Aren't You Really, Really Glad YOU'VE Taken Control Of How Much Of YOUR Money Washington Gets To Spend, Just As The Founders Intended?
A Brief But Bright Illumination Of The Truth About The Income Tax
THE NATURE AND
LIMITS OF THE “INCOME TAX” are not the consequence of the structure of the law
or definitions therein-- it is, in fact the other way around. However, because
that structure and those definitions are carefully designed to conform and
confine the tax to its proper nature and limits, understanding the very easily
comprehended former brightly illuminates the more difficult latter (a concise
presentation of which can be found within
this document; see ‘Cracking
the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’ for a
comprehensive treatment).
I’m going to
briefly discuss two definitions in US income tax law-- those given by statute to
the terms “wages” and “trade or business”. Between them these two terms are
integral to the vast majority of all “income-receipt” allegations made about
Americans.
Understanding these
definitions will make clear that the receipts of most Americans don’t fall
within either of these classes. Simple logic recognizes that because receipts
that DO fall within these special classes are distinguished in the law as being
subject to the tax, those receipts that DON’T fall within them are not subject.
As Black’s Law Dictionary puts it in its 6th edition:
“Inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain
designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This
doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation
to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is
omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.”
***
LET’S FIRST TAKE A
LOOK at “wages”-- a term presented at 26 USC § 3401(a) and provided with a
compound definition:
Sec. 3401. - Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term ''wages'' means all remuneration
(other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an
employee for his employer,…
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer,
employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or
instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also
includes an officer of a corporation.[1]
(NOTE: Tax law actually contains two definitions of “wages”, one related to
“withholding” against taxes related to such receipts, and one to the receipts on
which FICA and FUTA taxes fall. While the “withholding” definition above hinges
on the meaning of “employee”, the “FICA and FUTA” “wage” definition at § 3121(a)
instead hinges on a custom definition of “employment” found at § 3121(b).
However, discussing the one suffices for discussing both, for as the US Supreme
Court holds in Rowan Cos. v. United States, 452 US 247 (1981), “The plain
language and legislative histories of the relevant statutes indicate that
Congress intended for its definition of “wages” to be interpreted in the same
manner for FICA and FUTA as for income-tax withholding.” Thus, while the FICA
and FUTA taxes don’t fall on all “wages” subject to the withholding provisions
and in that sense there are two different subclasses of “wages”, the nature of
what qualifies as any kind of tax-relevant “wage” is the same.)
It will be observed that the definition of “employee” deploys the term
“includes”, rather than the more conventional “means” often found in
definitions. The reason for the use of this specialized term is to invoke a
special rule of construction for “includes” found at 26 USC § 7701(c):
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in
this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the
meaning of the term defined.
Under this rule, the term “includes” provides for what courts have described as
a “calculated indefiniteness”. This is the expandability of the meaning of a
statutory term to things not listed in the definition (indefiniteness), but only
things of the same character as those listed (calculated).
In a statutory definition, the term defined is stripped of all external meaning,
being left with only the specified meaning given by the custom definition.[2]
Normally, what is listed or described in the custom definition is comprehensive
and closed. But under the rule of construction at 26 USC 7701(c), the use of
“includes” allows an “indefiniteness” to the scope of the custom definition in
that it can embrace things of the same kind as those enumerated even though not
listed, while at the same time being “calculated” in that such expansion cannot
reach beyond the specialized class illustrated by the enumerated examples.
For example, under the “includes” rule the definition of “employee” at 3401(c)
embraces any variety of federal worker-- even varieties not described (some of
which may not even exist at the time the definition is written). All such,
listed in the statutory definition or not, are within the general class defined
and circumscribed by the illustrative examples that ARE listed or described.
At the same time, this “indefiniteness” in the statutory definition is
“calculated” in that it can’t be construed to embrace workers NOT having the
characteristics of the members of the class which are listed and by which the
class’s nature is illustrated. This means that while any kind of federal worker
can be deemed an “employee” (whose remuneration received as such qualifies as
“wages”) NON-federal workers, being unrepresented in the illustrative list
provided by Congress, cannot be deemed to be such “employees”, and the pay to
such excluded workers cannot be deemed “wages”.
