Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact

Regarding Trolleries

(Deceitful efforts to discourage Americans from learning the truth about the "income tax")


The plane that gets the most flak is the one that's right above the target.

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.

The effort also involves online activity by purportedly disinterested folks who we are supposed to imagine spend huge amounts of time posting "Stay away from this crazy CtC stuff!" out of the goodness of their hearts and a selfless concern for the well-being of others. In other words, this is online activity by obvious government-connected or supervised "agents-provocateur" and the occasional "useful idiot" shill.

Some of these folks imagine themselves to be beneficiaries of the status quo, or want to be on some official's cocktail-party A-list. Some are doubtless just shameless hacks attempting to defend a professional career of thoughtlessly buying into the "income tax" scam as commonly misunderstood, and see their best bet at avoiding embarrassment in helping the government bury the truth. Some are actually "tax honesty" folks, who attack CtC because it debunks their pet theories about the tax and interferes with their marketing of services and products.

These "non-official" posts (which can be found in newsgroups, blogs, and occupying entire websites) are generally of a consistent character. All make fallacious "resort to authority" arguments based on a careful selection of misleading, irrelevant or demonstrably flawed material from certain judicial rulings. Or (or also) they present outright lies about events such as tax-agency reactions to educated filings, lies about the content or arguments in CtC, or both. All rely on you not investigating matters for yourself, knowing that such investigations are often time-consuming and sometimes outright difficult.

Here's the simple, impossible-to-misunderstand short answer to these efforts to bullsh*t you into believing that CtC is wrong in some fashion, or that CtC-educated filings are disregarded or impotent: Treasury Department Certificates of Assessment and IRS transcripts showing that even I, the most intensely-targeted man on the planet in the government's efforts to discourage you from reading CtC, have not had any federal income tax assessed against me since filing the very first educated tax returns back in 2003 and 2004-- not even for those first filings themselves (and despite repeated government attacks on me in courtrooms involving these very filings).

Here's another simple, impossible to misunderstand short answer to troll bs: The IRS has admitted under oath that tens of thousands of CtC-educated filings have been made since 2003. Now consider how many allegedly adverse court rulings are claimed in these official and non-official scare-you-away-from-CtC efforts. It's a total of a dozen or so...

Furthermore, pretty-much everything said in these official and non-official scare-you-away-from-CtC efforts about even the scant handful of cases cited is grossly misrepresented. Let's examine a few of these falsehoods.

Assertion: CtC-educated Americans have been prosecuted for their filings


Here is the 2009 sworn testimony of Shauna Henline, Senior Technical Advisor in just one of the many offices of the IRS:


Henline's "conservatively, at least 10,000" translates to "conservatively, at least" a couple of hundred thousand, in actuality. See the math here.

Now let's look at the truth about the number of prosecutions, starting with this question to Henline:

Henline may really have no idea, or maybe she simply didn't want to say so. But the DoJ does have an idea, and has been made to answer the question.

In what is actually the only direct "criminal" prosecution in connection with CtC-educated filings (in which I was charged with not believing what I said on my own filings-- charges misleadingly labeled "filing false returns" but which are not allegations that the numbers appearing on the returns are wrong, but only that my signatures attesting to my belief in the correctness of those numbers are not sincere; see more about that elaborately-kangaroo trial here), I filed a few pre-trial motions to dismiss. One of those motions challenged the government to identify even one CtC-educated filer ever prosecuted for his or her educated filing. The best it could do was this (from its response to my motion to dismiss on grounds of “selective/vindictive” prosecution):


So, in 2009, six years after CtC-educated filings began and all those refunds started going out week after week, month after month, year after year, Roger Menner’s prosecution was the only thing the DoJ could offer to suggest that anyone else has EVER been prosecuted over CtC-educated filings (and only "anecdotally"-- a weasel-word meant to protect the attorney from charges of outright lying to the court, I suspect).

And saying that Menner's prosecution was over CtC-educated filings was a lie. The fact is, Menner had never filed CtC-educated returns, and wasn't charged with having done so, or purportedly having done so.  As was pointed out in my reply brief: 

By the way, this write-up concerning the Menner case is that of my attorney at the time. Here is my own far more comprehensive discussion of this case, posted as a newsletter item in late summer of 2008, along with the indictment.

Read the indictment for yourself, then let it sink in: The Menner case was the best the DoJ could do in an effort to suggest that ANYONE has ever been prosecuted for filing educated, accurate returns when it really needed to deliver the goods, and that suggestion was a fraud. The truth is, there have been no such prosecutions, either before or since mine.


LET'S LOOK AT ANOTHER CASE that some in the troll community have misrepresented as being a prosecution over CtC-educated filings. This one is a beaut. The fellow WAS prosecuted for "false filings", but only for his pre-CtC filings. His actual CtC-educated filings, which were made after his errant ones but well before he was charged for those older filings, were carefully omitted from the extensive list of charges, and from the plea bargain deal he was eventually offered.

Here's the story: Eugene Warner was indicted in November of 2007 on a long list of charges, amongst which are a couple alleging the filing of false tax returns. See the indictment here.

Warner's allegedly false returns were all filed on or before August 29, 2003-- which was only 6 days after the first printing of the book came back to me from the printer and long before the first copy ever left my hands. Plainly, these were NOT CtC-educated returns.

However, subsequently, Warner DID become CtC-educated, and filed a number of new, educated returns-- some of which were for the same years as these false ones, by the way. Warner's educated filings resulted in at least three victories (scroll down this page to see them for yourself).

Despite the fact that Warner's CtC-educated filings were nearly two years old at the time of this indictment, and had been posted on this site about the same amount of time, those filings go unmentioned in his indictment. A year-and-a-half later, in March of 2009, a superseding indictment was issued Eugene in which 11 counts of "fraudulent refund claims" under a Title 18 statute were added to the charges against Eugene.

Several of these new charges appear to have been intended to suggest to the casual reader that Eugene was going to be prosecuted over his educated filings after all (though the fact that the charges involved Title 18 offenses rather than Title 26 offenses says otherwise). But whatever the intent in adding on these new charges, the feds promptly abandoned it and negotiated for a plea of only one conspiracy countto which none of those gratuitous add-on charges (nor anything else not pre-dating Warner's reading CtC) was related.

