ďMany a man stumbles across the truth, then picks himself up and hurries on as though nothing had happened.Ē
"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."
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1950
Immediate Offensive Measures
Please don't fail or forget to send me scans of your refunds, and encourage others to do the same!!!
I am aware that educated Americans are now receiving refunds (and other confirmations of the truth) constantly-- but only a small minority of these victories are being sent to me for posting. Some people are so excited at their success that they rush to deposit the check, and don't think to make a copy until afterwards when it is too late; others simply don't realize how meaningful the evidence of these victories and verifications are to their fellow Americans, and don't remember how important those previously posted had been to they themselves when they were struggling to overcome the fear instilled in them over a lifetime before standing up and doing the right thing. SCAN THEM AND SEND THEM, PLEASE! If you can't scan, email me and I'll provide a fax number. By the way, even direct-deposit refunds can be posted, by way of your monthly statement entries, or a transcript from your bank. If you have RETAINED your own property by way of a CtC-educated proper filing and rebuttal of erroneous information, get a transcript of your 'account' status, calculate your savings, and share that victory, too!
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God"
Are You Ready?
Click Here For 'It's Time To Learn The Truth About The Income Tax'
This brief film offers the best introduction to the liberating truth that you will find
Click Here For An Informative Hour Of Q & A On The Income Tax
Get your FREE* CtC bumper sticker and help spread the word!
Just send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Lost Horizons, Bumper Sticker Offer, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382
(*If you want to throw a few bucks into the envelope to help with costs, that'd be nice, but it's entirely optional...)
Crack The Code And Learn The Truth
"The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction... The IRS has never really known why people pay the income tax... The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through FEAR."
Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ĎWhen You Owe The IRSí
"A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves"
-Edward R. Murrow
A Warrior Couple Thwart An Arrogant
IRS Motion For Summary Judgment In Their Lawsuit Against The Agency
On September 30, 2008, with the very able assistance of Joe Fennell, Jim and Vivian Blaga filed the following petition
in Tax Court seeking to compel the IRS to obey the law in certain
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Docket No. 19391-08L
JAMES M. BLAGA and VIVIAN P. BLAGA,
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Amended Petition/More Definite Statement for Relief Sought by
Comes now the
Petitioner before this Honorable Court and prays the Court compel
Respondent to perform either of the two alternatives set forth
below. Petitioners believe that the providing of such relief will
serve the interest of justice and promote respect for the rule of
law. Petitioners believe we are entitled to such relief as a
matter of fundamental and/or statutory law.
Perform all of Respondentís duties and obligations under
the law, including Respondents duty and obligation to:
Fulfill Respondentís obligation under 26 USC 6330(c)(2)(B)
to provide Petitioners with an opportunity to challenge the
existence or amount of the alleged underlying tax
liability/penalty that Respondent claims to be owed by Petitioners
for the amended returns of 2002, 2003, 2004, and original return
for 2005 tax years.
Fulfill Respondentís obligation under 26 USC 6203 and 26
CFR 301.6203-1 by fulfilling Petitioners' request for a true and
correct photocopy of the record of assessment that shows the
signature of the assessment officer, so that Petitioners may
determine for ourselves the assessmentís complete compliance with
all related provisions of law, and/or legal sufficiency, and
verify or refute our personal liability. Fulfillment of this
request for the above referenced tax years constitutes the most
basic provision of due process of law.
Fulfill Respondentís obligation under 26 USC 6671(a) and
furnish Petitioners with a statutory ďten-day notice and demandĒ
for these alleged penalties.
Meet Respondentís burden of proof in this proceeding
pursuant to 26 USC 6703(a) providing a prima facie case thus
establishing the alleged liability.
Meaningfully explain why Respondent can deliberately omit
26 USC 6331(a) and disregard this rule of law when serving a
Notice of Levy against Petitioners' bank account to third party
LaSalle Bank Midwest N.A. so as to imply universal applicability
while seeking to conceal the contrary truth.
Meaningfully explain why Respondent did not follow rule of
law under 26 USC 6332(c) when Notice of Levy was sent to LaSalle
Bank Midwest N.A.
Meaningfully explain why Respondent can threaten and
mislead Petitioners by invoking 26 USC 6331 as the basis for intent
to levy when serving Notice Number CP 504 and Letter 1058 when
6331(a) provides the statutory definition and 26 CFR 301.6331-1
provides further explanation for who this law applies to.
Meet Respondentís burden of proof in this proceeding
pursuant to 26 USC 6201(d) to produce reasonable verification of
those information returns on which Respondent has based its claims
for tax year 2005.
Show cause why Respondent is not obligated under Section 93
of the Revenue Act of 1862 to receive and process Petitioners'
sworn declarations of annual income liable to be assessed as
declared on Petitioners' filed amended 2002, 2003, 2004 and
original 2005 tax returns.
Show cause why Respondent is not obligated under 26 USC
6511(a) to honor timely claims for refund of tax that have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected.
State with accuracy and clarity all facts and law in
support of Respondentís claim that Petitioners' filed amended
2002, 2003, 2004 and original 2005 income tax returns are in some
manner incomplete, incorrect, contradictory, or otherwise
defective, should Respondent actually be making such a claim.
Fulfill Respondentís obligation under 26 USC 6402(k) to
provide a meaningful explanation for the disallowance of
Petitioners' claim for refund of over payment, which Petitioners
made when we filed our amended 2002, 2003, 2004 and original 2005
income tax return.
Explain why Respondent has not brought charges of perjury
against Petitioners according to 26 USC 7206 if Respondent is
actually making the claim that Petitioners have filed frivolous
returns for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
2. Accept and
process Petitioners' filed amended individual tax returns for
2002, 2003, 2004 and original return for 2005, promptly issue
closing notices consistent therewith, and return to Petitioners all
property belonging to Petitioners presently in the custody of the
United States, including accrued interest thereon as provided by
law. Petitioners lastly pray that this Honorable Court enter an
order compelling Respondent to:
Refrain from using intimidation, threats, or misleading
conduct to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any
person in an official proceeding as directed by 18 USC 1512(b)
Cease from acting in a willful manner to oppress under
color of law with intent to defeat any provision of the IRC as
cautioned against at 26 USC 7214(a)(1)(2)(3).
Predictably, the IRS moved the court to summarily deny Jim and Vivian's
complaint after first making a typically arrogant and meaningless
response, which Jim describes as follows:
"On Thursday 11/13/08, I was served copy of IRS' answer (dated
11/12/08) to my previously submitted amended petition . Respondent
"neither admits nor denies all my statements of fact nor assignments
of error that the respondent can admit or deny." Respondent also
"denies generally each and every allegation of my petition not herein
specifically admitted, qualified or denied." Finally IRS not
surprisingly "prayed that the relief sought in the petition be denied
and that Respondent's determination, as set forth in the NOD, be in
all respects sustained."
I think I can confidently say that the agency fully expected that its
"prayer" would be summarily granted. However, Jim and Vivian filed
response, and much to the IRS's surprise and chagrin, I imagine, the
Tax Court ruled that Jim and Vivian's suit will go forward:
"Hello Joe and Pete
6 months of making a stand against these lawless brats, we at least
have one small victory to celebrate. TC Judge John Colvin has denied
the Commissioners' Motion for Summary Judgment against Vivian and I.
I have attached our Response to R's Mot for SJ and the TC Order dated
February 26, 2009. There may be some specifics that will be useful to
other CtC warriors in similar circumstance to mine. (I find it
interesting that special trial judge Robert Armen who was assigned to
our case did not rule on our response.) So, there yet remain genuine
issues of material fact to be stipulated. Is a pretrial memorandum up
A special thanks to you Joe, for assisting me with my case thus
Jim and Vivian Do It
May 8, 2009- Chief Tax Court Judge John O. Olvin has slapped down
another IRS effort to evade the law in a contest with CtC Warriors Jim
and Vivian Blaga, in this case over a petition filed by Jim in
response to an IRS failure to process his 2005 claim for refund, and
to try to allege a "deficiency" owed by Jim for that year instead.
As Jim puts it in writing to share this score ("R" is the Respondent
Joe and Pete:
I am sending you copy of my case in the U.S. Tax Court thus far for an
alleged NOD for 2005. "R" moved on 04/15/09 that the Court order me
to file a more definite statement. I was about to counter with my own
motion that R's motion be denied. (I felt like including as one of my
reasons was that "R" learn how to understand plain English.) To my
surprise I received copy from the Court that R's motion has been
denied. In absence of any Order by the Court to me in regard to my
petition, it looks as though R will have to make an Answer to
Could it be that the rule of law is actually being applied or, is
there some other shenanigan coming that I do not expect? In any
event, the attachments speak of what has transpired thus far.
Jim's petition asks the Tax Court to:
1. Grant relief from all Respondentís allegations of tax liability,
and dismiss them with prejudice.
2. Order Respondent to process Petitionerís lawful and complete
return for 2005.
Here is the text of the IRS's effort to derail this threatening
MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE
THE RESPONDENT MOVES, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 51
(a) of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure, that the
Court enter an order requiring the petitioner to file a more
definite statement as to the nature of the petition and "the
relief requested and the reasons why you [i.e., petitioner]
believe you are entitled to such relief."
THE RESPONDENT FURTHER MOVES, pursuant to the provisions of
Rule 51 (b) of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
that upon failure of the petitioner to amend the petition in
accordance with such order, the Court dismiss the petition.
IN SUPPORT THEREOF, the
respondent respectfully shows unto the Court:
1. It appears that the petitioner filed the petition in
this case in response to the respondent's issuance of a Notice
of Deficiency, dated December 31, 2008. The substance of the
petition included in a seventeen (17) page attachment to the
fill-in-the-blank petition for and is followed by a affidavit
from the petitioner. A copy of the petition (including the
first two pages of the notice of deficiency upon which the
petition is based) is collectively attached hereto as Exhibit
2. The substance of the petition consists of the
petitioner's allegations of historical background, frivolous
argument, and conclusion of law.
3. In paragraph 8 of the attachment, the petitioner alleges
that withholding paid in the amount of $4,171.00 was not for
wages, and thus, the withholding is an overpayment resulting
in a refund to petitioner.
4. The petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
5. Instead, the petitioner makes a series of irrelevant
factual allegations and cites frivolous arguments of law to
contend (sic) the respondent's notice of deficiency.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of the
respondent's publication, ~The Truth About Frivolous Tax
Arguments" date November 30~ 2007.
7. Respondent notes to the Court that the petitioner is a
party to another case pending before this Court, Docket No.
8. Respondent acknowledge that the notice of deficiency
alleges fraudulent failure to file under I.R.C. ß 6651(f) for
which respondent has the burden of proof.
9. Respondent contends that the burden of proof falls upon
respondent only after the petitioner submits a genuine
petition that is in accordance with the Tax Court's Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays:
(1) That the Court enter an order requiring the petitioner
to file an amended petition containing a more definite
statement as to the basis for the petitioner's claim upon
which petitioner disputes the determinations of the
(2) That upon failure of the petitioners to comply with
such order of the Court, the Court dismiss the petition.
the petition that the IRS wants to evade; and here is the
judge's response to this effort:
The Erroneous Information Return Lawsuit Initiative
A team of attorneys has begun work on materials to be used for taking
private legal action against negligent and/or willful creators of bogus
"information returns" such as W-2s, 1099s and K-1s. These actions
will invoke both state and federal statutes as well as relevant aspects
of tort law.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE CtC COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE CONTRIBUTE TO
THIS PROCESS, as the utility of the instruments and strategies developed
by the team will be significantly impacted by individual state statutory
structures and case law. If the necessary R & D is to be
accomplished in any kind of a timely way, it will be because all of you
conduct relevant research in regard to your home states, most of which
will have some specific provisions regarding the creation and deployment
of fictitious and vexatious legal instruments.
The product of such research should be sent to EIRLI 'at'
losthorizons.com, and should be confined to actual statutes and rulings
in their entirety. Theorizing as to legal approaches to this issue
is very welcome, but must be supported by competent authority. In
both cases, please submit the material as MSWord or RTF docs attached to
the emails, which emails should contain a summary of the attachment's
contents within their message fields.
(Those conducting research pursuant to the above initiative should
simultaneously compile any state-law material encountered which is
relevant to the issue of unauthorized, negligent and/or willful
diversion of property under "withholding" protocols. An initiative
in that regard will be launched soon.)
The virtues of this new initiatives notwithstanding, the "outreach"
offensive remains the most important, and the best route to a timely
overall victory in our efforts to uphold the rule of law in regard to
WHERE ARE YOUR VIDEOS!!??
Download and send out
this Press Release
Preparing For The Writs Of Mandamus
As useful material is contributed for the development of the writ action,
the contributions will be noted below. The material itself will be
found appended to the preparatory document linked above.
12/26/07 Warrior Thomas Wilson has contributed.
here for the
'Going On Offense' page
Wisconsin warrior Jim Stuart has crafted an excellent honest payment-reporting form to accommodate the couple of his workers who have requested that portions of their earnings continue to be sent to government agencies. Visit 'It's Not Too Late To Do The Right Thing' to view the form.
An excellent new "Disallowance Notice" response has been added to 'It's Time To Demand An End To This "Frivolous" Nonsense'
The discussion of IRS 'summons/examination/audit' authority has been updated;
'Regarding The Levy Power'
has been updated, and an example of a constructive notice has been added
J. S. has sent in his letter in response to a 'LTR-3176' that I think other warriors will enjoy;
Florida warrior Randy White has crafted a powerful, easily adapted brief in connection with a Writ of Mandamus action which he shares with us here. Those facing tax agency efforts to evade the law by failing to process filed returns and other instruments, whether by the improper invocation of the 'frivolous' statute or otherwise, will find Randy's work to be highly useful;
and Texas warrior Tom Selgas has also done some outstanding work recently-- assembling a rock-solid presentation on the limitations of the statutory authority provided to the IRS to create "Substitutes for Returns" under the provisions of law reflected at 26 USC 6020(b). See more on this subject here.) Tom presented his work to the committee conducting hearings on a recent IRS proposal to create regulations associated with this statutory authority (which proposal is prompted by the recent, related tax court victory by Pennsylvania warrior Mike Cabirac). Tom's inescapable evidence was met with silence by the agency operatives involved in the hearings...
Texas Warrior Dan Rezac shares a Freedom Of Information Act request template that will be of interest to anyone being subjected to the blizzard of unsigned or rubber-stamped threats and notices the IRS occasionally deploys in hope of intimidating an educated American into withdrawing an inconvenient filing.
If you believe the government is doing wrong and you do nothing in response, it may be true that the government is corrupt; but it is certainly true that you are.
"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them."
-Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775)
(My sincere thanks to Richard VanCamp of 'Founder's Quite Daily' for this and many other wonderful quotes which grace this page now and then.)
CLICK HERE TO INSTRUCT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Legal OFFENSE Fund
Support the Legal Offense Fund! Yes, you read that right-- this is OFFENSE, not defense.
This fund will be used to finance legal actions to force misbehaving taxing agencies (and their agents and tools) to abide by the law, including an eventual class action lawsuit on behalf of those CtC-educated filers whose accurate and truthful testimony is being deliberately-- and criminally-- excluded from the record under one pretext or another (such as those discussed here), so that the government involved can evade the inconvenient realities of the law! These actions will be of immediate benefit only to those being currently victimized in one way or another, but they will also forestall the same, or similar, violations in the future. So, even if you've had nothing but victories in upholding the law, you, too, have an interest in this endeavor.
Contributions must be made with the understanding that no guarantees are offered as to the specifics of how the money will be allocated, or that any individual contributor will realize any specific personal benefit. And, guess what? Contributions to this fund will not be tax deductible... Of course, no one likely to contribute to THIS fund had any interest in tax deductions. Anyway, if you want to participate, click on the PayPal button below to charge your contribution, with "Legal Offense Fund" in the 'payment for' field;
Or send your check or money order, payable to 'Lost Horizons', to Lost Horizons Legal Offense Fund, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382
(By the way, it would also be very helpful if as many people as possible take the time to contact and solicit the participation of the major "public interest" law firms, such as The Institute for Justice, The Pacific Legal Foundation, and The Rutherford Institute. This will be the most significant lawsuit in the history of America, and the most strenuously resisted. We cannot have too much high-quality legal talent, and these outfits will not get involved without prodding. Prod, please.)
General Points To
Keep In Mind In Any Legal Contest
1. No attorney-- government or
otherwise-- (or bureaucrat of any other stripe, or judge, etc.) can
meaningfully say that YOUR earnings are "wages" or "income" or
whatever, unless you have said it first, or they were personally
involved in the transaction. It is commonplace for government
attorneys to make declarations of this sort in filings in judicial
contests (and for tax agency bureaucrats to at least attempt to
imply such things, or act as those they should be taken as
established in their evasion efforts). However, unless those
saying such things are under oath, their expressions are legally
meaningless no matter what they say; and even if they ARE under
oath, they are not witnesses competent to make such testimony unless
they were personally involved in the relevant transactions.
Any expression of this sort in any judicial filing or elsewhere
should be vigorously and unequivocally declared to be the empty
nonsense (or illegitimate effort to defraud) that it is. The
evidence is what matters, and the self-serving expressions of
government hacks not party to any of the relevant events are not
2. The claim typically made by a CtC-educated
person for the return of withheld property is never a claim for a
"refund of tax" (unless a relevant tax liability had been previously
agreed-to by that person). It is, rather, a claim for the
return of property because the claimant has concluded that no
relevant tax is owing (a claim to recover an "overpayment" as
contemplated by the provisions at 26 USC 6401 and 6402 and related,
as discussed in CtC, particularly on pp. 173 - 175). These are
two completely different things. A claim for a "refund of tax"
is predicated on a theoretical liability having been acknowledged,
but being considered compromised under some statutory provision or
another-- such as the closing of some statutory window of time, or
other event or circumstance making the government's collection or
retention of the tax invalid. Under these latter
circumstances, requirements that the tax be paid before bringing
suit, and similar conditions, apply. In the former situation,
where no liability has been acknowledged, the claimant is explicitly
declaring that the amounts being reclaimed ARE NOT being claimed as
"refunds of tax", but rather are being sought explicitly in light of
his or her conclusion that no tax was or is due, and the amounts
claimed are NOT, and NEVER WERE, amounts of tax. Whether the
government likes or dislikes this conclusion and related
characterization of the amounts claimed is irrelevant-- the
government isn't the one making the claim, and thus has no say as to
what kind of a claim it is.
A warrior in Tax Court last week trying to get a ruling to
remand a "determination" (for pre-CtC years) back to the
Appeals Office for lack of having had a face to face hearing
was asked to describe his work arrangement. He made a
reply and things moved on, but afterwards decided that he
wasn't really happy with his answer. He also
concluded, on reflection, that this question and answer
seemed to be given much significance by the judge and the
"Respondent" (IRS attorney), and thus sent me an email
asking what I would have said in the same situation.
I agree that this question is significant-- indeed, the very
fact that it is asked at all is significant. After
all, if "everything that comes in" in exchange for
delivering labor by way of ANY "work arrangement" is
inherently a measure of an applicable tax, the particulars of
the "work arrangement" are immaterial, especially since the
warrior had already testified that he had not been paid
"wages", while at the same time acknowledging the receipt of
payment and that he was a permanent (that is,
non-contractor) member of the paying entity's workforce.
The question, then, can only be in hopes of eliciting
a self-contradiction from the careless (the utility of which
hinges on the fact that "everything that comes in" in
exchange for delivering labor by way of ANY work arrangement
is NOT inherently a measure of the tax, but "what comes in"
from "work arrangements" of a certain distinguished
I know that this question has been asked in a number of
dialogues between warriors and agency personnel, sometimes
in Tax Court or collections hearings and sometimes in simple
phone conversations, so I thought it worthwhile to post my
response to this inquiry in case others are interested as
well: If I were
asked to describe a non-federally-connected "work
arrangement", I would likely reply with something along the
line of, "An entirely private agreement to trade my
time and effort for some of the other party's supply of negotiable I.O.U.'s."
My correspondent also reports that at another point in this
hearing (right after being asked whether he had received
"wages"), he was asked to explain the withheld amounts being
claimed as refunds on his return. This inquiry ended
with the warrior pointing out that the total reported on
line 64 of his return (and carried forward as indicated for
the rest of the return) was the combined total of all
federal withholdings (nominal "income tax withheld" plus
"Social Security tax withheld" and "Medicare tax withheld"),
and didn't specifically move on to the previously typical
follow-up of, "AHA! If you didn't receive "wages",
Mr. Tax-Defier, then how is it that you had amounts
withheld?!" Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if
this triumphantly-issued challenge is being discouraged
lately, since it emphasizes the linkage between pay
distinguishable as "wages" and the propriety of
"withholding"-- inviting the response of, "Are you
thereby admitting that if my pay DOESN'T qualify as "wages",
then nothing should be, nor should have been, withheld from
In any event, the challenge wasn't issued this time, but has
been often enough in the past under these same general
circumstances that I'll take this occasion to share the
response I'd be inclined to make should the opportunity
"Surely no one here would dispute that one can have a
trading relationship with someone who simply misunderstands
or mischaracterizes the relationship, or something about it
(or about themselves), or who misunderstands the nature and
limitations of the "income tax", and who, for one or more of
these or other reasons (none of which it is my
responsibility to explain), misapplies certain "withholding"
protocols to the victim?!
Obviously, "information return"
preparers are capable of making mistakes-- it would be
ludicrous to suggest otherwise. These mistakes could be
small or they could be large; and they could be of any and
Obviously, among those mistakes could be the
mischaracterization (and treatment) of payments made to the
victim of the mistake as "wages" when they are not.
Indeed, the law
anticipates just such mistakes, as is expressed in numerous
ways throughout the tax-related-statutory and regulatory
structure*. There's even a specific statutory
provision for a victim to bring civil suit against someone
guilty of making exactly this mistake**...
What a stupid question, Mr. "Respondent"!
Haven't you ever actually read the law?"
*See 'About 1040s And Claiming Refunds' in
**See pp. 141-143 of
(To be continued...)
"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 American Revolution