(Click on the underlined text to jump to each feature. To
return, use your browser's "back" button or the provided "Return to
Contents" links. Please keep in mind that
many more items of interest are to be found between featured
articles, so your most profitable course is to scroll through the
whole page...)
Code-cracking on behalf of a great hero in the struggle for popular sovereignty
over the runaway State.
March 9- In 1776, Adam Smith publishes 'The Wealth of
Nations'. In 1841, the United States Supreme Court rules in the Amistad case
that the enslavement of the Africans who had gained control of the ship on which
they were being transported was illegal. In 1916, Mexican General Pancho Villa
attacks a detachment of the 13th United States Cavalry Regiment in Columbus, New
Mexico. In 1933, FDR sends an "Emergency Banking Act" (largely drafted by the
Hoover administration) to Congress, which is passed and signed into law that
same day. Disturbingly similar to the current "bailout" programs, it set the
stage for the prolongation (and deepening) of the Great Depression for another
12 years (when a hands-off approach and the restoration of sound,
precious-metal-backed currency would have seen the economy recovering on its own
within 18 months to two years). In 1945, the Allies begin fire-bombing Tokyo in
a campaign that kills 100,000-- the vast majority of whom are civilians. In
1959, "Barbie" hits the toy shelves.
Anniversaries of interest for
each day of this week will be found throughout the newsletter
below.
With Considerable Regret I Must Announce That
The Seminar In Manchester Is Canceled Until Further Notice
IN AN EXPRESSION of the madness gripping the nation in
response to the Covid-19 outbreak, the governor of New Hampshire has
decreed that no restaurants may serve customers indoors until at
least April 7, including the one in which this seminar was to take
place. I'm terribly sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
Hey, People!! Start making plans
for the 13th (and perhaps last) Declaration Day Party, July 4,
2020!!
Saving Julian
Code-cracking on behalf of one the 21st Century's greatest
heroes in the struggle to rescue self-government from becoming a
pretense at the hands of a corrupt, secretive, "just trust us" State.
JULIAN ASSANGE, the founder of WikiLeaks and by far the
most effective little boy who ever pointed a finger and called out the
nakedness of an emperor and the corruption of his court (or in this
case, the deep, dark, swamp-creature criminal insanity of that court)
has been held for about a year now in a British super-max. Most of this
time has been spent in
solitary confinement.
The brutal treatment is being visited upon Assange while Britain pretends to hear his challenge to the legitimacy
of his extradition to a show-trial in Virginia and death in a United
States super-max for exposing US (and UK) war crimes, diplomatic duplicity, CIA
"false flag" cybertools, and the vandalizing of the Bernie Sanders
campaign on behalf of Hilary Clinton's bid in 2016, among much else.
Having been caught out in their sins, both the US and the UK are doing
all that they can to punish and destroy the man who exposed them, and to
deter future whistleblowers by the example being set with Julian.
That effort to deter future sunlight being shed on
government misdeeds is the greatest crime of them all. It is an assault
on the very principles of self-governance and natural law underlying the
US Declaration of Independence and particularly the First and Second
Amendments to the United States Constitution. It is an assault meant to
thwart effective sovereignty of the People. As perpetrated by US
officials, it might well qualify as treason, and it certainly is a
violation of their oaths of office.
And, of course, that assault is also a great evil
simply in terms of the torture to which one good man is being subjected. Assange is a man after whom liberty- and rule-of-law-loving
Americans should be naming their kids. At the very least, he is a man
behind whom Americans should be rallying, and were it not for what
amounts to a MSM blackout on his contributions and his ordeal, that's
what we all would surely be doing.
SADLY, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE MEMORY-HOLING of this
hero-- I'm the victim of
a suppression campaign myself, and my pulpit is
therefore very much not "bully". But I might be able to help in another
way, by applying my unique legal expertise to an analysis of the allegations on
which Assange's extradition and eventual trial will be based.
Does Assange need my help? I don't know.
He has a fine legal team, I am sure. Those who stand up for Julian
do so because they passionately support natural
law (meaning they are clear thinkers) and have the good habits necessary
to seek out and take in the whole story, no matter where it takes them.
Discovering and upholding the truth are their highest aspirations. These are the
characteristics of the best legal minds.
However, Julian's lawyers are all British (UK, anyway), and
thus not deeply accustomed to the nuances of US law. Further, until even the finest legal mind has encountered a
certain volume and variety of corruption from US DoJ and co-opted
judicial-branch malefactors, it can suffer from the natural human
tendency to expect one's opponents to have the same basic integrity as
oneself.
The insufficiently-burned-by-experience good guy persists in
such a mistake even when that opponent argues fundamentally flawed
positions on behalf of a corrupt purpose, imagining this to simply be an
expression of professional duty.
Hampered by this sort of blind-spot, the high-character
legal mind will assume that his/her opponents are faithfully
representing the laws and legal authorities on which they rely. The
insufficiently-burned good guy or gal will not reflexively look for
themselves. (That such fact-checking is very burdensome lends
itself to unconscious support for imagining that an opponent can be taken
at his word, in an unfortunate feedback loop.)