The United States Treasury Department has concisely expressed this rule:
“The terms “includes and including” do not exclude things not enumerated
which are in the same general class;” 27 CFR 26.11 and 27 CFR 72.11
Here’s how the United States Supreme Court explains the rule:
“[T]he verb “includes” imports a general class, some of whose particular
instances are those specified in the definition.”
Helvering v Morgan’s, Inc, 293 U.S. 121, 126 fn. 1 (1934);
and,
“[I]ncluding... ...connotes simply an illustrative application of the general
principle."
Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 62 S.Ct. 1
U.S. (1941).
A number of federal circuit court rulings provide examples of this rule in
operation. For instance, in Mueller v. Nixon, 470 F.2d 1348 (6th Cir. 1972), the
Sixth Circuit analyzes the meaning of "person" under the language and structure
of 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b), which deploys the “includes” term in its statutory
definition:
Shame on you if you don't do everything in your power to make this file go
viral over the next few dayss
[1]
These corporations are US “corporate” agencies or instrumentalities, as
defined in § 207 of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939: “a corporate
agency or instrumentality, is one (a) a majority of the stock of which
is owned by or on behalf of the United States, or (b) the power to
appoint or select a majority of the board of directors of which is
exercisable by or on behalf of the United States…”: “[W]here
general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the
general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to
those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words”
Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001); also seeGustafson
v. Alloyd Co. (93-404), 513 US 561 (1995), Norfolk & Western R.
Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 US 117 (1991).
[2]“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that
definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning.”Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000); “It is axiomatic
that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of
that term.”Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987); “Of
course, statutory definitions of terms used therein prevail over
colloquial meanings. Fox v. Standard Oil Co., 294 U.S. 87, 95, 55
S.Ct. 333, 336.”Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323
U.S. 490 (1945); “[W]e are not at liberty to put our gloss on the
definition that Congress provided by looking to the generally accepted
meaning of the defined term.”Tenn. Prot. & Advocacy Inc. v.
Wells, 371 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2004).
Is this newsletter of any value to you? If so, please consider
a
donation to help keep it available. Donations can be sent to:
Peter Hendrickson
232 Oriole St.
Commerce Twp., MI 48382
As Long As Myths About The Income Tax Persist,
The Misapplication Of The Tax Will Continue
FEBRUARY 3, 2013 MARKED THE 100th ANNIVERSARY of the adoption of the
16th Amendment. As was to be expected, a lot of punditry on the
subject could be found throughout cyberspace and in the mainstream
media harmfully mis-stating the facts concerning the amendment, and
thereby helping perpetuate the mis-application of the "income" tax.
The
chief error made in these articles is the characterization of the
amendment as the origin of the income tax. The
chief ill effect of this error is that imagining the 16th
Amendment to be the origin of the tax makes it very easy to
misunderstand the real nature of the tax as an excise of limited
scope on only distinguished, specialized receipts.
On the
other hand, understanding that the 16th is NOT the origin of the
tax makes recognition of the true nature of the tax virtually
inescapable. Understanding the true origin of the tax means
recognizing that the tax predates the amendment by many years
during which it was applied to the very same things to which it
applies now-- and was so applied without apportionment, while being properly
upheld by the courts as completely Constitutional. This, in turn,
reveals that the objects of the tax were, and are, of a limited,
distinguishable character that have always been suited to a
non-apportioned tax.
Because getting these things wrong conceals the true nature
of the tax, and getting them right reveals that true nature, this is
not only just a matter of academic and professional integrity.
Instead, it is a matter of enormous public interest concerning the
truth about a tax by which control of 35-45% of productive America's
earnings has annually been being transferred from its rightful
owners to a hungry horde of sociopaths intent on living by the
"political means".
CLEARLY, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT that punditry erroneously perpetuating
myths about the 16th Amendment and the tax be corrected, and this
will only happen if each of your reading these words help to educate
those responsible. You will all have seen articles this past week
about the amendment and/or the tax. Please send
the document you'll find here (preferably with a nice, polite
cover letter) to every writer responsible for such an article, and
to that writer's editor as well, where appropriate.
