Games - Artwear - Wisdom Wall Art - Stationery - Homeschooling - Don't Tread On Me - Income Tax Truth - Comment - Home |
Readers of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' have already retained or recovered well over
from the federal and state governments-- including Social Security and Medicare 'contributions'-- and kept it in their own pockets where it belongs, simply by knowing what the law actually says. These Americans have gotten back every penny they've paid or had withheld from them during the year in connection with the "income tax", and have secured written acknowledgements that they owed nothing-- many for several years in a row now.
YOU NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH, TOO!!
The Lost Horizons News
Current Events and Continuing Education for June 25 through ?
"A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him."
-Ezra Pound
|
Dear Friends
The appellate court denied my motion for release on bond pending my appeal of the criminal assault being conducted on myself, my family, and the law itself. My motion can be read here; the adversary's evasions can be read here, and my reply is here. The page-and-a-half decision by the appellate panel, which was issued, on my request, in great haste less than a week after my motion went in, can be seen here. I strongly urge everyone to read each of these through.
Due to this denial, I will have to enjoy the hospitality of Uncle Sam for awhile, until an actual appeal is briefed and heard. It is my hope that this won't be too long, but we'll see.
In the meantime, I urge you all to stay on your feet. Keep sending in those victories, and keep spreading the truth about the tax. It is these things that will see our liberty from this scourge secured in the end, regardless of what happens to me in the meantime.
On behalf of my wonderful Doreen, and my children, who are the greatest blessings in my life, I ask you all to give what support you can. The best way to do that is to order books, and see that they find welcoming homes. This will allow Doreen to keep a roof over the kids' heads, and at the same time be the best way to move the ball of greater public knowledge of the truth about the tax, and the outrages being committed to keep that truth hidden, downfield toward the net.
Plain old donations will certainly not be unappreciated, as well, of course; to make them, please send to: Doreen Hendrickson 232 Oriole St. Commerce Twp., MI 48382
By the way, support of another kind is equally important, and thus I will very much appreciate your helping Doreen through this very trying time with a kind word now and then at doreen 'at' losthorizons.com.
Finally, here's a powerful new "Torpedo of Truth" that anyone in a legal contest with the law-defiers will find very useful, and which is also a very powerful eye-opening educational tool. PLEASE spread it around to every single person whose contact information you can find, especially people in media, both new and old.
January 10, 2012
A brief look at 100 years of Fiscal Folly; and a nice confirmation of CtC scholarship using four-generation-old data from the IRS itself. Over the course of the last 100 years, Americans have foolishly indulged the dangerous conceit of imagining themselves able to discern angels from devils, and that angels are to be found amongst their own ranks. This has led to a laxness in our proper jealous regard for our liberties and the rule of law, and deeply-misplaced confidence in the good-faith and competence of public officials. We should have known better, and at one time we
did. "Let us hear no more of faith in the goodness of men in high
office, but bind them down by the chains of the Constitution!"
thundered Jefferson, and for a long, prosperous time, that's how we
rolled. LET'S LOOK AT JUST ONE OF THE PRICES WE HAVE PAID FOR BEING TAKEN IN BY "GOOD GOVERNMENT" EYEWASH... In Tom Woods Jr.'s recently-published 'Back on the Road to Serfdom' (ISI, 2010), PhD historian Brian Domitrovic contributes an essay titled 'Economic Policy and the Road to Serfdom: The Watershed of 1913'. In it, Domitrovic points out that except for a couple of years afflicted by abortive governmental interferences in the natural economy (involving the clearing of the accumulated ill-effect of "greenback" fiat currency circulated during Lincoln's War, and a flirtation with the monetization of silver in the 1890s), American economic growth during the 50 years prior to 1913 AVERAGED a muscular, extraordinarily prosperous 5% PER YEAR! What's more, neither unemployment nor inflation existed during this period at all. In 1913, everything changed. The engine of monetary debasement known as the Federal Reserve was successfully fastened upon the body politic that year. Injections of fiat currency and manipulated interest rates began poisoning the economy almost immediately. That same year, the income tax was revived after a 40-year slumber. Unlike the Fed, the income tax began its new run benignly, functioning as designed and capturing for public benefit a portion of the profits enjoyed by those using public resources to make their money. Within just over a quarter-century however, subtleties of its design had allowed revenue-hungry governments to begin mis-applying the tax. By 1940, the siphoning of increasingly large volumes of wealth out of the hands of independent producers and its reallocation for political and private benefit by means of that mis-application had commenced. The assault on the natural economy through both the Federal Reserve and the misapplication of the "income tax" have continued ever since, and here's the bill: Since 1913 the average annual growth of the economy has limped along at a relatively anemic 3.26%. Domitrovic calculates that the differential of 1.74% from the 5% growth rate produced by the unimpeded natural economy of the prior 50 years resulted in a loss to American well-being of a staggering 4/5ths of the wealth we ought to be enjoying right now. That is, had we not drunk the Kool-Aid and allowed the gimmicking of the economy by the political class, we would be 500% better off than we now are. As much as we would like to imagine ourselves as affluent, we are living in the basement of the mansion we could have and should have built during the last 95 years. But even that 500% is just a hint of what we've lost by letting busybodies, cronyism and corruption pollute and distort our natural economy. That 500% is a static calculation-- pure math. Added to it would be some incalculable enhancements because the diminished output since 1913 was not just a suppression of the natural economy; it was a distortion of economic activity, manipulated by a corrupt political class for its own benefit and that of its cronies. Had the economy been allowed to continue in its natural state without the afflictions of the Federal Reserve and the misapplied "income tax", economic activity would have remained pure and productive. We would have enjoyed massive compounded growth above and beyond the merely predictable. The 20th Century saw a staggeringly-rapid and bountiful increase in technical knowledge. Productivity would have reached heights of which we cannot even dream had that knowledge been efficiently coupled with capital, innovative thinking and entrepreneurial spirit focused on market-satisfying purposes, rather than being skewed by self-interested manipulations of those in control of state violence. Instead, we have had the steady bleeding of the productive economy by currency debasement. Worse, because its inflationary effect is not immediately felt, the first recipients of the debased currency enjoy a higher value from it than all currency soon will have. This gives those recipients an illusory appearance of economic virtue (as though they had served the market well and been rewarded accordingly), and an unfounded strength in resource acquisition. The first of these illegitimate effects influences the assumptions and decision-making of other economic actors (with false information leading to bad decisions). The second allows the early recipients to absorb and sequester more capital resources than their actual productivity and attunement to the satisfaction of market interests merits. Since these early recipients are inevitably government-favored enterprises selected for purely political reasons, the dynamics of the process steadily erodes the economy from efficiency to inefficiency. Then, in addition to the currency-debasement affliction, we have also been suffering the gimmicking of the tax structure to reward political allies of those in power, and to punish and hinder their competitors. This results in less productive economic actors dominating the market and subjects us all to higher prices and less growth and opportunity. Further, the relative paucity of our wealth accumulation during the past century has not only failed to make us rich, but it has lagged far behind the outright destructive effects of the ongoing government meddling responsible for that poor performance. This has tragically resulted in America going from being the most prosperous society in human history when the government interference with the natural economy began to now being the biggest aggregate debtor in human history. A NICE HIGHLIGHTING OF THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX BY IRS DATA Those inclined to read Domitrovic's otherwise excellent treatise should note that while his conclusions about the "income tax" as a destructive force are sound enough as regards the last 70 years or so, he mistakenly extends that period all the way back to 1913. This is an error resulting from a basic and still all-too-common misunderstanding of the nature of the tax not yet corrected by Domitrovic's discovery of CtC scholarship. Citing data from the Tax Foundation, and referring in particular to the period from 1913 to 1920, Domitrovic observes that "the new income tax system hit persons making as little as $1,000 a year ($11,000 in today's terms)." ('Back on the Road to Serfdom', p. 8.) Erroneously imagining that the "making as little as $1,000" referred to everyone earning that amount from any gainful activity rather than only those receiving that much from federally-connected activities, Domitrovic concludes that the tax was therefore widespread in its reach and impact. Certainly, if Domitrovic's belief that "income" means "all that comes in" in the context of the tax was correct, his conclusion that a rate structure reaching everyone with $1,000 in "income" ($11,000 today) meant that a majority of the adult working population-- indeed, an overwhelming majority-- would have been subject to the tax. After all, even non-union factory workers earned half again as much during this period. But Domitrovic's conclusion is a classic case of GIGO-- Garbage In, Garbage Out-- because his misunderstanding of the tax skews him into error. The fact is, not even a fifth of the gainfully-employed heads-of-household population of America was affected by the tax in any way until as late as 1940. This is because Domitrovic's misunderstanding of the tax was not suffered by the American population in 1913, or for many years afterward. More than a quarter-century had to pass from that year's revival of the 1862 tax before fading memories of the purpose and character of the 16th Amendment and a sustained propaganda campaign encouraging worship of the state had produced enough American ignorance about the subject for Domitrovic's assumptions about its widespread impact to become sound. Census and IRS data reveal that between 1913 and 1939, and even while as little as $1,000 of "income" was taxed, there wasn't a single year in which more than 17.3% of non-dependent, gainfully-employed, earnings-capturing Americans filed a tax return. The average percentage per year for that whole twenty-seven years-- which included the "Roaring Twenties", by the way-- was a mere 9.36% (see http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/piketty-saezOU04US.pdf). Starting around 1940 the "income tax" DID become a major contributor to the economic dysfunction plaguing the last 95 years, and grew as a destructive force like Topsy from that point forward. In that year, misunderstanding led to so many Americans coming to believe themselves subject to the tax that the percentage of earners filing returns jumped to 25.7. In 1941, the figure was 45%. By 1947, the figure was 91.7%, and it has stayed in that neighborhood ever since. Prior to the 1940s, our grandparents and great-grandparents practiced a more educated and jealous regard for their liberties and the rule of law. But over the years those wanting to live by the "political means" rather than by the more-demanding "economic means" misled enough Americans into the same error about the nature of the tax that produces Domitrovic's mistake today. Ultimately, the folks at whose privileged gains the tax is really directed succeeded in turning it into a scourge against all the rest of us, just by dumbing us down on this subject. The benign income tax became recast as the evil vampire that has preyed upon us all good and hard ever since. *** By the way, educated eyes can find shiny nuggets underscoring the misunderstanding suffered by most present-day Americans concerning the limits of federal authority. A fellow prisoner here who has recently become CtC-educated, and thus sensitive to things which most readers would just pass over without comprehension like a phrase in a foreign language, furnishes us with a great example of how evidence to this effect can be found all around by those with eyes to see it. This good man was pleased to show me the following passage from a book he happened to be reading titled, 'Titanic's Last Secrets', by Brad Matsen (Hachette Book Group, USA, 2008). On page 210, working from notes previously published in 'The Titanic- End of a Dream' by Wyn Craig Wade in 1979 (pp. 134-135), concerning efforts by Senator William Alden Smith and Sheriff Joseph Bayliss to investigate the cause of the tragedy: "The following morning, Bayliss served the subpoenas while Smith grappled with the implications of a report that had reached him at breakfast. The British consul in New York was at that moment on a train to Washington to protest the Senate's treatment of the crew of Titanic and White Star officials. The IMM [International Mercantile Marine, a J.P. Morgan trust] lawyers had spent the better part of the night on the phone with senators and congressmen friendly to J.P. Morgan, arguing that a federal committee could not legally subpoena foreigners in the sovereign state of New York. ... "Smith didn't want to risk letting Morgan swing enough weight to quash his subpoenas in New York, so he decided to go back to Washington and continue his hearings on federal territory." No changes in Constitutional delegations of jurisdiction or authority to the federal government have occurred since Senator Smith understood those limits, just as no change in the limits of federal taxing authority, and the nature of the income tax, have occurred since our grandparents time. Today, the notion of limits recognized by Smith and Grandpa alike seem alien to their less well-educated (or deliberately mis-educated) descendants. But this change in perception is not because those limits have changed. It's just because we're only now waking up from our decades-long nap, during which the servants have re-decorated to suit themselves, knowing we weren't watching. The house still belongs to us, though. We just have to come fully awake, shake out the cobwebs, and set things back to rights. *** Ninety-nine years of Federal Reserve poison is more than enough. *** My appeal is due to be heard at long last on Nov. 18. I will be grateful for your prayers and good wishes that the panel is guided by respect for the law, and even more for your efforts to inform and direct media attention to this matter.