In any event, and whatever the underlying reason, there are
at least a few major issues with the charges against Assange that have
gone unaddressed throughout the initial week of extradition proceedings,
based on what I have seen of the daily reports compiled by observers in
the gallery. I will lay these out below, amongst which is at least one
that should entirely dispose of the assaults with even a minimalist
presentation.
This notion of contributing my observations and analyses is
a fresh one, prompted by having just lately had the opportunity to see
the arguments being made on Julian's behalf. Consequently, the
presentation below will not be fleshed out with supporting authorities
and appropriate styling for a legal brief, either written or oral.
I may attend to those omissions subsequently, or I may
leave that to Julian's official team.
Of course, what I present may be superfluous, with everything I point
out already recognized. But maybe not, and either way, I
want to do what I can to help.
***
THE INDICTMENT AIMED AT SILENCING JULIAN ASSANGE and
deterring others who might be tempted to themselves expose US criminal
behavior which has been shielded by self-serving classification levels
18 charges nominally grounded in three statutes, 18 USC §§ 371, 793 and
1030, as follows:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE,
Defendant. Criminal No. 1:18-cr-111 (CMH)
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 793(g) Conspiracy To Receive National
Defense Information
Counts 2-4: 18 U.S.C. § 793(b) and 2 Obtaining National
Defense Information
Counts 5-8: 18 U.S.C. § 793(c) and 2 Obtaining National
Defense Information
Counts 9-11: 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) and 2 Disclosure of
National Defense Information
Counts 12-14: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) and 2 Disclosure of
National Defense Information
Counts 15-17: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) Disclosure of National
Defense Information
Count 18: 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1030 Conspiracy To Commit
Computer Intrusion
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT May 2019 Term — at Alexandria,
Virginia (see
the document here).
Let's begin by looking at some of the simple and obvious
legal issues compromising the indictment. Jurisdiction, for example...
Here's what is actually a very significant admission by the government
within the indictment, but which is meant to deceive:
Between in or about November 2009 and continuing until
at least September 2011, in an offense begun and committed outside of
the jurisdiction of any particular state or district of the United
States, the defendant, JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE, who will be first brought to
the Eastern District of Virginia, knowingly and unlawfully conspired
with other co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to
commit the following offenses against the United States:
Indictment, Count 1(B), (and appearing
in more-or-less the same form at the beginning of every count).
This language (which is included in every count) appears to admit
that Assange was not within United States jurisdiction when doing what
is said to be criminal in the indictment (which he was not). But it is
really an attempt to conceal or keep from recognition the fact that whatever might be
the imperial wet-dreams of swamp-creatures in DC, United States
jurisdiction does not extend to the actions of folks in foreign
countries, and US law makes no pretenses to the contrary.
The phrase "outside of the jurisdiction of any particular
state or district of the United States" DOESN'T mean outside of US
territorial jurisdiction. That phrase actually means "in one of a number
of special places subject to US jurisdiction".
Assange was in none of those special places while allegedly
doing the things with which he is charged. But the mendacious DoJ wants
everyone to think it has charged him without regard to his location--
and think, therefore, that it has legal authority to do so-- in order to
keep its fatal jurisdictional problem from being pointed out to the
courts.
Look closely at the language of the statutes meant to be coyly
invoked by the express nuances of that paragraph "B" of every count of the
indictment, reproduced above:
The trial of all offenses begun or committed upon the
high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular State
or district, shall be in the district in which the offender, or any one
of two or more joint offenders, is arrested or is first brought; but if
such offender or offenders are not so arrested or brought into any
district, an indictment or information may be filed in the district of
the last known residence of the offender or of any one of two or more
joint offenders, or if no such residence is known the indictment or
information may be filed in the District of Columbia.
The trial for any offense involving a violation, begun or
committed upon the high seas or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any
particular State or district, of—
(1) section 793, 794, 798, or section 1030(a)(1) of this
title;
(2) section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 421); or
(3) section 4(b) or 4(c) of the Subversive Activities
Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b) or (c));
may be in the District of Columbia or in any other
district authorized by law.
These statutes are the sole legal basis for establishing
the location of any trial of any offense not committed within a US state
and district (pursuant to the provisions of Article III, sec. 2, cl. 3
and the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution), and thus incorporate and illustrate the legal limits of
United States jurisdiction.
The phrase "out of the jurisdiction
of any particular State or district" (emphasis added) gives
away the truth. The
inclusion of any particular in this language establishes that
it is only within US geographical scope-- which extends to US-flagged
vessels as well as US real estate-- that is contemplated as locations in
which US cognizable crimes can be committed. That inclusion implies the
class of "US territory", and implies the exclusion of non-US territory (as
does simple common sense and the ancient doctrine that outside any
country's territorial waters is outside any country's jurisdiction).
But we needn't rely on mere inference and logic. These
limits are further acknowledged, illustrated and made more particular
(and thus, more easily seen) elsewhere in 18 U.S.C., but a long ways
away from §§ 3238 and 3239. We have to go all the way back to
18 U.S.C.
§ 7 to find the definition of "Special Maritime and Territorial
Jurisdiction of the United States", at which we are given the meaning of
"upon the high seas or elsewhere outside of the jurisdiction of any
particular State of district". Here is that clarifying language:
The term “special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States”, as used in this title, includes:
(1) The high seas, any other waters within the
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the
jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole
or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any
corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any
State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is
within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and
out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or
enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon
the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting
them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the
International Boundary Line.
