# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  Are You Ready?  Income Tax. Book: Cracking the Code

## Danke

YouTube - Are You Ready Part 1

YouTube - Are You Ready Part 2

YouTube - Are You Ready Part 3

----------


## foofighter20x

Aaaaand, the IRS has since ruled this as tax fraud.

So, if you are going to get this book and do this, be aware of the consequences.

----------


## Danke

> Aaaaand, the IRS has since ruled this as tax fraud.
> 
> So, if you are going to get this book and do this, be aware of the consequences.


What are you talking about?

----------


## foofighter20x

*http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html*

Item #4.

----------


## Danke

> *http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html*
> 
> Item #4.


"Item #4"

?

----------


## foofighter20x

Item C4.

My bad for the non-specificity.

----------


## Danke

> Item C4.
> 
> My bad for the non-specificity.


Well, then you haven't obviously read Peter Hendrickson's book.  So why bother posting on a thread where you don't know what you are talking about?  Did you even take the time to view the above videos?

----------


## roho76

> Aaaaand, the IRS has since ruled this as tax fraud.
> 
> So, if you are going to get this book and do this, be aware of the consequences.


In case you were unaware the Foo Fighters ruled AIDS a fraud too. Does that make it true? Well I don't know. All I know is, the law says what it says and it says that if you are a government employee or you use government interests to make a profit you make "income" and everything else is just nontaxable "wages".

The gist is when you read a law there is a list of definitions defining the terms in the law somewhere in there. Legislators are sneaky to try to hide them from plain sight but they are there and the definitions define exactly what they mean. So they could make a law saying that "Apples" are illegal but stated in the definitions "Apple" is meant to mean "Cocaine" and "PCP" and THAT'S ALL and CAN NOT mean "Apple" in the true sense of the word. 

"_Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.  The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.  The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded_."  
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.

This has been upheld by the supreme court. You CAN NOT be held liable for someone elses assumptions and interpretations of the law and the law clearly defines who makes income.

I understand where your coming from though. They are enforcing unjust laws. I know. Sorry but these are the facts and the fact is NO LAW can over ride the Constitution. So the law has to be made in a very particular way as to be perceived as being something other than it is. The government can do what ever it want's.....to it's own employees and people who live in their jurisdiction hence the income tax but when you look at the definition of "Income" you will soon realize that it does not mean "Your" paycheck. This is also why the residents in the "District of Columbia" have had no 2nd Amendment rights for the longest time inside that jurisdiction because inside that jurisdiction you have no Constitutional rights you are on government property and the rules no longer apply.

The fact is thousands of people have filed in the "correct" manner and they have received over Ten Million dollars in returns with a closing letter from the IRS saying "Sorry, our bad". If you want to keep paying money to the government "Voluntarily" than go ahead because this info is not meant for you but I'll just say one thing, Harry Reid is right on this issue. 

Thanks for posting this Danke. I seen it the yesterday and have been meaning to post it.

----------


## foofighter20x

> Well, then you haven't obviously read Peter Hendrickson's book.  So why bother posting on a thread where you don't know what you are talking about?  Did you even take the time to view the above videos?


Don't be an ass. I'm taking no position on whether either side is right.

I'm merely informing those who read this thread thread that the IRS will criminally prosecute anyone who does this, so that they have full knowledge that there are real consequences.

If they decide it's worth it to try, more power to them.

Like Dr. Paul said when speaking about the Browns up in NH, if you are going to practice civil disobedience, you need to be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice.

----------


## Danke

> Don't be an ass.




You are posting misinformation from a government site.  And you are part of the RP revolution again, why?

How about a post on how Central Banking works from a Federal Reserve website?  That's be informative.

----------


## foofighter20x

> In case you were unaware the Foo Fighters ruled AIDS a fraud too. Does that make it true? Well I don't know. All I know is, the law says what it says and it says that if you are a government employee or you use government interests to make a profit you make "income" and everything else is just nontaxable "wages".
> 
> The gist is when you read a law there is a list of definitions defining the terms in the law somewhere in there. Legislators are sneaky to try to hide them from plain sight but they are there and the definitions define exactly what they mean. So they could make a law saying that "Apples" are illegal but stated in the definitions "Apple" is meant to mean "Cocaine" and "PCP" and THAT'S ALL and CAN NOT mean "Apple" in the true sense of the word. 
> 
> "_Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.  The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.  The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded_."  
> Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.
> 
> This has been upheld by the supreme court. You CAN NOT be held liable for someone else's assumptions and interpretations of the law and the law clearly defines who makes income.
> 
> ...