***** THREE STRANGE STORIES A federal judge orders water to run uphill; federal judges admit to still believing in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and Mr. Binkie; and the strangest, most disquieting story of them all... *** FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS WATER TO RUN UPHILL Detroit, Michigan: In a bizarre ruling subsequently upheld by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and declined for review by the United States Supreme Court, a federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order in 2007 commanding water to run uphill. The order was requested by the Dept. of Justice (sic) in a suit against Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, which is ostensibly based on a belief that when the federal government returned everything that had been withheld from the Hendricksons' earnings in connection with federal taxes during 2002 and 2003 it was all a big mistake. However, throughout all the proceedings in the suit, the government made no effort to prove that the Hendricksons actually owe taxes for these years (and the Treasury's own records acknowledge that, in fact, the couple DOESN'T owe any tax for those years, and were entitled to the return of their withheld property). Instead it simply asked the court to force the Hendricksons to say that they do-- under oath and over their own signatures-- so as to provide the government with a pretext for seizing the money from them. The bizarre order that resulted is the legal equivalent of demanding that water run uphill. The dictated words commanded by the court are intended to be treated as TESTIMONY. But such words can never be testimony-- it is a legal impossibility. It's not just legally "awkward" or "bad form" or "inadmissible". It is flatly impossible. By definition and by nature, coerced declarations written by others are NOT testimony-- no matter what the government wants to pretend. They CAN'T be, even without regard to what is said. Only a statement freely made and affirmed by the speaker to be what he or she personally believes to be true and correct can qualify as testimony. Testifying can be coerced (that is, someone can be made to testify without compromising the validity of what then is affirmed by the speaker to be his or her testimony). But the content of testimony cannot be. (Of course, content the government wishes to dictate CAN be testimony. But it can only be the testimony of the dictator-- as long as he or she affirms it as such. Here, the government's failure to produce any competent witness willing to affirm under penalty of perjury what it wants to force the Hendricksons to say tells the tale of this "lawsuit". If it could produce such a witness, the government wouldn't need anything from the Hendricksons. Conversely, lacking such testimony it has no business even pretending to believe in the truth of what it wants said. The sordid and shameful fact is, the government knows perfectly well that what it wants said is NOT true, and is instead acting completely in corrupt bad faith. This is obvious to any honest and competent observer just by virtue of the simple logic of these few paragraphs alone.) So, since a court CAN'T cause testimony to be produced using coerced content, the judge's order to the Hendricksons is the equivalent of ordering water to run uphill. The judge can issue the order, but that doesn't make coerced expressions testimony, any more than calling a dog's tail a "leg" means that the dog now has five legs. The feds really wish their courts DID have magic powers, though. They've been engaged for years in a campaign to prevent the ongoing spread of the information about the income tax revealed in Pete Hendrickson's first book, 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'. In that book, Hendrickson reveals that the income tax, a completely benign, desirable and important tax, has a much more limited range of application than is commonly understood or admitted to by most specialists in the legal and accounting professions. Almost needless to say, the actual legal scope of the tax-- knowledge of which has been allowing Americans across the country to secure millions upon millions of dollars in complete, 100% refunds for nearly a full decade now-- is virtually NEVER admitted by tax agencies in so many words. But those agencies-- federal state and local-- continuously admit the truth in an even more direct manner, by the issuance of tens of thousands of checks, collection case "closing notices", and other on-paper acknowledgments identical to the "mistakes" made by the feds with the Hendricksons... That's the reason for the "lawsuit" seeking this bizarre, impossible coerced "testimony". It is the hope of corrupt elements in the government that this charade will generate fog and fear about the truth and the law, and slow down the rate at which Americans are getting educated about the tax and forcing "mistake" after "mistake" from tax agencies and the ignorance-exploiting political class they serve. Hendrickson has scans of hundreds and hundreds of these concrete, unambiguous acknowledgement.. uh, I mean, "mistakes"-- and the filings which prompted them-- posted on his website, losthorizons.com. He has also posted several dozen rare but especially interesting and informative cases, in which tax agencies have first tried to browbeat a refund claimant into withdrawing his or her claim before finally surrendering the money. Such contests typically begin with an agency "invitation" to the claimant to reverse himself, through threatening letters and notices making what are imagined to be "offers that can't be refused". These scary mailings typically suggest some legal flaw in the claim, but never actually specify any such flaw. The threats sometimes rise even to assertions that "penalties have been applied to your account" and other such dire-sounding rhetoric. "Bills" for "penalty amounts due" even get sent (but without ever suggesting that any tax is actually owed for the period involved...). These paper assaults have sometimes gone on for as much as 18 months, but in the end, after being met by firm, unbending resolve by the claimant, eventually the intimidation campaign is abandoned and the demanded refund is issued. Entertainment doesn't get better or more usefully informative than this. Don't miss it. And next time you notice a babbling brook, don't forget to check which way the water's running. Let it be a reminder to you that brooks aren't the only things that babble, and when it's people in power who are doing it, what's flowing is meant for your "refreshment", but it's not water. (P. S. A two-year effort to enforce the law-defying order commanding Peter and Doreen Hendrickson to "testify" with government-dictated words and seize their money was stopped in its tracks six months ago upon the filing of this brief. An appeal of the entire district court judgment currently pending in the 6th Circuit can be seen here.)
###
FEDERAL JUDGES ADMIT TO CONTINUED BELIEF IN SANTA CLAUS
In a ruling issued in a Tax Court case early this year, and now a recent Court of Claims opinion, federal judges have revealed their continued belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and, perhaps, unique invisible personal companions, as well. The astonishing admissions have been made in order to shield the federal government from lawsuits brought by educated Americans seeking refunds of amounts erroneously collected as tax. By sacrificing their personal dignity and exposing their innermost squishy selves, these judges hope to spare other government officials from having to admit their inability to prove that the claimants in these cases actually owe any tax and the government has any right to their money. What's going on is that despite being unable to demonstrate that a tax is owed, the government really, really wants to keep the money anyway. These judges are good "team players", to whom self-respect (and respect for the rule of law) takes second-place behind looking after "the system" that has been pretty good to them so far. These admissions are slightly indirect, of course. They take the form of an opinion that the claimants in these cases cannot be believed when they testify under oath to have learned things about tax law contrary to what they once had believed to be true, and now recognize that testimony they had made in earlier years concerning the legal character of their earnings was incorrect. That is, the claimants in these cases the government wishes to avoid had at one time believed that the income tax laws somehow gave the federal government a legal claim to a portion of everything they earned or ever could earn, no matter how they earned it. They since learned that strict limits actually apply to what is subject to the tax, and that much is not subject. The claims made by these folks reflect their new knowledge. They merely assert the claimants' belief that they do not owe the tax for a given period or in regard to given earnings and activities, and call upon the government to return amounts collected from them, or prove that a tax is owed. Everything involved, from the nature and character of the claim to the specific obligation of the government in such cases to prove the existence and amount of a tax debt, is in strict conformity to a detailed body of well-settled law. The judges took no issue with any technical or legal element of the claims. (Nor did they ask to see proof that a tax is actually owed.) Instead, they simply dismissed the suits on the basis that it is impossible to believe that the claimants actually learned something about the tax that they hadn't known before. Thus (goes the "reasoning"), the claimants must really still believe that everything they earn under all circumstances is taxable at the government's discretion, and the claims must be insincere. At the same time, these judges opine that the untested and unsupported third-party assertions that taxable activity was conducted by the claimant upon which the government exclusively relies in suggesting that a tax might be potentially owed are to be taken as true because... Well, there's never actually any reason articulated for this one-sided reflex. Nor is there any effort to explain the judge's disobedience to the two separate federal statutes controlling these judicial contests and simple common sense, all three of which require that these assertions be proven by additional fact evidence, or be disregarded by the court. Think about this. Why would a judge EVER need to assert such ridiculous views? It's not like doing so is within some lawful judicial discretion. It isn't. Judges don't have the power (in any sense of the word) to read litigants' minds. Further, if they're going to purport to exercise such "power" anyway, why aren't they deeming the government's opposition to these claims to be insincere, rather than the other way around? After all, the government is obviously insincere in opposing these claims. For nearly a decade now it has been honoring tens of thousands of identical claims, and is continuing to do so at the very same time it is filing its corrupt and plainly bad-faith briefs in these lawsuits. Further, it's not as if this treatment of these claims saved the government any trouble or expense (if it COULD prove that no tax is owed, anyway). In each case, the government has filed elaborate briefs in opposition to the claim. It simply never includes evidence of a tax being owed, and instead just asks for these dismissals. Why is this? If the government CAN prove it has cause to keep the money involved, it should just produce it right off the bat. It would win the suit legitimately; look good; and go to no more trouble and expense than it's undertaking in trying to dodge the contest, instead. So, why do it "sleazy" like this, if there IS a real reason for denying these claims? Well, WE can't read minds, and we'll admit it. But we don't have to in order to know ONE thing for sure: under this can't-learn-you-had-it-wrong-before "judicial reasoning", these judges reveal that they still believe in every imaginary creature in which they once expressed faith! After all, this "doctrine" says it's impossible for someone to learn more about a subject and come to sincerely-held convictions contrary to those professed before. So those letters these judges used to write to the big guy in the red snowsuit tell us all we need to know about what THEY still believe... It's difficult to say which position more thoroughly disqualifies these folks for positions of public trust and responsibility. They may be most disqualified for their egregious due-process violations in construing claims to be "insincere" and denying the claimants their day in court in order to protect a favored side in a case. Or maybe these judges are more properly disqualified from any position of public responsibility for still believing in Santa and Mr. Binkie, their special invisible friend... Either way, folks like these don't belong in positions of power over other people's lives and property. ###
MEDIA INEXPLICABLY OVERLOOKS THESE TWO STORIES AND THE REALLY BIG STORY THAT LIES BEHIND THEM FOR YEARS So now we come to the weirdest and most remarkable and disquieting story of them all: The inexplicable brickwall of silence about the corrupt, law-evading, liberty- and rule-of-law-threatening behavior of federal attorneys and judges discussed in the two stories above by nearly every media voice across the land (and, of course, the same, and even more protracted silence about the endlessly-proven liberating truth about the income tax those attorneys and judges are struggling to evade and suppress). This has mystified me for years. WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN for a reporter or correspondent or pundit to take notice, and lend his or her voice to the critically important task of spreading the word about the actual limits of the tax? WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN before someone blessed with a bully pulpit is prompted to help see that it's not just those trying to keep the copper-top farms running that know the liberating, prosperity-restoring truth? WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN to get someone in the media to help ensure this information reaches enough Americans to restore the restraint on Leviathan designed by the Founders, by the benefit of which America became the richest, freest and finest country the world has ever known by the early years of the 20th Century, and since the falling away of which during the 1930 America has become the largest sinkhole of ruinous debt the world has ever known? Is there something about the vocation of journalism that makes one wait until corruption such as that described above has oozed out in enough density of layer after layer to bury and smother the currently accessible revelations and easily-seen evidence, so that the truth simply can't be made clear to the next, yet-more-poorly-educated generation of Americans, who will then be ever-more firmly bound in harness and ever-more thoroughly exploited and abused? Have all journalists been co-opted? Is that vocation peopled entirely by cowards? Or fools? I know these words will make me no friends in the ranks of those upon whom I call, but frankly, I am at a loss. I have posted millions of dollars, hundreds of cases, and years and years worth of rock-hard, fully-documented, can't-explain-away evidence FROM THE HANDS OF DOZENS OF TAX AGENCIES THEMSELVES. EIGHT LONG YEARS of intense government efforts to suppress the book, and to discourage those who have read it from acting on what they learn with an endless series of creative charades-- all of which collapse in the face of solid commitment by the citizen and end with the satisfaction of the citizen's claim (while simultaneously millions of dollars in checks and other relief are issued without a word to the vast majority of educated claimants) THE DoJ'S DESPERATE RESORT to bizarre contortions such as are described in the stories above in its effort to evade any legitimate legal contest. The elaborate contrivances in the years-long project to imprison Pete Hendrickson (a subject too substantial to discuss here, but see http://losthorizons.com/ADocumentedCtCSuppressionHistory.pdf). The checks and other concessions to the realities of the law are not "things slipping through the cracks"; and the contortions undertaken by government actors to fight this revealed, liberating, Leviathan-restraining truth about the tax are not "just the way things get done in the quirky courts". Everything we're talking about here is completely unprecedented. Everything we're talking about here is the story of the century. So, why isn't it being treated that way? What has to be done to get journalists, Americans themselves, to take notice? It's really important that we figure out how to make this happen, because this is NOT just an academic matter, after all. Although I tried to spice the preceding stories with a little humor, there's actually no room for any of that here. Snarcasm, absolutely, but not humor. You'll understand why I say that in a moment... ### FINALE Judges really can't make water run uphill, or make coerced statements into actual testimony. Nor can they read minds and competently ascertain the sincerity of a claim, so as to lawfully deny anyone his or her day in court. (I'll not say anything about whether any of them really do still believe in Mr. Binkie...) But they WILL exercise these god-like powers, if allowed to do so unopposed. And YOU and YOUR CHILDREN will suffer the consequences. Once these pretenses develop a little inertia they'll not be confined to protecting a giant tax scheme (although that's bad enough by itself). It won't be long before it's YOUR inconvenient claim against the state that's being deemed "insincere" and tossed out of court-- whatever it's about, as long as it's inconvenient to the state. And it won't be long before it's YOU-- or your neighbor, or your co-worker, or your kids-- being made to "testify" in service to the state's purposes. And that'll be that. Finis. The End. *** Visit losthorizons.com to begin learning the astonishing, liberating truth about the income tax (and about the sustained efforts by government beneficiaries of ignorance on the subject to keep you from that knowledge). ***** Make 2012 the year the world ends for statist looters and thugs in America