Think about this. Let it sink in. The troll community presents the Warner case as one of a CtC-educated filer prosecuted for his educated returns. The truth is exactly the opposite!

HERE'S ANOTHER CASE WORTHY OF NOTE: Carmen D'Agostino. The troll community posts about D'Agostino's indictment for several years of filing false returns, and suggests that this should be taken as relevant to CtC because a refund to him from an educated filing (for 2004) is posted on the Lost Horizons Bulletin Board.

What the trolls neglect to mention is that D'Agostino was NOT charged with anything over THAT filing-- he was only charged over series of filings he made beginning a few years later (2006-2010). I have no idea what D'Agostino did on those charged filings-- likely, as some folks unfortunately do, he fell under the sway of some "tax honesty" guru who scared him with stories from the very troll pages we're speaking of here, and began making Schiff-returns, or doing something advocated on SEDM or the like.

In any event, it is plain D'Agostino's indictment has no connection to CtC at all. If it had, the one filing that IS CtC-educated would have been part of the charge. The fact that that filing was EXCLUDED from the charges make D'Agostino's real story an affirmation of CtC's accuracy and correctness, rather than the other way around

At the same time and in the same way, the reliance by the trolls on this misleadingly misrepresented story in their effort to suggest that CtC has led to dire criminal consequences proves that they really HAVE no legitimate cases to present, and even those I may not have gotten around to debunking here ('cause I'm just one guy, and can't keep up with an army of tax-funded trolls) must be taken with a huge grain of salt no matter how archly and persuasively offered.

NOW LET IT ALL SINK IN. The Menner, Warner and D'Agonstino cases are all concrete, unmistakable, documented instances of cases presented by the DOJ and its troll community as evidence that CtC-educated filers are being prosecuted when it is not true in any case, and in the Warner and D'Agonstino cases, it is more than just not true-- the truth about those cases, in which CtC-educated filings were explicitly excluded from prosecution that went on for other tax-related issues, underscores the accuracy of CtC.

You'd never hear of these misrepresented cases if the folks trying to scare you away from CtC had any real ones to show you. Whether other cases are presented by some of these folks somewhere is beyond my ability to know, but you can be sure that if so, those cases are similarly MIS-represented, one way or another. You only have to discover one bit of dog-shit on the plate to know that the whole serving is tainted.

(A couple of other cases have arisen since this page was first written which could be added to these examples. A fellow named Greg Boyd, for instance, was indicted in 2013 and convicted on charges of filing three returns he didn't really believe to be true-- for 2004, 2005 and 2006. His later identical returns prompted no charges.

Boyd's returns were meant, it would appear, to be educated filings. But Boyd actually left the 1099 MISCs with which payments made to him were reported unanswered-- instead of rebutting the 1099s, Boyd filed completely irrelevant 4852s somehow thinking that would do the trick. In addition, Boyd also had a long history of bankruptcies and past filing oddities, such as erratically disputing IRS claims against him or agreeing to pay them, and more. This government filing in the case will give some idea of that history. All of this combined to create a good basis for Boyd being charged with not really believing-- or even knowing-- what he said on the returns for which he was charged, and for having actually meant them as some form of evasion.

The icing on the sour cake Boyd had baked for himself was his repudiation of the charged returns, and his 2012 return declaring all his earnings to be "income". His "defense" in trial was to stipulate that his charged returns were incorrect and to owing taxes for those years, and to claim to having been in the grip of misunderstandings when filing them-- but he's feeling much better now. Unsurprisingly, Boyd was convicted on all counts.

There is also the recent indictment of James Back. Back is charged with not really believing what he said on three educated returns, and also with not filing at all for the next three years.

Back had secured complete refunds for his three years of educated filings. Unfortunately, he then got spooked-- probably from listening to trolls-- and stopped filing, despite withholdings and W-2 allegations identical to those of the earlier years continuing to be made. At the same time, he filed, in at least one of those years, some kind of fake form described as a "Form W-0".

This latter failure-to-file behavior-- agreeing by silence to allegations about payments of exactly the same character as those he had deemed false on his educated returns-- and his resort to the use of some kind of fake form, contradicted Back's earlier filings. This made a perfect case that Back really hadn't believed what he said on those filed returns. After five years of these damning contradicting indicators, Back was indicted for filing false returns (that is, returns he didn't really believe to be correct) and for failure to file.

In October of 2014, Back was convicted after apparently offering no real defense to the charges, and instead merely telling the jury "taxation was immoral and unfair, and that he simply refused to submit to it anymore," and "that there is no evidence that state or federal laws apply to him," according to a newspaper reporting on his conviction.

Like Menner's and Warner's, Boyd's and Back's are distinguished by key elements which make them NOT cases in which anyone was simply charged with a crime for filing CtC-educated returns. As in their presentation of Menner's and Warner's cases, the trolls won't share those elements with you and will try to make these cases out to be what they are not in order to frighten Americans away from CtC.)


ALL OF THE ABOVE NOTWITHSTANDING, it's important to keep in mind that what really matters is the truth about the law and our rights and our moral obligations, not convenience or safety. Even if people WERE being prosecuted for accurate, honest and proper rebuttals and claims, we would all still be just as much under a moral and civic responsibility to act to uphold the law, come what may...

"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?  Expediency asks the question - is it politic?  Vanity asks the question - is it popular?

But conscience asks the question - is it right?  And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right."

-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The main point of rebutting and shining light on the misrepresentations used to try to discourage the CtC-educated (and to frighten away those not yet educated) is not to argue that doing what's right is always "safe". It is, rather, to counter the subtler ploy behind these lies: a "resort to authority" fallacy suggesting that CtC must be wrong about the law, else there would be none of the adverse behavior by our noble prosecutors and judges and other civil servants alleged in these troll-posts.

The absurdity of the proposition that the beneficiaries of the "ignorance tax" and their appointees and agents would attempt no concerted and occasionally even corrupt efforts to suppress a truth fatal to their comforts, luxuries, power and position is pretty-much self-evident, I trust. Everyone at above-room-temperature-status knows that even though they may be only a minority, there are nonetheless plenty of corrupt people in positions of power who WILL attempt to fool others in defense of their gravy-train, and some of whom will even defy the law in such efforts to the extent that they believe they can safely do so.