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use
of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction
thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United
States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same
shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or
other needful building.
(4) Any island, rock, or key containing
deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be
considered as appertaining to the United States.
(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part
to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation
created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State,
Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in
flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the
jurisdiction of any particular State.
(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or
navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to
the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched
into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the
moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation
until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for
disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent
authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons
and property aboard.
(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any
nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United
States.
(8) To the extent permitted by international
law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure
from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense
committed by or against a national of the United States.
(9) With respect to offenses committed by or
against a national of the United States as that term is used in section
101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act—
(A) the premises of United States diplomatic,
consular, military or other United States Government missions or
entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings,
and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those
missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and
(B) residences in foreign States and the land
appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for
purposes of those missions or entities or used by United States
personnel assigned to those missions or entities.
18 U.S. Code § 7. Special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States defined
There's a reason 18 U.S.C. §§ 3238 and 3239-- again, plainly the ones being
relied upon by the United States, as shown by the language of the
indictment-- don't simply say, "The trial of all offenses begun or committed outside the
United States shall be in the district...", which they surely would if
meant to announce (or assert) universal jurisdiction. They don't say
this because even the United States-- its lawyerly pretenses to the
contrary notwithstanding-- does not presume to such "universal
jurisdiction".
The simple legal fact is that even if everything alleged by
the United States about Julian Assange is true, he did nothing for which
he can be held criminally responsible by the United States.
WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF JURISDICTION, and before
moving on to the particular problems with the criminal allegations, let's look as
well at a somewhat more esoteric but nonetheless valid problem with the
US indictment, which is nicely highlighted by this language in that
instrument:
At no point was ASSANGE a citizen of the United States,
nor did he hold a United States security clearance or otherwise have
authorization to receive, possess, or communicate classified
information.
Indictment, page 16, section H. United States Law To
Protect Classified Information, ¶46
This admission raises the reciprocal point that at no point
was Julian under any kind of particular or express legal duty in regard to the United States,
its classification rules, or those persons or interests which might be
affected by his acquisition or dissemination of the information at
issue. At the same time, under the terms of the First Amendment Congress
can make no law hampering his receipt, possession or communication of
any kind of information, meaning Assange was also under no incidental or
general legal duty.
Criminal (or even civil) culpability does not arise just because some state
doesn't like what someone has done, or even just because what someone
has done is claimed to have harmed the complaining state. The alleged
malefactor must have breached a legal duty to the complaining state in
order to have committed a legally-cognizable offense; and what's more, a known
legal duty. Under the terms of the First Amendment, there can be no
legal duty to abstain from receipt, possession or communication.
Leakers might be under such a duty, which is often
actually formalized in a signed agreement, or attends the character of
their office or job. They can be sued or prosecuted
accordingly. Publishers-- or even hackers-- have no such relationship.
See this for
more on this point.
***
JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS SUFFICE to eviscerate the United
States extradition and indictment. So, I could say that my work here is
done.
But this is a hugely important case, and those threatened
by Julian's revelations have an endless capacity for corruption, being
capable of arguing that black is white without a blush. So, let's also
look at the specifics of the charges and how they also cannot apply to
Julian Assange.
Counts 1-17 are all based in
18 U.S.C. § 793
("Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information")--
specifically 793(b), (c), (d), (e) and (g). Counts 2-14 also invoke
18
U.S.C. § 2, under which it is held that those who aid, abet,
counsel, command, induce or procure the commission of an offense against
the United States is punishable as a principal.
However, the legal character of each of these subsections
of 793 which are said to describe criminal behavior of Chelsea Manning
(which behavior is suggested, inaccurately and in contradiction of the
evidence, to have been committed at the instigation or assistance of
Julian Assange) hinges on specifics laid out only in 793(a). The
language of that section is omitted from the indictment, and for very
good reason (well, for very BAD reason, really, but good from the
standpoint of the jackals attacking Julian...).
See, for instance this language from Count 1(B) of the
indictment:
Between in or about November 2009 and continuing until
at least September 2011, in an offense begun and committed outside of
the jurisdiction of any particular state or district of the United
States, the defendant, JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE, who will be first brought to
the Eastern District of Virginia, knowingly and unlawfully conspired
with other co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to
commit the following offenses against the United States:
1. To obtain documents, writings, and notes connected
with the national defense, for the purpose of obtaining information
respecting the national defense—namely, detainee assessment briefs
related to detainees who were held at Guantanamo Bay, US. State
Department cables, and Iraq rules of engagement files classified up to
the SECRET level—and with reason to believe that the information was to
be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any
foreign nation, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
793(b);
"To obtain documents, writings and notes connected with the
national defense." Pretty wide-ranging language, right? It suggests that
18 U.S.C. § 793(B) criminalizes obtaining any and all documents,
writings and notes connected with the national defense (without
authorization or whatever), right?
Well, left off of this little offense description are the
very important first five words of 793(b). Those words read: "Whoever,
for the purpose aforesaid,"...