REGARDING SOURCES OF CONFUSION ABOUT THE INCOME TAX 9/04/11 (A few words concerning the nature of the tax generally; the care and feeding of pathological delusions on that subject; the recent outcome of a repeatedly successful rule-of-law-upholding couple's suit in the federal court of claims; and "sources" and the 16th Amendment.) The cognitive obstacles on anyone's path to truly understanding the income tax are sometimes few, and sometimes many and varied. A few impediments are nearly universal. For instance, almost everyone starts out having to get past the "big lie" notion that governments have an automatic legal claim to some or all of any wealth that changes hands in America-- or even outside of America if an American is involved in the transaction! This notion has Americans as serfs of their governments, a percentage of whose labor and investment output belongs to those governments by right. It imagines your right to make fruitful use of your resources and energy to really be just a privilege, for the granting of which the state is entitled to seize "its share". Simply articulating this ridiculous idea reveals its absurdity. And yet, belief in it on a gut level is incredibly widespread. This is due in part to its being encouraged in every way possible by government actors, their clients and cronies (to whom much of the yielded-up wealth is passed) and those in tax-related industries, such as "tax attorneys" and many in the accounting and "human resources" professions. These folks have kept a hypnotic drumbeat of this and other socialist nonsense pounding relentlessly for generations now, which has deeply embedded many bizarre, indefensible and essentially self-hating psychopathologies into the American subconscious. It is also due to ignorance about what the income tax really is (a fee for the profitable use of federal stuff), and how it actually works (a subject too large for this short paper, but see 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'). The average person sees governments TREATING Americans as serfs, and getting away with it. That observer thus concludes that somehow, serfdom is the lawful status of an American, and that everyone else must understand how and why, even though he himself seems to have slept through that particular high-school civics class. In fact, there is just a cleverly designed scheme that induces ignorant Americans to CREATE a government claim to a portion of their earnings even when they HAVEN'T actually done anything taxable. These self-inflicted claims are then executed by tax agencies always eager for more money, and are enforced by courts that discreetly decline to point out to the victim that they authorized the exaction themselves. (American law presumes that everyone knows what he or she is doing.) Together, these several behaviors can make it LOOK like the claimant government is acting on its own authority, and thus make it LOOK like feudal serfdom is being practiced. But really, it always is, and always has been just ignorance being exploited through a very mature and entrenched scam. Happily, more and more people now recognize that their ancestors were not morons, and there ISN'T some bizarre Constitutional contradiction legitimizing their enserfdom. It's just a shame that decades went by during which ignorance reigned and was thoroughly exploited before Americans began reacquainting themselves with the truth. The mistaken belief that governments have an inherent claim on the proceeds of all economic activity can cause its victims severe suffering. After all, as P.J. O'Rourke pithily observed, giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Embracing the notion that the state can lay direct claim to your wealth on its own authority not only gives the boys liquor and wheels, but ties you to the bumper of their car, as well, and dooms you to being dragged along for the wild and ruinous ride. Thank goodness the CtC community is out there now, cutting victims free... Other cognitive hazards on the road to knowledge and freedom are more particular to any given traveler, although most share a common grounding. They arise from a difficulty in recognizing that the tax is as simple as it really is, and consequently perceiving subtleties and significance where neither are actually to be found. Today I want to focus on a mistaken notion about the meaning of "source" in the context of the tax. I'm prompted to this rumination by having just looked at a federal court of claims ruling cited in support of a dismissal of a CtC-educated couple's suit to compel several refunds. The couple is appealing, and I've been going through the dismissal in order to help them organize their arguments. The dismissal is almost comical, and would be if real people weren't being affected. The feds don't contest the legitimacy of the refund claims per se, and make no effort to directly argue that the couple actually owe taxes for the years involved (2004, 2005 and 2006). Nor could they credibly even attempt to do so. These good folks have received complete refunds and on-paper acknowledgements that their earnings DON'T qualify as the federally-connected subclass of receipts subject to the tax ("income") for each of the last four years (2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010). The economic activities they engaged in during these latter years were the same as those involved in the years for which they have had to sue. The difference between the two periods is that the original filings for the years not yet refunded had been pre-CtC-education, and the couple had, as they later realized, mistakenly declared their earnings to be "income". After learning the truth, these good folks filed amended returns correcting their mistaken declarations and seeking the return of their property. As said, the government didn't attempt to prove that these folks actually owe any tax for the older years in response to the suit. It simply asserted, without evidence, testimony, or frankly, anything but their mere declaration, that the testimony on the couple's amended returns must be insincere; their refund claims invalid; and the court without jurisdiction to hear their claims. The judge adopts this naked assertion without a visible blush. She observes that the amended return testimony differs from what appeared on the originals and contends that this makes its sincerity "not plausible" (but buries this lone and ridiculous "explanatory" note within 39 pages of such convoluted gibberish as to dissuade most folks from wading through it and discerning its actual emptiness). In support of her authority to dismiss a claim she has decided to treat as "invalid", the judge cites a ruling made last year in another case, in which a plaintiff made a series of references involving the term "source" which reflect a mistaken notion of its meaning and significance in the context of the tax. The case is Kehmeier v. United States, 95 Fed Cl. 442 (2010). In the ruling, Kehmeier is quoted from his Complaint as saying that information contained in his return is based on his "Constitutional right to resort to the source whence his income is derived as secured under the Fifth Amendment guarantee to property", and that: "The source of the income in question is plaintiff's personal property and, a national tax imposed on the income from personal property is a direct tax...and is subject to the regulation as to apportionment. Because no tax-imposing operation exists anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code that is currently being apportioned, no tax is payable." Kehmeier is further quoted as saying that the IRS "insists on assessing a tax on the income from this Plaintiff's own labor..." and that he determined the amounts that had been withheld from him, and which he sought as refunds by: "[c]ompany[-]provided records [and] my Constitutional right to resort to the source..." (The bracketing and other formatting elements in this quote are as rendered in the court's opinion.) It is clear that Kehmeier imagines that the "source" of earnings determines (or limits) the taxable character of the amount received.* But this is not true. In fact, the purpose of the 16th Amendment is to dispose of that very argument in the particular circumstances in which it had once been held to apply. In the context of tax law, "source" acquired the status of a Constitutional term by its appearance in the 16th Amendment. As used there (and as thereby defined since for purposes of tax law), "source" means property from which is derived a discrete gain. The word appears because the amendment's purpose is to suppress a source-related doctrine of the Supreme Court expressed in an 1895 ruling in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895). Pollock owned stock in Farmers' (now Citibank) and was due dividends based on profits resulting from its many and various investments and other activities. Farmers' intended to diminish the dividends by deducting and paying the "income" tax first, and Pollock sued to prevent that. Pollock made no argument concerning the characterization of the gains involved as "income". He simply argued that to tax dividends and rent derived by the recipient due to the ownership of stock and real estate (which were called "sources") is to effectively tax the sources themselves. Since the sources are personal property (continued the argument), the tax is a property tax rather than an "income tax", and must be apportioned under the Constitutional rule in Article 1, Section 9. The court agreed, and ruled 10 sections of the then-current income tax law unconstitutional. The Pollock ruling had the effect of keeping enormous profits from the use of public property and prerogatives enjoyed by multi-millionaires of the Roaring Nineties and early Twentieth Century in the banking, railroading and other federally-subsidized and -controlled businesses from being shared with the larger community whose federal creature's stuff had been used to produce them. In response, the 16th Amendment was proposed and eventually declared adopted. The amendment was designed to sever the court-perceived connection between the protected source and an otherwise tax-suitable gain. It dictates that no private gain from the use of public privilege can be shielded from the tax by resort to an argument about the source being personal-property, as was briefly true under the Pollock ruling. Thanks to the amendment, those enjoying private gains from federal privilege must return a portion to the federal treasury. So, in tax law "source" has nothing to do with whether a gain is "income" (or taxable). Even the Pollock ruling didn't hold that because a gain was derived from personal-property it therefore couldn't qualify as "income". It only ruled that such property-connected gains couldn't be taxed under the "income"-excise structure. The "Pollock" doctrinal exceptions having been undone by the 16th Amendment, IF a gain IS, in fact, the product of the exercise of a federal privilege(whether directly and personally or through investment), the gain is "income" (a measure of potential liability for the excise), and remains potentially subject to the tax NO MATTER WHAT it was derived from, or how; and no matter what the form in which it is realized. (I say "potentially" because not all "income" is actually taxed). Importantly, the reciprocal is also true, of course. Something that DOESN'T qualify by virtue of proceeding from the exercise of federal privilege ISN'T "income" as meant in the law and isn't subject to the tax, no matter from what source it is derived, nor what form it takes. The happy fact is, the income tax is really very simple. Granted, there is an enormous body of law associated with the tax. But even so, difficulty understanding the subject is mostly a self-inflicted problem. Aside from deliberate fog generated by beneficiaries of the status quo, the greatest source of confusion on the path to understanding is the impulse to imagine that the law DOESN'T mean what it says, or means what it DOESN'T say. But the law DOES mean what it says-- in fact, it must. Keeping that firmly in mind is the most important rule for a student of the tax. (Reading ALL the relevant law, so as to know what the law really SAYS, is the next most important rule...) Here's a little trick that'll help keep one's feet on the right path. Consider how the tax is known: The "Federal Income" Tax. Right there in that label, taken exactly as said, and simple as pie, we see the actual object of the tax distinguished from the broad class represented by the common word 'income' into the special tax-relevant subclass of "federal income". What could be easier to understand? Below, you'll find three hyperlinks. Follow them each in turn, and read what you find, in turn-- carefully and thoroughly. You'll learn things critically important to the American people, and more important now than ever before in our history. DON'T miss this opportunity. And when you're done, please share what you've learned with others. *(Kehmeier also apparently fails to understand that "income", when used in the context of the tax, means "gains that qualify as being subject to the unapportioned income tax". Thus, regardless of what he may believe qualifies as federally taxable without apportionment and what does not, he had effectively declared his earnings to qualify for the tax. At the same time, he put $0s on his tax return where "income" receipts are to be reported, thereby providing the court with a rationale for deeming his filing invalid.) ***** To get a concise, illuminating introduction to the liberating truth about the tax, see http://losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf . To get the comprehensive picture, including details on what Congress has provided for correcting the all-too-typical misapplication of the tax to earnings to which it DOESN'T apply, see http://losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm for the published, real-deal-in-your-hands-and on your-coffee-table edition; or http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf for the no-charge (but donation appreciated) .pdf version. To learn about the eight-year-long corrupt effort by beneficiaries of widespread ignorance of the truth, see http://losthorizons.com/ADocumentedCtCSuppressionHistory.pdf .