Indeed, we've just seen one explicit example of official corruption in service to an effort to suppress CtC-- the misrepresentation to a federal court by a US attorney about the Roger Menner case. If you read through the posts here, here and here, you'll see a series of such misrepresentations by a US attorney made on paper, over signature, in a filing to a court by way of the government's "response" to my motion to vacate the conviction from the exercise in sustained corruption to which I have been subjected.

My prosecution itself makes clear that officials will not just lie, but will do much worse when they believe they will get away with it. Read about some of the more egregious kangaroo-hops undertaken in that mugging here (and be sure to not miss the appellate court's backdoor admissions of the illegitimacy of my conviction in response to my Motion to Vacate, which you'll find toward the end of that documented discussion).

A few courts have also done shameful things in a few civil actions I'll discuss below. Still, in examining even cases in which it is accurate to say that "so-and-so was ruled against by the court", we find that either the nature of the case is misrepresented, the ruling in the case was based on evasions of the CtC-educated litigant's arguments and authorities, or the ruling exploited some technicality or procedural failure of what are usually pro-se plaintiffs and petitioners (or all three).

The take-away, then, for this discussion of misrepresentations about prosecutions and all that follows, is not that bad things can't or won't ever happen in connection with doing the right thing. It is, rather, that representations by those seeking to oppose and suppress the plain truths revealed in CtC are not to be taken as true on their face in a direct sense, and not at all in their intended implication that opposition to CtC by powerful interests invested in the status quo is evidence against the correctness of its revelations.

On the contrary, the behavior of officials seeking to resist or discourage those acting in the light of CtC is simply more evidence of its correctness, and never more plainly so than in misrepresentations of facts such as those discussed here. That's the real message of everything presented by the trolls-- it simply requires a little reading between the lines with one's thinking-cap in place.

Let's continue...

Assertion: The IRS comes back to "reclaim" CtC-educated refunds


ONE OF THE PERNICIOUS FICTIONS persistently promoted by the "ignorance tax" crowd is that CtC-educated victories are the result of some kind of glitch in the tax-agency's systems-- that they have all "slipped through the cracks", and are just a series of remarkably widespread and sustained mistakes that'll get straightened-out in due course.


If so, it would be a pretty big and long-lasting "crack"...

This lie is cleverly used in an effort to defuse the impact of the many-years-and-counting river of never-before-seen-in-history accomplishments of the CtC community since 2003, and to plant anxieties in the minds of those unfortunate few in the community who are subjected to special discouragement efforts either before or after securing their victories.

However, the fact is that every one of the hundreds of thousands of refunds made to CtC-educated claimants goes through specific, special scrutiny by the IRS before the checks and notices are issued. After all, the IRS is not some uniquely naive entity that just sends out checks because someone asks for them! What a ridiculous thing to suggest!

Contrary to self-serving myths promoted by the IRS and its fellow-travelers to keep you from grasping the evidentiary significance of CtC-educated victories, all filings claiming refunds (not just CtC-educated filings) are challenged by default. As the Taxpayer Advocate Service of the Department of the Treasury describes it in its 2013 Annual Report to Congress:

The return integrity process is complex and multifaceted. A tax return must travel a long path with many potential roadblocks before the IRS accepts it as filed. The main goal of IVO is to stop fraudulent refunds before they are issued by identifying potentially false returns, usually through wages or withholding reported on the returns. The IRS does this primarily with the Electronic Fraud Detection System, which was built in the 1990s. EFDS runs all individual tax returns through various filters to identify characteristics that may indicate a high risk of fraud.

See the report here.

In particular, ALL CtC-educated filings-- the vast majority of which show and claim a refund of withholdings-- ALL withholdings-- while showing no "income" at all-- have ALWAYS been scrutinized, both by the EFDS and the "Questionable Refund Program" before the returns have been processed and the refunds have been issued. (The 34 state tax agencies issuing refunds to educated Americans may have similar vetting to that described below, but I can't say that authoritatively.)

The simple, glaringly-evidentiary fact is that every check and credit issued by the United States in response to a CtC-educated claim has passed through the gauntlet and been approved.

There is much mo9re than just a policy statement to demonstrate the vetting, by the way. The scrutiny is especially manifest in the scores of special victories posted on the Victories Highlights page and in the 'Every Which Way But Loose' series. Click on those links and look at those fully-documented cases closely.

Having studied these special cases, think clearly and recognize: NOT ONE OF THESE EPISODES-- WHICH CONTINUE TO THIS DAY-- WOULD HAVE EVER HAPPENED IF THE NONSENSE THAT "THESE ARE JUST SLIPPING THROUGH THE CRACKS-- THE IRS'LL FIX THESE MISTAKES WHEN THEY NOTICE THEM" WERE TRUE. The IRS notices the hell out of these filings, and ends up honoring them.

Unfortunately, some folks let themselves get flustered by hearing about scary "threat letters and notices" and imagine what clearly isn't true.

Some of these flustered folks even give in to their fear and do something to reverse or compromise their educated filings, or fail to properly respond to agency challenges or agency nonsense and hoaxes. Then they actually DO suffer some after-filing adverse consequence.

Some folks, whether flustered or not, mistake agency actions actually based on things they did (or didn't do) in the past as being based on their educated filings and make missteps in response. Worse, their actions having been taken because they believed the government could do something (even though it couldn't), some of these victimized folks of both kinds then become loud voices supporting the false assertions about all this, and presenting their own cases as proof!

The IRS has cultivated a scary reputation precisely for this purpose of generating mistakes and scary rumors of these kinds. It relies on those it hopes to snow into self-inflicted wounds not thinking clearly and thereby falling prey to its nonsense.


"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 Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’

Remember, people, "fear is the mind-killer".  Keep your mind alive, and your thinking-cap on.

IN FACT, WHEN MY WIFE, DOREEN was being sentenced for contempt of court for refusing to change her returns as ordered by a corrupt court on the request of the same DOJ responsible for all the bs being discussed on this page (the details of which case will be discussed in the next section below), the DOJ attorneys prosecuting her case made a telling admission about the "they'll-just-come-back-and-get-you" nonsense. Likely blind to the larger implications and simply focused on doing their best to smear Doreen, these attorneys admitted that contrary to this endlessly-flogged eyewash from the "suppress CtC" troll community, there are practically no CtC-educated filers with victories posted at losthorizons.com who are targets of any adverse government attention, whether to reverse their refunds or otherwise.

