Corruption Doesn't Get More Serious, Or More Transparent, Than This

Corruption Doesn't Get More Serious, Or More Transparent, Than This

“The federal government has descended to a new depth of despotic corruption.”

Below is the most recent weekly newsletter from Peter Hendrickson, author of the book titled “Cracking the Code” (CtC) which lays out the incredible hoax being perpetrated by the IRS to falsely convince Americans of a tax liability which does not exist under the tax provisions of the United States Constitution, nor under current law and the relevant Supreme Court decisions.

This latest tactic being employed by the IRS to bludgeon Americans into submission to IRS intimidation and bullying is an outrageous example of what happens when Constitutional authority and limitations are ignored. This is the very reason that we need some form of absolute authority which is not subject to arbitrary re-interpretation or dismissal to suit the convenience of the time. But that authority can only be preserved when the judicial system is free of corruption. Unfortunately, our once-great nation is now burdened with what may be the most corrupt judicial system in its entire history.

If you don’t believe this, read William Windsor’s story, and read about what he  has uncovered at: http://www.lawlessamerica.com/

Many of us thought that we were under the authority of a Constitution that was honored and respected, but we have learned sadly that the manner in which it is being abused is nothing less than shameful. For all practical purposes we no longer have a rule of law in the United States of America. The Constitution is being treated as an historical artifact of no particular significance to the issues of the day. This is true not only with respect to income taxes, but also, for example, with respect to the presidential eligibility provisions of Article I; as well as to a host of separation of powers issues relating to the appointment by Obama of unaccountable “czars” and to his issuance of an unprecedented number of Executive Orders (now numbering almost one thousand) which intentionally evade constitutional restrictions on his actions.

“For this man to be our president is downright scary.”

During (the 2008) campaign, WorldNet Daily found a tape of an interview Barack Obama gave to Chicago's public radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001. In the interview, then-State Sen. Obama maintained that the Warren Court's decisions on civil rights in the 1960s failed to go far enough -- that they should also have sought "redistributive justice." His opinion was that the court needed to break from the "essential restraints" of the Constitution:

This is what Barack Obama had to say about the Constitution:

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

http://ohiorepublic.blogspot.com/2009/12/president-obama-constitution-is-charter.html

What Obama identifies as a “defect” in the Constitution, that it “doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf”, is actually the cause of  exploding deficits which now threaten to drag this nation into bankruptcy and economic collapse.

The fact is that the federal government has grown into a monster, far exceeding the constitutional limits placed on it by the Founders, while running rough-shod over the rights of the states protected in the Tenth Amendment. And there seems to be no practical limit to the power and control which Obama believes should properly be exercised by the federal government.  

More Obama criticism of the Constitution:

"It is an imperfect document", "A document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture", and "the constitution reflected an enormous blind-spot in this culture that carries on into this day".

“For this man to be our president or even have any kind of power over the people is downright scary. Did he not swear to uphold and protect the Constitution or was he crossing his fingers or something?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI

For those who are not familiar with the income tax hoax exposed by Peter Hendrickson and others, an introduction to the CtC revelations is available on the Lost Horizons web site at the following link:

http://losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf

Here is the full article from the newsletter:

FOREWORD

This is just for those in the "tax honesty" community...