If
each of you takes part in this endeavor, we will soon see a welcome
transformation in the minds of everyone with whom those of us
standing up for the rule of law and the proper application of the
tax must deal. I don't need to explain what a difference that will
make.
P.S. That
document is a great tool for introducing the truth about the tax
to others, as well...
"At the outset, we reject the
Government's breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the
Sixteenth Amendment -- upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments
it advances here. The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the
Congress to tax as "incomes" every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive.
As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the "Congress cannot make a thing
income which is not so in fact." Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass'n v. Hopkins,
269 U.S. 110, 114 (1925). Indeed, because the "the power to tax involves the
power to destroy," McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 431
(1819), it would not be consistent with our constitutional government, and
the sanctity of property in our system, merely to rely upon the legislature
to decide what constitutes income.
Fortunately, we need not rely
solely upon the wisdom and beneficence of the Congress for, when the
Sixteenth Amendment was drafted, the word “incomes” had well understood
limits."
MURPHY v. INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, DC Cir. No. 05-5139 (2006)
Scrolling through
my newsletter archives, I came across this little gem and had to share it again,
'cause it's that shiny and illuminating...
Dead Judge Allegedly Denies CtC
Warrior's Lawsuit Motion
On Friday, February 12, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge
Allan Kornblum allegedly signed an order denying
CtC Warrior
Steven Martins' Motion For Leave to File An Amended Complaint in
his lawsuit to force the IRS to process four claims for refund
(five claims were filed,
one of which has already been properly honored with a
complete refund of everything withheld, and
one with a majority of the claim honored, but with a balance
still owing to Steve). It will be presumed that Magistrate
Kornblum only took personal official responsibility for this
decision after at least reading and coming to considered
agreement with, if not personally writing, the order on which
his name an alleged signature appears.
There's just one small problem with this. Magistrate Kornblum
died Friday, February 12, on his last day of battling a fatal
cancer.
Nonetheless, we are asked to imagine that among his last acts on
Earth, Federal Magistrate Kornblum pushed past the fatal
internal trauma with which he was being consumed that very day,
pushed aside his grieving family, and took time off from making
peace with his God in order to attend to more pressing
business-- the thwarting of a
CtC-educated
American's lawsuit against the "United States" to compel the
processing of his claims for refund of amounts improperly
withheld from him in connection with the "income" tax.
I don't think so...
Steve's suit has been a classic example of the sort of IRS and
Department of Justice (sic) evasions uniquely deployed in
response to CtC-educated
legal actions from the very beginning. For example, the
government initially responded to Steve's effort to see the law
upheld and justice served with a motion to dismiss which
carefully and deliberately mischaracterized him as arguing that
he “is exempt from the application of the
Internal Revenue Code to his wages and other income.”
As is consistently the case when faced with a
CtC-educated
American, corrupt elements of the government are reduced to
pretending that the warrior said something he didn't, due to
having no lawful response other than capitulation to what
ACTUALLY got said... We see this same nonsense again in this
"order from beyond the grave", on which appears the remarkably
similar bogus claim that Steve is making the "assertion that
his income... ...is not subject to federal income tax."
The coincidence of this language and the circumstances of this
"order" tempts one to the suspicion that this "order" was not
only "signed" by Steve's DoJ (sic) adversary, but written by
him, too...
Anyway, I don't really mean to make too much of this. It can't
just be that the "ignorance tax" beneficiaries are so
increasingly desperate as they watch their scam-fueled
gravy-train race toward an ever-bigger rock of truth that they
are deliberately resorting to cheap frauds of this sort, can it?
I'm sure that there is a reasonable explanation for all this.
But just in case there isn't...
Watch out for that robot! I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!
(Deceitful efforts to discourage Americans from learning the
truth about the "income tax")
FOR
ALL THE YEARS SINCE 2003 when
CtC was first
published, the government has engaged in a concerted effort to
frighten people away from its truths. This effort involves
official government websites and press releases touting an
occasional court ruling that appears to be at odds with some
CtC-revelation
(but without details sufficient to expose the real substance of the
ruling)--
and
sometimes even more mendacious behavior.