The government wanted badly to tar Doreen by associating her with "tax scofflaws", and it did the best it could. What was its best? To declare that its records show that all of 25 people whose victories are posted on losthorizons.com are being targeted by some kind of IRS attention.

Yes, that's right, not 2,500, not 250, but 25, from a total posted list of 1,200 victories (at that time), themselves just a sampling of the hundreds of thousands overall.

Trying to use the petition condemning the lawlessness of Doreen's persecution and calling for her exoneration against her by suggesting she was supported by ne'er-do-wells and criminals who needed a good drubbing of Doreen to set the fear of the State in their hearts, the prosecutors said this:

"As we point out in our Sentencing Memorandum, the people who signed that petition and who are the followers of the outcome of this case are exactly the kind of people who need to be deterred from violating the tax laws. The public records show that more than 120 of them are in some kind of tax trouble already. Typically in the State and local records they are subject to Federal or State tax liens. At least 25 of these individuals have documents posted on the Lost Horizons website as an example of these so-called victories of rule of law."

See the transcript page here.

(The tool making these declarations goes on to say, "These are people that have actually obtained fraudulent refunds based on the scheme promoted by the Defendant." But this is purely gratuitous rhetoric intended to mislead and prejudice the judge to whom these remarks were directed.

No one has ever been accused of fraud in regard to a proper CtC-educated filing-- not even Doreen herself, or me, for that matter. Further, the fellow's own prior statement about these folks simply being subject to tax liens belies this hyperbolic assertion. People believed by the government to have obtained fraudulent refunds don't just have liens filed against them; and frankly, even liens mean nothing. Liens are routinely filed as a purely bureaucratic exercise without the slightest evidence behind them-- or even so much as a signature-- just on the basis of some as-yet-unproven, and possibly entirely-spurious allegation of a tax deficiency.)

SO, THE BEST THE GOVERNMENT COULD DO in trying to smear Doreen by pointing at people with a CtC-association who it claims are in trouble with the government is a measly 25 folks with victories posted (out of 1,200 such posted victories, many of which are many years old). And the worst it can say is that these folks have perhaps as much as a tax lien filed against them...

But even that measly 25 doesn't mean what it is meant to be mistaken for by this DOJ hack. Rather, it means the opposite when subjected to a moment's thought.

That moment's thought reveals that the problems (such as they may be) of every one of even that measly 25 are actually just holdover problems from past bad practices engaged-in before the discovery of CtC (which unfortunately cannot rectify EVERY consequence of past bad practices) or are purely contrived harassments targeting particular individuals for particular reasons. Obviously, if those problems were simply a consequence of CtC-educated practices, the number of folks to which the government could and would refer would be something a whole lot closer to 1,200 at least, if not thousands and thousands... And had this government hack been able to say ANYTHING adverse about more than this special handful of 25 victors, he surely would have done so.

NEXT TIME YOU HEAR FROM THE TROLL COMMUNITY that everybody acting on a CtC education is bound for misery and comeuppance and an eventual reversal of his or her victory, tell them to crawl back into the darkness. A swift kick to help them on their way might not be out of line, either.


Here's something to think about in regard to the myth about "the IRS coming back to "reclaim" CtC-educated refunds": All scary bluster and bs by the agency notwithstanding, the statutes say that the government's mechanism for "reclaiming" a refund is a suit under 26 USC § 7405. That's the provision under which the United States is authorized to attempt to recover what it alleges to have been an erroneously-made refund, even one it alleges to have been induced by fraud or misrepresentation of material fact.

26 USC 7405

(a) Refunds after limitation period

Any portion of a tax imposed by this title, refund of which is erroneously made, within the meaning of section 6514 [this refers to a refund claimed past the SOL for such a claim], may be recovered by civil action brought in the name of the United States.

(b) Refunds otherwise erroneous

Any portion of a tax imposed by this title which has been erroneously refunded (if such refund would not be considered as erroneous under section 6514) may be recovered by civil action brought in the name of the United States.

(c) Interest

For provision relating to interest on erroneous refunds, see section 6602.

(d) Periods of limitation

For periods of limitations on actions under this section, see section 6532 (b) [this provides for a 2-year SOL in which the US can bring an action, or 5 years if the refund is based on fraud or misrepresentation of material fact].

With one telling exception (which is NOT really an exceptions, as will be discussed next), this never happens in regard to CtC-educated refunds.

Assertion: CtC-educated Americans have been sued over their filings

FALSE (with a nuanced and revealing caveat).

THE TROLL COMMUNITY OFTEN POINTS to the “civil lawsuits” launched as part of the nationwide April 12, 2006 “scare-people-away-from-CtC” effort in order to declare that "courts have ruled against CtC" (and to substantiate its nonsense about the IRS coming back after CtC-educated refunds discussed above). Like the previously-addressed assertions, this is another exercise in mendacity.

There WERE seven parties sued in this sudden PR campaign just before "tax-day" in 2006. But the real story of these suits makes clear that this campaign was a unique affair (never repeated since) that actually proved CtC right when all was said and done.

Read the whole story here; but just to tease you into doing so, let me share a little excerpt:

This discrepancy between rhetoric and reality is broad and consistent.  Six other "lawsuits" were announced at the same time as the one against the Hendricksons, each targeting CtC-educated filers carefully selected for their locations around the country so as to provide a pretext for a nation-wide press release on the matter.  Two of the others targeted by this publicity campaign have stood their ground and are in the appellate courts dealing with district court rulings similar to that issued by Judge Edmunds.

Three of the other four targets of these "lawsuits", however, surrendered to government harassment and declared that they had perjured themselves on their original filings.  Nonetheless, although the DOJ and IRS touts these cases as "victories", the reality is that the government gratefully accepted new filings from these folks and then quickly slunk away without a backward glance.  There have been no charges or other proceedings in connection with the repudiated original filings.  In fact, the "righteous and victorious" feds formally agreed to take a hike in exchange for the new filings.

In the fourth case, the refund secured by the original filing was handed back as the government’s price for having the suit dismissed, but, very significantly, the targets of the bogus lawsuit refused to file an amended return.  The DOJ issued a self-congratulatory press release claiming “victory” in this case too, but later the IRS quietly credited the returned money in full as a positive balance on the related “account”...

