Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact

Illusions Of Authority

Or, the art of full-spectrum bs, fully illustrated with real-world examples!

IF YOU EVER HAVE TO PROVE TO ANYONE THAT THE LAW IS JUST WHAT CtC SAYS IT IS, and that the government and the courts agree, it's easy. All you have to do is point out that when the government and certain cooperative federal judges sought to convict me on charges of "filing false returns" for saying that my earnings were not "wages" as defined in the law, they refused to let the jury see the actual statutory definitions of "wages", and instead gave it prosecution-written "substitute definitions".

That pretty much tells the whole story about what the law really says and means, and that the courts and the government know and agree that what it says and means is exactly what I say it does. Anyone who denies this point is frankly crazy.

If the government and courts have to write their own version of the statutes in order to get some that say and mean what they needed to accomplish my conviction-- that everyone's earnings are "wages"-- it can only be because the versions written by Congress DON'T say and mean that. This isn't rocket science, people.

So, this is an example of one way in which the State creates a pretense of legitimacy for what it wants everyone to believe is the actual law: Just make something up, apply it in an exercise of pure, unadulterated corruption, announce the "outcome" of the bogus trial thus thoroughly gimmicked, and hope no one looks closely at what got done.

HERE'S THE MORE COMMON PROCESS: Over the course of thousands of rulings made over decades by hundreds of federal judges in scores of federal courts, many will be ill-educated, careless or sloppily-written. (This is true even though the writers will likely be practiced at sounding sober and knowledgeable.)

Worse, many of these rulings and opinions will actually be written by DOJ attorneys-- the same ones representing the government in the case. They will be carefully and cleverly written for the express purpose of validating whatever creative legal theory, construction or interpretation the same attorney had dreamed up and argued as the basis for getting his way in the litigation being ruled upon.

In the aggregate, these sloppy, ill-educated, careless and-or self-serving "rulings" become a toolbox. Out of that toolbox thousands of government lawyers tease out and carefully sculpt excerpts to give the appearance of support to anything the attorneys want to "prove" (which always amounts to the bestowal of the appearance of legitimacy for any power to which the state wishes to lay claim).

Then it gets worse still, as a second generation of sloppy and self-serving rulings are churned out in which prior examples of the same sloppy or self-serving rulings are cited as "precedents". This makes the new batch not just forays into fantasy but actually FURTHER forays into fantasy-- fantasy in the sense of being departures from, if not outright contrary to, what the law actually supports.

Then, to top it off, there are the instances in which a ruling is written purely for the purpose of evading the law on the government's behalf, with completely faked precedents cited as the justification for the (usually otherwise reasoning-free) decision. Here's a good example, again from my own case, but this time on the appellate level.

All of these "precedent-citing" future decisions-- which again, rarely contain any reasoning attempting to explain or justify what the cited precedent purports to support-- bear the appearance of authority. They suggest that some diligent jurist dwelt on the matter at issue, pored over the law-books and cases, and impartially added the weight of his or her own reasoning to those of some colleague addressing the same issue in a prior proceeding, resulting in a reliably sound and settled conclusion.

But the fact is, these decisions are pure corruption, either of the "reckless disregard" or the "deliberate" varieties. What they are not is any kind of indicator or authority for the actual legal validity of whatever they pretend to uphold or enforce.

Nonetheless, unless they are denounced and briefed (or hooted) off the stage by litigants and/or honest legal professionals, every one of these fraudulent "decisions" will be used, in turn, as "precedents" for future decisions at least as defective or deceptive, if not worse.

ALTHOUGH I CAN'T SAY THAT I HAVE GIVEN TOO MANY OTHER AREAS OF LAW and federal jurisprudence nearly the same attention as I have that of taxation (with a few important exceptions, as will be seen in 'Upholding the Law'), I believe I can say without fear of embarrassment that no other area of law than that of federal taxation has been comparably assaulted by the kind of corruption of which I speak in this article. The reason for that is simple: over the last 75 years the state has been creating, nurturing and defending a massive scam in regard to tax law.

Indeed, the sheer volume and distorted character of the judicial frauds with which the state's preferred practices concerning the tax are hedged about is-- by itself-- powerful evidence of the fact that those practices are contrary to the truth of the law and can only be sustained with an army of lies.

Over the years I have devoted time and effort to exposing some of the bogus judicial rulings most heavily-relied-upon by DOJ and IRS Office of Chief Counsel lie-yers and corrupt courts. Today I want to point everyone to these various exposures, for two reasons.