08/05/11
MEET THE TROLLS
For
the ninth year in a row, the accuracy of the liberating,
people-empowering, Leviathan-restraining revelations about the real
character of the income tax in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating
Truth About Taxation In America' (CtC) is being demonstrated in the
most practical manner possible. Complete refund checks, closing
notices, lien and levy releases and other concrete acknowledgements
of that accuracy by federal and state tax agencies are flooding
mailboxes across America, just as in all the previous years since
the book was first published.
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES--
A Critical Look at Selected Trolleries
P. S.
A Road Map to Winning the War of Truth v. Lies ***** This Week's Tax Tip On the Use of a 4852 May 10, 2011 The use of certain government-published forms is by no means obligatory or inherently significant in making use of what is revealed about the law and the tax in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' ( CtC) but it certainly can be convenient, and can help ensure that everything needing to be said in a rebuttal is said, when a rebuttal is appropriate. See http://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/GovernmentPrintedForms.pdf for more on this. However, there have long been some folks who have harbored anxieties about using such forms. These anxious and sometimes regrettably anxiety-paralyzed folks imagine that irrespective of what one actually says on the form, it being the vehicle of those words somehow compromises the declaration. This unfortunate notion has deep roots in the non-CtC-educated "tax honesty" community, and is based on the misunderstanding that the tax is status-based, rather than privileged activity-based. Some believe, for example, that the tax applies to (and/or ONLY to) all earnings of "United States Citizens" (or "United States citizens"-- much store is put in some of these circles on whether or not "citizen" is capitalized)-- just because they are (or let themselves be perceived to be) such citizens (as opposed to "American citizens”; or union state citizens, such as a citizen of Michigan). Married to this "status" misunderstanding is the idea that the use of a 1040 declares one to be a "United States citizen", either simply because it is a form published by the United States, or by reading the title of the form as "United States Individual" (Tax Return)-- that is, a tax return to be used by a "United States Individual" (read to effectively mean "United States citizen"). Another version of this chain of misunderstanding sees the status issue as being geographically-based, and the key to be "residency" (imagining that where you are when you earn money determines whether or not the money is "income" and subject to the tax). The same basic misconstruction of the use of a 1040 is applied in this case, too: the use of the 1040 declares oneself to be a "U.S. person" and therefore a "U.S. resident"). (See http://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/CitizenshipAndTheFourteenth.htm http://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/snakeoilwarning.htm; and also the appendix of CtC for more on these misunderstandings.) Similar anxieties have been conceived of by some of these folks concerning the use of Forms 4852, in which it is imagined that use of the form constitutes an "admission" of having the status of an "employee" (as that term is relevantly defined in tax law) or being in "employment" (as that term is relevantly defined in tax law). This is then somehow imagined to make any assertion of amounts of "wages" received on a 4852 which is contrary to what appears on a W-2 inherently invalid. There is no valid basis for such fears. Obviously, even if one WERE an "employee", reports on a W-2 of “wage” payments related to acting in that capacity can be wrong, just as they are if one is NOT an "employee". Thus, one's status has no inherent relevance to the use of a 4852, and any concern about an imagined implication that its user is an "employee" (or in “employment” -- a term defining a special subclass of “employees” which will be discussed in more detail later) is groundless. The use of the form supports no implications either way, because that status has nothing to do with its use. Little more should need to be said to put a proper perspective on the use of a 4852, and any fears of implications therefrom. But because it offers a good framework for laying out several important principles of logic and law, and because these notions about the use of government-produced forms are periodically injected into dialogues within the CtC community, a more detailed discussion of what is and what isn't implied by the use of a 4852 will be worthwhile. Therefore, while everyone must do his or her own study, and come to his or her own conclusions, I want to share the following thoughts on this subject as a new Tax Tip. WHEN YOU FILE A 4852 AND 1040 rebutting an erroneous W-2 which inaccurately asserts payments of "wages", YOU ARE NOT saying you're not an "employee" or in "employment", or that the payer is not an "employer". Rebutting an erroneous W-2 with a 4852 doesn't involve saying anything about any of these things, because they don't enter into the picture. Even federal "employees" can receive payments for services rendered from the federal employer for which they work which don't qualify as "wages", which are not subject to tax, and from which any "withholding as tax" that took place would have been done in error. (See 26 CFR sections 31.3121(b)-4, 31.3401(a)-2 and 31.3401(c)-1, for instance.) Therefore, whether you are or are not an "employee" is not inherently relevant to the rebuttal of erroneous "wage"-payment assertions. AT THE SAME TIME, you are also NOT saying you ARE an "employee"-- there is nothing on the face of a 4852 to which your signature relates that says "I am an "employee" (or "in employment"), or that the payer/withholder involved was/is an "employer" relative to you, as those various terms are meant in the law. Nor does the use of a 4852 affirm or dispute the aptness of the creation of a W-2 about you in the first place. A 4852 is designed to do neither of these things. The form is designed simply to correct assertions about how much you were paid that qualified as "wages", and how much was "withheld” from you “as tax" (and/or how much was paid to you as deferred "wages" in the form of a pension). Its use doesn't declare you to be (or not be) an "employee", or declare the person whose testimony you’re using the form to rebut to be (or not be) an "employer". Whatever is true about those issues has no relevance to what a 4852 is used to declare. ALL YOU'RE SAYING by the use of a 4852 is that someone created a W-2 or 1099-R containing erroneous assertions that you were paid "wages" in particular amounts, and what the correct amount of "wages" paid to you is. You are also declaring how much was diverted from amounts owed to you by the application of "withholding" rules which only provide for "withholding as tax" based on the amounts of "wages" paid, (plus whatever you answer to the questions on lines 8 and 9). What you’re NOT doing is arguing about WHY anything that may have been paid to you doesn’t qualify as “wages”; or explaining or defending anything at all. Think of it this way: Say one day you find in your mailbox a copy of an allegation by a resident of a nearby town who claims to have seen you illegally parked in a spot posted for 15-minute parking only between 12-6AM weekdays. Your accuser says he has submitted the allegation to the town clerk, and copied you. Needless to say, you promptly act to correct the record. At the town offices, you find a “Rebut a Bogus Illegal Parking Accusation” form. The form doesn't ask you to declare whether you were in town that day, or whether you have a driver's license, or whether or not you actually own a car. It just asks you how many minutes you were parked at 123 Elm Street at between 12:00 midnight and 6 in the morning on February 15, 2011. You fill in the blank with "None". Now, did using this form to say "None" admit (or deny, for that matter) being in town that day, having a driver's license, or owning a car? No. Its use in the manner described just says you weren't parked at that spot on that day during those hours. RETURNING TO W-2s, if, subsequent to your rebuttal of a W-2 with a 4852 (and for some difficult-to-imagine reason), a challenge were to be issued specifically "accusing" you of being an "employee" (or in "employment"), then it would become time to rebut that accusation. BUT SUCH A CHALLENGE WOULDN'T BE MADE, and wouldn't be fit or legally-meaningful. The issue of being an "employee" is irrelevant within the narrow context of the return process, since even payments made to "employees" are not automatically "wages" or subject to "withholding [of amounts] as tax", or to the "income tax". Establishing whether someone is or isn't an "employee" doesn't make or break anyone's assertions about the payment or receipt of "wages". Making such a challenge would be like the town in our "parking" model coming back and demanding to know if you were parked in town that day. The answer would be, "What difference does THAT make?!" If you drew a real nutcase correspondent, who shot back with, "If you weren't a "town parker" that day, why did you use a TOWN FORM to deny parking at 123 Elm Street for more than 15 minutes between 12 midnight and 6 AM, EH?!", you would point out that the form you used is published by the town for rebutting erroneous "illegal parking" accusations, and that's what you used it for. You would further point out that nothing on the face of the form to which your signature applies declares you to be (or not be) a "town parker". (You might refer your excited correspondent to examples of how status specifications are made when they are meant to be indicated by the use of a form, such as the federal W-9, on which one of the explicit declarations is that of being a "U.S. Person"). You would point out that even the instructions provided for the assistance of those who can't figure out how to complete it, which say that it is the form to be used by "town parkers" who have been erroneously accused of illegal parking to rebut the accusation, DON'T say that ONLY "town parkers" are to use the form, or that NON-"town parkers" are NOT to use it. Nor do those instructions refer non-"town parkers" to any other instrument or process to which they must resort for their rebuttal to be understood. (As an example of how restricted use is indicated when it is meant, you might point to federal Form 843 "Claim for Refund", on the face and in the instructions for which is plainly said that the form is NOT to be used for claiming "an overpayment of income taxes", and that such claims should be made by way of a tax return, instead.)
Finally, you would say, "By the way, we STILL haven't gotten past the, "What difference does THAT make?" issue... Unless you have some kind of evidence to present beyond the mere accusation that I parked illegally, you've got no basis for carrying on about this in the face of my rebuttal, whether I was a "town parker" that day or not.” "B..B..B..But," might sputter your persistent pit-yorkie, "I'm deeming your rebuttal to be "frivolous", and therefore not taking it into account!" "Why?" "Because using it says you're a "town parker"..." "As was just made clear, no, it doesn't; and as was also just made clear, that's irrelevant, anyway." Pretending not to have heard you, your bureaucrat might rush on: "...and it says you didn't park illegally, and, uhhh... and that makes it "frivolous" because ALL "town parkers" park illegally!" "Wow! Talk about "frivolous"...!" "ARRGHH! GO AWAY!!" "See ya."
