as a victory-- maybe even more powerful. I ask you all, would the civil-rights movement have gotten the attention it did if the only people who ever told their stories were those NOT subjected to manifest abuse? If Rosa Parks' story had been, "Well, a white guy came on board and demanded that I give up my seat in the front of the bus to him. I refused, and he gave up and went to the back himself," do you think her experience would have inspired anyone to pay attention? More to the point here, evasions are evidence of truths-- just as much so as are admissions or capitulations. Those of you who are attentive will have noted that while most of the EWWBL episodes I post end up as victories, I also post those that are not-- because an unfounded or transparently-evasive dodge by the government is just as much evidence of what the law actually requires as is a surrender to that requirement. When you can show your opponent doing the equivalent of muttering, "Yeah, THAT's the ticket...!" you are showing that he's lying. When you show that he's lying, you are showing that the truth is not on his side, and IS on your side. I REALIZE THAT EXPLAINING HOW THE STATE'S AGENTS ARE LYING is not as easy as simply announcing a victory. But it IS just as compelling to those we need to reach, and in some ways, more so. Despite its ever-increasing ludicrousness, there are still some who cling to the feeble "denial" notion that CtC victories are just a [ten years long, tens of thousands of occasion] "slip through the cracks". These folks convince themselves that CtC-educated victories don't happen because they should, but only happen by accident. But that "it's all been a big mistake" notion, even as deeply delusional as those who resort to it are willing to be, can find no traction when facing demonstrable outside-the-law behavior by the state in response to CtC-educated claims. No one can argue that gimmicked "frivolous" notices making fake and deliberately incorrect references to statutory language, for example, are "slips through the cracks"! SO, HERE'S THE THING, PEOPLE: This community really needs to become a very vocal, very widely-published community of revelatory voices-- RIGHT NOW. Every one of you needs to get busy bearing witness to the truth-- trumpeting your victories and denouncing any and all law-defying, truth-revealing evasion of the truth by its enemies. As I counseled my correspondent the other day, every one of us must write our 1500-word testimonials. Write them for consumption NOT by me or by the CtC-educated, but for reading (or watching-- video stories, even just of you reading or telling your story are great) by those not yet equipped with the liberating truth about the tax. Get them out there-- in your hometown paper, your newsgroups, your chatrooms and your blogs. Email them around, and copy me, please. The ice is breaking, because lies only hold up until the weight of the truth becomes too much for them, but it has a way of hardening back up if the pressure upon it doesn't grow. If all you've had are victories, sing them out! If you've had resistance, sing that out, just as loudly. Use the resources on this site. You don't have to analyze any evasions to which you might have occasion to refer-- just describe them with an eye to pointing out that they are unmistakably knowing and deliberate, and provide the URL at which they can be read about here as the means for explaining how they are manifestly contrary to the law. Understand that EVERY state reaction to CtC IS A RESOURCE on behalf of communicating and emphasizing the liberating truth. But only if you put it out there... One Candle Is Uncovered... Care to post a comment on this article? Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend Return to contents