Btw, a copy of
CtC from anywhere except the link above may not
be a current edition. CHECK. It matters. Also, there
ARE no e-book, Kindle or .pdf versions of
CtC. Don't get taken in by efforts to sell you--
or even give you for free-- any such thing.
*****
"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
***
No one can guarantee
success in all they do in life. But anyone can
guarantee that they DESERVE success in anything they
do.
Friends! San Antonio! September 22!
Be there for a CtC Seminar in the
home of the Alamo!!
The "capitations" side of the "income"
issue is the more powerful, and yet is often
neglected.
EVER FIND YOURSELF HAVING DIFFICULTY
articulating a
simple, working formula for defining the limitations
of the "income tax"? Here's that simple, working
formula:
"The income tax can't be anything that Adam Smith
described or defined as a
capitation."
I offer this because
there is an unfortunate tendency in the community to
rely too heavily on the definition of "excise" as
the solution. The "excise" meaning is useful,
surely, and important. In some circumstances it is
critically-important.
But it is the open-ended side of the
"what is income" equation, and thus the more
indistinct. That is, to say what something must
be, as in, must be the exercise of privilege
then requires a definition of "privilege". So, we
have a definition that can only be understood in
light of another definition (and more of the same,
in turn).
NOW, WE CAN PROVIDE those
definitions, and, of course, some things in the
chain need no definition given. They are
self-evident, or immune to rational and good-faith
dispute.
But we have the benefit of a list of
specific tax objects and circumstances which the law
says the income tax cannot be (since
capitations
require apportionment; the income tax is not
apportioned; and thus it cannot be a tax on anything
for which apportionment is required). It is silly
to forego resort to the simpler and much more
explicit expression of the limitations on the tax.
After all, Smith expressly declares a
tax on every different species of revenue-- that is,
on "all that comes in" to be a capitation (or, if
you prefer, declares that the class, "capitations"
includes, among other things, a tax on every
different species of revenue, or "all that comes
in"). And the US Supreme Court itself has declared
that the Constitution's "capitations" are whatever
Smith associated with that term.
Thus, Smith's specifications and the
Constitutional apportionment rule show more definitively
and plainly than any other expression that the
"income" tax cannot be on
every different species of revenue, or "all
that come in". Instead, by the same factors, the tax
can only be on a distinguished subclass of
every different species of revenue-- which is to
say, only on certain species of revenues.
Or, to use the other expression,
"income" (as meant in the tax law, and which is
subject to the tax, or a measure of what is subject
to the tax, to be more accurate) cannot be "all that
comes in". Instead, it can only be a certain
subclass of "all that comes in".
AT THIS POINT IN OUR ANALYSIS we have not yet
established what "income" is. But we have definitely
established that in order for the tax to lawfully
fall, the object on which it is attempted to be laid
must first be distinguished as not merely one of
every different species of revenue, or a part of
"all that comes in". That proposed object of the tax
must have been shown or been determined by lawful
and sound procedures to be the certain
species of revenue, or of the certain subclass
of "all that come in", to which the tax can properly
apply.
Thus, at this point, the specifics of
what IS the certain species of revenue, or
the certain subclass of "all that come in" is
irrelevant. It remains beside the point unless or until whoever
means to impose the tax can establish that the
object of his attentions has been undisputedly
distinguished, in a legally-meaningful way, out of
the broad, all-inclusive class of revenue.
Only if an effort IS made to
distinguish the object of the tax-man's attention
(such as by pretending that payments one received
for work were not normal, everyday wages but were
specially-defined "wages") does the "what qualifies
for an excise" issue arise. And even then, at first
instance a simple rebuttal,
as in, "No, they are no such thing", may well put
the matter to rest.
If that simple rebuttal doesn't suffice
to put the
matter to rest then the characteristics of an
"excise", and what qualifies as appropriately
distinguished for the application of such a tax,
become relevant. But unless and until such a
post-rebuttal contest arises, the "excise" side of
the limitations of the tax needn't be raised at all;
and even then, the argument is still best if
fortified with a healthy dose of the "capitation"
side.
A Nice Example Of 1954 IRC
Misrepresentations Of The Law, With A
Frivolous Dimension
As always, a close look at an
"ignorance tax" artifact yields big rewards.
