“The right to engage in an employment, to carry on a business, or
pursue an occupation or profession not in itself hurtful or
conducted in a manner injurious to the public, is a common right,
which, under our Constitution, as construed by all our former
decisions, can neither be prohibited nor hampered by laying a tax
for State revenue on the occupation, employment, business or
profession. ... Thousands of individuals in this State carry on
their occupations as above definedwho derive no income
whatever therefrom. But, where an income is derived from any
occupation, business, profession or employment, then the Legislature
may lay thereon a tax...”
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?
How To Read A Court Case
And
protect yourself from perfidious purveyors of pigswill
I
WAS RECENTLY INCLUDED IN AN EMAIL EXCHANGE between a couple of
folks who had encountered an excerpt from a 7th Circuit case
called U.S. v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991). The
excerpt reads: "All individuals, natural or unnatural,
must pay federal income tax on their wages," regardless of
whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from
the federal government." This little bit of rhetoric, I'm
given to understand, is being used by "ignorance tax"
cyber-trolls in an effort to slow the spread of the truth about
the tax revealed in
CtC.
In
keeping with the corrupt spirit of all such efforts (which are,
one has to assume, conducted by those who know better, but are
willing to lie to preserve their very rewarding scam), the
excerpt from the Sloan case is an outright fabrication (even
though the words DO appear in the ruling...). Demonstrating that
will be a useful exercise, as it will help equip everyone with
the tools needed for similar parsings of other trollish
offerings. There has been no shortage of such efforts needing
debunking over the last 10 years, during which, ironically, the
trolls
continuously return educated claimants' money even while
trying desperately to convince everyone that they don't really
have to, and that, in fact, doing so is contrary to the law's
actual requirements...
Let's start off with the first step in analyzing any
representation presented as a "refutation" or rebuttal to
CtC:
PRESUME IT TO BE A MIS-REPRESENTATION!
You should know by now that if someone presents something that
appears to be in conflict with what you have learned here, it is
wrong, and almost certainly deliberately mis-represented, either
by the one presenting it to you directly, or whoever presented
it to that person (which is to say, whoever first launched the
thing into action).
Here, you have never been encouraged to take anything on faith--
on the contrary, you have been encouraged to be relentlessly
skeptical about everything presented, all of which is as
painstakingly supported by evidence, authority and logic as it
possibly could be. I've never asked anyone to take anything on
faith; no one should take some net-borne, context-less,
bona-fide absent assertion purportedly in conflict with what you
have already seen proven every-which-way-from-Sunday on faith.
That leads us to the second rule:
READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL YOURSELF!!
In
most cases, doing so will clear up misconceptions and
misrepresentations in 5 minutes.
This Sloan excerpt is a good example. Going to
the ruling, we quickly discover that Sloan was anything but
CtC-educated (obvious from the 1991 date of the case, of course,
but much more so when his many well-meaning but baseless and
confused arguments are examined).
Among other things, Sloan suffered from the "Show
me the law!" syndrome. He apparently argued that "the
revenue laws of the United States do not impose a tax on income".
At least the 7th Circuit panel declares this to be his position.
It has to be recognized that a litigant's arguments are often
badly re-stated in these rulings, whether deliberately or
otherwise, and so some suspicion that this is such an occasion
must arise. However, the panel goes on to declare that "Sloan
cites Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781, 81 L.Ed.2d 694
(1984), for the proposition that the tax code provisions
establishing an income tax are an unlawful agency interpretation
of a statute because the Congress clearly did not intend to
impose a tax on income." This makes the accuracy of the
panel's description appear more reliable than otherwise.
The panel goes on to say: "Also basic to Mr. Sloan's "freedom
from income tax theory" is his contention that he is not a
citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn,
natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a
"master"--not "servant"--of his government. As a result, he
claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of
the United States." Here is where we get to the mis-represented
excerpt, with the panel going on to say: "This strange
argument has been previously rejected as well. "All individuals,
natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their
wages," regardless of whether they requested, obtained or
exercised any privilege from the federal government."
But of course, this is not the end of the story...