That "purpose aforesaid" refers to the particulars of
793(a), which establishes the real and very limited nature of the acts
criminalized under 18 U.S.C. § 793. Here is 793(a):
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information
respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that
the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or
otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of
defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station,
fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal,
camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station,
building, office, research laboratory or station or other place
connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress
of construction by the United States or under the control of the United
States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which
any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments
for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or
are the subject of research or development, under any contract or
agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof,
or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by
the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national
emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force
is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which
prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to
the national defense; or
18 U.S. Code § 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information
That's a big chunk of legalese, but reading it through
shows that what is being made criminal in 793 is an espionage effort,
the purpose of which is securing information concerning United States
war materiel development or production in order to inform or facilitate
corresponding development or production by a foreign enemy, or
information concerning United States war materiel development,
production or storage for the purpose of physical sabotage or a bombing
run by a foreign enemy.
Here is the complete language of 793(b) cited by the
Assange indictment as the nature of the first charge:
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like
intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or
attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument,
appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the
national defense; or...
Does that language, in light of the "purpose aforesaid"
spelled out in paragraph (a), actually sound like anything done by
Chelsea Manning, or by extension, Julian Assange (even if you buy the
"aided, abetted, counseled..." etc. allegation)? Manning didn't copy
munitions locations or details of planned troop deployments, or shipyard
blueprints. And he certainly didn't copy anything at all for the purpose
of facilitating the destructive or competitively adversarial actions of
any foreign enemy.
What Manning copied and dumped in Julian Assange's lap were
records of past war crimes, evidence of lies continuously told to the
American public, diplomatic double-dealing and so forth. Manning is a
whistle-blower, not a spy. And the same goes for Julian Assange. 18
U.S.C. § 793(b) doesn't apply to either one of them.
18 U.S.C. § 793(c) IS OF THE SAME CHARACTER as is paragraph
(b), and begins with the same reference to, and reliance upon, the
purposes expressed in paragraph (a). (b) covers the copying aspect of
(a)'s spying offense; (c) covers the "receiving" of such a copy, and
like (b), doesn't apply to Manning or Assange.
18 U.S.C. § 793(d) shifts gears slightly. This provision is
directed at those having lawful access to or possession of the same
class of materials identified in (a), who, while having reason to
believe it could be used to the injury of the United States or to the
advantage of any foreign nation (again, within the context created by
paragraph (a)) furnish those materials to someone else who is not
entitled to receive it-- in other words, a mole. Again, no relevance or
application to Manning or Assange.
18 U.S.C. § 793(e) concerns those having UN-authorized
possession, access, control, etc., of the same class of materials
identified in (a), who, while having reason to believe it could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign
nation (again, within the context created by paragraph (a)) furnish
those materials to someone else who is not entitled to receive it or
"willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it".
Again, no application to Manning or Assange, who had
nothing to do with information relevant to war materiel development,
production or storage, nor any reason to believe that what Manning
copied and gave to Assange "could be used to the injury of the United
States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" in any sense other
than a public relations injury or advantage by virtue of the exposure of
criminally-concealed evidence of war crimes, torture, diplomatic
duplicity and the systematic deceiving of the American people.
Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 793(g) provides that if two or more
people conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of section
793, and any of them take steps to effectuate the crime, all are
culpable. But, of course, as is now clear, neither Chelsea Manning nor
Julian Assange violated any of these provisions (and Assange did nothing
within United States jurisdiction in any event, let's not forget).
THE REMAINING COUNT of the indictment, Count 18, cites to
18 U.S.C. § 371
(a blanket conspiracy provision covering the commission of any offense
against the United States) and
18 U.S.C. §
1030: "Fraud and related activity in connection with computers".
(In the actual text of the count, citation is also made to 18 U.S.C. § 641
for some reason-- that statute only concerns theft, embezzlement or
conversion of something of value from the United States for financial
gain. No such thing is even alleged within Count 18 or any other, so I
think we can just chalk this up to DoJ incompetence. So much frothing at
the mouth going on during the contrivance of this indictment that some
foam got in someone's eyes and a mistake was made...)
What IS alleged in count 18 is a conspiracy (prohibited by
18 U.S.C. § 371) to access a computer without authorization and with
reason to believe that information so obtained "could be used to the
injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign nation"
and to communicate obtained information to persons not entitled to
receive it-- by which is apparently meant, "the American people"-- (and
willfully retain the same, etc.), all as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §
1030(a)(1), the cyber-age addendum to § 793 (while also covering
computer fraud, virus implantation and the like).
While more could be said about this one, it should suffice,
at this point and in light of all the foregoing, to observe that no
reason to believe that information so obtained "could be used to the
injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign nation"
within the relevant meaning of those expressions can be credibly
alleged, and in any event, Julian Assange, who was not within United
States jurisdiction at any time, cannot have committed any offense in
this regard any more than he could have in any other regard, conspiracy
included.
***
SO, THERE YOU HAVE A CONCISE BUT POTENT SUMMARY of key
points exposing the Assange indictment and extradition attempts as
groundless and essentially fraudulent. Julian Assange should be
immediately released from his torturous imprisonment. Chelsea Manning,
too, based on the same legal analysis (though Manning lacks the benefit
of the jurisdictional issues).