WHILE WORKING ON AN HISTORICAL STUDY of
26 § 6201(a) and (a)(1) earlier this week, as
part of a larger look at aspects of IRS "frivolous
return penalty" abuse, I had the pleasure of
addressing overt misrepresentations of the law in
the current "code" language 6201(a)(1). These
occasions are always happy
things.
The joy is in the fact that these
easily-demonstrated misrepresentations make great
illustrations of the venal nature of the "ignorance
tax" scheme which deploys and relies upon them. More
joy lies in the fact that every explicit
falsification of statutory text makes so much more
simple the articulation and proof of the truth meant
to be concealed or evaded by the overt lie. This
misrepresentation of the assessment authority
delivers abundantly on both counts.
SO, HERE IS THE STORY: 6201(a) goes by
the label, "Assessment Authority". It [relevantly]
reads as follows:
26 U.S. Code § 6201 - Assessment
authority
(a) Authority of Secretary
The Secretary is authorized and
required to make the inquiries, determinations, and
assessments of all taxes (including interest,
additional amounts, additions to the tax, and
assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or
accruing under any former internal revenue law,
which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time
and in the manner provided by law. Such authority
shall extend to and include the following:
(1) Taxes shown on return The
Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the
taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or
lists are made under this title
[Additional specs follow, concerning
taxes payable by stamp, erroneous prepayment credits
and ordered criminal restitutions, none of which are
relevant here.]
The first part of this text reflects
the general authority of the Secretary to assess
taxes. No big deal there, and remarkably, almost no
deceit there, either.
But there IS a little bit, right at the
end. The text of the law reflected at 26 U.S.C.
§ 6201 doesn't include the sentence, "Such authority shall
extend to and include the following:"
This is significant because what
follows that addition in the "code" representation,
which makes it appear that 6201(a) and 6201(a)(1)
are a part of one single element of the tax law, is
itself misleading in the extreme, suggesting that
the Secretary is authorized to "determine" the taxes
on returns made by any "taxpayer" (which will be
taken as "made by anyone other than the Secretary").
In fact, 6201(a) and 6201(a)(1) are
derived from two completely different statutes, and
to the extent that they are related, it is only
insofar as the assessment authority of 6201 is
limited by the actual statutory language of which
6201(a)(1) is a gross misrepresentation. In the 1954
"code", they are juxtaposed as they are in order to
conceal that fact and make "the Secretary" appear to
have authority he does not.
6201 is derived from sections 3640 and
3647 of the IRC of 1939 Here is 3640 (we'll look at
3647 in a moment). Note that this section of the
1939 IRC is in turn derived from section 3182 of the
Revised Statutes of 1873:
Now let's look at 26
U.S.C.
§ 6201(a)(1). The language in the 1954 "code"
rendering reads:
"The Secretary shall assess all taxes
determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to
which returns or lists are made under this title."
Taken as offered, and especially after
the statement of the general assessment authority of
6201(a), and the
completely fictional, "Such authority shall extend
to and include the following:", this 6201(a)(1)
language
suggests that
"The Secretary" (or his delegate, under the
provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(11)(B) and
(12)(A)) is here being given broad authority over returns made not only by "the
Secretary" but also on those made by "the taxpayer".
In fact, as ungrammatical as is the
language of 6201(a)(1), this apparent authority can
easily be taken as the real purpose of the
sub-section. In other words, it is easy to mistake
"the Secretary's" authority represented at 6201(a)
and (a)(1) as being to declare any and amounts
of tax due, on any return, period.
But...no. Let's look at the truth of
the matter, which is very much otherwise than what
is suggested by the misleading language of the 1954
"code".
26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(1) IS DERIVED FROM section
3612(f) of the IRC of 1939. Unlike section 3640,
from which 6201(a) is derived, 3612(f) of the 1939
IRC is derived not from section 3182 of the Revised
Statues of 1873, but from R.S. section 3176, as
amended by section 1103 of the Revenue Act of 1926.
(There were earlier amendments of R.S. 3176 and one
later one in 1935 which changed only some penalty
percentages. And of course, R.S. 3176 was itself
derived from earlier revenue acts beginning in 1864.