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." -Samuel Adams Corruption Doesn't Get More Serious, Or More Transparent, Than This "Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." -Benjamin Cardozo FACED BY A GROWING HOST of American men and women withdrawing consent and support in the manner intended by the Founders and as provided for by law, and yet unwilling to abide the re-imposition of Constitutional restraints on its power, the federal government has descended to a new depth of despotic corruption. In an effort to beat these men and women into subordination and silence, and to discourage others from joining their ranks, the feds have begun levying fines on Americans who fail to affirm a government-dictated orthodoxy under oath. Nothing like this has ever happened before in our history. Even during the dark days of the Wilson administration, when those arguing against the legality of the World War I draft were punished for doing so, no one was fined or otherwise punished for refusing to declare a belief that the draft was legal and proper. Even those who chose to evade the draft themselves, and were punished for doing so, were not faced with demands that they declare themselves properly subject to the conscription, on pain of further harm for refusing the Orwellian edict. But that's exactly what's being done now. This new crime being committed by the feds is prompted by the fact that large numbers of Americans have learned the actual Constitutional and statutory limits of federal taxing authority over the last decade. Tens of thousands of these folks, at least, have been applying that understanding in making simple testimonial declarations as to whether their earnings qualify as subject to federal (tax) claims. These declarations are made on legal instruments specifically designed by the US Treasury Department for the purpose of making exactly these personal-belief statements. The declarations of personal belief made by these educated Americans impose no obligation or hindrance on the government-- unless the declarant's beliefs are correct. When this is so, the government is prevented from claiming ownership of a portion of the declarant's earnings. But this is only so in these cases because the government has no legitimate claim to pursue. On the other hand, when the declarant's belief is NOT correct, there is no imposition or hindrance on the government whatever. The law provides an authority (and obligation) for the government to create its own contrary sworn declaration in such cases, by virtue of which the state is permitted to exercise its legitimate claims as though the original declaration had never been made. In short, not only is the right of the citizen to declare his own belief inherent under the most basic legal principles and fully provided for by law, but his doing so is not the least hindrance to the government in doing anything it is legally authorized to do. Further, his doing so is necessary in order to keep the government from possibly imposing a tax where it really doesn't belong, even while in no way preventing taxes from being imposed where they DO belong. There's the rub, of course. The fact is, the government frequently pursues tax claims where they do not really apply. It has been able to do this because most Americans have failed to register educated conclusions about the tax-related character of their earnings, and have instead let themselves be herded into making government-claim-favoring declarations. Now that understanding of the declaration process and its effects, and of the actual limits to which the federal taxing power is subject, is spreading, more and more Americans are testifying more thoughtfully. The government's response is to corruptly demand that these folks continue to declare what is convenient for the state's purse, even though the declarant no longer believes it to be true. Like heretics facing the Inquisition, those failing to profess as the state wishes face punishment simply for exercising freedom of conscience. The pretenses used by the state for "justifying" the fines are so patently and self-evidently absurd as to underscore the fact that the punishment is being used purely for the illegitimate purposes of evading the declarant's claims and coercing testimony convenient to the state. These include (among other, equally specious nonsense):                 that "zero" is not a number (at least, not if it appears on the "income received" line of a declaration)1;                 that a payer's assertions that a payment is of "taxable income" has to be simply accepted as true (because the payer COULDN'T have been wrong...)2; or                 that these inconvenient attestors don't really believe what they say (because they said something different in previous years)3. These ridiculous justifications could only be made more transparently crocodilian than by their simple recital if the smirks with which they are doubtless typed out in the "determinations" in which they appear were seen as well. Indeed, even the notices by which these fines are first threatened (along with an outright invitation to the target to spare himself the pain by changing his testimony) are exercises in studied mendacity. No effort is ever made at any point in the process to dispute the content of the testimony (as in disputing the conclusions by these folks that their earnings don't qualify as subject to the federal tax authority), even though that is the whole and sole issue actually relevant to the matter. After all,                 Isn't the real question whether "zero" IS the correct number? (And isn't the ludicrous assertion that "zero" is not a number just an obvious evasion of this real question?)                 Isn't the real question whether the payment really WAS of "taxable income"? (And isn't arguing that a mere assertion that it is should be simply taken as gospel just a blatant evasion of that real question?)                 