First of all, and simplest, we can take note of the confused mix
of terms in this declaration. "All individuals... ...must pay
federal income tax on their wages,..." Read in the context of
the tax, there is no question that "wage-receipt" invokes the
tax. Had the court said "on their earnings", we would be given
pause a moment longer. But it did not, even though that
expression, were it true, would be far more useful a statement
for any court to make in any effort to slap down those pesky and
intransigent "tax protestors".
Second, we can note that the panel doesn't end there-- it goes
on to cite the case from which this excerpted language is
actually borrowed:
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984), and
references yet another case to illustrate the point that the
Lovell excerpt and citation was really intended to address:
"cf. Studley, 783 F.2d at 937 (Studley's argument that "she is
not a 'taxpayer' because she is an absolute, freeborn and
natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a 'person'
under the Internal Revenue Code.")."
It
is revealed, then, that the Sloan panel is not itself making
some kind of declaration about "privilege", as the
troll-community floating the excerpt from this ruling means to
be imagined. Instead, the Sloan panel is citing the Lovell
language for its rebuttal of the "I'm a "natural person" and
therefore not subject to the tax" nonsense (which is a
product of the "income is only corporate [read: artificial
person] profit" error).
So, Sloan doesn't really say the "privilege" thing, but
Lovell does, right? Well, that's not actually true,
either... This takes us to rule number three of how to read
cases:
DON'T TRUST THE COURTS TO BE ACCURATE OR HONEST IN THEIR
CITATIONS OR ASSERTIONS!
'Cause they're very often not.
A
few years ago I launched a page called "WeedWhackers"
for the purpose of posting debunkings of bogus judicial rulings
and/or bogus citations and excerpts from rulings. I invited the
community to contribute to this exercise, intending to end up
with a webpage resource to which everyone could resort when
encountering trolleries, and from which packaged corrections
could be copied and pasted into newsgroup chats, forum threads
and wherever else the bogus assertions were being deployed to
confuse and mislead the unwary.
Unfortunately, I soon found myself embroiled in focused personal
attacks which forced my attention off this project (and frankly,
none of you were contributing analyses to the project anyway,
and I had never meant to do this all myself...). As it happens,
though, the analysis with which I seeded the WeedWhackers page
as an example of what I hoped for from the community was of ...
the Lovell ruling-- 'cause it's broadly abused by the
trolls, and a marvel of mendacity and obfuscation. I felt it to
be the "poster child" of how courts can spout nonsense and their
nonsense can be abused by the trolls, as in the immediate
misrepresentation of Sloan.
Here's what I have long had posted about Lovell, which is
also the rebuttal to the bogus presentation of Sloan as a
challenge to CtC:
Who Writes This Stuff?!
Shining A Little Disinfecting Sunlight Into The Law-Defier's
Toadstool Factory
While
conducting a bit of research the other day I came across a
wikipedia page intended to be seen as "debunking" various "tax
protestor arguments". Although a number of the "arguments"
addressed are, indeed, nonsense, regardless of the individual item
being addressed the page overall is a tedious repetition of
carefully ambiguous or mis-directional case-law citations, sourced
from quatlosers, Dan Evans and other IRS shills, and publications
from the agency itself.
In a
typical example, under the heading, 'Federal Government Authority'
and the subheading, 'Sovereign individual, government privilege and
similar arguments', we find this: "[I]n the case of Lovell v.
United States the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit stated:
"Plaintiffs argue first that they are exempt from federal
taxation because they are "natural individuals" who have not
"requested, obtained or exercised any, privilege from an
agency of government." This is not a basis for an exemption
from federal income tax. [citation omitted] All individuals,
natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their
wages, regardless of whether they received any "privileges"
from the government. Plaintiffs also contend that the
Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without
apportionment. They are wrong; it does not. U. S. Const.
amend. XVI [. . . .]"
Lovell v. United States
You'll
notice the
"[citation omitted]" after the "privilege"-related
assertion in this excerpt. The IRS shills posting this lie
don't want you to be able to check out this claim (in fact, they
don't even want you to read Lovell at all, as indicated by the
citation to that case being incomplete-- you're just supposed to
take their word for everything said about it...). That omitted
citation is to
Holker v. United States, 737 F.2d 751 (8th Cir. 1984).