But those prior amendments and derivations are
immaterial here, as we only need concern ourselves
with the current state of the law, which is as
amended in 1926 and 1935.)
As is typical of the content of the IRC of 1939 (and
as very different from the systematic disrespect for
accuracy seen in the IRC of 1954), it's reflections
of R.S. 3176 are very nearly verbatim:
Plainly, this actual statutory language
is quite different from 6201(a)(1) of the 1954 IRC.
(Disregard the substitution of "The Commissioner"
for "The Secretary", which came to have the same
effective meaning under 1939 IRC section 3647:
...and the aforementioned
26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(11)(B) and (12)(A); and
also disregard the "stamp tax" reference, which is
covered later in 6201(a)).
Let's study the differences.
Here is the current "code":
"The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by
the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns
or lists are made under this title"
...and here is the actual law (in which
I shall substitute the "Secretary" for the
"Commissioner" and omit the "stamp tax" reference
for purposes of clarity):
"The Secretary shall determine and
assess all taxes as to which returns or lists are so
made under the provisions of this section."
Here the actual law is again, with the
key phrase highlighted for emphasis and attention:
"The Secretary shall determine and
assess all taxes as to which returns or lists
are so made under the
provisions of this section."
Plainly, the authority reflected at 6201(a)(1) does
NOT extend
to any and all "returns made" under this title, as
misleadingly suggested by the inaccurate
presentation of the 1954 IRC. Instead,
that authority extends only to returns made under
the provisions of "this section".
So what is "this section"? Is it
actually a general section, embracing all returns,
as suggested by the 1954 IRC formulation of 6201?
Not at all.
When we look deeper, as the 1954
IRC-schemers hope we will not know to do, we
discover that "this section" is the one providing
only for the Secretary-made returns under what
appears in the current code as § 6020(b)!
(You can see the historical evolution
of 6020(b)
here-- if you have qualified for this level of
information by submission of a video as indicated
here.)
Here is "this section" in its entirety,
as rendered in the 1939 IRC:
Here it is as enacted. (Be careful in your
reading of either source material-- notice that
while the statutory language does include a
reference to a "taxpayer" making returns, it is only
in the context of applying a penalty to such
returns. Such returns are not returns "made under
the provisions of this section". Only those directed
to be made by the section qualify, and that is only
those made by "the Secretary".)
SO, THIS BRINGS US TO THE
"FRIVOLOUS" thing I mentioned in the title of this
article. Here's how:
In the event that an amount has been
collected against an alleged "frivolous return
penalty" (FRP), it has to involve the production of
a return. Not only are such returns mandated by
regulation:
26 C.F.R. § 301.6020-1(b) Execution of returns-
(1) In general.
If any person required by the Internal Revenue Code
or by the regulations to make a return ... fails to make such return
at the time prescribed therefore, or makes, willfully or otherwise,
a false, fraudulent or frivolous return, the Commissioner or other
authorized Internal Revenue Officer employee shall make such return
from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain
through testimony or otherwise. ...
(Emphasis added.)
...but as noted in the assessment
authority exhaustively parsed out above, such
returns are required in order for the Secretary to
assess the penalty.
Put another way, if no 6020(b) return
has been created in regard to a FRP, any collection
of such penalty would appear to be illegal. This is
both for lack of the creation of the mandated return
and therefore the lack of any articulated and
verified claim to the money
on behalf of the government, and, by the other side
of the same coin, because under the provisions of
law reflected at 26 U.S.C. 6501, no collection is
legal without assessment, and under the provisions
we have looked at above, the only way the Secretary
can assess such a penalty and therefore legally
collect it is by the creation of such a return.
In short, any amounts ever taken from
anyone against an alleged FRP in regard to which no
6020(b) return has been made-- even those involving
just a diversion of an overpayment for one year to
an alleged "frivolous return penalty" concerning
another year-- constitute
illegal collections.
Good so far, yes?
But wait, there's more!