I have sent this material to Julian's legal team, but I
strongly urge everyone reading these words to do everything possible to
direct every eye possible to this post, regardless. We need to maximize
the odds that this post will get to where it will do the most good,
through what is doubtless a great deal of traffic hitting the inboxes of
these good folks.
“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does
oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything
remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must
be most aware of change in the air-- however slight-- lest we become
unwitting victims of the darkness.”
Share these all, everywhere you can. Be your most
creative self in sending and "selling" these links. Do memes; make
gifs; respond to everything in the news that would be or have been
better had the state been small, or if Americans kept their money
for their own uses.
If you pay attention to the news and train yourself to
apply these perspectives, you will see a dozen things of which you
can make use in awakening other Americans to the virtues of having
the income tax correctly administered. Please, for my sake, for your
own sake, for the sake of your children and their future, make that
use.
IF YOU'RE NOT ALREADY GETTING THE NEWSLETTER delivered to your
email inbox every Monday, go to
this page
and subscribe to the group-- leave all options
in their default states.
YOU CAN ALSO usually find (and share and retweet and repost) links
to new articles on the following platforms:
Twitter (click
here
to follow me and receive the announcement posts);
Facebook (click
here to "like" the losthorizons page and receive the
announcement posts);
GAB (click
here
to follow me and receive the announcement posts).
If you choose one of these social media options (or use
them in addition to other means, as I wish you would), PLEASE get
the full value out of them by diligently "liking" and "retweeting"
or "sharing" or "reposting" my posts! That will
significantly improve their
visibility to others, and very much help the cause!!
My RSS feed:
(Members of the
state CtC Warrior forums
in AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IL, MI, MN, MO, NE, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, SC,
TX, UT, VA, WA or WI, will continue to get the regular announcements
if the membership is set to receive email updates.)
NOTE: I will still not be engaging in
correspondence by
any of these alternative means-- those wishing to correspond with me should
continue to use direct email for this purpose.
NOTE II: PLEASE help ensure that others in the
CtC community know about this change in newsletter delivery!!
*****
Regarding Trolleries
(Deceitful efforts to discourage Americans from
learning the truth about the "income tax")
FOR ALL THE YEARS SINCE 2003 when
CtC was first published, the government has engaged in a
concerted effort to frighten people away from its truths. This
effort involves official government websites and press releases
touting an occasional court ruling that appears to be at odds
with some
CtC-revelation (but without details sufficient to expose the
real substance of the ruling)--
and sometimes even more mendacious behavior.
Are the presentations and
resources offered on this site and in my other work of any value to you?
Tim Kendrick has posted
a video
on YouTube regarding donations. I didn't know what to do about
it to begin with; I don't do what I do intending for anyone to
feel obligated in any way.
But of course, no one IS obligated. I will continue
to make my work freely-available here, and in my books for only
the cost of a cheap paperback.
Thus, even though I post it here below, Tim's very
thoughtful personal resolution and encouragement to others is
just an invitation for consideration by those who may not be
conscious of the fact that I can't do what I do without support.
No one is to feel any pressure from it; if it moves anyone to
act let it be solely because it seems right.
All-in-all, just be the sort of person for others
that you would go to yourself for trustworthy leadership.
Leadership is a challenge. But it's not
complicated, and you can do it.
*****
Are You Having Trouble Spreading The
Word??
SKEPTICISM (SOMETIMES INVOKED BY FEAR) IS TO BE
EXPECTED when you're trying to explain to someone that
everything they've been encouraged their whole lives to
believe about something as entrenched and significant as the
income tax is basically nonsense. So here's a way to help
cut through the resistance:
Ask your listener how he or she would react if
you were to show an announcement from the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue admitting that the tax doesn't apply to the
earnings of most Americans and is misapplied most of the
time because people don't understand how it works? Or how
about if you showed a ruling from the Supreme Court saying
the same?
Now you just have to explain that
you're going to show exactly those things-- but because
the state really doesn't want people to know this, these
things haven't been said quite as forthrightly as we would
all wish. It's going to take a bit more work to take these
admissions in than is sufficient for just reading a press
release. But it'll be worth the effort...
IF YOU'RE NOT SPREADING THIS LINK with every bit of
energy you can, to school libraries, homeschool
families and community groups, your neighbors, your
family members, your pastors and
co-congregationalists, journalists, lawyers, CPAs,
members of congress, tax-agency workers, Wikipedia,
Anonymous, WikiLeaks, the Tax Foundation, everyone
in the "tax honesty" movement, the 9/11 truth
movement, other activist movements and everyone
else,
you have only yourself to blame for your
troubles with the tax, and a whole lot else of which
you might complain. It's on you.
WRITE A NICE, FRIENDLY AND BRIEF introductory note
explaining what will be seen at the link-- cryptic
is bad; excited is good-- and then send this WMI
(weapon of mass instruction) far and wide.
Remember: Real Americans don't accommodate fog, lies and a sliding scale of
adherence to the rule of law. Real American men and women stand up for the
truth and the law, come what may, knowing that it is only by setting the bar
at the top and enforcing it, come what may, that liberties are secured.
"Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be
strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be
highly rated."
-Thomas Paine
OUTREACH!!!