This is the case allegedly relied upon by the
Lovell
court as
providing the authority for its otherwise unsupported declaration
about "privilege". However, the Holker court not only also
doesn't supply any authority for the contention made in Lovell, it
doesn't address the issue at all. Here is that ruling in its
entirety:
Louis E. Holker,
pro se.
Before HEANEY,
Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
1
Louis E. Holker
was assessed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6702 for filing
a frivolous tax return. He then commenced this suit under 26
U.S.C. Sec. 6703(c)(2) for abatement of this assessment. The
district court granted the government's motion for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and we affirm.
2
In a letter to the
IRS, Holker requested a tax refund for 1982, arguing that he
owed no tax because he is a "natural individual and
unenfranchised freeman" who "neither requested, obtained nor
exercised any privilege from any agency of government." Holker
enclosed with this letter an unsigned Form 1040 marked "NOT A
TAX RETURN--For information only," two W-2 forms marked
"INCORRECT," and a Schedule C profit and loss statement. On
Schedule C, Holker claims to be in "construction" and he lists,
among other things, gross receipts of over $15,000 which were
also deducted as labor costs (despite directions in Schedule C
not to include salary that the taxpayer paid to himself).
3
Under 26 U.S.C.
Sec. 6702, the questions presented to this Court are whether
Holker filed "what purports to be a return" but which contains
insufficient information by which the substantial correctness of
the self-assessment may be judged or which contains information
that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is
substantially incorrect; and, if so, whether filing the
purported return is due to a position which is frivolous. As the
district court correctly noted, these are issues of law for the
court to decide. See United States v. Grabinski, 727 F.2d 681,
686 (8th Cir.1984) (citing United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830,
834 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 916, 101 S.Ct. 1360,
67 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981)).
4
Although Holker
denies having filed any document that purports to be a tax
return, his argument is meritless. Taxpayers may not obtain
refunds without first filing returns. 26 C.F.R. Sec.
301.6402-3(a)(1) (1983). With Holker's refund request to the
IRS, he appended a Form 1040 and W-2 statements. Under the
circumstances, we can only construe these documents as elements
of a purported return. Nichols v. United States, 575 F.Supp.
320, 322 (D.Minn.1983). Any other construction of section 6702
would flout the intent of Congress to penalize any individual
filing a frivolous return. See S.Rep. No. 97-494, 97th Cong., 2d
Sess., reprinted in 1982 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 781, 1024.
5
Holker's return
facially indicates that his self-assessment is incorrect and
that his position is frivolous. His W-2 forms show his receipt
of wages totaling $15,060.96, yet he reported no wages on his
Form 1040. His unexplained designation of his W-2 forms as
"INCORRECT" and his attempt to deduct his wages as his cost of
labor on Schedule C also establish the frivolousness and
incorrectness of his position. See Funk v. Commissioner, 687
F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir.1982) (designation of wages received for
services as untaxable income is frivolous).
6
Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of 8th
Cir.R. 14.
The
Holker
court recites Holker's argument that he should get a
refund of amounts withheld because (as he says)
"he is a "natural individual and unenfranchised freeman" who "neither requested, obtained nor
exercised any privilege from any agency of government.""
But the court in no way proceeds to analyze
or even refer a single time further to this
argument. It neither accepts nor disagrees with the
argument, instead [carefully? who knows...] stepping
right past it.
In fact, the Holker court DOES declare what it finds
to be "frivolous" about Holker's filing, and his
"privilege-related" position is notable by its
absence: "Holker's return facially indicates that
his self-assessment is incorrect and that his
position is frivolous. His W-2 forms show his
receipt of wages totaling $15,060.96, yet he
reported no wages on his Form 1040. His unexplained
designation of his W-2 forms as "INCORRECT" and his
attempt to deduct his wages as his cost of labor on
Schedule C also establish the frivolousness and
incorrectness of his position."