The
effort also involves online
activity by purportedly disinterested folks who we are supposed to imagine spend huge amounts of time posting "Stay away from this crazy stuff!" out of the goodness of their hearts and
a selfless concern for
the well-being of others. In other words, this is online activity by
obvious government-connected or supervised "agents-provocateur" and
the occasional "useful idiot" shill
Some of these folks imagine themselves to
be beneficiaries of the status quo, or want to be on some official's
cocktail-party A-list. Some are doubtless
just shameless hacks attempting to defend a professional career of
thoughtlessly buying into the "income tax" scam as commonly
misunderstood, and see their best bet at avoiding embarrassment in
helping the government bury the truth.
These
"non-official"
posts (which can be found in newsgroups, blogs, and occupying entire
websites) are generally of a consistent character. All either make
fallacious "resort to authority" arguments based on a careful
selection of misleading, irrelevant or demonstrably flawed material
from certain judicial rulings, present outright lies about events
such as tax-agency reactions to educated filings, present lies about
the content or arguments in
CtC, or do all
of these. All rely on the targets of their mendacities not
investigating matters for themselves, knowing that such investigations are often
time-consuming and sometimes outright difficult.
Here's
the simple, impossible-to-misunderstand short answer to these efforts: The
IRS has admitted under oath that tens of thousands of
CtC-educated filings have been
made since 2003. Now consider how many allegedly adverse
court rulings are claimed in these official and non-official
scare-you-away-from-CtC efforts...
Furthermore, pretty-much everything alleged in these official
and non-official scare-you-away-from-CtC
efforts is grossly misrepresented. Let's examine
a few of these falsehoods.
Misrepresentation: CtC-educated Americans
have been prosecuted for their filings
We each have our reasons, and our story. It's time, and it's needed, for
you to share yours with the world.
Everyone's failure to step up and fulfill
this simple request is really getting to me, now...
"The day we see truth and do not speak is the
day we begin to die."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
What does it
for you?
Is it simply
because no moral and upstanding person has any choice when it comes to
telling the truth over his or her signature, whether on tax forms or
anywhere else?
Is it recognition of the critical importance of the rule of law,
and the knowledge that if everybody leaves its caretaking to someone else,
it will soon be lost to us completely?
Is it the money?
Maybe it's
just simple respect for your own rights as a human being, who is not and
cannot be not involuntarily subordinated to others?
Maybe it's just
simple respect for your general civic responsibility to be the grown-up and
enforce frugality and restraint on a big, powerful creature of our own devising
which otherwise is like a badly-raised teenage boy given whiskey and car keys
and let loose on the road to wreak havoc?
Or is it, perhaps,
a more acute anxiety that if our bonfire of a state isn't damped, and quickly,
it'll soon burn down the house around us all?
What IS it that
firms up your jaw and stiffens your resolve?
It's time to
take off the bushel and share your light!
I would like
you to think about what it is that motivates you for a few moments (or all
day, if you like), and then send me your thoughts. I want to put YOUR reasons to work inspiring folks who
don't yet understand what this is all about.
In this day
and age, the most effective way
for you to share your thinking
for the benefit of others is to video-record yourself talking about how you
feel, and explaining what inspires and motivates YOU.
All you need is a
webcam or cell-phone equipped with a camera. If you don't have, or know how to
use, one of these, have a friend help.
If needed, write a little script for yourself. Better, though, to just speak
extemporaneously, after spending a little time sorting out your thoughts and
getting down into your heart.
Keep yourself to
no more than 2 or 3 minutes,
and keep in mind that the purpose is not to educate, but to
INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE. Your video will be one of many to be shared.
You needn't
feel any obligation to be profound, and you shouldn't try to explain
anything about the law, other than to say that you have read it and you know
it's on your side. You just need to be sincere, and uplifting. Your object
is to make your audience want to have what you have, and to be where you are
in your heart.
Keep in mind that you're speaking to an
audience that doesn't yet know ANYTHING about the subject, and whose first
reaction is, "This must be illegal; this must be dangerous; this is too good to
be true." You want to pull that audience right past such things, and
straight to a focus on truth, morality, and our American heritage of liberty
and the rule of law.
Remember:
INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE, ENERGIZE.