THIS ANALYSIS NOW LEADS US to what may
be the solution to the illegal FRP harassment from
which some have suffered that gives the IRS the
plausible deniability it typically seeks for its bad
behaviors-- that is, the avenue of redress available
to the victim on which the IRS relies to excuse its
behavior while hoping no one ever notices that
solution. And here it is (from the IRC of 1939):
Remember, FRPs are to be collected and
assessed as taxes, and so are subject to this
provision as such:
26 U.S.C. § 6671. Rules for application of
assessable penalties
(a) Penalty assessed as tax
The penalties and liabilities provided by this
subchapter [which includes section 6702 -PH] shall be paid upon
notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and
collected in the same manner as taxes. Except as otherwise
provided, any reference in this title to “tax” imposed by this
title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and
liabilities provided by this subchapter.
In case that language or its
implications seem unclear to anyone, and suspicion
remains that somehow the 6702 penalties are not
covered by the language regarding the illegal
collection of taxes shown above, there is also this:
Put this all together, and it appears
that the plausible deniability relied upon by the
IRS to keep its FRP behavior from utter
indefensibility might be this:
Victims of illegal
diversions (which do happen occasionally in one of
those remarkably telling exercises of dissonance--
an alleged FRP being held back from a complete
refund, with the FRP sometimes even being alleged
for the same filing by which the dinged refund is
secured)
have a remedy provided in the law. That remedy would
be the filing a claim for the return of the
illegally-collected amounts within three years of
the offense.
It would appear, for lack of an
identifiable alternative, and because they are the
specified forms for filing claims for refund of
"overpayments", that a 1040 or 1040X would be the
proper form. At the same time, since a "frivolous"
penalty is to be treated as a tax under the law, but
not expressly as an "income" tax, this may be a more
nuanced question, indicating that an inquiry of the
IRS as to the proper form for a claim is probably in
order.
Such a claim return would be dated for, or
would concern, the year in which the diversion happens
(not the year of the filing in regard to which the
FRP is alleged). And, if a 1040 is
appropriate it could, I suppose, be the
same return one is filing for that year for more
normal purposes, but simply with the illegal penalty
claim somehow added in to the "Payments" area on the
form (again, consultation with the tax agency is
probably necessary to discover just how to do this).
HOW ABOUT THAT!
Of course, litigation
might still be necessary. The IRS is no more likely
to do the right thing in regard to such a claim as
it proved to be by the initial improper assertion of
the penalty. But the filing of the claim is a
required precursor to a lawsuit anyway, and might
yield the desired results all by itself.
"Power concedes nothing without a
demand. It never did and it never will. Find out
just what any people will quietly submit to and you
have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong
which will be imposed on them, and these will
continue till they have been resisted with either
words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants
are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they
suppress."
A Few Observations Prompted
By The Passing Of John McCain
Starting with, "Who's going to
slow-dance with poor Lindsey Graham now?"
IT IS CUSTOMARY to speak no ill of the
dead. It is also stupid, when the particular dead
has more to be spoken of than just run-of-the-mill
peccadilloes and toe-stepping. Speaking no ill of
monsters means that nothing is learned in the wake
of their rampage across the stage.
My view of the passing of John "Bomb
Bomb" McCain is that the hand of God has
finally removed Arizona's long-running disgrace.
This is good for the rest of us, but bad for
Arizonans, who have thus had taken from them the
last chance to do the right thing and boot the
despicable warmonger from office themselves, however
belatedly. Let me count the reasons why...
THOUGHOUT HIS SENATE CAREER, John
McCain was either simply delusional or a willing
tool in the hands of the military-industrial
complex, meaning, the "congressional" part of
Eisenhower's original formulation of that label. Due
in large part to McCain's influence or direct
actions and rhetoric, trillions of dollars have been
stripped from you, me, our parents and our kids and
delivered to armament manufacturers and "security"
service-providers over the last several decades.
The sole consequence of that process--
aside from our impoverishment and the corruption of
our political structures-- has been to ruin what was
once America's good name throughout the world. Oh,
and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foreigners
(perhaps millions), and no
small number of Americans, too.
LET'S GET A COUPLE OF THINGS VERY, VERY
STRAIGHT: America has faced no military threat
during the entire time McCain was in office. It is
true that between '87 (when McCain first took
office) and '89 (or arguably, '91) the USSR--
previously a credible military threat-- continued to
technically exist. But it did so only in a
slow-motion state of collapse.
In any event, existing US military
resources were fully sufficient unto the day, and
McCain had no relevant impact on them at that time.