Thus,
even without bothering to address the larger features
distinguishing
the
Lovell
case as concerning a mass of misunderstandings by Lovell more than
adequately setting up the appellate panel to blithely do drive-bys
on them all without care or regard for accuracy, as revealed in the circuit court's summary:
"In April 1983, plaintiffs filed separate Forms 1040 for
the 1982 tax year. Each plaintiff claimed no income from wages
or salaries during 1982, although each claimed a refund of all
the federal income and Social Security taxes that had been
withheld during the year. The Lovells also filed Schedule C
forms on which they claimed that their gross receipts as "labor
contractors" were totally offset by adjustments for the "cost of
labor." Neither plaintiff signed the return; instead, they each
wrote on the signature line: "not a tax return (see attached
letter)." The letter explained that they sought a refund and
that the forms filed were not tax returns but supporting
documentation for their refund claims. The IRS assessed a $500
frivolous return penalty under s 6702(a); [FN1] plaintiffs paid
15% of the penalties and filed claims for refund which were
denied by the IRS. Plaintiffs then filed the instant action in
district court.";
...the plain fact
is that the
Lovell
court actually cites a false authority to support its
therefore empty words. Whatever the
Lovell
court may have meant by
that portion of its ruling, and whatever the IRS shills responsible
for posting it may have meant to be taken from the excerpt by the
casual reader (who almost certainly would not bother to read the
Lovell
case in its entirety, and follow up by reading the
Holker
case, thus discovering the subterfuge), it is not what the excerpt
is intended to suggest.
The
same is true of the remainder of the
Lovell
excerpt, which contains
the declaration that,
"Plaintiffs also contend that the Constitution
prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment. They are
wrong; it does not. U. S. Const. amend. XVI--"
again, coyly leaving
out the alleged authority for this sonorous pronouncement and giving us just [...] instead.
Resorting to the actual
Lovell
ruling, we find that the omitted
citation is to
Parker v. Comm'r,
724 F.2d 469, (5th Cir. 1984).
In
that
ruling we find the following: "The Supreme
Court promptly determined in Brushaber... that the sixteenth
amendment provided the needed constitutional basis for the
imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax.”
Proceeding to
Brushaber, we find that
what that Supreme Court
ACTUALLY said is:
"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent,
but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment
provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a
power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not
be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all
other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this
erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many
contentions advanced in argument to support it...”
and to suggest the contrary would be idiotic (okay, they didn't use
the word "idiotic"...), because that would cause:
“...one provision of the Constitution [to] destroy another; that
is, [it] would result in bringing the provisions of the
Amendment [supposedly] exempting a direct tax from apportionment
into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that
all direct taxes be apportioned."
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.
Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
So,
the 5th circuit was flatly wrong in its declaration in
Parker, and
the 7th circuit has actually cited no authority for its own
declaration in
Lovell. And yet, this
Lovell
excerpt is
presented as authority for the contention of the IRS shills that
"the courts have ruled" against the issue of "privilege" as an
element of the "income" tax, and that the 16th amendment authorized
a non-apportioned tax on what had been taxable only by apportionment
prior to the amendment.
'Fraid
not...
So, Sloan relies on Lovell;Lovell
relies on Holker; and Holker not only DOESN'T say
what the Lovell and Sloan courts use it to
support, but really says the opposite (by carefully avoiding the
subject in the way that it does). The Sloan excerpt
currently making its way around the internet is bullsh*t, just
as is the Dan Evans, "quatloser" and other assorted IRS-shill
crap about Lovell, etc..
This takes us to the fourth rule of how members of this educated
community should read a case
GENEROUSLY-- AS IN SHARING YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AND DENOUNCING
THE TROLLS!
It
also takes us to the fifth rule:
RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN THE TROLLS HAVE TO RESORT TO
MISREPRESENTATIONS LIKE THOSE DISCUSSED HERE, IT IS
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ACTUAL CHALLENGES TO
CtC TO WHICH THEY CAN RESORT--WHICH PROVES ONCE AGAIN
THAT
CtC IS THE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX!!!!
Go
forth and teach the truth, my friends.
By
the way, the Parker case, which I discussed a bit above,
and which was resorted to as the "garbage-in" source for the
Lovell court's "garbage-out" about a "direct, non-apportioned
tax" is parsed out to a much greater and more revealing degree
on the page "Regarding
Trolleries II". I'll give you a teaser and mention that
although the trolls posting the Wikipedia excerpt I quoted above
have the Lovell ruling declaring "a direct tax without
apportionment"
and citing to
Parker
as the source of that assertion, Parker doesn't actually say
this...
