WHY IGNORANCE-TAX PARASITES HATE AND FEAR CtC

[jg]

From an email dated 1/29/11 although unsigned purportedly by Peter Hendrickson:

WHY IGNORANCE-TAX PARASITES HATE AND FEAR CtC
(An Observation from with the Belly of the Beast)

Here's something you need to understand about the truth and the law, and something those who want to exploit and abuse you without interruption don't want you to understand:

The legal system that operates in America is a structure for the assertion and enforcement of claims. It is nothing else.

It is not a champion of justice; it is not a seeker of truth.

When the legal system compels performance, it is enforcing someone's (positive) claim of a duty owed. When the legal system thwarts or punishes behavior, it is enforcing someone's (negative) claim of a trespass against his rights.

The legal system doesn't know who has a legitimate claim to what. Knowing such a thing is neither in its nature, nor its purpose. The system is merely a claim-enforcement and conflicting-claim-resolution entity. It doesn't decide who has a claim to enforce; it simply makes itself available to claimants who have made that decision for themselves, and provides machinery designed to give both sides-- claimant and defendant-- a best shot at making their respective cases and arriving at a just and legitimate outcome (as long as everybody involved, especially the judge, competently and honestly plays by the rules).

In a nutshell, our legal system is claimant-driven-- it is static unless and until someone makes a claim. When someone does make a claim, the legal system provides a format and venue for prosecuting that claim; and if the claimant is able to prove his case as provided-for by the rules of the process, the legal system will then help him enforce the claim.

Looking at it from another direction, even someone who has a legitimate cause will enjoy no support from the legal system unless and until his (positive or negative) claim is asserted. That forgotten bank account might really be the one YOU opened 30 years ago, but until you make your claim, that fact means nothing.

Partaking of the same principle, silence is worse than nothing in the face of someone else's untrue claim against you. Silence means his claim is unrebutted, and therefore deemed agreed-to and proven (as a matter of necessary legal principle). Being unrebutted, agreed-to and proven, the claim prevails-- EVEN IF IT IS OBJECTIVELY UNTRUE. The mindless machinery of the legal system will move against you in support of the fiction on the claimant's behalf.

And you know what? This is precisely proper.

The legal system is blind. It doesn't know who is right, or who has rights, or what they are. Only you (and other claimants) know these things, and can assert these things (even while also being required to prove these things).

This brings us to CtC ('Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'), and why it is so threatening to the exploitive parasites that infest the District of Corruption. You see, the income tax is a claim-based tax. The claims are that the one alleged to owe the tax has engaged in “taxable activities” by using federal property or privileges to acquire wealth. Because stuff belonging to the federal government was involved in the gains, it gets to claim a piece of the action. (The feds have given state and local governments permission to take a piece of this same action, too.)

Most of the millions of "taxable activities" claims made in America every year are false. The sorry fact is that due to decades of encouragement by hungry tax agencies, and precious little independent study of the law, lots of Americans are in the habit of sending the government signed forms ( “W-2s” and “ 1099s”) alleging federal connections to every payment they make to others, even while having no idea what they are really saying by doing so. A huge volume of government income tax claims are based solely on these allegations. But, like all claims, those that someone owes taxes to a government-- even objectively false claims-- can be enabled by agreement (either explicit agreement or by silence). When this happens, the claimant-government IS PUT IN THE RIGHT, in the eyes of the legal system and all others, and properly so.

No one will EVER be able to say that the subsequent enforcement of that tax-debt claim was improper-- even if it's a complete fiction, and even if the very day after the target's property is seized, the government announces that the tax has never really applied to the sort of things that target had done. It's a simple legal formula: Someone said the target engaged in federal activity (meaning he became indebted to the government). The target didn't dispute this. What is fiction is now agreed by everyone involved to be "true"; and the feds took the money. No one's rights were violated; no fraud; no crime.