1. Don't use _ad hominem_ arguments. It only lessens your credibility to those who can recognize it. I know Nate Mendel is/was an HIV-denialist. I know the band played a promotion gig for an HIV-denial organization. I know those were stupid choices. Rock stars, like actors, can often do stupid things. Nobody is perfect. However, it doesn't mean the Foos can't made kick ass music. So what one has to with the other here is _non sequitur_.

2. Case law is only applicable to factual situations that are exactly _on point_. You don't just cite a principle from a case and say "I win." It doesn't work like that. Whenever there's a factual distinction, courts become unconstrained by case law and can make whatever ruling they find best. The distinguishing fact could be germane to other rulings, or it might require a different outcome and an exception from the precedent. That judgment is up to the trial judge and the appeals process. What is applicable in one area of the law is of no consequence to other areas of law until a higher appellate court says so, or the legislature intervenes and makes a codified rule.

3. Thanks for understanding all I'm doing here is saying "Be careful." I'm not condoning this nor chiding for it. I only seek to inform readers in this thread that the IRS has been criminally prosecuting people for this after they caught on to it in 2006.

----------


## foofighter20x

> You are posting misinformation from a government site.  And you are part of the RP revolution again, why?
> 
> How about a post on how Central Banking works from a Federal Reserve website?  That's be informative.


Government misinformation or not, at least I'm advocating full disclosure.

I guess you'd rather see people in jail or paying both taxes and fines to the IRS when, instead, those innocent people's fines could have gone to fund a Rand Paul Senate-run and REAL change could happen.

But no, just keep having them send those funds to the IRS/U.S. Treasury instead.

Also, how about you post videos that enlarge the date on the checks and show the general time frames people sent in video or audio clips? I'm doubtful most of them aren't very recent, given that the IRS has warned people they won't honor any such claims since 2007.

----------


## Danke

> I only seek to inform readers in this thread that the IRS has been criminally prosecuting people for this after they caught on to it in 2006.


"Caught on"  Ha.  It has been going on with IRS refunds before 2006.  And it is still going on:

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories35.htm

I guess they really haven't "caught on"  LOL

----------


## Danke

> Government misinformation or not, at least I'm advocating full disclosure.
> 
> I guess you'd rather see people in jail or paying both taxes and fines to the IRS when, instead, those innocent people's fines could have gone to fund a Rand Paul Senate-run and REAL change could happen.
> 
> But no, just keep having them send those funds to the IRS/U.S. Treasury instead.
> 
> Also, how about you post videos that enlarge the date on the checks and show the general time frames people sent in video or audio clips? I'm doubtful most of them aren't very recent, given that the IRS has warned people they won't honor any such claims since 2007.


http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories35.htm  (May 2009)


Pull your head out and do a fraction of research before you make more of an ass of yourself.

----------


## foofighter20x

> "Caught on"  Ha.  It has been going on with IRS refunds before 2006.  And it is still going on:
> 
> http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories35.htm
> 
> I guess they really haven't "caught on"  LOL


LOL indeed. It's government. I never claimed they were competent.

I assure you, though, some people that do this will get hurt, and that's what I don't want to happen. If you think you are brave enough to make the gamble, fine. Just be aware of the risk. That's all I'm saying.

----------


## Perium

> Don't be an ass. I'm taking no position on whether either side is right.
> 
> I'm merely informing those who read this thread thread that the IRS will criminally prosecute anyone who does this, so that they have full knowledge that there are real consequences.
> 
> If they decide it's worth it to try, more power to them.
> 
> Like Dr. Paul said when speaking about the Browns up in NH, if you are going to practice civil disobedience, you need to be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice.


I appreciate the info, thanks for pointing out that you will be taken to court for this.

----------


## Danke

> I appreciate the info, thanks for pointing out that you will be taken to court for this.


That is incorrect.