JOB ONE, PEOPLE!!! SPREAD. THE. WORD.
ONLY ONE THING WILL WIN YOU YOUR LIBERTY:
Spreading the truth. Accordingly, I've assembled
outreach resources into a new, dedicated page. Find it
here, and please, USE THESE TOOLS!! I can't
do this all by myself.
"In a time of
universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary
act."
Humanity Is Making A Very Important Decision
When It Comes To Assange
by Caitlin Johnstone
The propagandists
have all gone
dead silent on the WikiLeaks founder they previously were smearing with
relentless viciousness, because they no longer have an argument. The facts are
all in, and yes, it turns out the US government is certainly and undeniably
working to exploit legal loopholes to imprison a journalist for exposing its war
crimes. That is happening, and there is no justifying it.
So the narrative managers, by and large, have
gone silent.
Which is good. Because it gives us an opening
to seize control of the narrative.
It’s time to go on the offensive with this.
Assange supporters have gotten so used to playing defense that it hasn’t
fully occurred to us to go on a full-blown charge. I’ve been guilty of
this as well; I’ll be letting myself get bogged down in some old,
obsolete debate with someone about some obscure aspect of the Swedish
case or something, not realizing that none of that matters anymore. All
the narrative manipulations that were used to get Assange to this point
are impotent, irrelevant expenditures of energy compared to the fact
that we now have undeniable evidence that the US government is working
to set a precedent which will allow it to jail any journalist who
exposes its misdeeds, and we can now force Assange’s smearers to
confront this reality.
“Should journalists be jailed for exposing US
war crimes? Yes or no?”
I AM FRANKLY OF THE VIEW that the value of a news outlet can be
judged by its attention to the Julian Assange case at this point. If that
subject (and nail-spitting denunciation of what is being done to Assange, and
why) is not steadily near to front and center right now, that outlet should be
deleted from your bookmarks.
A failure to focus on the Assange assault indicates a
failure to understand the dire threats being leveled
right now against any hope the
American people might have for the restoration of liberty and the rule
of law here in our beloved country.
We have been so immersed in a secretive "national security
state" for so long now that most Americans have no memory of when their
government was transparent by default. In that time (the first 150 years
or so of our history) the sky never fell, despite the American people
actually knowing what their servants were up to and properly exercising
their sovereignty.
Any sensible person desperately wants that paradigm
restored just as much as the deep state and its beneficiary clients and
cronies do not.
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE MEETS THE STANDARD I set above for a
worthwhile journalist, even though not American. An Australian,
Johnstone nonetheless recognizes that the United States Leviathan
bestrides the world, wreaking havoc on all of it. And she is a moral
person, knowing evil when it is done to a good man like Julian Assange,
making his plight worthy of attention even without regard to the bigger
picture.
I salute Johnstone for her virtues, and appreciate her
work.
The only area in which she lacks is in thus far being
ignorant of the CtC
remedy, and thus unable to equip her growing readership with the
actual solution to the overall problem of a rogue United States. I am
hopeful that this will change soon.
EVEN AS ARDENT A STATIST as Abraham
Lincoln, in announcing his willingness to burn the Southern states to the ground in order to
keep them paying the tariff for the benefit of Northern interests in
his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, paid at least lip
service to the Founders design of leaving control over the fuel
available to feed the fires Washington wants to light in the hands
of the individual citizenry when he said, "Doing this I deem to
be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, unless my
rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite
means..."
Lawyers:
It's Way Past Time For You All To Queue Up!
[Y]ou really need to familiarize yourself with Pete
Hendrickson's absolutely magnificent work at his website and in
his book(s). He has, brilliantly and lucidly, "cracked the
code" regarding the federal income EXCISE tax(es)."
-Mark C. Phillips, JD
"...I find your work fascinatingly simple to understand."
-J-Jerry Arnowitz, JD
"Your book is a masterpiece!"
-Michael Carver, JD
"Received your book yesterday. Started reading at 11
PM, finished at 4 AM." "I have 16 feet (literally 16'
4.5") of documents supporting just about everything in your
book." "Your book should be required reading for every lawyer
before being admitted to any Bar." "I hope you sell a
million of them."
-John O'Neil Green, JD
“Thanks again for your efforts, Pete. They mean an awful lot
to a lot of people.” “…as an attorney, I am humbled by your
knowledge and ability in navigating the law. THANK YOU for
your hard work and sacrifice.”
-Eric Smithers, JD
"I am an attorney and want to give a testimonial to your
book, which I find to be compelling. I am exercising these
rights for myself and my adult children. I'm even considering
making this my new avenue of law practice."
-Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD
Learn what these colleagues already know, then step forward and
become part of a coordinated, mutually-supportive squadron
focused on developing strategy and deploying the law in
courtrooms across the country. There's a lot of suing that
needs doing right now.
Are you ready for a challenge that'll put some real meaning
behind all the effort you went through to get your credentials?
Send me an email.
*****
Are You Ready For More Power?
"Peter Hendrickson has done it again! 'Upholding The
Law' does for individual liberties what 'Cracking the Code' did
for tax law compliance: exposes the reader to the unalienable
truth!"