Since the dissolution of the USSR,
there has been no realistic threat whatever. No
nation has had the capacity to conquer the USA or
bend her to its will by military means, and none has
plausibly had any interest in doing so.
NOR EVEN HAS ANY inchoate but
purposeful threat existed, such as "terrorism". What
small-scale animosity there is against America, such
as to lead to occasional lashings-out, has been
purely reactionary-- responses to willful US
aggressions in other people's houses, or aiding and
abetting the messing about in other people's houses
by client states.
These little spasms are entirely in the
control of the US-- stop messing about in other
people's houses, and every bit of reaction to same
will cease. At best, then, these attacks must be
seen as the consequence of reckless endangerment of
individual Americans by the United States.
A darker view might see them as
deliberately provoked in order to produce pretexts
by which to justify the maintenance of the enormous
budget of the security apparatus and all its
beneficiaries, and to justify the related corruption
of our political institutions.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep
the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led
to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken
ANTICIPATING THE PROTEST, I will direct
the attention of those who argue that "9/11" was not
"small-scale" to the fact that there have been no
repeats of that events, even though US messing about
in other people's houses became dramatically-more
widespread and severe after it. These things
together prove that "9/11" was not a "terrorist"
event in the normal sense of the expression.
Nothing done to purportedly enhance
domestic security has rendered such incidents
impossible, or even more difficult. In fact, such
incidents have been made much easier by that very
security theater.
As I pointed out 17 years ago when this nonsense
began in ostensible reaction to "9/11", every
good-sized airport now offers "terrorists" much
softer targets than were available on September 11,
2001.
Consider: At predictable points on
predictable days of every week, 100 people or more
are crowded into small, walled chokepoints in
"security theater" queues. 19 people willing to risk
capture (not even certain death, now) could easily
slaughter 1,900 Americans in simultaneous
satchel-charge attacks on these pre-assembled soft
and helpless targets.
There's nothing hard about making the
explosives, it would appear-- third-world countries
embroiled in the chaos of war yield up the
necessities for IEDs seemingly whenever they are
desired. And as noted, in these new circumstances
the attackers would actually have good chances at
escape afterwards, rather than having the only thing
left of them be a miraculously unscathed passport to
be found among the dust to which a 110-story
skyscraper had been reduced virtually in its
entirety-- with that one remarkable exception-- as
in the 9/11 events.
THE POINT, OF COURSE, is that the 9/11
events were NOT "terrorist" events in the way they
have been portrayed and exploited by John McCain and
his jerk-circle of fellow hobgoblin floggers. If
they were, the events would have been repeated, one
way or another (and
see this for what might well be the very best
available collection of additional evidence and
analysis proving the false-flag nature of these
events).
The equation is simple, and
dispositive: The provocations have worsened, and the
"security-theater" efforts at preventing actual
"terrorism" are incapable of doing so. Therefore
those efforts have never prevented anything, and no
"terrorist" threat-- vis-a-vis 9/11-- has ever
existed, just as no conventional military threats
have existed to a country bristling with nukes and
the best-equipped conventional armed forces in
history and bracketed by wide oceans and friendly
neighbors-- all of which was true long before McCain
took office.
All the military aggression and
expenditures of the last 17 years, just like those
of the preceding 14, back to McCain's first days in
office, have been in service to fictions. Wealth
that could have done unimaginable good left in the
pockets of those who earned it-- or even just in the
hands of honest stewards in the public sector-- has
been instead pissed-away into the bank accounts of
private parties who have learned how to game the
system with the assistance of people like John
McCain.
ON ANOTHER FRONT often used as a
parallel pretext for the stuffing of the
security-state's voracious maw, all the same is also
true. America has no
security interests in the Middle East.
The best anyone has ever been able to
do at attempting to articulate any such interest is
in arguing that without control of Middle East oil
our mechanized armor might grind to a halt in a war
someday, starved of gasoline by a hostile power
which has interdicted the output from that area
(and, I guess, everywhere else that produces oil,
although this fly in that ointment is usually most
noticeable by its absence). But this is arrant
nonsense.