Speak about rights. Speak about morality, and the obligation of a grown-up
and responsible person to speak the truth and to enforce the Constitution. Speak
about everyone's duty
to give to God what is God's, always, and to Caesar only
what is really Caesar's. Speak of your obligation to respect yourself, and to
look out for the current and future well-being of your children and your fellow
citizens.
If you have had victories, describe them.
Better still, show them, if possible.
Be clear about
just what you accomplished: EVERYTHING
back-- Social Security, Medicare and all; a "notice of deficiency" closing
notice; an on-paper agreement or acknowledgment that your earnings weren't
subject to the tax and everything withheld or paid-in was an "overpayment";
a transcript showing all $0s; or whatever happened.
When you speak of state victories, name the state. If you had to
overcome balkiness from a tax agency before winning any victory, describe that,
too!
Remember, your
purpose is to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and
ENERGIZE.
If you're dealing with ongoing balkiness, describe that,
too, if you wish-- but be sure to explain why you're not discouraged, and why you are not
standing down, not slinking back into the barn, and not choosing to endorse the lies.
Mention what you do for a living, whether you're a doctor, homemaker, lawyer,
trucker, IT guy or gal, or a retiree or student. Help people understand that the
company of grown-up activist Americans they are being invited to join cuts
across all demographics and all interests-- with the common denominator being
respect for the law and love of the principles on which this great country was
founded.
This is
your chance to get a LOT accomplished.
We've all had
frustrating occasions of trying to explain all this to a friend, neighbor,
family member or co-worker, only to pile up against the wall of a mind not
yet ready to listen and learn. Here is your chance to address a
self-selected audience of folks who have themselves decided that it's time
for them to begin paying attention, and have clicked on your testimonial for
exactly that reason.
So, please
make and send those videos right away! The restoration of institutional
respect for individual rights and the rule of law depends on enough
individuals insisting upon it. Do your part to let those starting to rub the
sleep from their eyes know that there is a community already waiting for their
fellowship with open arms and open hearts and shining spirits.
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes." - Thomas Paine
CtC Warrior Ike Hall has been engaged in a very virtuous project-- creating a study guide for new students of CtC. This remains a work in progress at this point, but I think what Ike's done so far is already worth sharing with the rest of the community. Click here to download the guide-- now complete through chapter twelve!
For more clarifying resources click here; and click here for more tools for spreading the truth.
Getting Free Of The "Income" Tax Scheme Is As Easy As Falling
Off A Bike
To get an
idea of how today's "income" tax scheme works, try this little
exercise:
Think
of the federal government as a guy named Bob, who lives down the
street from you in a town that is really big on bicycles. Bikes
get used for commuting, deliveries, shopping, etc.. In fact,
other than walking, bicycles are the exclusive form of
transportation in your town.
Your neighbor
Bob has a by-the-mile bicycle-renting business-- "Bob's
Bicycles". Bob's Bicycles is far and away the biggest business
in town.
Part of Bob’s
success is because he does a lot of contract business. However,
Bob doesn't just get paid by riders who have signed an agreement
with him, or even just those using Bob's bikes. Bob gets
something every time anybody in town does any riding at all,
through an odd combination of circumstances that took many years
to come together.
Here's how it
happened...
Bob's
Bicycles was launched long ago by the great grandfather of the
present Bob (Bob IV). Great Grandpa Bob started out not only
with a main location for his contract business-- he also had the
bright idea of setting up spots around town where he parked some
of his bikes for use by the more occasional rider, on an "honor
system". Anyone could take and use one of these bikes, but they
were expected to keep track of their mileage, and send Bob a
"1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due Form" (and the appropriate rent),
periodically. The initial design of the form was like this:
I, ______________, rode a
Bob's Bicycle a total of _____ miles this year.
At Bob's rental rate of
$.15 per mile, I owe Bob $______
I said that
Great Grandpa Bob planned to deal with these occasional riders
on the "honor system", and that's true. But he liked his money,
too, and didn't want to miss anything that was due him. So,
after setting up the "self-serve" locations, Great Grandpa Bob
went around handing out "W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms"
to every other business in town. The forms-- accompanied by
notices that if Bob didn't get his rent from someone riding a
bicycle in connection with any business, he would sue the
company involved-- said:
You Can’t Fight Well When You Don’t Know What You’re Fighting About.