-Jesse Herron, Bill Of Rights Press, Fort Collins, Colorado
NEW! Orders of twelve or more books now come with a free DVD
on request containing six informative and inspiring videos-- 112 minutes in
all. Click
here for the details.
*****
*****
Do you
know someone truly steeped in the Kool-Aid?
I mean
someone who finds it easier to believe that the far-better-educated,
far-more-suspicious-of-government Americans of a hundred years ago were
complete morons who granted authority to the state to take whatever it
wished from themselves and their posterity than to imagine that they
themselves simply misunderstand the true nature of the income tax? Even
while knowing that their beliefs about the tax are derived entirely from
the representations of those who profit from those beliefs (like tax
bureaucrats and "tax professionals")?
Do you
know someone like that? Shake them awake with the latest (fifteenth)
edition of
CtC!
If
CtC were actually
right, it would mean the government's been concealing and
denying and suppressing the truth for years
on end, and everybody knows THAT would never happen...
(Edward Snowden, come home! It was all just a bad dream; there really is
No Such Agency!)
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.
March 10- In 1804, France formally transfers ownership
of the Louisiana Territory to the United States. In 1831, the French Foreign
Legion is established. In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell tells Mr. Watson he needs
him. In 1880, the Salvation Army arrives in America and begins its good work.
In 1906, a coal-dust explosion kills 1099 miners in northern France. In 1922,
Mahatma Gandhi is arrested by British Indian occupation forces for "sedition"
and is tried, convicted, and sentenced to six years imprisonment. In 2000, the
NASDAQ index peaks at 5132.52. In 2017, South Korea's Constitutional Court
unanimously upholds the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, ending her
presidency.
*****
A Few Words About "Climate Change" Fraud
You NEED to defend yourself and your kids against this
now-high-inertia effort to destroy liberty.
H/T to Jonesy for circulating this fun little meme and video link.
*****
Hey! If you're not getting the newsletter delivered
to your email inbox every Monday, go to
this link
and subscribe to the group-- leave all options in their default states.
March 11- In 1708, Queen Anne of Great Britain vetoes the
"Scottish Militia Bill" for fear the militia thus authorized would be unreliable
in its subservience to the crown. It is the last time that a British monarch
has exercised the veto power against an act of Parliament. In 1918, the first
confirmed cases of the "Spanish Flu" pandemic are observed in Queens, New York.
Over the next two years, somewhere between 20 million and 100 million will die
from the disease worldwide-- mostly young adults, due to an idiosyncrasy of the
strain's effect on its host. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev assumes power in the
Soviet Union. In 1990, Patricio Aylwin is sworn in as the first
democratically-elected president of Chile since 1970. In 1993, Janet Reno, who
rose to prosecutorial prominence by imprisoning lots of people in Florida on
manifestly fictitious child-molestation charges, and later went on to slaughter
children and their parents in Waco, Texas, is confirmed as United States
Attorney General by the U.S. Senate.
*****
A Two-Minute Review Of CtC
David Bindel reminds us that there's either the rule of law, or
there isn't.
HEY! SAYING IT AGAIN!! DON'T YOU WISH YOUR INSPIRING
BEING-THE-STORM VIDEO was posted? This is easy to do, and very important
(plus it can get you some great losthorizons swag!). See
(and carefully read)
these guidelines and encouragements.
*****
Some Good Perspective From The Delightfully Sardonic John Prine
Another guy who's always had his head screwed on pretty straight,
even though with a decidedly whimsical tilt.
Every victim of the "ignorance tax", 'cause it's all
just statist consent-engineering propaganda.
*****
Hey, Gamers!
WAKEN TO THE REAL-LIFE ADVENTURE IN WHICH YOU
ARE UNKNOWINGLY IMMERSED! Put down your controller and
listen!
You are surrounded by an actual battle between
villains, monsters and true heroes, all simply concealed
from you by
sophisticated spells which also keep you from
engaging in the fight.
There are real great deeds to be done,
and real treasures to be had for your efforts, and
frankly, your real future
is at stake. You just have to gain "the sight" in order to
penetrate the illusions.
Visit
losthorizons.com to get the counter-spells and get onto
the real field of battle!
*****
PRO TIP: If I were the IRS and I wanted to
discourage people from rebutting allegations that
they had done things I can tax, and wanted to keep them from
successfully reclaiming withheld or paid-in money, I
would salt the "tax honesty" community with
passionate-seeming "legal researchers" who would
warn anyone whose ear they captured that filing a
1040 is a bad idea for one reason or another...
*****
Illuminating Anniversaries of this week:
March 12- In 1912, the American Girl Guides organization (later
"Girl Scouts of the USA") is founded. In 1930, Gandhi begins leading marchers
on a 200-mile trek to the sea to begin making salt from seawater in defiance of
a British revenue-generating legal monopoly on the substance. In 1947,
President Harry Truman proclaims his "containment of communism" doctrine to
Congress, a major step into the Cold War. In 1993, North Korea announces its
withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2011, a reactor at the
Fukishima Daiikai Nuclear Power Plant in Japan melts and explodes.
If you're not talking this one up everywhere and
helping generate a buzz, you don't really want liberty and the
rule of law...