For one thing, America has always been
a major oil-producing country itself. Proven
reserves here (with or without the inclusion of
deposits which our environmental sensibilities have
sequestered from exploitation, and which are,
nonetheless, available in any future time of dire
necessity) are well-more than enough to power our
military machine through any conceivable conflict.
Further, oil and its products are not
the only means by which our military can be fueled.
Plus, of course, we actually maintain a nearly
billion-barrel "Strategic Oil Reserve" against
precisely the interdiction threat on which the
pretense of vital American interests in the Middle
East is spuriously based.
ALL TOLD, THEN, the pretext of American
interests in the Middle East-- especially interests
such as to justify our military engagement in the
region whether outright aggressive or allegedly
otherwise-- is just that: a pretext, which is to
say, a pretense.
Shamefully, it is a pretext which John
McCain and his ilk have exploited for decades in
order to transfer vast sums taken from the rest of
us to their cronies and other beneficiaries, with a
fair bit coming back in at least campaign
contributions (not to mention through ridiculous
speaking fees and by other paths). The outcome,
again, has been the impoverishment of you, me and
our kids; and the orphaning, widowing and
virtually-demonic destitution and ruination of other
peoples in other places, which the same
wealth-extraction machine has become adept at
keeping out of American view.
John McCain was a monster, pure and
simple. We are to be grateful that in the latter
years of his fire-breathing career through the
world's china-shop he became so bold as to leave us
with a near-perfect summary of his character: "Bomb
bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!"
Sure, John.
Like we did (and continue to do) in
Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran (previously,
by proxy), the Balkans, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen (by proxy, mostly,
save for a few Hellfire strikes on, hey, American
citizens... remember?), and encouraged or supported
in Georgia and Ukraine, just to mention a bunch of
things done on "your watch", and at your
enthusiastic urging.
And on whom do we rain death from the
skies after that? C'mon, John!
Or should we move away from throwing
small, crappy countries against the wall, just to
prove that we can (which fellow neo-con
Michael Ledeen is said to have articulated as a
policy of you lunatics)? Should we instead just
focus on provoking Russia, the other major
enthusiasm of you and your neo-con cabal (which
enjoyed widespread influence during the Bush II
years and is once again infesting Washington in a
big way under the Trump administration)?
Should we go from play-time burning
down Fallujahs and get serious about
burning down the world?
Anti-Muslim activists in the United
States were operating in a “post-truth era” and
putting out “alternative facts” long before those
phrases entered the language. For the last decade
they have been spreading provable falsehoods through
their well-organized network of publications and
websites.
A major theme of those falsehoods is
telling the U.S. public that Islam is inherently
dangerous and that American Muslims, even if they do
not embrace extremist religious beliefs or violent
actions, are still a threat to national security. To
back up that conclusion, the well-funded
Islamophobia publicity machine incessantly repeats
two specific assertions.
DON DON LA VIGNE, a long-time warrior
and real American grown-up, shares a nice and inspiring
testimonial on what
CtC has done for him for over nine years now:
*****
"Like a muddied stream or a polluted fountain
is the righteous man who gives way before the wicked."
-Proverbs 25:26
"A nation of sheep begets a government
of wolves."
CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE how abysmally
stupid someone would have to be to continue to doubt
or deny that
CtC has revealed the actual, complete and insurmountable
truth about the income tax in light of the overwhelming
mountain of
historical,
legal,
practical and
logical evidence to the contrary? (Not to mention
the
outright lies and even
ludicrous hoaxes the executive and some corrupt
members of the judiciary have been caught at in desperate
efforts to conceal the truth...)
Plainly any such denier must either be
abysmally stupid or be an abysmally corrupt government
official or other person who sees him or herself as
benefitting from the lies about the tax by which America
has suffered for 75 years now.
Isn't this true?
An old joke, but in regard to this deceiver,
not a laughing matter at all.
““When principles that run against your
deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle
is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must,
at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions
bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your
faith.
Looking For A Litigator Who
Wants To Do Well While Doing Good
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT presents details
of a long-running (and still-ongoing) violation of the
speech, conscience and due-process rights of two Americans.
The offenses, in a nutshell, involve a federal district
court attempting to dictate to these two folks-- word
for word-- sworn "testimony" they are ordered to make
in a legal contest with the government.
Click the link below to read the brief.