As the husband in this targeted couple explained when sending me a scan on July 1, 2007 of the notice he and his wife had received: "Thought you might be interested in this little development.  Received a letter from the IRS this week stating that I had an overpayment for 2003 (the total amount).  That's not so unusual as you know but, what is interesting is, this is the year they initially returned, then sued for and now are returning again."  See the re-refund notice here.

Not one such "lawsuit" has since been filed against any other of the hundreds of CtC-educated filers whose upstanding victories on behalf of the rule of law are posted on losthorizons.com each and every week, or the tens of thousands more who have enjoyed such victories without having been so generous of spirit as to share them.  At least three of the victims of these seven "lawsuits" have gone on to secure subsequent complete refunds even after having been singled out for this "special attention".

Go read the story, and get the real message: The trolls are lying.

UNDERSTAND, AND I MEAN REALLY UNDERSTAND, that the CtC-educated community is the stake poised over the chest of the vampire, and the vampire knows it. A whole lot of energy and effort are being expended to try to blunt that stake, and dissipate the force behind it back into the "way things are" fog. We all need to be piling on the weight, but the vampire and its friends are doing what they can to take the weight off and keep the monster safe.

Don't be fooled. Read the book, again if need be. You'll finish without any doubt that you just learned the complete truth about the "income" tax, as at least several tens of thousands-- maybe hundreds of thousands-- have before you. At that point, you'll no longer be prey to idiot, liberty-eroding arguments like those of the trolls, which basically say that one should be steered in one's behavior by what the "authorities" are happy with, and are willing to let you do without resistance, just like your average North Korean.

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

-Thomas Jefferson


Assertion: "The courts have ruled against CtC!"


THE TROLL COMMUNITY TRIES TO FRIGHTEN FOLKS AWAY from the liberating truth revealed in CtC by suggesting that CtC has been tested and found wanting in courts across the land.  The reality is that no court has yet dared to actually address what is actually revealed in CtC.

As noted above, the government does not sue the CtC-educated. But in increasing numbers, CtC-educated Americans have been suing the government.

In every such case with which I am familiar, the courts that have ruled against these educated, law-upholding plaintiffs have done so by evading the issues actually raised in the suits. The trolls post these rulings hoping that their readers won't go to the trouble of learning the background of the cases and reading the filings, record of proceedings and rulings. More than anything, they hope that their readers are not CtC-educated readers.

It is not possible for me to discuss every such case. For one thing, I don't KNOW of every such case-- as I said, a lot of good Americans are going into court now. But I AM sufficiently familiar with a few of the cases often cited by troll-kind. Addressing one or two of these should serve to demonstrate the poo-on-the-plate being served-up here.

For instance, the ruling in Patrick Mooney's 2006 Tax Court suit is made much of by the trolls.  What isn't mentioned is that Patrick brought the case to reclaim gratuitous "frivolous" penalties that had been withheld from an otherwise complete refund made to him (and one of which penalties was allegedly over another filing for which he had also gotten a complete refund-- see here and here).

In other words, the suit was an effort to perfect victories Patrick had already won, but which were simply incomplete due to axiomatically improper IRS bad behavior. Nor do the trolls admit that even in its adverse ruling the court never declared that anything Patrick argued was wrong, but simply dismissed his suit after a ten-minute "trial" on the unexplained basis that Patrick had somehow "failed to prosecute his case".

Patrick brought another case into Tax Court on March 15, 2010, this time as a response to a "Notice of Deficiency" created by the IRS concerning a different year. In this case Patrick went in armed with a powerful new weapon for forcing the court to face the real issues of law involved.

This time the trial ran five times as long and the court struggled for 11 MONTHS before choking out an adverse ruling which is full of broad declarations and findings, but which evades all of the issues and authorities Patrick raised. The ruling neither refutes, disputes nor declares irrelevant any of Patrick's authorities or arguments. Instead, the court simply assumes a jurisdiction that it does not have and asserts, with the citation of a handful of inapt rulings of a sort that will be discussed in the "Meet the Trolls" section that follows, that Patrick's earnings qualified as "taxable income" while pretending it hadn't seen or heard any argument to the contrary.

THE TROLLS OFTEN CITE the adverse ruling in CPA Joe Fennell's case. But Joe was not arguing a CtC issue in his Tax Court case-- he was attempting to challenge an old assessment concerning a year prior to CtC being published, and for which he had ignored a notice of deficiency when it was issued long before ever hearing about CtC. Joe went into Tax Court arguing only that the ignored NOD was defective, and lost.

RECENTLY THE TROLL-COMMUNITY HAS ADDED the ruling in Steve and Sarah Waltner's lawsuit against the IRS to their "stay-away-from-CtC" posts. The Waltner's had sued in the federal Court of Claims to compel the IRS to make three properly-claimed refunds owed to the couple.

The addition of this case to those presented by the trolls in an effort to frighten folks away from CtC is especially remarkable, in that the pretexts called on by the court as a basis for the adverse ruling are unusually obvious in their absurdities and improprieties. This ruling is an outstanding example of a court facing an inconvenient truth and proving its veracity by resort to arrant evasions and nonsense in order to rationalize a government-favored outcome in defiance of the law and the facts.

Though it spent 42 pages of gibberish, dodges and inapposite case citations choking it out, here is the essence of the court's "reasoning" in dismissing the Waltner's suit on the government's motion:

"[A] Form 1040 ... which ... indicate[s] zero income ... [does] not constitute a return “because [it fails] to include any information upon which tax could be calculated"."

It is impossible to overstate the ludicrousness of this assertion. Here is the very first line in the 2012 "tax table" calculated and published by the IRS:

In the absence of an absurd assertion like this, one might have imagined that some other, legitimate consideration prompted a ruling against the Waltners. But when a dab of poo like this one appears, it is clear that this wasn't so. When you've got a real game to play, you don't bring the BS...

"Here, taxpayers submitted amended returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006 in which they replaced the income they previously reported, which was consistent with third-party information provided to the IRS, with zeros ... that directly contradicted W-2s and other forms submitted by third parties to the IRS. The taxpayers admittedly took no action to obtain “corrected” third party forms that would corroborate their claims of zero taxable income."