*****
In light of
the actual evidence, those
who doubt or
deny the accuracy and correctness of
CtC just because some government officials
denounce it are like the 16th-century Europeans who
were mystified by
Copernicus getting all those
astronomical predictions right even though the
church had said he was wrong.
*****
Did you miss the 'Set Your Church Free'
commentaries?
Ignorance of the true nature of the "income" tax
has gagged, gutted and seduced-into-disgrace America's
ministerial community. This must change.
*****
You're a
passenger on a riverboat that relies on regular
contributions of fuel from the passengers to
keep moving forward. You see an unsurvivable
waterfall ahead, and note a
soon-to-be-irresistible current growing stronger
each day. What does common sense suggest?
*****
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!!
Time, unfortunately, is on the side of the
well-funded disinformation specialists class
*****
Illuminating Anniversaries of this week:
March 13- In 1881, Tsar Alexander II of Russia is assassinated
with a thrown bomb. In 1900, France imposes a limit of 11 hours of work per day
on women and children. In 1933, FDR's "bank holiday" ends. In 1954, the Viet
Minh attack the French at Dien Bien Phu, In 1962, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer delivers the plans for 'Operation Northwoods' to
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The plan calls for a series of staged
terrorist attacks in American cities false-flagged as Cuban, in order to drum up
American public acquiescence to a United States attack on the Castro regime. In
1986, Microsoft offers its stock for public purchase. In 2008, gold sells on
the New York Mercantile Exchange for $1,000.00 per ounce for the first time. In
2013, Pope Francis is elected to succeed the abdicating Benedict XVI by a papal
conclave whose proceedings were spied on by the United States National Security
Agency.
*****
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a
people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power
which knowledge gives.”
"It is not the function of our Government to keep
the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the
citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."
-United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
March 14- In 1794, Eli Whitney is granted the patent for
the cotton gin. In 1889, Ferdinand von Zeppelin patents a "navigable
balloon". In 1900, the Gold Standard Act restores gold as the sole precious
metal by which paper currency must be redeemed (prior to the restoration,
issuers of paper currency could legally redeem it with silver, as well). In
1942, penicillin is successfully used in treatment for the first time. In
1964, a jury finds Jack Ruby guilty of killing Lee Harvey Oswald. In 1994,
Linux version 1.0.0 is released to the public.
*****
*****
The Newsletter is interested in your work! If
you are a writer, scholar, or just a dedicated Warrior with a good
story to tell, please consider sharing your words and your wisdom with our
thousands of readers!
Click here to learn how.
*****
'The BOSTONIAN'S Paying the EXCISE-MAN, or
TARRING & FEATHERING' (1774) (How our forefathers responded to arrogant
"Rule of Law defiers"...)
*****
The willingness of some people to trade liberty for
convenience is without limit...
“All truth
passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently
opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
-Arthur
Schopenhauer
*****
Illuminating Anniversaries of this week:
March 15- In 1776, South Carolina
becomes the first American colony to declare its independence from Britain. In
1820, Maine becomes the 23rd of the several American states and is admitted to
the union as such. In 1906, Rolls-Royce Limited is incorporated. In 1917, Czar
Nicholas II abdicates the throne of Russia. In 1952, 73 inches of rain falls in
a single day on an island east of Madagascar. In 1985, the first internet
domain name is registered (symbolics.com).
*****
Last Word
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We
seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel
Adams, Architect of the first American Revolution
OK, Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Programming:
Is this newsletter of any value to you? If so, please
consider a donation
to help keep it available, or it soon won't be. Donations can
be sent to:
Hendrickson is also a widely-read essayist on
matters of politics, public policy and law; many of these works
are collected in his second book, ‘Upholding
the Law And Other Observations’. He is a member of Mensa;
an
award-winning artist; and has paid his dues as a youth
soccer coach. He is a long-time political activist as well, and
has served as co-chair and platform convention delegate of
Michigan’s largest county Libertarian Party organization; as a
consultant to the National Right to Work Foundation and Citizens
for a Sound Economy; as a member of the Heartland Institute; and
as a member of the International Society for Individual
Liberty. He is a frequent radio-show guest on stations across
the country.
Hendrickson's business career has included nearly a
decade-and-a-half at the leading edge of the renewable-energy
industry, both as Director of Purchasing and Materials
Management and member of the R&D board at Starpak Energy
Systems, the mid-west's then-largest solar heating and
energy-recovery-and re-utilization company; and as founder and
president of AFJ Inc., a high-efficiency lighting design,
manufacture and installation firm.
Beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing for the
twelve years before his present full-time focus on the
restoration of the rule of law in America, Hendrickson directed
purchasing activities for the $84 million-a-year
multi-family-housing division of the Farmington Hills, Michigan
branch of Edward Rose and Sons, with responsibility for 18,000+
apartments, direct supervision of 35 technicians and agents, and
incidental authority over several hundred divisional workers.
He also ran the division's 10 cable television earth-station and
distribution systems in four states, and designed and
administered the company's website.
On rather the other end of the spectrum, amidst
these more mundane pursuits Hendrickson co-founded and was the
primary creative force behind a small
board- and
card-game company that enjoyed a modest success for several
years.
Hendrickson makes his home in southeast Michigan,
with his wife and two children. He is currently working on his
next book.