First, it is always my hope that everyone of you will make use of these debunkings in any legal actions in which the bogus rulings are cited against your educated and law-upholding positions. See to it that any legal professional you may be using to assist you does the same (and you legal pros reading these words should be busy making names for yourselves and doing much good for us all by using this material to write papers for your professional journals).

Secondly, I'm in something of a troll-hunting mood. Over the last few weeks I've been made aware of a very focused new effort by the state and its under-bridge-dwelling minions to frighten people away from picking up a copy of CtC and learning the liberating truth, and to frighten the already-educated away from sharing victories.

This effort has included heavy flogging of the fiction that "the courts have rejected CtC's arguments", with the bogus rulings I've disassembled (and others which cite to them) as the evidence trotted out for misleading display to the unknowing. It is hoped that the true character of these rulings will go unremarked, because every school-kid knows that the only reason for relying on bs is a lack of anything legitimate that makes your case.

The bogus court ruling references presented to an American public the state wishes to frighten away from what it very much recognizes as its Yorktown are accompanied by wildly distorted and exaggerated stories of government attacks on educated filers and claimants intended to exploit the last resort of the tyrant and the corrupt when the facts don't serve their purposes: fear.

Like the bogus court rulings, reliance on which proves that no legitimate judicial rulings in opposition or dispute of what is taught in CtC exists, what "executive resistance" to CtC-educated filings and claims there is consists of bogus pretenses. A good example would be "assertions" of fraudulent "frivolous return penalties".

I'M GOING TO PROVIDE LINKS to the analyzed "scare" rulings now, and to a page laying out the bogus character of "frivolous penalty assertions". Please pour yourself a cup of your favorite productive-time beverage and read through them. Then come back here and read what follows below the links.

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984) (and Parker v. Comm'r, 724 F.2d 469, (Fifth Cir. 1984))

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) and Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1986)

"LexisNexis" Misrepresentations Regarding Pacific Nat'l Ins. v. United States and the Limited Meaning of "Person" in 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b)

In re Meador, 79 Mass 454 (1869)

Hartman v. Comm'r, 65 T.C. 542 (1975)

U.S. v. Hendrickson

Hendrickson v. United States

Hendrickson v. United States

Regarding the "Frivolous Return Penalty" Fraud

NOW, DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK that if any court(s) in all of American history had ever said, "All gains (or earnings, or receipts, or whatever else that wasn't a custom-defined term in tax law was appropriate to the question) of any and every kind by an American, or in America (or whatever else that wasn't a custom-defined term in tax law was appropriate) are taxable under the federal income tax", that ruling or those rulings wouldn't be the one(s) cited and relied on by the DOJ and IRS in all of their representations meant to suggest such a thing? And does anyone doubt that if such statements were true, they would have been said that plainly by some court by now?

(This as opposed to careful and meaningless tautologies with language like "All income is taxable", which says nothing more than, "All of what qualifies as the object of the tax is taxable." It is undisputed that whatever qualifies as "income" in the context of the tax is taxable. The issue is what qualifies as "income" in the context of the tax.)

Does anyone think that the IRS and DOJ would be relying on careful misrepresentations of squirrelly and dodgy cases like 'Latham' and 'Sullivan' or other cases citing to those squirrelly and dodgy cases as their authorities (as they have been doing for decades) to convince people that "includes" means "also includes" or that the statutory definition of "employee" at 26 USC 3401(c) embraces ALL workers of every kind under any circumstances if any ruling really said those things?

Does anyone think any court would have engaged in the transparent dodge (and consequent constructive admissions) over the meaning of "includes" as was done by the Sixth Circuit in response to my motion to vacate if it really could say that "includes" means "also includes", or even just that "person" in 26 USC 7343 means "any person"?

Does anyone in his or her right mind think that if it were true that CtC-educated filings and claims could be legitimately resisted or overcome there would have ever been so much as a single bogus "frivolous penalty" scare-letter issued to anyone? (Not to mention hundreds of thousands of surrenders to those filings and claims in a constant, sustained, massive acknowledgement by federal and state governments over every year since 2003...)

ALL TOLD, IT'S ALL SIMPLE. The record proves that the state's resistance to what is revealed in CtC is entirely unfounded, and entirely fraudulent-- a series of ploys and subterfuges intended to keep Americans from learning and acting on people-empowering truths the state fully acknowledges but finds inconvenient.

In the end, the question is simple: Do we surrender to illusions of authority, or are our rights and our rule of law important enough to get out the fog-cutter and get to work?

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate"

-Thomas Jefferson


"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

P. S. A good article on the ineffective efforts of Congress to address judicial corruption on its own can be found here.