Isn't the real question whether what the attestor says is TRUE? (And isn't the unprovable and grossly impertinent assertion that the attestor doesn't believe his sworn declaration just an evasion of that plainly- and exclusively-relevant real question?) In fact, even while these fines for disfavored testimony are threatened, the government routinely honors the claims being made by the very same testimony. Indeed, those chosen for these corrective whippings are from among a much greater host of educated declarants whose testimonial declarations have been being steadily acknowledged as correct for years and years now by the same government meting out this abuse (as well as by 33 state governments). To heighten the irony, the very fact that the government finds necessary the punishment of people who fail to attest as it wishes in furtherance of its purpose proves the illegitimacy of that purpose. After all, if the government had legitimate issues with the testimony it disfavors, there would be no bothering with efforts to discourage (especially in light of the inherent illegitimacy of any state effort to punish, inhibit or control speech). As noted, the government has statutory provisions equipping it to make and pursue its own claims contrary to testimony which it believes to be incorrect. The government seeking to discourage Americans from testifying as to what they believe if it really believes otherwise is like a litigant in a lawsuit spending a sweaty hour trying to browbeat his opponent into surrender to save himself the slight effort of opening his briefcase and producing evidence proving his case. No one would do that-- unless they didn't actually have the evidence... Here, the government simply wants what it isn't entitled to have-- control over the professed beliefs of all Americans, so that it can exercise control over the resources of all Americans. To get this, it has stepped into a real cesspool of corruption, and seeks to use its ugly threats to coerce itself some company down there. Everyone should be on their feet shouting "NO!", and denouncing this monstrous step across the line of decency and the law. Everyone should be ringing the phone off the hook at the ACLU, the "alt media", and every public interest legal group that can be found, raising the roof over this assault on the most fundamental rights of a human being (and rights explicitly secured by the United States Constitution). If an American can be punished for not declaring his earnings to be subject to a tax, he can be punished for not declaring himself an unfit parent, or guilty of a crime, or anything at all. In any event, being punishable for not declaring a government ownership interest in one's property is bad enough all on its own. Raise the roof. "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it. " -Albert Einstein "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen." -Martin Luther "But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe... When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." -Thomas Paine 1"[A] Form 1040 ... which ... indicate[s] zero income ... [does] not constitute a return “because [it fails] to include any information upon which tax could be calculated"." 2"Here, taxpayers submitted amended returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006 in which they replaced the income they previously reported, which was consistent with third-party information provided to the IRS, with zeros ... that directly contradicted W-2s and other forms submitted by third parties to the IRS. The taxpayers admittedly took no action to obtain “corrected” third party forms that would corroborate their claims of zero taxable income." (Note the court's careful use of the phrase "taxable income" rather than "money", in implicit acknowledgement of the distinction... Note further that not only is the court "reasoning" that the "third party forms" are to be accepted as correct unless the same "third parties" change them, but it simultaneously suggests that the claimants in the case bear a burden of corroborating their testimony. The first of these is, as already noted, absurd on its face. The other is directly contrary to specific statutory mandates placing on the government the burden of attempting to prove that the such claimants are wrong. Here the government must prove that what these folks received actually DID qualify as "taxable income". No attempt whatever was made to bear this burden, which is why the complicit court resorts to this nonsense instead of what any rational person recognizes it must be able to declare in order to rule against the couple: "The government has proven that what the claimants received was, in fact, "taxable income" in the amounts reported.") 3"Thus, the taxpayers' amended returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006, ... do not implicate an honest and reasonable intent to supply information required by the tax code." All of these examples are from the ruling in a 2011 suit brought in the Federal Court of Claims to compel the IRS/Treasury Dept. to issue refunds owed to an educated couple over their amended declarations for 2004, '05 and'06. The court ultimately denied the claims in a 42-page ruling which distilled down to the contorted rationale that if the amended returns could be taken to be "frivolous" (by deeming the "third-party" assertions to be gospel and therefore the "zeros" self-evidently wrong-- with the absurd "zero is not a number" thing thrown in as a fallback pretext; and that in light of the foregoing the sincerity of their claim was impeached-- with the nonsense implication that the change from their previous declarations evinces the insincerity of their newly-professed belief thrown in as a fallback pretext), then the court lacked jurisdiction to hear what would therefore be an invalid claim. The IRS is now seeking to collect "frivolous return" penalties from these folks, citing the outcome of this case as having established that the declarations qualify for that status. Other educated claimants have been or are being threatened with these penalties-- and some have even had property seized-- but usually without any rationalization/explanation whatever. Instead, the government simply alleges that the penalty applies to the disfavored testimony using a carefully-designed mis-statement of the statutory provisions involved. It invites the target to recant and be spared the punishment, and then bulls ahead with "collections" protocols when the upstanding, rights-valuing target sticks to his or her testimony. Usually these assaults simply stop when faced with adamant refusal to be taken-in or intimidated. See examples of how this plays out in the 'Every Which Way But Loose' collection. But lately is appears that desperation in the face of the growing host of CtC-truth-tellers has prompted an abandonment of all restraint, as in the case discussed above. Gandhi explained to us: "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." It seems we're in the "fight you" stage.

From: Pete Hendrickson [mailto:46@losthorizons.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:23 AM
To: America
Subject: The Lost Horizons News for Oct. 12 is posted!

 Corruption Doesn't Get More Serious, Or More Transparent, Than This

"Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom."

-Benjamin Cardozo

FACED BY A GROWING HOST of American men and women withdrawing consent and support in the manner intended by the Founders and as provided for by law, and yet unwilling to abide the re-imposition of Constitutional restraints on its power, the federal government has descended to a new depth of despotic corruption. In an effort to beat these men and women into subordination and silence, and to discourage others from joining their ranks, the feds have begun levying fines on Americans who fail to affirm a government-dictated orthodoxy under oath.

Nothing like this has ever happened before in our history.

Even during the dark days of the Wilson administration, when those arguing against the legality of the World War I draft were punished for doing so, no one was fined or otherwise punished for refusing to declare a belief that the draft was legal and proper. Even those who chose to evade the draft themselves, and were punished for doing so, were not faced with demands that they declare themselves properly subject to the conscription, on pain of further harm for refusing the Orwellian edict. But that's exactly what's being done now.

This new crime being committed by the feds is prompted by the fact that large numbers of Americans have learned the actual Constitutional and statutory limits of federal taxing authority over the last decade. Tens of thousands of these folks, at least, have been applying that understanding in making simple testimonial declarations as to whether their earnings qualify as subject to federal claims. These declarations are made on legal instruments specifically designed by the US Treasury Department for the purpose of making exactly these personal-belief statements.

The declarations of personal belief made by these educated Americans impose no obligation or hindrance on the government-- unless the declarant's beliefs are correct. When this is so, the government is prevented from claiming ownership of a portion of the declarant's earnings. But this is only so in these cases because the government has no legitimate claim to pursue.

On the other hand, when the declarant's belief is NOT correct, there is no imposition or hindrance on the government whatever. The law provides an authority (and obligation) for the government to create its own contrary sworn declaration in such cases, by virtue of which the state is permitted to exercise its legitimate claims as though the original declaration had never been made. In short...

CONTINUED...

To read the rest of this article, click below and get

The Lost Horizons News

for October 12, 2012

Also featured in this edition:

The Robot Flails, But The Patriot Prevails!

Episode XLII of the 'Every Which Way But Loose' series!

This one's a doozy!

***

From the "Candles Shining Brightly" Department

We ARE In A Transformational Moment!

***

Are You Still In Denial? Or Frightened Out Of Your Rights?

Posted Victories Pass A New Milestone!

Shared this week: A sixth victory for a happy warrior; a sixth for another as well; a third victory for one warrior couple and a fourth for another; a fourth victory for another veteran; and a debut victory for one more upstanding American grown-up!

***

A New Reading Recommendation

Subject line: IRS concedes my earnings do NOT constitute "gross income"...

***

Spotlights on the past that help bring clarity to the present:

Illuminating Anniversaries for this week

***

...and much, much more!

losthorizons.com

The place for people who are serious about restoring the Rule of Law in America.

If you are serious about the restoration of liberty and the rule of law in our lifetime, please forward this email to everyone you know!