You'll find it thoroughly supported with relevant testimony
by the chief perpetrator and other similarly unambiguous
exhibits.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never did and it never will. Find out just what any
people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed
on them, and these will continue till they have been
resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The
limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they suppress."
-Frederick Douglass
"It does not take a majority to prevail...
but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting
brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
-Samuel Adams
*****
"A slave is one who waits
for someone to come and free him."
…The US may be
the only country in the world where people working
in the non-federal private sector must commit
perjury in order to owe and pay ‘God’s things
to Caesar’?
If you work in the
private sector, stop falsely swearing that your
private-sector earnings are federal “income”1.
Perjury is a crime. Exercise the law’s
provision for protecting your private-sector
earnings from the 154-year-old2 indirect
excise known as the federal income tax.
Rebut fraudulent allegations made by your payers
regarding the legal nature of your work and
the earnings derived therefrom, so that you
pay only your fair share. Join the hundreds
of thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans
who have been doing so for more than a decade.
Learn how for free at losthorizons.com.
1--“We must reject…
…the broad contention submitted in behalf of
the government that all receipts—everything
that comes in—are income…”.
United States Supreme
Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)
2—The income tax in
the United States was first instituted into
law on July 1, 1862, during Lincoln’s presidency
under the excise laws of the United States.
The preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code
traces its roots to this original income tax
law.
Trolls Against The Truth: A
Dis-Information Campaign
UNLESS YOU'VE LOOKED, you can have no idea
of the volume, intensity and mendacity deployed in the
government's efforts to discourage Americans from learning
what is revealed in
CtC. It's truly astonishing.
A lot of folks are aware of the show-trial
events in which my wife and I have received state-engineered
public beatings meant to scare people away from the
truth about the "ignorance tax" scam. But many are unaware
of the overall campaign. This is a shame, really, because
a focused propaganda effort like this one is a very
powerful acknowledgement of the significance of
CtC's revelations.
While the majority of Americans do not
yet know how
CtC protects them from the vampire state, the vampire
itself certainly does. Dis-information campaigns like
this one make that very clear.
FORMER CBS REPORTER SHERYL ATKISSON describes
some aspects of this sort of dis-information campaign
in the following video. Despite the annoying preliminary
15 seconds or so of advertising, her presentation is
very much worth watching:
(H/T to Greg Belcher for finding
and forwarding this great presentation.)
Losthorizons.com is one of those websites specifically-targeted
by the corrupt interests at Wikipedia described by Atkisson.
The behind-the-scenes folks at that site won't allow
links on their pages to anything posted at
losthorizons.com, nor even just text corrections
of misinformation in their pages about the income tax.
That's the least of it. Click
here for some specific discussion of the enormous
scare campaign that's been actively spreading false
information in hope of discouraging legitimate media
attention, as well as men and women simply seeking the
truth about the tax and liberty from the scourge of
the "ignorance tax".
PLEASE GIVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT to the
fact that YOU being secure in your own freedom rests
on others learning the truth as well, and recognize
that it falls to you to help overcome the dis-information
campaign. Post and share
your videos;
share your victories; help silence the agents-provocateur
and distraction-injectors whose nonsense is discussed
and debunked
here; and widely (and frankly, impatiently) share
this page,
this page and
this page, challenging everyone in your address
book to disconnect the phone and the TV for an afternoon
and get educated.
Doing these things will be what makes it
happen, Cap'n.
An Excellent New Video About
The Government Effort To Suppress
CtC Has Hit YouTube!
DEREK CUSHMAN HAS POSTED a powerful presentation
on government lies, propaganda and misinformation about
CtC designed to discourage more Americans from reading
the book and getting free of the misadministration of
the tax:
Watch it and share it, folks. This film
will help a lot of people who have been taken in by
the lies understand how they've been manipulated, and
prompt a proper desire to learn the truth about the
tax.
Well done, Derek!
P.S. If there were a thousand videos out
there debunking government lies and encouraging Americans
to learn the truth like this one does, the "ignorance
tax" scheme would collapse in a month. So,
where's yours?
Please Help losthorizons.com
Be As Effective As Possible!
OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS I've heard from
a number of folks that a firewall known as "Comodo"
blocks access to this website. This is apparently a
glitch in that program. This site is safe, as can be
seen by going
here.