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. Recognize what is relevant and what isn't. Keep your focus on what is. The fact is, whether you were parked in town that day has nothing to do with whether you parked in that restricted place; and the question would never be asked. If it WERE asked (and if you hadn't been), you would then testify that you hadn't been parked in town that day. BY THE WAY, none of this means or implies that you are asserting that the exceptions to "wage" qualification of payments to federal employees apply to you. Unless you ARE an "employee" as defined in the law, they don't (but at the same time, unless you are such an "employee" none of the rest of the "employee"-related provisions apply to you, either, and no payment to you can qualify as "wages"). It just means that "employee" status is not a first-tier determinant as to whether one has, or could have received "wages", and so it is irrelevant to the questions and assertions on a 4852. BY THE WAY II, any withholding that may have taken place is obviously not evidence of its own fitness. Some folks have expressed anxiety over the use of 4852s due to the lines on the form for reporting amounts "withheld as tax". The fear is that declaring that amounts were "withheld as tax" is to endorse the FITNESS of such withholding, because it is only from "wages" that the sort of "withholding" described can properly be done. Simply describing this circular reasoning makes its invalidity clear, and little more need be said. Considered without the distortion of anxiety, it is clear that to acknowledge that amounts were "withheld as tax" is to acknowledge nothing but the truth. Those amounts WERE "withheld as tax"! They were just WRONGLY "withheld as tax", as is being said at the same time by one testifying to not having received any of the "wages" to which such withholding properly applies, and by which it is to be measured. When you see a ridiculous argument to the contrary, attempting to contend that by declaring that withholding took place one is “admitting” that what was withheld from was “wages”, you can take it as firm evidence that the speaker is a moron, or a dissembler with no real and honest position to argue (or both). FURTHER... You are NOT "correcting" the W-2 by submitting a 4852. Correcting the W-2 can only be done by the party who created it in the first place, and would typically be done by way of a Form W-2c (although a creator that became educated in the truth about the tax, and whose company wasn't actually a federal entity might do it just by way of a personal affidavit...). Rather, by submitting a 4852, you are CORRECTING THE RECORD-- by which is meant the evidentiary record in the files of an entity claiming the right to impose a tax based on amounts of "wages" paid (a government, in other words). Until you speak with your submission, that record consists of only the W-2. Your 4852 corrects the record by introducing accurate contrary information. It is not a correction of the W-2 (which means making the W-2 itself accurate); it is a correction of the record of information initially created by the W-2. *** AS LONG AS WE'RE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I want to take this opportunity to also address a very common misunderstanding about the meaning of "employment taxes", which results from the use of that phrase to describe certain tax provisions the codified representations of which are gathered in the IRC in a subtitle of the same name (Subtitle C). That aggregation and an overly-casual use of the phrase "employment taxes" by accountants, lawyers and others causes many to have difficulty remembering that these taxes are just "income" taxes like all others. They are simply a subclass of "income" taxes which are measured using specially-defined terms denominated as "employment" and "employee" (and in some chapters even more narrowly, such as "railroad employee"). The use of these terms or that title for the subclass doesn't make them "taxes on being employed", or "working taxes", or in any way anything other than, or different from, "income" taxes of all other varieties and denominations. They are still taxes on the exercise of federal privilege. This subclass simply involves certain specific exercises of privilege, and certain special application protocols which are related to that specialized exercise, making it proper or helpful to distinguish them accordingly. The text of 26 USC 3121(l) offers a good illustration: "The Secretary shall, at the American employer's request, enter into an agreement (in such manner and form as may be prescribed by the Secretary) with any American employer (as defined in subsection (h)) who desires to have the insurance system established by title II of the Social Security Act [42 USCS sections 401 et seq.] extended to service performed outside the United States in the employ of any 1 or more of such employer's foreign affiliates (as defined in paragraph (6)) by all employees who are citizens or residents of the United States, except that such agreement shall not apply to any service performed by, or remuneration paid to, an employee if such service or remuneration would be excluded from the term "employment" or "wages", as defined in this section, had the service been performed in the United States." Read that again carefully, if necessary. This language clearly distinguishes between services performed by an employee which DO qualify as "employment" (and payments for the same, which therefore DO qualify as "wages"), and services by, and payments to, an employee which DO NOT so qualify. This is because chapter 21 of the Code, where 3121(l) is found, uses a special definition of "employment" to narrow the application of its "wages" definition to federally-connected workers (and to just a subset of such workers). This is distinct from the structure of chapter 24-- the general "withholding" chapter-- where the narrowing of ITS "wages" definition to federal-worker remuneration hinges on its custom definition of "employee". It is because of that difference that the language quoted above distinguishes between 'employees' and those in "employment", treating them as non-concurrent categories. In chapter 21, 'employees' is defined (more-or-less) as anyone who would meet the common definition of that word. But all those who meet THAT definition are NOT in "employment" as THAT term is defined in the chapter, and on which its definition of "wages" depends. Thus, we can see that for purposes of the "employment taxes" subtitle of the IRC, being a commonly-defined 'employee' has no inherent relevance to the application of the tax. In short, "employment taxes" doesn't mean "taxes for being employed". TO SUMMARIZE, while there definitely ARE traps of meaning and presumption set for the unwary in the tax structure (and no one knows this better than the CtC-educated), it is just as important to eschew paralyzing or misleading paranoia such as fears related to the use of certain forms as it is to recognize and avoid the real snares lurking in the statutory design. It falls to each of us to diligently apply logic and knowledge to every aspect of the law with which we must deal. We must also apply common sense. Applying common sense means recognizing that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. It also means recognizing that those seeking to sustain the decades-old "ignorance tax" for another few years until they have looted every penny of wealth out of the hands of average Americans won't hesitate for a moment to prompt and exploit any stumble into uncertainty and confusion by CtC-educated Americans which might discourage them from acting personally, and from spreading the truth about the tax to every corner of this great country. Don't be taken in by paralyzing and divisive misunderstandings injected into community dialogues periodically, such as those discussed here suggesting that the use of a 4852 is inherently contradictory when one is rebutting an errant W-2. Be a careful warrior. But also be a warrior illuminated in your knowledge, surefooted in your reasoning, and powerful in your confidence. Visit the “Every Which Way But Loose” series to read fully-documented case studies of CtC-educated Americans dealing with tax agency misrepresentations such as those discussed above at http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLoose.htm Enjoy especially revealing victories unhindered by bad agency behavior at http://losthorizons.com/tax/Highlights.htm Spread the Liberating Truth about the Tax: See http://losthorizons.com/NewsletterFeaturePage.htm Share your Victories for the Rule of Law: See http://losthorizons.com/NewsletterFeaturePage.htm Get CtC for Free (and send it to everyone): See http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf
An "Emancipation Day" Reminder April 16, 2011 As we wind up 2011's "tax season" we are treated to a multi-faceted irony. This year's "tax-day" has been postponed from the statutory April 15 to April 18 because a holiday observed in the District of Columbia called "Emancipation Day", memorializes an event relating to the ending of race-based slavery, fell on a Saturday this year. In order to ensure that it can be taken as a day off work, the holiday is observed on the preceding Friday, and that means “tax day” has to move. This produces an irony that is rich for at least three reasons: For one thing, what is memorialized by "Emancipation Day" was not really an outright emancipation. Instead, the event celebrated was the passage of the "Compensated Emancipation Act" (CEA), under which tax funds were used to buy slaves from their "owners", and only in D C. However unquestionably virtuous in its freeing of some 3,100 people from horrendous victimization, the fact is that the CEA was a cynical political ploy. Lincoln, who didn't care a fig about the existing slavery, and had both campaigned on a promise to support the preservation of slavery in the South, and had lobbied throughout his political career for the deportation of all blacks from America to Africa*, was not prosecuting a war of conquest against the breakaway Southern states in order to end "the peculiar institution". His interest was in retaining those states as a source of revenue for the benefit of the industrialized North under the tariff structure then in place. However, Lincoln recognized that the cause of looting the South for the sake of a bunch of rich industrialists didn't inspire too many young Northern men to risk getting their legs blown off. Casting his war as being prosecuted for the high purpose of abolishing slavery WAS inspirational. But it was awkward for Lincoln to make that pitch in order to raise troops while slavery continued undisturbed in the very seat of the federal government. Hence the ironic CEA-- a buy-off financed by taxes (rather than what it should have been: a simple declaration that all slaves in the district -- or the entire North, for that matter-- were henceforth free, and the former "owners" be damned). The act freed one group of privately-held slaves in order to re-capture, at bayonet-point, a different group of people for continued exploitation by a different group of private interests through the mechanism of the federal government. Second, it was under the same Lincoln that the "income" tax was initiated, and it is a virtual certainty that much of the buy-off under the CEA was financed thereby. That tax, while benign and, in fact, good and virtuous when properly understood and applied, came to be mis-understood and mis-applied, and to operate as a form of almost universal enslavement for generations until its actual limitations were re-discovered just eight years ago and laid out in ''Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America" (CtC). Adding to the irony, even though the truth about that tax has now been revealed, emancipation from its misapplication is being strenuously resisted by the federal and state governments... Third, it is by virtue of the government influence and control exercised over education in America-- an influence and control the exercise of which is financed by the funds extracted from the citizenry under the misapplication of the "income" tax-- that these facts are generally unknown by the American public. Thus, again, the incidence of this celebration on the statutory "income" tax deadline is a sublime irony. Still, the irony, while broad, is paper-thin, for emancipation from the latter-day slavery of the mis-applied "income" tax IS going on, making for perhaps a fourth irony in the delay of "tax day". Because of that delay, occasioned by workers in the seat of the federal government having a tax-paid holiday, the self-emancipation that will be claimed by ten of thousands of American students of the information in CtC 2011 (maybe hundreds of thousands, this year) will be bumped to the week following the celebration of the officially-labeled “Emancipation Day”. (By the way, if you're not one of those re-claiming your liberty, visit losthorizons.com.) Anyway, as we wind up this "tax season", it's important that we remember not only what the law is regarding federal taxing authority and its limits, but also WHY the law is what it is. We must never forget that the founders organized our system of government to make each of us part of the "invisible hand" (IH) by which all of society benefits through each individual looking out for his or her own interests in our civic character, as well as our economic character. The economic application of the IH principle takes advantage of the unique knowledge possessed by each person as to his or her own special skills, talents, and interests, and the incentive to maximize-- for one's own benefit-- the efficiencies and returns of every effort and investment. Each person being free to peacefully apply this knowledge and purpose organically ensures that overall quality and productivity are high and that resources are wisely allocated, all of which are to the benefit of everyone in the country. This freedom-oriented IH dynamic is in sharp contrast to any kind of centrally-controlled, dictated and regulated structure, in which choices become skewed by the interests of the controllers (at the expense of the controlled); efficiencies in resource-allocation are hobbled by the controller's limited knowledge of vast amounts of diverse and often highly-specialized information (if not entirely disregarded in service to some ideological or purely self-serving agenda of those making everyone's decisions); and incentives for high quality and productivity are anemic. The "civic" side of that IH design works in the same beneficial way in maximizing the quality of public policy, and protecting against the inefficiencies and sometimes outright destructiveness of central control. The civic IH mechanism provides for each American to retain individual power over what part of his or her substance is invested in public projects and purposes (with the only exception being through high-political-accountability-disciplined structure of apportioned direct taxation administered indirectly on the people through the agencies of the individual state governments). The civic IH design ensures that each citizen can both stop feeding fuel to a mis-directed "ship of state" that isn't going where they want to go, and evacuate a ship in the hands of the irresponsible (or mad), which is steaming full-speed-ahead toward the rocks of one kind of disaster or another. Thus, any grave errors of policy will be slowed and ultimately arrested before becoming too destructive, as the highly tuned-in begin withholding their support, and prompt others to look more carefully at what it is to which they are contributing their support. Exercising our rights and responsibilities as good citizens-- in the manner provided for, and, indeed, relied upon by the founders-- is what CtC is really all about. Those who want to rule don't want you to know about your power in this regard, and don't want you to exercise your power. THEY want to be the ones deciding how much of YOUR substance will be burned to drive the ship to THEIR preferred destination. They want you to believe that it would be improper for you to look out for your own interests (including your interest in preserving and upholding the rule of law); that somehow it is socially irresponsible for you to NOT subordinate your preferences and purposes to those they would assign to you. Balderdash! The fact is, it is irresponsible for you to NOT elevate your preferences to primacy, and to view what are declared to be "public interests" as simply the interests of competitors. This is all "public interests" really are, whether sometimes congruent with your own interests or not. Either way, it is by you looking out for yourself, and acting to enforce the Constitutional provisions designed to help you do so, that America's needs are best served. So exercise your civic power, and meet your civic responsibilities, as the founders intended. Be a proud part of the "invisible hand" and exercise your lawful control over the engine that's driving "full speed ahead" for the rocks. Get CtC for free at http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf Learn about the seven-year-and-counting desperate effort to keep you from learning the liberating truth about the "income" tax at http://losthorizons.com/ADocumentedCtCSuppressionHistory.pdf Learn the truth about the tax and so much more at losthorizons.com
*Two excellent books offering detailed, thoroughly-researched and annotated studies of Lincoln, his actual policies and politics (as contrasted with the myths taught about him for generations in government schools) and his enormously significant (and generally harmful) impact on American history are 'The Real Lincoln' and 'Lincoln Unmasked', by historian Thomas DiLorenzo. I highly recommend both of them. Also, I want to take this opportunity to recommend two other books that have helped me burn some of the idle time that's been forced on me over the last nine months. The first is 'The Sacred Nonaggression Principle' by Brian Wright. This book is an excellent study and analysis of the principles underlying libertarianism as a discipline, and of freedom as the ultimate goal and expression of truly ethical behavior in human relations. Visit Brian's website at thecoffeecoaster.com for more info. The other book I'm recommending today is titled 'On Your Own In Tax Court-- U.S. Tax Court without a Lawyer' by Lysander Venible. This book is a detailed package of information about how a tax court trial is conducted, and while students of CtC will normally have no occasion for doing so, anyone who has reason to go into tax court will benefit from knowing what this book provides before doing so. Visit www.TaxCourtHelp.net for more info.