You'll also find a complete
debunking of the long-abused misrepresentations of the rulings
in Latham and Sullivan about the
proper construction of "includes" in a tax-related statute. Good
reading, and I strongly encourage everyone to go carefully
through the page in its entirety.
"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is
able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing
superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the
conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest,
insane, intolerable."
-H.
L. Mencken
"All governments are run by liars and nothing they
say should be believed."
-I. F. Stone
Bitcoin holders can donate in that medium by clicking the button
below:
THE FINEST THING I'VE SEEN IN A WHILE HAS TO BE THE HEROISM OF
EDWARD SNOWDEN! This patriotic American marches in the
footsteps of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Sibel Edmonds,
Daniel Ellsberg and other men and women who have braved the very
real threat of personal danger from the sociopaths operating the
state for their own benefit and that of their cronies to speak
truth and reveal those operators' endless crimes.
The contrast between Snowden and his kind and Rogers, Feinstein,
James Clapper and the other enemies of light and liberty in the
serial-liar-class is of laser-like intensity. Thank God, and I
mean that just as written, for good and brave people like
Snowden and the other heroes of our time.
AT TIME OF THIS WRITING (June 27), Snowden was in Moscow, having been
recognized by the Russian
government as a properly free man fleeing from lawless
persecution, just as he had been by China and the
administrators of Hong Kong. Snowden is awaiting
confirmation of political asylum in Ecuador before traveling
there. We should all be praying he isn't accused of
improprieties with some Swedish woman or two before making
that trip, as was Julian Assange while in Great Britain in
2011. Of course, unlike Assange, Snowden is not in a US
puppet-state where such accusations would be seized upon as
a pretext for detaining him.
Still, it would be a tragedy for America to lose the good
company among us of this good man even if he could abide
safely in Ecuador free of fear of assassination or
kidnapping. For that reason (and because it is going to lead to great
political theater), I am pleased to report that within days
of Snowden's initial revelations a petition to have him
receive a presidential pardon for what were even then
anticipated to be the "crimes" with which he would be
charged was begun on Obama's "We the People"
petition-the-White-House webpage.
Somewhat amusingly, the number of signatures
needing to be gathered in 30 days in order to prompt a
response to such petitions was raised from last year's 25,000 to a much
more daunting 100,000 this year after the first days of this political
gimmick when numerous "secession" petitions had no problem
exceeding the 25,000 in plenty of time. But happily (and
unsurprisingly) even though very poorly publicized,
Snowden's "pardon petition" is already at 121,819 after
merely 18 days, and growing rapidly. Sign it
here.
ALSO, AT TIME OF THIS REPORT JAMES CLAPPER, Director of
National Intelligence, has yet to be charged with perjury
for what Snowden has revealed to be very deliberate lies
under oath to Congress. As you will recall, while
testifying before the Senate last March,
Clapper was asked,
"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or
hundreds of millions of Americans?" He mendaciously replied,
"No, sir."
Clapper was given a second chance, "It does not?" To this he
magnified the lie: "Not wittingly. There are cases where
they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not
wittingly.”
Doesn't that appear clearly to be outright, unambiguous
perjury? Isn't that a crime? I told my congressional rep
last week that I want and expect charges and a vigorous
prosecution. I hope you will do the same. Why should we
expect anything to change if no one is punished for their
evil deeds?
Click
here to contact your congresscritters.
BY THE WAY, SPEAKING OF CHARGES, is it just me, or is there a truly bizarre irony
in the proposition that the denizens of Mordor-on-the-Potomac
are seeking to charge Edward Snowden, an actual servant of the public
interest, with offenses under the "Espionage Act"? The only
spying he did was under the direction of the fed-state, and
against the American people and our law, and what Mordor is
actually angry about is that Snowden STOPPED spying!
By the way, II, Wikileaks has been stepping up and helping
Snowden out with financing and having a witness accompany
him on his journey to safe sanctuary from the Nazgûl. This
puts me in mind of that truth-exposing organization's motto:
Courage is contagious. I hope Wikileaks is right about that.
"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency
asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question
- is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right? And
there comes a time when one must take a position that is
neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it
because it is right."
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.
IN ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS PAGE I SPOKE OF AMERICAN HERO EDWARD
SNOWDEN, who is now rightly celebrated for his efforts at
spreading an important truth. I hope YOU are doing YOUR
part at being an American Hero by spreading
this
link
(latest file update, 6-24-13, with more supporting documentation
and five pages of notes)
far and wide! Anything and everything must be done to get it into a
state of viral distribution across America.
I'm asking you to help me with this by very purposefully sending
this link to every single person you can, with a little
note from yourself urging your correspondents to read the file,
study it, and verify for themselves each assertion made and each
fact cited. Urge your correspondent to let what is learned
thereby percolate and settle in and begin shining its
transformational light on his or her mental landscape, and in
the meantime, to PASS IT ALONG TO OTHERS in the same way!
I also want you to tell me of ANYTHING in this file that you
feel needs more clarity, support (or more support)! I want
you to tell me of anything that you feel is missing, so that it
is somehow not completely sufficient to instill understanding of
the fact that even after 1913, capitations-- taxes on
undistinguished, commonplace revenues and/or the activities that
produce them-- remain subject to the apportionment rule, and
that the income tax is not in conflict with that fact, being NOT
a tax on undistinguished, commonplace revenues and/or the
activities that produce them (however misleadingly worded parts
of the tax law may be, and however routinely misapplied at the
expense of the uneducated, apathetic or intimidated the tax may
have been over the last 70 years).
I want you to tell me, so that if anything IS missing, or needs
greater emphasis or clarity, I can make those tweaks. In the
meantime, I am counting on you to be
sending everyone this link.
Seriously, my friend. Even if you never do "action items",
please do this one.
Right now. Without fail. Please.
You may not recognize how doing this will make any difference. I
tell you, it will make ALL the difference.
In this file is the anti-body to all the germs of error,
disinformation and misunderstanding that allow the "ignorance
tax" to persist. It needs to be given a chance to take root in
as many minds as possible-- especially those NOT in the
CtC community.
In many of these minds, perhaps, this truth anti-body will
wither for lack of a hospitable environment. But in just as
many, it will flourish and bloom, and those folks will become
the patient and innovative teachers of others.
Pleas help me with this oh-so-important project.
-Pete
P. S. I know a lot of folks out there have
self-defeating notions planted in their minds about how
clearing up confusion about the "income tax" won't
matter, "'Cause they'll just pay for all the badness
with inflation, man!" or whatever.
No, they won't.
If "they" could do that and survive politically, (and
weren't getting a whole lot more out of the
maladministration of the "income tax" than just a couple
of trillion dollars a year, as well), the tax would've
been dropped with a grimace and without a backward
glance like the universally-hated thing that it is, at
least forty years ago. This "they'll just inflate" thing
could only be said by someone not old enough (or alive
at all) during the 1970s when we had a test of just how
Americans would tolerate real inflation...
(Not that we're going to be spared getting a good dose
of inflation soon anyway, you understand, unless we very
quickly shrink the state down so small that it no longer
has the resources to quash the emergence of free and
valid currencies. This will only happen by Americans
reclaiming individual control of their resources, as is
relied upon by the framers in their design for a
meaningfully-Constitutionally-limited republic-- and
that, of course, is what
the file
at this link is all about.)
The misunderstanding of the income tax is the thoroughly
cultivated thing that it is (and anyone reading through
the file at this link will come to understand
just how diligent is that cultivation) BECAUSE THE
MISAPPLIED TAX IS THE INDISPENSABLE LIFEBLOOD OF THE
UNRESTRAINED STATE. The state knows this well.
Indeed, the reason the truth about the tax is hedged
about with a more enormous army of lies (and
constantly-recruited "stakeholding" defenders) than any
other organ of the state is because it is so vital to
Leviathan's excesses, ambitions and survival. It is the
heart of the monster.
The file at this link is the monster's bane.
Your efforts to spread this shaft of illuminating,
inspiring and disinfecting sunlight will do more for
your future well-being and that of your children than
anything else you could do.
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can
do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of
God, I will do."
-Everett Hale
(...and every other person who ever really deserved liberty)
"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.