On the other hand, if claims of tax liability are rebutted, the claimants are PUT IN THE WRONG-- unless and until they can and do somehow prove the claims right in a valid, adversarial contest in an impartial court. Unless and until that proof is forthcoming (which it cannot be, if the claim is objectively untrue), any enforcement of the alleged tax debt is illegal. But this alignment of the law on the side of the truth can only happen if the target of an invalid tax claim makes his or her own testimony, when and how it counts.

CtC teaches the reader how and why to switch from being an ignorant and helpless enabler of objectively untrue claims against him to being a claimant on his own behalf and/or a legally-effective defender against illegitimate claims made by others. CtC teaches the reader how to say, in a legally-meaningful manner, "You don't have a legitimate claim to any of my money, and what's more, I want back everything of mine that you are holding!"

THAT'S the problem for the parasites. Anyone who studies CtC learns what the law actually means by "income" (and what it doesn't). He learns how tax claims get made, how to rebut them when they’re wrong, and how to make claims to recover withheld or paid-in amounts. Once that knowledge has been put to use, any parasite attempting to make and enforce a false claim against that educated, activated American does so without any protective legal justification.

FALSE CLAIMS PROPERLY REBUTTED CAN NEVER BE LEGITIMATED.

Unfortunately, the legal system is NOT really blind-- at least, not reliably so. Those appointed to administer the system have their own views, and their own agendas, as do those who appoint them and advance them. The administrators are supposed to leave all this at the office door, but they're human. They will be objectively honest and faithful to their trust only in proportion to the articulation and sturdiness of those who wish it to be so. As a consequence, even asserting one's legitimate claims, or rebutting the illegitimate claims of others doesn't guarantee immediate and painless justice.

BUT...

NOT asserting one's legitimate claims and NOT rebutting the illegitimate claims of others DOES guarantee INJUSTICE, in the sense of an objectively wrong outcome. At the same time, this inaction leaves the legal system off the hook for any responsibility, and even though you may think everyone does or should know better, it also leaves the claimant "technically" IN THE RIGHT, and future study of the affair will unambiguously come to this conclusion.

On the other hand, ASSERTING one's legitimate claim, and/or REBUTTING the illegitimate claims of others, puts a legal system that tolerates or contributes to an illegitimate outcome AND the illegitimate claimant, IN THE WRONG, and future study of the affair will unambiguously come to THIS conclusion, with all the possible liability and recriminatory ramifications of that conclusion.

SO...

In the end, it is YOU who decides whether you're going to authorize the evil little totalitarian fiction that the state has an automatic claim to everyone's earnings, and gets to decide how much each person keeps for himself, for his family's needs, and for his own security. It is YOU who empowers the state as the arbiter of how much of your wealth and hard work gets handed over to the politically-connected class on Wall Street, or to the armaments industry, or to the prison industry, or to the welfare industry-- and how much goes to pay for the hard work of handing out all that money to these cronies and clients. As long as YOU play along, that's how it goes, and when it goes that way, you've no right to even complain.

At the same time, of course, it is also YOU who can decide to step back up into the sunshine of respect for the truth and the rule of law, including the Constitutional limits on federal taxing power and practices. That's what the CtC Community is all about-- courageous, committed individual Americans, actually taking meaningful steps to restore the republic.

Right now America is in another season of truth or lies. Right now, YOU have the chance to choose.

PLEASE. Use your power, make your choice, and honor the sacrifices made by your ancestors to give you the freedom to do so.

Or..., don't.

Keep hoping someone else is going to come along and fix everything, so that you don't have to pipe up or get up.

That's surely easier, and it seems safer, of course-- as appeasement and conflict avoidance always do.

BUT, HOW'S THAT BEEN WORKING FOR YOU?

And is it going to be better or worse when you face this question again next year, if you do the wrong thing now? Are the bad guys going to be weaker, or stronger after you've given in to them for another year?

How about you? Stronger? Or weaker?

Give it some thought.

I hope you all understand that the seven-year assault on CtC and on me personally by the tax-feeders is for one purpose-- to intimidate YOU into letting this year's brief opportunity for testifying freely, honestly and on your own behalf slip away. That is, those who can't win legitimately want to do so by scaring you into paralysis, or yet another year of "playing it safe" by "playing along". That's how THEY win every time, even when they haven't got any real cards to play.