Note the court's careful use of the phrase "taxable income" rather than "money", in implicit acknowledgement of the distinction...

Note further that not only is the court "reasoning" that the "third party forms" are to be accepted as infallibly correct unless the same "third parties" change them, but it simultaneously suggests that the claimants in the case bear a burden of corroborating their testimony. The first of these is manifestly absurd on its face. The second is directly contrary to specific statutory mandates placing on the government the burden of attempting to prove that the such claimants are wrong.

Here the government must prove that what these folks received actually DID qualify as "taxable income". No attempt whatever was made to bear this burden, which is why the complicit court resorts to this nonsense instead of what any rational person recognizes it must be able to declare in order to rule against the couple: "The government has proven that what the claimants received was, in fact, "taxable income" in the amounts reported."

"Thus, the taxpayers' amended returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006, ... do not implicate an honest and reasonable intent to supply information required by the tax code."

Summed up, then, the basis of this ruling is:

  • that "zero" is not a number (at least, not if it appears on the "income received" line of a declaration);

  • that a payer's assertions that a payment is of "taxable income" has to be simply accepted as true (because the payer COULDN'T have been wrong...); or

  • that these inconvenient affiants don't really believe what they say (because they said something different in previous years).

In making and posting this ruling, one has to imagine that the judge and the trolls hope that the reader won't give the matter a little thought and reflect on the fact that the REAL issues in the case are:

  • whether "zero" IS the correct number (and isn't the ludicrous assertion that "zero" is not a number just an obvious evasion of this real question?);

  • whether the payment really WAS of "taxable income" (and isn't deeming a mere assertion to that effect infallible and unrebuttable just a blatant evasion of that real question?); and

  • whether what the attestor says is TRUE (and isn't the unprovable and grossly impertinent assertion that the attestor doesn't believe his sworn declaration just an evasion of that plainly- and exclusively-relevant real question?)...

...and then wonder why the court didn't just go right to these questions, and instead evaded them with its absurd nonsense.

So, yes, Steve and Sarah Waltner were ruled-against in their lawsuit. Does that ruling prove that CtC is wrong? Or does it prove that CtC is so right that a corrupt judge, who wants to rule against someone properly invoking the law revealed in the book in order to preserve a scheme that she sees crumbling all around her, is forced to resort to blatant evasions and idiotic nonsense?

The correct answer is plainly the latter of these alternatives. And yet this is the sort of ruling the troll-community has to trot out to scare folks away from the truth. The reason? This kind of corrupt contortion is the best the trolls can come up with in their effort to suggest that "the courts have [meaningfully] ruled against CtC".

ANOTHER CASE CITED BY THE TROLL COMMUNITY is a tax court case brought by Steve Waltner petitioning against an effort by the IRS to collect a "frivolous return" penalty against him. Steve actually withdrew his petition before a ruling by the tax court, deciding to re-file in district court instead. But the case is cited by the trolls nonetheless because the tax court judge, a fellow named "Buch", clung to the case on the pretext of imposing a sanction on Steve and used his ruling to spend dozens of pages purporting to critique CtC.

But like all other instances of the same sort, Buch reveals the truth he is trying to attack by the falsities and dodges to which he is compelled to resort in the effort.

Buch's effort to disparage CtC consists of presenting a series of irrelevant smears directed at me personally (including deep prosecutorial misrepresentations of a 26-year-old matter accurately discussed here, and-- almost comically, considering that his goal is to discredit me-- what is accurately presented, again with exhibits, here and here).

The ad hominem attacks are followed by strawmen set-ups and knock-downs by way of misrepresentations of content in the book and a ferocious exclusion of context. Buch even misrepresents statutes and other authorities, and cherry-picks inapt or out-of-context supports for his own assertions.

Buch pretends to do a chapter-by-chapter review/critique, but actually only selects individual sentences from each assemblage of chapter-length material-- absent of context and supporting or clarifying material. Or he just declares what his reader is supposed to believe is said in CtC without even the benefit of an misrepresented excerpt. Then he attacks his own mis-representation. He does a nice imitation of a willfully blind bull in a china-shop.

For example, Buch begins his "critique" with this, supposedly addressing what appears in the opening chapter of CtC, 'About Taxes- Direct v. Indirect':

"Starting with the premise that taxes are either direct or indirect, Cracking the Code lays the foundation for the remainder of the book on two fallacies. The first is that “federal direct taxes which affect citizens of the several states must be apportioned.” The Constitution at one time required this apportionment; however, with the adoption of the 16th Amendment in 1913, this rule no longer applies to income taxes."

TC Memo. 2014-35 p. 44

Appalling as it is to imagine of a sitting judge, even just a Tax Court judge, it appears that Buch is unfamiliar with the reality (or is willing to simply lie about it):

"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”


“But it clearly results that the [erroneous] proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment [purportedly] exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned."

United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) (a unanimous opinion, btw)

It's hard to imagine Judge Buch can simply misunderstand the Supreme Court when no one else does:

The Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong."

Cornell Law Quarterly, 1 Cornell L. Q. 298 (1915-16)

"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."

Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above.  Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…"

Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws'

It's even harder to imagine honest misunderstanding when the Supreme Court goes on to say the same over and over down the years:

"[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income." 

U.S. Supreme Court, Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929)

"If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 12. Whether the [income] tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of critical importance [for this analysis]. If not that, it is an "impost" (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 622, 158 U. S. 625; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soble, 7 Wall. 433, 74 U. S. 445), or a "duty" (Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S. 546, 75 U. S. 547; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 157 U. S. 570; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 178 U. S. 46). A capitation or other "direct" tax it certainly is not."

U.S. Supreme Court, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

But in fact, Buch is really good at misunderstanding. In a footnote to his fallacious assertion about the meaning and effect of the 16th Amendment in defiance of ALL actual authority on the subject save only his own confused mind, Buch says this about the portions of the Brushaber decision excerpted above (which also are presented in CtC):

Brushaber merits special mention, because Cracking the Code misleadingly cites that case. A stockholder brought suit to against a corporation to prevent the corporation from paying taxes imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913. The Supreme Court summarized the stockholder’s arguments, stating: “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them.” Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 10. The Supreme Court then proceeded to untangle the stockholder’s arguments, which ultimately proved to be losing arguments. Yet Cracking the Code cites the Supreme Court’s summary of the losing arguments as though it were the Supreme Court’s analysis of the underlying constitutional issues. Cracking the Code, supra note 16, at 19-20.