Please share this info with others in your
own address book so it gets around-- obviously those
suffering the ill effects of this defect in Comodo won't
be able to see it here themselves until they go into
their firewall settings and manually whitelist
losthorizons.com.
More Educated Americans Testify,
Showing Why The Deep State Fears CtC
"If the taxpayers of this country ever
discovered that we operate on 98% bluff, the entire
system will collapse."
-Reported remark by an internal revenue
service officer to Sen. Henry E. Bellmon (R. Okla.)
on April 15, 1971.
"The Tax Code represents the genius of
legal fiction... The IRS has never really known
why people pay the income tax... The IRS encourages
voluntary compliance, through FEAR."
-Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer
in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training
Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’
CtC-EDUCATED, AMERICAN HERITAGE-LOVING
grown-up Don La Vigne shares his testimony
here. Tom Romin shares
his testimony
here. Greg Sutton shares his
here. Enjoy Robert Harvey's testimony
here. Don's, Tom's and Greg's and
Robert's words, like those of others that can be found
here, are solid examples of why the Deep State fears
CtC.
It's this simple: If you study
CtC you will know the truth about the tax.
Further, you will know that you know the truth,
beyond any doubt.
ONLY
CtC will give you that certainty, because
CtC is exclusively and uniquely complete and correct,
as can be seen by any of thousands of different acknowledgements
of every possible kind, from
this to
this to
this to
this.
Most telling, in its own way, is the government
robotically resorting for years now to the strawman
of
falsely ascribing to CtC the ridiculous arguments
that "wages are not income" and that only federal, state
and local government workers are subject to the tax.
This false ascription is then used as the basis for
claiming the book is "false and frivolous"-- a lame
and transparent dodge begging the question of why the
state won't acknowledge what the book
REALLY says and then attempt to dispute THAT.
Once you know the truth revealed in
CtC, acting in accordance with that truth WILL liberate
you from being an ignorance tax serf. This, the deep
state fears mightily.
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.
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.
When I have asked all of you for what I
firmly believe is a necessary resource to move the ball
downfield and give all of us the best chance at justice
and an end to the assault on the rule of law-- simple
testimonial videos requiring nothing from any of you
but the phone in your pocket and three minutes of speaking
from the heart-- I have had only a handful of people
answer my call.
I CAN'T KEEP GOING THIS WAY. I have to
be able to turn my attention away from writing new persuasive
or skepticism-addressing articles week after week, and
toward research, analysis and educational presentations
that will benefit everyone already in this community.
I need time to do some suing, and to bring together
the resources and talent toward that end.
As said, it is my firm belief that your
testimonial videos are the resource that I need to make
big things happen, and they are unquestionably the thing
I need to allow me to turn my attention away from trying
to get horses to drink at the waterhole to which I have
led them. Your words, in your great numbers and all
in your own different ways, will do that better than
anything I write possibly could.
And yet, you are not providing them. This,
despite my having been asking you for them for many
years now.
Therefore, with enormous reluctance, I
am making portions of this website restricted access
only. People have been urging me to do this for years
now, telling me I should impose a charge to access my
work-product, so as to enable me to keep producing.
I have never been inclined to charge fees
for access. I ask for donations, and will continue to
do that, and if they do not come, then I will conclude
that my work is of no value to anyone, and I will close
shop.
But I now WILL charge a special something
for access to some key portions of that work-- testimonial
videos, as discussed, described and demonstrated
here.
SELECTED PAGES CONSTITUTING primarily "legal
resources" pages now 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 at spreading
the word, and your beautiful faces and inspiring words,
too. It IS a lot.
But I'll let Thomas Paine explain:
"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder
the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we
obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows
how to put a proper price on its goods; and it would
be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as freedom
should not be highly rated.”
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.
Dress "business casual". Be well-groomed.
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, many of which are posted
here.
"It does not take a majority to prevail...
but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting
brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
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:
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.
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!!
"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.”
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.
/3640.jpg)
/3612(f).jpg)
/3647.jpg)
/3612p1.jpg)
/3612p2.jpg)
/3612p3.jpg)
/RefundAuthority.jpg)
/3313.jpg)