By the way, I'll answer the "weaker or stronger" question posed above: The more times you compromise your principles, the easier it gets to do so.

So, don't let them win this battle and gain control of your testimony. Speak your truth. Stand your ground, and keep your feet. Your dignity is worth it.

Besides, the worst they can do is accuse you of not believing what you say. This would be to browbeat you into saying what you don't believe...

I leave it to you to decide which is worse.
***
<removed links nad plea to forward the message>

[Gregg]

You owe me the time it took to read that trash. Go to Webhick and have her deduct the appropriate amount of time from your life clock and send me an extra cigarette.....

[jg]

Sorry, but you were warned at the beginning that it was written by Peter Hendrickson.

Akin to deciding to drive in despite the One Way sign pointing at you; since you chose to disregard the warning your result is not my problem.

[notorial dissent]

I'll second that sentiment, but you can skip the cigarette!!!!

Gah, what dreck!!!

[Famspear]

Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson (or somebody posing as Blowhard) wrote:

You see, the income tax is a claim-based tax. The claims are that the one alleged to owe the tax has engaged in “taxable activities” by using federal property or privileges to acquire wealth. Because stuff belonging to the federal government was involved in the gains, it gets to claim a piece of the action....

This is pretty close to the heart of Blowhard's theory about the nature of federal income taxation.

And it's incorrect.

[Gregg]

Sorry, but you were warned at the beginning that it was written by Peter Hendrickson.

Akin to deciding to drive in despite the One Way sign pointing at you; since you chose to disregard the warning your result is not my problem.

Damn, sometimes a point is just to right to even argue with....

[Joey Smith]

Guess Pete doesn't realize that his number of follows has dwindled down to about a half-dozen idiots, not including Patrick Mooney who hasn't been heard from since he got smacked down.

[Nikki]

Pete, like Ed: family WooWoo, has gone off the deep end.

He actually believes the crap he's been spouting. Perhaps, had he publiched this earlier, he could have mounted a successful Cheek defense to his criminal convistion.

Well, it's too late for that. Pete is now preaching to a very small audience of disciples who are all struggling to avoid joining him in his present government-paid vacation.

It's unfortunate for the assorted TDs that DoJ can't remove all copies of CtC from circulation. There's still the oportunity for newbies to drink Pete's flavor of snake oil and take the first steps along the road to ruin.

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree with Nikki here, at this point I am quite sure that Prattlin’ Pete really does believe the nonsense he has been spouting. I think he has invested so much ego into being “right” that there is nothing left for him other than to hold tight to his fantasies no matter how tattered they have become.

I can’ t speak to whether he actually believed this swill to begin with, but since he is basically and fundamentally a dishonest person I am inclined to believe not. I think it was a convenient excuse, as has been repeatedly pointed out, to justify him not paying taxes, just as he found a convenient excuse for sending a bomb through the mails.

However, as more and more of his justification for existence became tied up in his “fantasy”, I think it became harder and harder to separate one from the other until he no longer could or would.

At this point he has convinced himself that he alone is “right” and that everyone else is wrong and that he is being persecuted for his “fantasies-excuse me beliefs”. That they are based soley on his wishful thinking doesn’t even enter in to it any more.

The fact that he still has a half dozen or so of the even more deluded says a great deal about the lack ability of that half dozen to think for themselves, or even think when it comes right down to it.

[rogfulton]

I had such high hopes. Fab Felon starts out with overly broad generalizations and it took some effort, but at least I was able to see where he was coming from if I ignored the implied sarcasm. Then he had to ruin it with

This brings us to CtC ('Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'), and why it is so threatening to the exploitive parasites that infest the District of Corruption. You see, the income tax is a claim-based tax. The claims are that the one alleged to owe the tax has engaged in “taxable activities” by using federal property or privileges to acquire wealth.

If only he had ended that last sentence after “taxable activities”, lost the quotes and the first sentence, he would have still been nominally on the right track. So close....

[bmielke]

Sorry, but you were warned at the beginning that it was written by Peter Hendrickson.

Akin to deciding to drive in despite the One Way sign pointing at you; since you chose to disregard the warning your result is not my problem.

I have always believed that traffic signs are mere suggestions, they have no ability to make me heed traffic laws.

In this case I saw Peter Hendrickson, and so I skipped to the commentary.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sorry, but you were warned at the beginning that it was written by Peter Hendrickson.

Akin to deciding to drive in despite the One Way sign pointing at you; since you chose to disregard the warning your result is not my problem.

I have always believed that traffic signs are mere suggestions, they have no ability to make me heed traffic laws.

I betcha that there's no law which says that "all motorists are liable to obey traffic signs", and that there is no provision in the Constitution which allows me to contract away my right to travel and obey only those signs that I, as a living, breathing, sentient, natural-born, Preamble citizen and free man on the land choose to obey.

[bmielke]

Sorry, but you were warned at the beginning that it was written by Peter Hendrickson.

Akin to deciding to drive in despite the One Way sign pointing at you; since you chose to disregard the warning your result is not my problem.

I have always believed that traffic signs are mere suggestions, they have no ability to make me heed traffic laws.

I betcha that there's no law which says that "all motorists are liable to obey traffic signs", and that there is no provision in the Constitution which allows me to contract away my right to travel and obey only those signs that I, as a living, breathing, sentient, natural-born, Preamble citizen and free man on the land choose to obey.

You show me that law and I will show you an excellent fire starter.

[Pottapaug1938]

I betcha that there's no law which says that "all motorists are liable to obey traffic signs", and that there is no provision in the Constitution which allows me to contract away my right to travel, and that I may obey only those signs that I, as a living, breathing, sentient, natural-born, Preamble citizen, Sovereign and free man on the land choose to obey (sorry -- got the gobbledygook wrong the first time).

You show me that law and I will show you an excellent fire starter.[/quote]

Sure -- as soon as Pete reminds me where to find it.

Oops....

[bmielke]

I betcha that there's no law which says that "all motorists are liable to obey traffic signs",

In Tennessee TCA 55-8-109. I am not really surprised there is a law mandating the following of traffic signs. But I am going to pull a Marceaux on this one. "ITS MEERLY A SUGGESTION!"

[Pottapaug1938]

I betcha that there's no law which says that "all motorists are liable to obey traffic signs",

In Tennessee TCA 55-8-109. I am not really surprised there is a law mandating the following of traffic signs. But I am going to pull a Marceaux on this one. "ITS MEERLY A SUGGESTION!"

I was going to say something like "but the law doesn't say that I am "liable" to follow them; but this parody sub-thread has gone on long enough....

[Quixote]

I must have been the only one who skimmed down far enough to see this:

Right now America is in another season of truth or lies. Right now, YOU have the chance to choose.

PLEASE. Use your power, make your choice, and honor the sacrifices made by your ancestors to give you the freedom to do so.

Or..., don't.

Keep hoping someone else is going to come along and fix everything, so that you don't have to pipe up or get up.

That's surely easier, and it seems safer, of course-- as appeasement and conflict avoidance always do.

BUT, HOW'S THAT BEEN WORKING FOR YOU?

Way better than the the alternative, Pete.

[LOBO]

Here is a fundamental question...

How do you keep an ignorance-tax parasite in suspense?

[The Operative]

Here is a fundamental question...

Attempting to hide a link to your website is not a question. I am sure one of our moderators will be editing your post shortly.

[wserra]

I am sure one of our moderators will be editing your post shortly.

Or to show the spammer the door. As I see it: if someone makes an arguably legitimate post that includes a commercial link, give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Redact the link, with a polite warning that the site does not permit commercials. If someone attempts to hide a commercial link (or posts only spam), though, the only reason s/he is here is to promote a site. Bye-bye, poster.