Maybe it's just me, but when what I excerpt from the Brushaber decision reads:

"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”

...I think the Supreme Court's statement that "the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment" is an "erroneous assumption" pretty clearly IS the court's analysis of the underlying constitutional issue of whether or not the amendment allows for a direct tax on income without apportionment, as Buch asserts, or does not, as CtC, the Supreme Court and every other authority imaginable plainly declares.

LITTLE MORE NEED BE SAID TO MAKE CLEAR THAT BUCH IS EITHER A MORON OR A SCOUNDREL, and nothing he has to say should be taken seriously. He is plainly "laying the foundation for the remainder" of his mendacious attack on a fallacy, which is, considering his job, one of breathtaking proportions.

But we'll go a little further just to drill home the point that the man is peddling bs wholesale and retail. It's only necessary to go right to the next assertion in Buch's "critique" to hit another prize:

The second fallacy [supposedly found in CtC] is that the Federal Government has legislative authority over only the District of Columbia and U.S. territories and thus lacks the authority to impose taxes within any State. The error here starts with the author’s misreading of the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings * * *

From this the author leaps to the erroneous conclusion that “All other areas within the union are under the exclusive jurisdiction of one of the several States, and are thus insulated from federal authority except in regard to certain enumerated powers, and federal governmental property and contract rights.” The fact that Congress has exclusive legislative power in one area does not mean that it has no legislative power in others; it merely means that its power in those other areas is not exclusive. States and the Federal Government exercise sovereignty concurrent with one another. Or, as the Supreme Court has stated: “As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government.”

TC Memo. 2014-35 p. 45, 46

Other than a couple of footnotes, this is the total of what is said regarding the allegedly asserted fallacy, "that the Federal Government has legislative authority over only the District of Columbia and U.S. territories and thus lacks the authority to impose taxes within any State." Here we see two common practices of dissemblers at work.

First, there is the bald assertion that CtC says that due to the legislative jurisdictional limitations described, the federal government, "...thus lacks the authority to impose taxes within any state." And yet, somehow Buch fails to present any language from CtC saying any such thing. Because it does not.

In fact, while the chapter Buch is discussing is not one in which CtC presents how and where the income tax is and can be imposed (making his assertion regarding this "fallacy" at this point just an outright and particularly cheap strawman) CtC plainly says, in the opening paragraph of the section Buch is mendaciously discussing: "In addition to prescriptions as to how taxes are laid, there are also jurisdictional issues involved in taxation.  A government cannot tax-- directly or indirectly-- any thing or any activity outside either its legal or its geographical jurisdiction." Plainly, CtC acknowledges that geographical considerations are NOT the sole considerations regarding any power to tax-- that power applies wherever legal jurisdiction goes, which can be in or out of union states, or anywhere in the world, for that matter.

CtC teaches that "within any state" is not even a relevant concept to the application of the income tax, because that tax is based entirely on legal jurisdiction. But because this is, in fact the basis for the tax-- something Buch desperately want the public to misunderstand-- Buch simply misleads his readers about what CtC says.

The second dissembler's ploy used by Buch in this portion of his screed is the failure to present, even if only to attempt an honest rebuttal, what CtC offers in support of the book's actually very qualified assertion that federal jurisdiction is limited (not absent, as Buch suggests) within state territory. (As even Buch cannot help but acknowledge, even while trying to misrepresent it, what is actually said in CtC is not that the feds have no jurisdiction, but that it lacks authority "...except in regard to certain enumerated powers, and federal governmental property and contract rights.").

Here is what appears in the chapter concerning federal jurisdiction but which Buch somehow fails to excerpt or address. This material begins with the very next word following the single sentence Buch has excerpted and attempted to misrepresent:

As was declared by counsel for the United States before the Supreme Court in United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336 (1818):

“The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein,”

with the court, in its ruling agreeing:

“What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses? We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory;”  

In New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836), the court reiterates this principle:

“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction."

In 1956, the Eisenhower administration commissioned the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States.  The pertinent portion of its report points out that,

“It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possess no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the States, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions, and subject to the free exercise by the Federal Government of rights with respect to the use, protection, and disposition of its property”. 

Pretty plainly, what is said in CtC on the issue of jurisdiction-- “All other areas within the union are under the exclusive jurisdiction of one of the several States, and are thus insulated from federal authority except in regard to certain enumerated powers, and federal governmental property and contract rights”-- is pretty thoroughly supported. (And again, what CtC goes on to explain elsewhere, in areas Buch studiously avoids, is that the jurisdiction for the income tax is in no way geographically-related.)

THESE ARE JUST TWO quick demonstrations of Buch's dissembling-- which were found in his very first two assertions. There is no need to go on; the entire package the man presents is just more of the same careful, practiced disinformation, misrepresentation and deceit (with Buch even going so far as to repeat the government's favorite canard, that CtC argues "that only Federal workers are subject to tax"-- Memo., p. 58; see two nice little films addressing this hoary and ridiculous false ascription here and here).

I WILL make two further points, though:

First, as is always the case, efforts like Buch's, which rest on careful misrepresentations, simply underscore the truth of what they attack. The only time one needs to resort to misstatement is when one can't actually argue against what is really said.


In the years since Buch's contribution to the long-running campaign to suppress CtC, tens of thousands of CtC-educated refunds have issued-- all thoroughly vetted by the same IRS for which Buch works, and including, as always happens a few times in any given couple of years of CtC victories, a handful in which the tax agency has vainly attempted to dodge or resist the educated filer's claims. All in all, Tax Court Judge Buch's exercise in corruption, and the effort by government trolls to exploit it by presentation to folks who aren't familiar with CtC and therefore can't recognize its mendacity, is a perfect example of the lame bs illustrated by this graphic:


SO, THE ALLEGED RULINGS touted by the trolls as "against CtC" really aren't. On the other hand, the trolls carefully DON'T mention cases like the recent victories of Nathan Anderson in federal district court; or my own in federal district courts as discussed here. And they avoid like the plague discussing the thousands and thousands of victories routinely won by CtC-educated Americans in various parts of the administrative process of which Tax Court is a part, about twelve hundred of which are documented here, here and here.