If you are having an argument with the IRS or any other tax agency,
You are NOT being presumed to have made “corporate profit”.
You are NOT being alleged to have received “foreign income”.
You are NOT entangled in an invisible “adhesion contract”.
You are NOT being obligated by a law whose subject is never identified.
You are being targeted because REAL EVIDENCE exists that YOU PERSONALLY HAD “INCOME” to which the revenue laws apply-- even though that evidence is almost certainly incorrect, and CAN be corrected.
Seriously. Do you want to win? SPREAD THIS FILE AROUND!
Doing so will accomplish more than anything that happens in a courtroom, more than any argument you make with any bureaucrat, more than ANYTHING else that you can do.
Are You Not Bothering?
Then You're Just Talking The Talk.
You've GOT To Walk The Walk If You Want To Win.
"Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
CtC Warrior SanDiegoScott has put together a great little 20-question quiz to test your knowledge of the law regarding the United States "income" tax. Test yourself, test your friends and family! Test your accountant and tax attorney, and help them learn the liberating truth!!
A "Pragmatic" Perspective On The Tax And The Rule Of Law
Hey, don't bother me with that "morality" argument, and all that stuff about "upholding the rule of law". I'm a pragmatist. I'm just interested in looking out for "numero uno", and living my life without any hassles from the IRS!
So I'm okay with submissively letting the government:
take 45% of my earnings;
habituate itself to the conveniences of "creativity" in the writing of laws and the behavior of its officers in courtrooms in order to take that wealth from me with an appearance of legitimacy;
use my money to mess with foreigners on behalf of special interests, engendering hatred and contempt of all Americans-- including me;
use my money to finance an army of bureaucrats who rule my life for the benefit of themselves and their special-interest clients;
use my money to pay for an army of lawyers who will sue me or prosecute me if I try to make my own choices about who works for me and on what terms; about what I say-- and when, and how; about what I do with my own property; about whether I'm equipped to defend myself and those I love; and about how I raise and educate my children;
-- just as long as I'm left alone, dude!
To suffer abuse without complaint or struggle is to suffer it
nonetheless-- but to suffer it without the amelioration of dignity and
self-respect.
If each person receiving this newsletter each week distributed as few as 100 of any of the great outreach tools featured here to co-workers, friends, neighbors and family members (or just strangers on the street, in the mall, etc...), we could have SEVERAL MILLION new Americans suddenly introduced to the liberating truth about the tax!
When directed to a page by topic or link, read everything.
I know that this can mean the investment of a lot of time, attention and effort, but although some may imagine otherwise, I don't write as much as I do because I can't think of any other way to spend my time...
Furthermore, when you encounter a hyperlink within, or associated with, the text you are reading, follow it!
It is pretty common these days for web-based material to be littered with hyperlinks. Sometimes the purpose is to provide definitions or examples, in order to ensure that folks reading the original material aren't presented with a word or reference which they don't understand. Sometimes the links lead to illustrations pertinent to the original text.
It is common-- and perfectly understandable-- for folks who are confident that they are familiar with language or references within the main text they are reading to get in the habit of skipping over included links. I do it all the time, myself!
However, I very rarely include links for definitional or explanatory purposes; and when I DO make a link out of text in one page it is generally to another self-contained page, rather than merely illustrative material. These other pages contain material the clear understanding of which I deem highly important for the proper and complete understanding of the original page. (Links to CtC, the Victories pages, CtC Warriors and so on are obvious exceptions to this general rule. On the other hand, a link to the victory Highlights or 'Every Which Way But Loose' pages, which might seem like such exceptions, are not. The special selection of victories on those pages, and the filed docs and tax-agency correspondences included therewith, themselves constitute highly instructive material which merits careful attention. Thus care needs to be taken in all cases.)
Please make a habit of clicking on all provided links and at least looking briefly to ensure that the linked page is one with which you are completely familiar from another study session.
Finally, please keep in mind that, annoying though it may seem at first blush (but not, I trust, upon reflection), I constantly tweak material already posted. Obviously this doesn't mean that every page is in flux at all times, but it does mean that if you are directed to a page that IS familiar, it's worthwhile to read it through again if it's been a month or two since your last having done so.