The Final Rites of Spring, 2011 April 2, 2011 Well, here we are at the climax of 2011's Sorting-Out Season. This is the time each year when the culmination of the "income" tax season, and the choices made in light of the now long-available truth about the tax, divide Americans into two classes of citizens. On the one hand are real citizens. They are the courageous and the responsible cadre. They are the "This great country isn't going down into lawlessness and despotism on my watch" grown-ups. On the other hand are those who are nominally "citizens", but who really are subjects. Their personal civic authority has been entirely surrendered to the very parasites who eat out their substance and that of their children, and they are just a "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, name-no-evil" mob of irresponsible adolescents who blithely (or timidly) stand by and do nothing except supply the coal to the gravy-train-for-the-politically-connected that is carrying them downhill at ever-greater speed toward absolute ruin and the Hell-on-Earth horrors of the unconcealed, unrestrained tyranny that will inevitably follow. Enormous efforts have been made by the corrupt State to push you into the latter camp. Primarily this is done by trying to persuade you that undertaking your own study of the law is inappropriate-- indeed, pointless-- because the law belongs to the State and means only what the State wants it to mean. The effort to dissuade you continues by suggesting that if you DO make your own study, and conclude that the law ISN'T the tool of those acting in the name of the State-- that it means what it says, even when that meaning is inconvenient to the voracious State (and that it's important that everyone understand this and act accordingly, or there is no real law, and no liberty)-- and if you make your understanding matter by expressing it in a practical manner (rather than just griping, or standing silent while your wealth is lawlessly stripped away), you will then be savaged by the wrath of the sociopaths infesting Washington and its myriad little fortresses of darkness currently littering this once and future great country of ours. So (continues the twisty little argument), just submit to the sociopaths from the get-go. Do what they want you to do and believe what they want you to believe (or at least profess what they want you to profess). Submit from the outset. It will be better for you, because resistance is futile... Everyone knows you can't fight City Hall; resistance is futile... It's OK to submit-- everyone else does; and anyway, resistance is futile... America is full of nothing but couch-potatoes and you're entirely alone; resistance is futile... What's the matter with you? Didn't you hear?! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!! Just lie back and get comfortable. It won't hurt a bit, as long as you don't struggle. (And this will remain true until you've let yourself be bled to the point where you CAN'T struggle, at which point it will start hurting A LOT, because then resistance really WILL be futile, and those feeding on you won't have to worry about maintaining your cooperation and quiescence...)
For those who DON'T buy the baloney, and who are on their feet and standing their ground because they know that resistance to lawlessness and despotism is not only NEVER futile, but is always required of those who love and are worthy of the blessings of liberty and the rule of law, here is this week's Tax Tip: Don't Forget What Comes First (A Cognitive Cue) It's important to keep from letting the tail wag the dog in your understanding of the limitation of the tax. The exploiters of ignorance encourage everyone to imagine that all economic activity happens within the "federal universe", and that all receipts are "income" unless exempted by Congress. This, in turn, encourages the notion that it is by looking to the statutory definitions and other tax-related provisions of law that we discover whether our receipts qualify as "income", and taxable as such, under such designations and definitions as "wages", "self-employment income", and so forth; or prove that they do not. But this notion has things exactly backwards. One's non-federally-connected earnings as a commonly-defined 'employee' don't fail to qualify as "wages", for instance, because they (or one's commonly-defined 'employee' status) are not described in the statutes concerning "wages". It is precisely the other way around: it is because one's non-federally-connected earnings can't qualify as "wages" that they are not described in those statutes. The statutes aren't the description of everything Congress chooses to designate as "wages"-- they are the description of every employment-related receipt Congress CAN Constitutionally describe as "wages" (from which it then provides some number of exceptions in service to its own agenda). The fact is, even if the statutes, or some construction of them (whether legislative, regulatory or judicial) APPEAR to describe unprivileged earnings as being within their scope, they really do not, and one can take it as a given that the disconnect is simply not superficially obvious. Thus, even if a statute were to be found that says, "Pete Hendrickson's earnings are "wages", and subject to a non-apportioned federal tax", this wouldn't mean that the Constitution had been overthrown, or that my unprivileged earnings are subject to a direct federal tax without apportionment. It would simply mean that somewhere else in the law must be buried a special definition of "earnings", or even of "Pete Hendrickson's earnings", that reconciles the apparent contradiction. Somewhere will be found a section that says, "For purposes of chapter ___, "Pete Hendrickson's earnings" includes Pete Hendrickson's federally-privileged earnings", or even just "earnings includes federally-privileged receipts" etc.. In fact, even if a qualifying section DIDN'T exist, the construction that would have to be given to "Pete Hendrickson's earnings are "wages" and subject to a non-apportioned federal tax" would amount to the same qualified effect. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is still the law to which the federal government is subject, and it still says that my non-privileged earnings (and yours) cannot be taxed by the feds other than through apportionment. As is true of all law, no matter what a statute facially declares, it CAN'T have (or be held to have) a meaning in conflict with the Constitution. Understanding this important aspect of the tax (and law in general) will help you immensely in dealing with the thicket of custom definitions, and the deployment of same by the tax agencies and legal departments that badly want you to be confused and uncertain of your ground. Knowing that whatever it may look like, the thicket must conform to the fundamental law, and must be held to do so no matter whether it is easy to see how it does or isn't easy to see how it does, will allow you to step right over the thicket. When confronted by a skeptic (or agenda-driven opponent) who challenges you to explain why your earnings don't fall within some definition or another, whether the broad "Gross income is all income..." definition in section 61, or a more specialized definition of a subclass of "income", like that of "wages" at 3410(a) or 3121(a), you don't have to argue over what is said in those definitions. All that need be pointed out is that the "no capitation other than by apportionment" Constitutional prohibition remains in force, and thus, whatever those definitions may appear to say to your unschooled correspondent, what they DON'T and CAN'T say is that non-federally-privileged earnings or receipts are federally-taxable without apportionment. Keep this very clear in your mind, and teach it to others as you introduce them to the liberating truth about the completely benign "income tax", and educate them about the completely pernicious "ignorance tax" by which they have been being victimized for their entire lives. (For a detailed discussion of the subject of this Tax Tip, see 'What "Income" Means, And Why' in 'Was Grandpa Really a Moron?'. (Visit http://losthorizons.com/WGRAM.htm to learn more about this companion to CtC.)
Now, armed with this clear understanding of what rules, and what is subordinate, and everything else you've learned in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' , go forth into these last couple of weeks before April FOOL'S Day and choose your side (and help your neighbors, friends and family understand the choice that they inescapably face, as well). Are you going to stand with the grown-ups who understand that Heaven knows how to put a proper value on its blessings, and it would be a strange thing indeed if Liberty didn't command a high price, as Thomas Paine helped the Founders remember 235 years ago? Or are you going to "lie back and get comfortable", and bleed away in a peaceful but ultimately fatal bovine torpor? What will you teach your children? To stand beside you? Or to lie beside you? Will you teach them that the State belongs to the law? Or will you teach them that the law belongs to the State, and the State can make the law mean what it wants; that those who run the State are the law; that the Constitutional republic that is your children’s rightful heritage is dead, and that they will live their lives as ruthlessly exploited serfs because, you know, "resistance is futile"? Get CtC for free at http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf Learn about the seven-year-and-counting desperate effort to keep you from the knowledge in CtC at http://losthorizons.com/ADocumentedCtCSuppressionHistory.pdf Learn the liberating Truth about the Tax at losthorizons.com
It's All On You 2/18/2011 "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness." Exodus 22:1 "Be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi A couple of weeks ago, my darling Doreen sent you all my latest message "from Inside the Belly of the Beast" It was a discussion of the claims-based nature of the American (and English) legal system, intended to help everyone understand a couple of important concepts about speaking on your own behalf when thrust into a legal conflict. As usual, 99% of the feedback to that discussion consisted of gratifying, heart-warming versions of, "Message received; we're standing up and standing tall!" accompanied by victory reports from a number of Warriors. At least one of these new victories is of the especially illuminating type suited to the 'Every Which Way But Loose' collection, coming only after staunch resistance to IRS threats and demands; and a Warrior shared news of a recent Tax Court victory over an IRS attempt to evade his educated filing, as well. Great stuff! However, there were also a handful of comments of an entirely different character, which can be divided into two types: "What, are you crazy?! Look at what happened to you!!"; and "No worries... A knight on a white horse is due any day now, so I'm just waiting to be saved." Each of these prompted a few thoughts in response that I want to share with you today. Before getting to the feedback and response, though, I want to review and slightly expand upon the previous message. It consisted of two parts. The first concerns the fact that when someone has expressed a claim against you, you WILL either affirm or deny what has been said, whether you like it or not, and even whether you understand that this is true or not. Let's dispose of the latter part right away: You are DEEMED to understand. Period. You've all heard, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." This DOESN'T mean that you can't defend against an alleged offense by claiming you didn't know you were doing something wrong. In fact, you CAN defend on that argument. That's what "willfulness" is all about, for instance. "Willfulness" is a concept that comes into play as a matter of statutory specification, such as in all "tax crimes", for instance. "Willfulness" specifically means "a deliberate violation of a known legal duty". If a criminal statute provides for a "willfulness" element, then it must be proven that the accused was under a legal duty, knew of that duty, and deliberately violated that duty. If the accused was ignorant of the duty, he didn't commit a crime, even if he violated the duty. Ignorance is an excuse under the general principle of "mens rea", as well, which means that no action can be a crime without a guilty mind-- a deliberate (or at least criminally negligent) demeanor. While it's true that "mens rea" isn't afforded much respect in a lot of prosecutions these days, that's not because it isn't an ancient principle, thoroughly integrated into our legal system. It is. However, we have a lot of corrupt prosecutors who don't want inconveniences like the actual innocence of their victims to get in the way of their career trajectories; and there are a ton of utterly lazy defense attorneys out there who can't be bothered to argue the point, because they've learned they can make a nice living with much less effort and study by talking their clients into accepting plea-bargains. Judges are under no obligation to fill in arguments that defendants' fail to make, and rarely do so. Anyway, what the "ignorance of the law" thing really means is that you are presumed to be familiar with concepts like "acquiescence through silence", by which you are deemed to have assented to, or agreed with, allegations of which you have been notified, and which you have not then positively, and in a legally-meaningful manner, disputed, rebutted or corrected. Thus, you can't go into court and say, "Hey, I didn't mean "Yes"! I didn't know that I had to say something!!" OK, that brings us back to: You WILL speak in response to another's claim. Like it or not, you're either going to SAY "Yes", IMPLY "Yes" or SAY "No!". You can choose any of these three, but you can't choose "No answer!", or "I refuse!", or "I'm saying nothing, so if you act, it's on you!". Wrong. It's always on YOU, and if you don't say "NO" then you're saying "YES!" That brings us to the second point of the last message: If you stand silent (non-filing) in the face of assertions about you, or directly say you've engaged in taxable activities by declaring receipts on tax forms, it is YOU who provides the moral and legal energy that will be used to collect the tax. If you really DID engage in the activities, this is right and proper, of course. BUT IF YOU DIDN'T, your silence, or your more explicit false report, is not only a shameful disgrace which dishonors you, but it also legitimizes the state's every action against you. The bottom line is that one way or another, your moral and legal energy WILL be spent. It'll either be spent righteously, or unrighteously. There is no middle ground, and which way that energy goes is on you. Don't ever doubt the power of that energy. Your "Yes" is a green light, and authorizes the state to take your stuff (and treat you like you owe it duties as a subordinate, or as though you are under contract with it). Your "NO" is a hard red. In fact, just take the lesson from what you see before you, plain as day. I and my family are suffering right now just to intimidate YOU into not saying "NO". If your "NO" could be ignored or evaded, that's what would happen. The scamsters would yawn, "You said "No"? Big deal. We don't need your "Yes", and your "No" means nothing." The fact is, when the scamsters want to take money you don't really owe, they DO need your "Yes", and your "NO" means everything. This is why the DoJ is trying to frighten you away from saying it even while simultaneously admitting its importance by asking the court in its PR lawsuit against Doreen and me to order us to take back our "NO!", and replace it with a "Yes". The government needs our "NO!" replaced with a "Yes" in order to have the pretense of a legal basis for its bogus suit, with which it has been trying to discourage you from speaking freely and honestly for several years now. Do you really think the scamsters would attempt to dictate our testimony, demand that we be barred from revealing that it is dictated, and even demand that we be made to declare our actual freely-made testimony to have been wrong-- at risk of the media catching wind of this transparent lawlessness-- without a desperate need? No suit asking a court to order coerced and dictated testimony-- something unprecedented in any area, not just regarding tax returns--has ever been attempted before or since. Similarly, no one has ever been charged with the "crime" of just saying "No" except me. Neither is likely to be ever risked again. If tried again, the matter might end up before an honest judge (there are some) who would blister the DoJ's hind end with his or her outraged denial/dismissal and give the truth about the tax the sort of airing which the assault on me is intended to smother. Fearing this reversal of fortunes after having gotten lucky the first time out, the scamsters rely on folks looking at my circumstance and being frightened into surrender-- that is, they rely on frightening you into turning your own energy against yourself. Well, with that, we're already into the discussion about the "paralysis feedback". I referred earlier to two different versions of this feedback. Again, they can be summarized as, "How can I stand up in the face of what is being done to you?!"; and "I don't need to stand up-- the cavalry's coming!" Both of these reflect a misunderstanding (willful or not) of the inescapable fact that the only solution to their bad behavior is your good behavior: In the end, it's on you. The first of these fear-based reactions partakes of the age-old notion that "You can't fight City Hall," a notion suggesting that "City Hall" is some kind of overwhelming, unstoppable alien force that landed on Earth in the dead of night and is working its implacable will against the native population. "City Hall" vigorously promotes this notion... Word to the paralyzed: "City Hall" is simply a bunch of men and women looking out for their own interests-- just like you. All they have going for them when their interests are in conflict with yours is an assumed authority-- that is, an assumed "authorization to act" (which is all "authority" means). For decades, "City Hall" has heard nothing but "Yes" (explicitly or implicitly), and nary a cognizable "NO!"-- that is, one made as provided for by law, to which "City Hall" must pay attention. (Remember, prior to CtC, no one knew how to say "NO!" in regard to the tax, even when they should, and even when they tried to.) "City Hall" has taken you at your word. Acting on your (individual and collective) "Yes" (spoken or implied), they've eaten your lunch and grown strong, while you have grown weak. Things have gone on so far that you now look at their hugeness and their arrogance and you say, "You can't fight City Hall!" Of course, you CAN "fight City Hall", and you should, when "City Hall" is trying to exceed its actual authority. You just have to stand up and do it, and all that's involved is to stop being an unrighteous witness (whether due to ignorance or timidity) and to start being a witness for the truth. In fact, that's also your "work-out" routine. You start saying "NO!" whenever you should, and grow strong while they grow weak. There is no other way, and there needn't and can't be, either. Things got where they are today by millions of bad, cowardly, lazy decisions to just give "City Hall" the "yes" it wants. The only way to turn things around is through millions of good, courageous, active decisions to insist on the truth, no matter how scary doing so is made by junk-yard dogs who are used to having their way with you. In the end, of course, this "can't fight City Hall (how dare I stand up?)" thing is a "white knight syndrome" paralysis in the face of adversity. What it really means is, "I won't stand up and do what I know is right until somebody else makes doing so painless, unfrightening and easy." All I can say to that is, "C'mon, people! Grow up!!" You know perfectly well that if everybody waits for enough OTHER people to act before THEY act, then nothing gets done-- except exactly what each malingerer deserves to have done to him. Further, in the matter of the tax, you're the only one that can stop your "Yes" from being said when it shouldn't be, in any event. "Be the change you want to see in the world." There is no other way. The other variety of "paralysis feedback" is a direct "white knight" evasion, and each of the three or four responses to my earlier message that belong in this category were nearly identical. Each refers to organizations of activists who are asserting the impending "restoration of the republic" by virtue of things like registering themselves with their county clerks as replacements for current government officers, and the like. It isn't necessary to get into the virtues and flaws of the activism described, and the claims made. What matters is that optimism about the fruits of these activities is leading some to stand down from speaking their own truth in the expectation that there will soon be nothing to stand up for, because the junk-yard dog and its supporting staff are about to slink away, tails between their legs. Junk-yard dogs don't just slink away. They have to be told "NO!" over and over. Each one of us has to say the "NO!" ourselves, because it doesn't matter that some activist or group is saying "NO!" if individually you're still saying "Yes". It's on you, people. It's always on you. However, and not at all coincidentally, when you've said "NO!" enough times, and encouraged enough of your friends and family and neighbors to follow your example, you'll look around and discover that the republic has been restored... John Adams once observed that the liberty secured by the founding generation could only be preserved by a virtuous people. He didn't mean a church-going lot, or folks who were kind to puppies and children. The virtues he was thinking of are courage, honor and integrity-- the virtues that equip a person to do what's right, even when it's hard. We all have it in us to be the virtuous people Adams and the other founders were counting on. We just have to face the fact that the responsibility is on us, and then be the change we want to see happen. *** Get CtC at http://losthorizons.com/cc.htm , or download the .pdf version, with a documented history of government efforts to suppress the book included, at http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf . P. S. If you got this as a "forward", you may not have any real idea of what I've been talking about! Ask your forwarding benefactor, who has thereby proven himself or herself to be one of the best friends you'll ever have, to tell you the liberating truth about the "income" tax. Or visit http://losthorizons.com .
1/29/11 WHY IGNORANCE-TAX PARASITES HATE AND FEAR CtC Here's something you need to understand about the truth and the law, and something those who want to exploit and abuse you without interruption don't want you to understand: The legal system that operates in America is a structure for the assertion and enforcement of claims. It is nothing else. It is not a champion of justice; it is not a seeker of truth. When the legal system compels performance, it is enforcing someone's (positive) claim of a duty owed. When the legal system thwarts or punishes behavior, it is enforcing someone's (negative) claim of a trespass against his rights. The legal system doesn't know who has a legitimate claim to what. Knowing such a thing is neither in its nature, nor its purpose. The system is merely a claim-enforcement and conflicting-claim-resolution entity. It doesn't decide who has a claim to enforce; it simply makes itself available to claimants who have made that decision for themselves, and provides machinery designed to give both sides-- claimant and defendant-- a best shot at making their respective cases and arriving at a just and legitimate outcome (as long as everybody involved, especially the judge, competently and honestly plays by the rules). In a nutshell, our legal system is claimant-driven-- it is static unless and until someone makes a claim. When someone does make a claim, the legal system provides a format and venue for prosecuting that claim; and if the claimant is able to prove his case as provided-for by the rules of the process, the legal system will then help him enforce the claim. Looking at it from another direction, even someone who has a legitimate cause will enjoy no support from the legal system unless and until his (positive or negative) claim is asserted. That forgotten bank account might really be the one YOU opened 30 years ago, but until you make your claim, that fact means nothing. Partaking of the same principle, silence is worse than nothing in the face of someone else's untrue claim against you. Silence means his claim is unrebutted, and therefore deemed agreed-to and proven (as a matter of necessary legal principle). Being unrebutted, agreed-to and proven, the claim prevails-- EVEN IF IT IS OBJECTIVELY UNTRUE. The mindless machinery of the legal system will move against you in support of the fiction on the claimant's behalf. And you know what? This is precisely proper. The legal system is blind. It doesn't know who is right, or who has rights, or what they are. Only you (and other claimants) know these things, and can assert these things (even while also being required to prove these things). This brings us to CtC ('Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'), and why it is so threatening to the exploitive parasites that infest the District of Corruption. You see, the income tax is a claim-based tax. The claims are that the one alleged to owe the tax has engaged in “taxable activities” by using federal property or privileges to acquire wealth. Because stuff belonging to the federal government was involved in the gains, it gets to claim a piece of the action. (The feds have given state and local governments permission to take a piece of this same action, too.) Most of the millions of "taxable activities" claims made in America every year are false. The sorry fact is that due to decades of encouragement by hungry tax agencies, and precious little independent study of the law, lots of Americans are in the habit of sending the government signed forms ( “W-2s” and “ 1099s”) alleging federal connections to every payment they make to others, even while having no idea what they are really saying by doing so. A huge volume of government income tax claims are based solely on these allegations. But, like all claims, those that someone owes taxes to a government-- even objectively false claims-- can be enabled by agreement (either explicit agreement or by silence). When this happens, the claimant-government IS PUT IN THE RIGHT, in the eyes of the legal system and all others, and properly so. No one will EVER be able to say that the subsequent enforcement of that tax-debt claim was improper-- even if it's a complete fiction, and even if the very day after the target's property is seized, the government announces that the tax has never really applied to the sort of things that target had done. It's a simple legal formula: Someone said the target engaged in federal activity (meaning he became indebted to the government). The target didn't dispute this. What is fiction is now agreed by everyone involved to be "true"; and the feds took the money. No one's rights were violated; no fraud; no crime. On the other hand, if claims of tax liability are rebutted, the claimants are PUT IN THE WRONG-- unless and until they can and do somehow prove the claims right in a valid, adversarial contest in an impartial court. Unless and until that proof is forthcoming (which it cannot be, if the claim is objectively untrue), any enforcement of the alleged tax debt is illegal. But this alignment of the law on the side of the truth can only happen if the target of an invalid tax claim makes his or her own testimony, when and how it counts. CtC teaches the reader how and why to switch from being the ignorant and helpless enabler of objectively untrue claims against him to being a claimant on his own behalf and/or a legally-effective defender against illegitimate claims made by others. CtC teaches the reader how to say, in a legally-meaningful manner, "You don't have a legitimate claim to any of my money, and what's more, I want back everything of mine that you are holding!" And THAT'S the problem for the parasites. You see, as I mentioned above, unless and until any person rebuts the claim made by another, that "other" is deemed to have proven his case, in the blind eyes of the legal system. That is, even when making an objectively false claim, the target's failure to rebut puts the claimant in the right, and the system can and will act to enforce the claim in good conscience, and with the approval of all observers, current and future. On the other hand, when a claim is objectively false, and the target DOES say so in a legally-meaningful manner, then the claimant is put in the wrong, and that makes all the difference. Then the legal system cannot act on the claimant's behalf in good conscience and with the approval of all observers, current and future-- especially those who might be on some future criminal-liability tribunal. Quite the contrary, in fact. Once false claims have been rebutted, the claimants-- and anyone who facilitates them-- enter the category of outlaws if they attempt to enforce the claim. Now you understand the problem of the parasites infesting DC, who want to go on happily fattening themselves and their friends on your hard work by making, and enforcing, false tax claims. Anyone who studies CtC learns what the law actually means by "income" (and what it doesn't). He learns how tax claims get made, how to rebut them when they are wrong and how to make claims to recover withheld or paid-in amounts. Once that knowledge has been put to use, any parasite attempting to make and enforce a false claim against that educated American does so without any protective legal justification. FALSE CLAIMS PROPERLY REBUTTED CAN NEVER BE LEGITIMATED. Unfortunately, the legal system is NOT really blind-- at least, not reliably so. Those appointed to administer the system have their own views, and their own agendas, as do those who appoint them and advance them. The administrators are supposed to leave all this at the office door, but they're human. They will be objectively honest and faithful to their trust only in proportion to the articulation and sturdiness of those who wish it to be so. As a consequence, even asserting one's legitimate claims, or rebutting the illegitimate claims of others doesn't guarantee immediate and painless justice. BUT... NOT asserting one's legitimate claims and NOT rebutting the illegitimate claims of others DOES guarantee INJUSTICE, in the sense of an objectively wrong outcome. At the same time, this inaction leaves the legal system off the hook for any responsibility, and even though you may think everyone does or should know better, it also leaves the claimant "technically" IN THE RIGHT, and future study of the affair will unambiguously come to this conclusion. On the other hand, ASSERTING one's legitimate claim, and/or REBUTTING the illegitimate claims of others, puts a legal system that tolerates or contributes to an illegitimate outcome AND the illegitimate claimant IN THE WRONG. Future study of the affair will unambiguously come to THIS conclusion, with all the possible liability and recriminatory ramifications of that conclusion. SO... In the end, it is YOU who decides whether you're going to authorize the evil little totalitarian fiction that the state has an automatic claim to everyone's earnings, and gets to decide how much each person keeps for himself, for his family's needs, and for his own security. It is YOU who empowers the state as the arbiter of how much of your wealth and hard work gets handed over to the politically-connected class on Wall Street, or to the armaments industry, or to the prison industry, or to the welfare industry-- and how much goes to pay for the hard work of handing out all that money to these cronies and clients. As long as YOU play along, that's how it goes, and when it goes that way, you've no right to even complain. At the same time, of course, it is also YOU who can decide to step back up into the sunshine of respect for the truth and the rule of law, including the Constitutional limits on federal taxing power and practices. That's what the CtC Community is all about-- courageous, committed individual Americans, actually taking meaningful steps to restore the republic. Right now America is in another season of truth or lies. Right now, YOU have the chance to choose. PLEASE. Use your power, make your choice, and honor the sacrifices made by your ancestors to give you the freedom to do so. Or..., don't. Keep hoping someone else is going to come along and fix everything, so that you don't have to pipe up or get up. That's surely easier, and it seems safer, of course-- as appeasement and conflict avoidance always do. BUT, HOW'S THAT BEEN WORKING FOR YOU? And is it going to be better or worse when you face this question again next year, if you do the wrong thing now? Are the bad guys going to be weaker, or stronger after you've given in to them for another year? How about you? Stronger? Or weaker? Give it some thought. I hope you all understand that the seven-year assault on CtC and on me personally by the tax-feeders is for one purpose-- to intimidate YOU into letting this year's brief opportunity for testifying freely, honestly and on your own behalf slip away. That is, those who can't win legitimately want to do so by scaring you into paralysis, or yet another year of "playing it safe" by "playing along". That's how THEY win every time, even when they haven't got any real cards to play. By the way, I'll answer the "weaker or stronger" question posed above: The more times you compromise your principles, the easier it gets to do so. So, don't let them win this battle and gain control of your testimony. Speak your truth. Stand your ground, and keep your feet. Your dignity is worth it. Besides, the worst they can do is accuse you of not believing what you say. This would be to browbeat you into saying what you don't believe... I leave it to you to decide which is worse. *** Get CtC at http://losthorizons.com/cc.htm , or download the .pdf version, with a documented history of government efforts to suppress the book included, at http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf .
P. S. If you got this as a "forward", you may not have any real idea of what I've been talking about! Ask your forwarding benefactor, who has thereby proven himself or herself to be one of the best friends you'll ever have, to tell you the liberating truth about the "income" tax.
Or visit http://losthorizons.com .
If you got this direct (you good Warrior for the Truth and the Law, you), be somebody's else's best friend, and forward this message. You may end up with a little explaining to do, but what are friends for, if not to help show each other the way out of the darkness of servitude and exploitation and into the light of liberty?
|
 |
|
Here Are Some More Of This Edition's Highlights (Click on article and feature titles below to jump to the listed item. Use the "Back" button on your browser to return to this contents section. Better still, just scroll and read it all, including the many non-linked items that I'm sure you'll enjoy and appreciate!) |
|
Regular Features: |
And, as always, much, much more...
Dear friends, I'm delighted when anyone wishes to share what I have posted here with others! Sharing this page is an important means of moving toward the restoration of the rule of law. But I'd appreciate your doing so by directing your friends here themselves, rather than by copying and emailing the material.
Thank you for your courtesy.
***
|
You can't understand the present if you don't understand the past... Illuminating Anniversaries Of This Week June 25- In 1678, Elena Cornaro Piscopia becomes the first woman awarded a Ph.D. In 1788 Virginia becomes the tenth state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. In 1876, the Battle of the Little BigHorn is fought, resulting in a major victory for the Sioux and the massacre of George Custer's 7th Cavalry Regiment. In 1947, the diary of Anne Frank, one of the millions of recent victims of a modern state allowed to operate outside the rule of law by a befuddled citizenry, is published. In 1950, North Korea invades South Korea. In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court admits that the Second Amendment secures an individual Right to keep and bear arms after decades of looking the other way as this part of the fundamental law was routinely evaded by government.
Anniversaries of interest for each day of
the upcoming week will be found throughout the newsletter below. *** Use the
"Back" button on your browser to return to the contents section, or just
keep reading! |
This is just for those in the "tax honesty" community...
|
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." -Samuel Adams
Warriors, don't miss the now every-other-Tuesday PalTalk e-conference! Click here for details.
"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." – Thomas Jefferson
Three great NEW animations: 'The Great Ducking Of America' 'Learn How To Get YOUR Stimulus Check' 'Improbable History- You Decide!' See and share them all!
JOIN THE THOUSANDS OF WARRIORS IN CtC FORUMS!
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
*****
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” -James Madison
How About You?
Are You Governing Yourself?
Get The Knowledge, Reclaim Your Power, And Stand With The Founders
MORE ILLUMINATING EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
*****
Have You Visited This Page Yet?
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
CtC Warrior David Sides says, "Bumper stickers? Nice, but NOT BIG ENOUGH!"
(By the way, Dave's got it precisely right-- If you want your power to be secure, your neighbors have to be empowered with the same knowledge that you've acquired. Click here for ideas about spreading the truth-- which include normal bumper stickers available for free, by the way....)
|
There is little more important to the long-term health of America than how our children are educated.
***
Want to get on the Newsletter mailing list? Just email your name to SubscribeMe 'at' losthorizons.com using the address you want added!
|
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” -James Madison
CLICK HERE FOR THIS WEEK'S FEATURED 'EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE' EPISODE
Have You Taken A Military, Law Enforcement or Public Office Oath To Uphold And Defend The Constitution?
*****
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Warrior Mark Phillips, JD Shares An Illuminating Glossary Of Key Terms In Tax Law
*****
'Don't Tread On Me' Polo Shirts Say It All!
*****
CLICK HERE FOR THIS WEEK'S 'TAX TIP'
*****
More Than Two Thirds Of The Several States That Collect "Income" Taxes Have Now Acknowledged The Truth About The Law As Revealed In CtC, And Have Issued Complete Refunds Accordingly! See The Following Chart...
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
'The BOSTONIAN'S Paying the EXCISE-MAN, or TARRING & FEATHERING' (1774) (How our forefathers responded to arrogant "Rule of Law defiers"...)
I'm sorry to say that due to the characteristics of the new server I began using at the end of September, 2007, hit logging for the entire site is no longer possible. However, just so you know:
CtC-related hits between April 1, 2006 (when logging began under the old server) and August 31, 2007 totaled 17,277,595!
YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE ALL ALONE, DID YOU?
*****
HELP SPREAD THE LIBERATING TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
To make the best possible use of this website, please take advantage of the site map you'll find here.
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...)
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
"Taxes are not raised to carry on wars, wars are raised to carry on taxes." -Thomas Paine
Where To Find Things On This Site
*****
Law Professor James Duane Says: "Don't Talk To The Police. Period."
*****
The Newsletter is interested in your work! If you are a writer, scholar, or just a dedicated Warrior with a worth-while story to tell, please consider sharing your words and your wisdom with our thousands of readers! Click here to learn how.
'Letters to the Editor' should be addressed to 'feedback 'at' losthorizons.com', with "Editor" in the subject line.
*****
Films That Belong In Every Home Library
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
CLICK HERE TO INSTRUCT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
*****
Warrior David Larson shares this beautiful little farce, wryly observing that, "Depositors have "..not lost one penny.." - OK we could agree on that simple statement ..how about the purchasing power of that same penny 'not lost'?"
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
***
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Last Word
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams, Architect of the First American Revolution
OK, Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Programming:
|
Order Books, Warrior-Wear, or The CtC Companion CD
An "Income" Tax Related Site Map
E-mail this Newsletter to a friend
Want to get on the Newsletter mailing list? Just send an email from the address you want added to phendrickson 'at' losthorizons.com with "Subscribe me" in the subject line, and your name in the body!
PLEASE CONTINUE TO DILIGENTLY SPREAD THE LIBERATING TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX!!!
*****
|
About The Author
Pete Hendrickson enjoys the distinction of being the first American in history to secure a complete refund of Social Security and Medicare ‘contributions’ withheld from his earnings (along with all other property taken for federal taxes). He is far from the last, though-- readers of his seminal work, ‘Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’ and its just-published sequel, 'Was Grandpa Really a Moron?', have been doing the same ever since the book first appeared in 2003.
Hendrickson is also a widely-read essayist on matters of politics, public policy and law; many of these works are collected in his second book, ‘Upholding the Law And Other Observations’. He is a member of Mensa; an award-winning artist; and has paid his dues as a youth soccer coach. He is a long-time political activist as well, and has served as co-chair and platform convention delegate of Michigan’s largest county Libertarian Party organization; as a consultant to the National Right to Work Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy; as a member of the Heartland Institute; and as a member of the International Society for Individual Liberty. He is a frequent radio-show guest on stations across the country.
Hendrickson's business career has included nearly a decade-and-a-half at the leading edge of the renewable-energy industry, both as Director of Purchasing and Materials Management and member of the R&D board at Starpak Energy Systems, the mid-west's then-largest solar heating and energy-recovery-and re-utilization company; and as founder and president of AFJ Inc., a high-efficiency lighting design, manufacture and installation firm.
Beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing for the twelve years before his present full-time focus on the restoration of the rule of law in America, Hendrickson directed purchasing activities for the $84 million-a-year multi-family-housing division of the Farmington Hills, Michigan branch of Edward Rose and Sons, with responsibility for 18,000+ apartments, direct supervision of 35 technicians and agents, and incidental authority over several hundred divisional workers. He also ran the division's 10 cable television earth-station and distribution systems in four states, and designed and administered the company's website.
On rather the other end of the spectrum, amidst these more mundane pursuits Hendrickson co-founded and was the primary creative force behind a small board- and card-game company that enjoyed a modest success for several years.
Hendrickson makes his home in southeast Michigan, with his wife and two children. He is currently working on his next book. |
© All written and graphic material on this page and website are copyrighted by Peter E. Hendrickson, unless otherwise attributed