Go figure...


Assertion: CtC-educated CPAs and others have been shut down for helping prepare educated returns


THE TROLL COMMUNITY CLAIMS IN VARIOUS POSTS ON THE INTERNET that a number of tax-preparers have been enjoined from preparing educated returns.  Several people allegedly shut-down are mentioned by name in these posts.  The only person named that I actually know is Don Gray, so I have no idea what the others were doing, or thought they were doing.  But as regards Don's case, see this for the accurate story, and remember what I pointed out earlier about contaminated servings...


I DOUBT THAT ANYONE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH and knowing what's at stake would be taken in by the trolleries discussed here even without seeing these debunkings. Such an eyes-open person would go to the trouble of investigating the trolls' representations, and would learn what's really true on his or her own. In any event, for those folks, what is presented above is certainly sufficient illumination of the crass reality of troll-product.

But, there are lots of people who don't understand that there IS something to investigate, or haven't yet reached the educated, well-tuned cynicism toward "officialdom" and its pronouncements that is necessary to cut through the fog and get to the heart where bs can be seen for what it is. A lifetime of conditioning us all to view the state as everyone's best friend has dulled this kind of sensibility in most Americans. For many, the only way to get past that programming is to go head-to-head with the liars personally or to spend a little additional time on a more in-depth discussion than the simple exposures laid out in the preceding discussion.

For the benefit of the latter group, a few further observations about the character of the troll community, and some drill-down on some of their misrepresentations will be found here. A history of corrupt government efforts to suppress CtC, which will give useful context and additional depth for proper appreciation of all the trolleries and other mendacities discussed on both this page and the other can be found here.

If you are inclined to use this material to post your own rebuttals to the troll community's mendacities where possible, I will be very grateful. I simply can't keep up with the volume of the misleading nonsense, and have to rely on the good help of folks like you.


P. S. Though not relevant to debunking the misrepresentations and spin about institutional response to CtC-educated filings which is the focus of this discussion, the troll community likes to make a point of posting ad hominem attacks on me personally, in an effort to suggest that what I reveal about the law, and about their own crimes, should be disregarded because I'm some kind of a bad person. This effort focuses on an incident in which I was involved at a Michigan Post Office in 1990.

The government has always characterized this as a "bombing" in its usual effort to demonize and direct a "two-minute hate" at those who step outside its cognitive boxes. The truth about the matter can be found here.


On The Psychology Of Denial

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THOSE IN DENIAL of the truth about the tax laid out in cold, hard, unambiguous documentation in CtC continues to fascinate me! These folks are presented with a simple choice between an obvious, patently ridiculous fiction and a plain, thoroughly-documented truth which has been being continuously acknowledged for years now even by the peddlers of the absurd fiction, but still manage to avoid choosing to embrace the truth.

On the one hand, these deniers must imagine that their ancestors were drooling idiots, who inexplicably authorized their government agents to seize any portion of their own earnings those agents wished (and those of all future generations), with the only "control" to which that utterly despotic power was subject being that those who abused it could be turned out of office afterwards by what might then be an utterly ruined and subjugated population. Simply to describe this fantasy in plain words reveals it to be self-evident nonsense-- indeed, even after what most of them would admit has been a life-long conditioning of acceptance of mammoth government, not one of the deniers themselves would be so daft as to grant such authority to the state.

The alternative conclusion available to the deniers is that they have been successfully snookered by a careful, disciplined, well-financed, generations-long campaign to cultivate and exploit a general misunderstanding of what those who came before REALLY did, and the actual, limited nature of the income tax.

These ARE the only two choices. There's no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant", and when you sweep away all the cognitive clutter from decades of effort to create and exploit confusion about the tax by those who benefit thereby, this is what is left: Either our ancestors authorized an effectively unlimited tax-- entirely within the discretion of the state at any given time as to what it falls upon, and how heavily-- or they did not and the deniers have been snookered.

Even leaving aside simple common sense, ALL of the relevant evidence-- of which there is a huge volume from every possible authoritative source-- dismisses the first choice to the trash-can where it belongs and makes clear that the second is incontrovertibly true.

Nonetheless, those who persist in denial refuse to get it right.

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN I IMAGINED that the problem was the strength of that lifelong conditioning to which the deniers have been subject. But the constantly-swelling ranks of CtC-educated Americans who DO shuck off the nonsense proves that the conditioning is far from irreversible.

Then I began to suspect that embarrassment played a significant role in this persistent denial of the demonstrated truth. My thought was that it was just too mortifying for those in denial to admit to having been so thoroughly taken in and to have needlessly handed over up to half of all their earnings over the years. I imagined that the deniers just couldn't bear to admit this to themselves or anyone else, and would rather just go on paying massive tribute to their mental conquerors in a particularly severe case of "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

Eventually I had to let that thought go also, however. Nobody is THAT proud, especially in light of the fact that nearly EVERYONE was taken in...

SO, I'VE COME TO REALIZE what is actually in play with those who persist in denial-- a fundamental failure of moral courage. It's this simple: Acknowledging the truth about the tax inescapably imposes a moral duty upon a person to stand up and act in accordance with that truth, and some folks just don't have the integrity for that kind of adult responsibility.

It is sort of a "see no evil" dynamic. If one manages to "see none" (or to equip oneself with "plausible denial" of having seen any), one is spared overt moral responsibility to denounce, and possibly confront, the evil-doer...

Avoiding that obligation to denounce and confront is something for which many a moral coward is willing to go on paying even half the fruits of his or her blood, sweat and tears. I suppose it's almost easy for these folks when that corrupt choice is lubricated with the comforting props of the "validating" fiction, the companionship of others similarly inclined, the pride factor, and most importantly, the thoroughly-cultivated reputation of the "overlooked" evil-doers as absolutely rabid junk-yard dogs, utterly devoid of any respect for the law, and very unpleasant to confront and denounce.

Almost easy... But how shameful...

Were Our Grandparents Complete Morons?



LEARN the liberating, empowering, critically-important truth about the 16th Amendment and the liberating, empowering, critically-important truth about the "income" tax. STOP merely reading (or writing) about how bad things are and START DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT!