“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...”
IT WAS
SUCH A PLEASURE TO BE WITH ALL OF YOU who helped make the Sixth
Annual Declaration Day congregation a wonderful, memorable and
uplifting event! The food was great, the conversation was great, and
your shining spirits were great.
This
year some of you had to learn that Michigan can go from sunny and
beautiful to dumping rain for a half-hour and then right back to
nice again. But no one let his or her mood get dampened, even if
clothes briefly were, and everyone also learned that the Liberty
Tree offers a lot of shelter when dark clouds gather...
ONCE
AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL! Doreen and Katie and TJ and I look forward to
seeing you next year.
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?
Why Are Other Countries Crediting The US "Revocation" of Edward
Snowden's Passport?
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT (AND OTHERS)
HAVE BEEN ARGUING RECENTLY that Edward Snowden's
ability to leave the Moscow airport in which he has been
living since June 23 is compromised because the US
Department of State has revoked Snowden's passport.
These folks are suffering from an unfortunate
misunderstanding of United States law (and don't appear
to have much respect for their own sovereignty, either).
The fact is, and as will be shown, the Department of
State has no statutory authority to "revoke" a passport
at all, and in any case passports have no inherent
relevance to an American's ability to travel.
United States passports are just ID documents, issued at
the request, and for the benefit of, the American
traveler as "letters of introduction" to any foreign
state which might impose restrictions on those crossing
its borders. They simply declare the bearer to be an
American, and ask that he or she be afforded courtesies
accordingly:
"The
Secretary of State of the United States of America
hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the
citizen/national of the United States named herein to
pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to
give all lawful aid and protection."
Passports are NOT "permission to travel" documents.
Further, even if the issuing state perversely viewed a
passport as a "permit to travel", and even if it had a
basis for doing so in its legal structure, no one else
need do so. Granted, states which chose to allow free
passage contrary to the wishes of another state might
arouse the ire and possible retaliation of the one given
the raspberry. But this would not be because some
principle of law was involved, nor because a passport
(or lack thereof) was involved.
If, for instance, Britain were to cease its imprisonment
of Julian Assange-- an Australia-- and allow him freedom
to travel it would earn the anger of the United States
for doing so even though no US passport is involved.
Similarly, the US itself routinely grants asylum to many
folks traveling to its shores without the permission of,
and expressly against the wishes of, the traveler's
native countries.
SO, NO COUNTRY IS UNDER ANY "RULE-BASED" OBLIGATION to
pay any attention to US fulminations about the status of
Edward Snowden's passport. That document is irrelevant
to any other country's views as to his authority to
travel anywhere.
What's more, US fulminations about the status of Edward
Snowden's passport are just pretenses. The US itself has
no actual statutory authority to revoke a
non-fraudulently-obtained passport-- even one issued by
its own Department of State. Here's the law concerning
such passports:
22 USC § 211a - Authority to grant, issue, and
verify passports
The
Secretary of State may grant and issue passports,
and cause passports to be granted, issued, and
verified in foreign countries by diplomatic and
consular officers of the United States, and by such
other employees of the Department of State who are
citizens of the United States as the Secretary of
State may designate, and by the chief or other
executive officer of the insular possessions of the
United States, under such rules as the President
shall designate and prescribe for and on behalf of
the United States, and no other person shall grant,
issue, or verify such passports. Unless authorized
by law, a passport may not be designated as
restricted for travel to or for use in any country
other than a country with which the United States is
at war, where armed hostilities are in progress, or
where there is imminent danger to the public health
or the physical safety of United States travellers.
(sic)
It will be noted that no "revocation" authority is
provided. This statute says only that passports are to
be issued by the department under such rules as the
President shall designate and prescribe, with the
specific limitation that the President maynot
order that passports be restricted for use in travelling
only to or in specific places (as has purportedly been
done to Snowden's, which the US claims can now only be
used for travel into the US) other than countries with
which the US is at war, where armed hostilities are in
progress or where other imminent danger to the public
health or physical safety of travelers exists (unless a
separate piece of legislation provides for further
permitted restrictions).
Further, even these permitted restrictions don't
comprise legal limitations on the traveler. All they do
is allow the government to decline to request courtesies
of described countries by way of the passport, and to
advise the traveler that if he chooses to go to such
places, he's on his own and can't expect the US Marines
to come rescue or vindicate him.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE STATE SHIES FROM RESTRAINT like a
vampire from fidelity. Consequently, despite the plainly
limited nature of this grant, the executive branch has
elected to exercise its rule-making authority
expansively, leaving it to those offended by its
creativity to argue their case in the courts.
The evasion of the limits involves two steps: First the
department produces a series of regulations describing
circumstances under which a requested passport will not
be issued. These circumstances
(codified at 22 CFR §§ 51.60 and 51.61) include
(among other things) allegations of: default on a
federal loan, being in arrears on child-support, being
the subject of an arrest warrant, on parole, being
involved in the drug trade, or engaging in activities
abroad that are a threat to US national security.
Of course, nothing in the statute says that an executive
agency can restrict the issuance of passports for any of
these reasons. On the contrary, the inclusion within the
statute of specifications concerning certain allowed
restrictions strongly suggests that any not mentioned
are ruled out.
Further, none of the regulation-asserted restrictions
have anything to do with legitimate administrative
authority. A statutory grant of rule-making authority to
an executive-branch department is not a grant of
latitude over to whom the statute's provisions apply. It
is simply a grant of power over the simple mechanics of
the application and issuance process, as is suited to
the role of that branch. Who is to receive a passport,
and what circumstances can hinder one's access to a
passport, are law-maker's decisions. The executive
branch's realm is only that of how the application and
issuance processes will be managed.
(It is tempting to imagine that restrictions such as
those described above are in furtherance of the
execution of other laws, of course, but that reasoning
leads to a complete evisceration of the legislative
function. By virtue of that kind of thinking, once
Congress passed any single rudimentary enactment, the
executive could then assert authority over every aspect
of every American's life, under the claim of necessary
and appropriate latitude in "executing the law". The
executive salivates in its lust for such a doctrine, but
it is a false and rule-of-law-destroying doctrine.)
In fact, Congress has elsewhere specifically addressed
the issue of who is, and who is not, entitled to receive
a passport:
22 USC § 212 - Persons entitled to passport
No
passport shall be granted or issued to or verified
for any other persons than those owing allegiance,
whether citizens or not, to the United States.
Clearly, the words "nor to persons the executive
wishes to deny" are absent from precisely the place
where such a specification would be, and must be, made,
were such a power actually being granted to the
executive agencies.
BUT WHAT KIND OF LAWLESS LEVIATHAN WOULD THE UNITED
STATES BE if it paid attention to such things?! It does
not; and so we proceed to the second step in the
"revocation" pretense-- the executive-branch assertion
found in 26 CFR § 51.62:
§ 51.62 Revocation or limitation of passports.
(a)
The Department may revoke or limit a passport when
(1)
The bearer of the passport may be denied a passport
under 22 CFR 51.60 or 51.61; or [in cases of
fraudulent application or use, or in certain cases
involving minors -PH]
So, we go from actual authority to make rules regarding
the granting, issuing and verifying of passports
(clearly meaning authority over the MANNER of granting,
issuing and verifying passports) to an assertion of
authority over to whom a passport will be issued. Then
we see the asserted authority over who can have a
passport being taken as an implicit authority to
"revoke" a passport already issued. Plainly this is a
false chain, with the second and third links neither
supported by the language of the statute nor in harmony
with the Constitutional roles of the legislative and
executive branches.
Plainly this is a false chain designed to convert a
passport from an identifier of the bearer as an
American, a request for good treatment by officials in
other countries, and a traveler's means of rapid passage
through a native port-of-entry upon returning home into
a "permission to travel" document that is anathema to
our American structure of the rule of law.
HOWEVER, EVEN LEAVING ASIDE ITS INHERENT IMPROPRIETY,
once someone is outside of the country this evil little
pretense has no teeth. Officials in other countries are
perfectly free to "permit the citizen/national of the
United States named herein to pass without delay or
hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and
protection." Not only does no treaty or doctrine of
international law require or even encourage one country
to treat another's passports like "hall passes" (and the
traveler therefore like a subject of the passport
issuer, properly paralyzed absent his master's
permission to travel), but the passport issuer's
pretense of such authority over a traveler evinces an
inherent lawlessness justifying defiance and the
treatment of the traveler as entitled to asylum and all
other courtesies.
Keep in mind, we are not here speaking of an extradition
request. Response to a valid extradition request, where
an applicable treaty applies, is a wholly different and
separate matter from the question of passports. The
former imposes obligations on a host country to examine
the request for legitimacy, determine whether honoring
it would result in delivering the target into the hands
of those who would violate his rights, and to honor the
request if it passes these tests. A traveler can be
legitimately denied "permission to travel" under these
circumstances-- and taken into custody and forcibly
returned to the extraditing country.
But passports are just conventions, and are never
"permission to travel papers" in any event. Upon
learning of a "revocation", an official in another
country should scratch his head, mutter something about,
"Those crazy bastards in Washington," and wish the
traveler a bon voyage.
"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:
Bradley Manning Is Ordered By The Court To
Declare Himself Guilty
FORT MEADE, Md.-- WHISTLEBLOWER BRADLEY MANNING IS ON TRIAL HERE
in a court martial proceeding over charges of willfully aiding
and abetting the enemies of the United States by releasing to
the Wikileaks organization a huge trove of documents and videos
incriminating US government officials in war crimes, cover-ups,
diplomatic duplicity and many other felonies and misdemeanors.
Manning faces the possibility of the death penalty if convicted.
The trial had been expected to last another several weeks, at
least, but in a stunning turn of events, at the prosecution's
request Manning has been ordered by the trial court to sign an
affidavit declaring that he believes his actions were in
violation of his known legal duty, and that he believes his
actions have aided and given comfort to the enemies of the
United States. Manning's failure to sign this affidavit-- or
even any effort on his part to indicate that it is not his own
freely-made testimony-- will result in his imprisonment for
criminal contempt of court, regardless of the outcome of his
court martial.
The "reasoning" of the prosecutor and the court is simple: Because the
state has brought charges (thus indicating official belief in
his guilt), and because everyone knows that releasing classified
documents without permission is a crime, Manning must surely
believe himself guilty. Thus, he's simply being ordered to
attest to what he himself believes to be true, and what could be
wrong with that?
Really. What could be wrong with that?
REALLY!
WHAT ISN'T WRONG WITH THAT?!
Okay, this isn't yet actually happening to Bradley Manning. But
it IS what will happen to the next Bradley Manning-- or what
will intimidate the next Bradley Manning into withholding his
revelations-- because it IS what's happening to Doreen
Hendrickson right now.
The ramifications of this outrageous assault are obvious. This
is the complete collapse of even the pretense of due process and
the rule of law.
If
this order is sustained against Doreen, the state's power
becomes total. As in Doreen's case, the state will simply move a
compliant court for an order commanding its chosen victim to
endorse its preferred view of the facts in any legal contest. A
failure to do so (or a failure to do so in a way that hands the
victory to the state) results in criminal charges for contempt.
This is the end of legal "disputes" with the state. What we are
left with is just a charade of a legal contest with the outcome
being pre-ordained: one way or another, the state wins, and the
will of Americans to resist state-serving, state-dictated
orthodoxies erodes away.
My
friends, my fellow Americans, you let this happen at your dire
peril. Don't let it happen.
Read the motion explaining this affair and giving at least a
handful of the endless reasons why what is being done here is
wrong morally, wrong legally and fatal to our American heritage
of liberty, limited government and the rule of law.
Do
the same with the media-- your local outlets, the national MSM
and new media like
LewRockwell.com,
Infowars.com,
DrudgeReport.com
and so on. Every one of these organizations can and should be
denouncing this outrage and making clear that it isn't going to
be allowed to take place in a dark alley, as the government
would prefer.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they
will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
-Edmund Burke
P. S. It is important to recognize that this unprecedented
assault on the rule of law is part of a
ten-years-and-counting effort to suppress the ultimate whistleblowing on
government malfeasance; a malfeasance of such broad impact and
liberty-and-limited-government-significance as to make Edward Snowden's NSA
revelations and Bradley Manning's war-crimes revelations pale by comparison.
That's quite a statement, I know. But the whistleblowing being attacked here is
the laying bare of 70 years of relentless, deliberate misadministration of the
federal tax power.
It is this sustained government misbehavior in regard to the tax power that
provides the means for the offenses revealed by both Manning and Snowden,
and most other whistleblowers on government crimes over those decades. More,
that misbehavior in regard to the tax power is ALSO responsible for an improper
diversion of half the wealth of most Americans from their own pockets and
purposes into the hands of those operating the state-- and their clients and
cronies-- for three generations now.
The fact is, we have an arrogant Leviathan state today, with all its endless
evils, because of the long-running government malfeasance
CtC has revealed to
the world. Those not already familiar with the revelations being attacked by
this unprecedented corruption of the judicial authority
should read
this document and get up to speed.
*****
Some Folks
Have Already Surrendered To The State's War Of Terror...
I'm proud
to be a member of our
ever-growing
CtC
community of grown-up Americans who have not.
To learn
how the Founders anticipated this kind of internal assault on our
liberties-- and provided against it-- read
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, 7-09-13, 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)
The real story behind the military coup in Cairo led by
General al-Sissi is much more complex than the western media
is reporting. Far from a spontaneous uprising by Egyptians,
– aka “a people’s revolution” – what really happened was a
putsch orchestrated by Egypt’s “deep government” and outside
powers – the latest phase of the counter-revolution against
the so-called Arab Spring.
A year ago, Egyptians elected Mohammed Morsi president in
their first fair democratic election. Morsi came from the
ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood, an eight-decade old
conservative movement of professionals dedicated to bringing
Islamic principals of public welfare, politics, education,
justice, piety and fighting corruption.
But the deck was stacked against Morsi and the Brotherhood
from day one. The brutal US-backed Mubarak had fallen, but
the organs of his 30-year dictatorship, Egypt’s pampered
440,000-man military, judiciary, academia, media, police,
intelligence services and bureaucrats, remained in place.
Even Morsi’s presidential guard remained under control of
the Mubarak forces.
The dictatorship’s old guard – better known as the “deep
government” – sought to thwart every move of the
Brotherhood. In fact, the stolid, plodding Morsi only became
president after more capable colleagues were vetoed by the
hard-line Mubarakist courts.
"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.