----------


## roho76

> 1. Don't use _ad hominem_ arguments. It only lessens your credibility to those who can recognize it. I know Nate Mendel is/was an HIV-denialist. I know the band played a promotion gig for an HIV-denial organization. I know those were stupid choices. Rock stars, like actors, can often do stupid things. Nobody is perfect. However, it doesn't mean the Foos can't made kick ass music. So what one has to with the other here is _non sequitur_.
> 
> 2. Case law is only applicable to factual situations that are exactly _on point_. You don't just cite a principle from a case and say "I win." It doesn't work like that. Whenever there's a factual distinction, courts become unconstrained by case law and can make whatever ruling they find best. The distinguishing fact could be germane to other rulings, or it might require a different outcome and an exception from the precedent. That judgment is up to the trial judge and the appeals process. What is applicable in one area of the law is of no consequence to other areas of law until a higher appellate court says so, or the legislature intervenes and makes a codified rule.
> 
> 3. Thanks for understanding all I'm doing here is saying "Be careful." I'm not condoning this nor chiding for it. I only seek to inform readers in this thread that the IRS has been criminally prosecuting people for this after they caught on to it in 2006.


1.) Anybody can use big words, why don't you try and make your point in as little words as possible. Who gives a $#@!. Please send me the rule book on how to win a petty argument on a forum. I'm sure it's a great read. 

2.) This is "The Law". I didn't write it. They did. And it's within the confines of the Constitution because of the way it's written. And it is to our advantage to explore it.

3.) You're welcome.

The current form of taxation is unsustainable even in a short time span. That doesn't mean they are going to stop taxing us, it just means they are going to have to do it differently if they wish to calm the wolves. You can't tax the unemployed if the unemployed are unemployed and more and more people are becoming unemployed every day. People are still buying $#@! though. Barack Obama won't be able to hire IRS agents fast enough here in the not so distant future. IMO.

----------


## american.swan

It seems this book is worth reading and possibly following through with it.....BUT this is not a sure thing.  The IRS will do everything it can to refute this and put you behind bars.  

So following through with this advice is risky.

----------


## roho76

> The IRS will do everything it can to refute this and put you behind bars.


This is very true. But let us proceed with caution and challenge authority. Ending the FED and their tax schemes go hand in hand.

----------


## foofighter20x

> Anybody can use big words, why don't you try and make your point in as little words as possible. Who gives a $#@!. Please send me the rule book on how to win a petty argument on a forum. I'm sure it's a great read.


Take a university course on critical thinking and argumentation.

Until then, try *www.fallacyfiles.org*

----------


## foofighter20x

> That is incorrect.


Is that so?

Then explain to me why Mr. Hendrickson, the author of the Book you're promoting here, has been indicted and for what reason exactly the IRS and DOJ are taking Mr. Hendrickson to court for later this year... 

DOJ press release: *http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2008/txdv08_2008-11-12_phendrickson.pdf*.

I'm not saying the government is right, or that they are not obfuscating the issues of the tax honesty movement, and I hope your author is found not guilty. But to say that they won't take you to court for this is reckless.

----------


## Danke

> Is that so?
> 
> Then explain to me why Mr. Hendrickson, the author of the Book you're promoting here, has been indicted and for what reason exactly the IRS and DOJ are taking Mr. Hendrickson to court for later this year... 
> 
> DOJ press release: *http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2008/txdv08_2008-11-12_phendrickson.pdf*.
> 
> I'm not saying the government is right, or that they are not obfuscating the issues of the tax honesty movement, and I hope your author is found not guilty. But to say that they won't take you to court for this is reckless.


The IRS _may_ take one to court for a number of reasons.  To say _will_ is reckless.

The most common reason many in the Tax Honesty movement have ended up in court in the past is for "willful failure to file."  Realizing the Income Tax did not apply to them, they simply did not file.  

However, as Mr. Hendrickson has pointed out, one must rebut bad third party informational returns.  This has been successfully going on for many years now. The very reason they have been going after Mr. Hendrickson is because of the successes, they are getting more and more desperate, the IRS needs to try and scare others from challenging bad informational returns.

The video I posted gave a brief summery of Mr. Hendrickson's battles.  Here is a more in depth review:  http://www.losthorizons.com/PostSCPetition.pdf

----------


## Danke

> Also, how about you post videos that enlarge the date on the checks and show the general time frames people sent in video or audio clips? I'm doubtful most of them aren't very recent, given that the IRS has warned people they won't honor any such claims since 2007.


Most of the audio clips are a couple of months old.  I was on that call.

----------


## Danke

> I'm merely informing those who read this thread thread that the IRS will criminally prosecute anyone who does this, so that they have full knowledge that there are real consequences.


Why don't you at least watch what you are commenting on.  The very beginning of the first video goes into the court cases.

How are you "merely informing" anyone of anything with more government propaganda from your links?

That only shows your ignorance of the depth of what's been going on over that last few years.

The videos had a link to a website loaded with factual information if anyone is looking to get more informed:  losthorizons.com

----------


## Danke

*The Supreme Court Kicks The Can Down The Road*



On Monday, the US Supreme Court shamefully declined to hear the petition filed for its review of a blatantly unlawful series of acts by both a district and an appellate court as described in detail here (and which is discussed concisely in the film 'Are You Ready?).  A petition for re-hearing will be filed.  I hope that all of you and your uncles, cousins and sainted grandmas will get involved in flooding the justices with letters before July 10 urging them to not slink away from this hot-potato a second time.



Many good folks participated in a multi-signature letter effort organized by the virtuous Tim Whitney over the last couple of weeks prior to the initial consideration of the petition, and a number of others acted independently, as well.  These efforts were great, but clearly not enough.  Hundreds of citizens expressing concern about this affair apparently don't mean much to the court-- perhaps thousands will.



That said, it's important to recognize the significance of the court's decision to avoid this case.  The issues in this petition are simple, straightforward, inescapable and profoundly important-- and completely independent of the income tax.  For instance, no one can lawfully be told what to put on ANY statement over his or her own signature.  Period.  It doesn't matter whether its a tax form or a birth certificate or a statement to the police or ANYTHING.  No court can accept the movant's allegations as fact and disregard the non-movant's rebuttals in issuing summary judgment.  Period.  It doesn't matter what the case is about.



In ANY other case in which these issues arose, the court would unquestionably just overrule or remand the case with appropriate instructions, as a matter of course and without a second thought.  That it did not do so emphasizes the fact that the spread of the information revealed in CtC is understood at all levels of the state as the catalyst for the transformational shift of power away from those in whose hands it is now concentrated (amongst whom are those on the federal benches, and those to whom they are beholden) and back to the hands of the people, to whom it really belongs.



Indeed, these issues NEVER HAVE arisen before, and thus the court's effort to dodge them is all the more telling.  That is, the lower courts' behavior is not in keeping with "settled law", such that the high court could be expected to take no special interest-- it is exactly the contrary.  The lower courts' behavior is directly in violation of numerous Constitutional and statutory provisions and well-settled doctrine pursuant to those provisions, including many Supreme Court precedential rulings.  Thus, the case is a prime one for the high court's consideration-- and yet the court declines to take it up.  This can only be out of recognition of the significance of the outcome if the issues should actually get the hearing that they merit.



Of course, the Supremes may also be engaging in a little gamesmanship in this evasion of its responsibilities in order to protect the PR value of these bogus "rulings" to the ignorance-tax schemers (which, you will recall, were rendered as "not for citation as precedent"-- even after a specific DoJ request to the contrary) .  For instance, the court may be silently invoking some legal gimmickry concerning "standing" or "ripeness" as a pretext for passing on the case at this point, since no effort has actually ever been made to enforce the "rulings".



Or, the court may be taking one step further back, and its declining to take the case may be in silent recognition of the fact that these rulings are simply and plainly void on their face:

    Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.  Black's dictionary of Law, Sixth Edition.

(Indeed, one or the other of these principles may be the rationale exploited throughout the entire charade, both as conducted in the lower courts as well as now in the Supreme Court...)



But this is a distinction without a difference, because again, in any other case in which the same bad behavior had taken place in the lower courts-- but in which the continuity of the "ignorance tax" scheme was not at risk--, the court would certainly have accepted the petition just on the basis of the due process and other procedural violations alone.



Make no mistake.  You CtC warriors are the force that stands on the verge of restoring the Constitutional republic designed by the Founders.  Those who oppose that design understand that, and you must understand it, too.



(Click here for information on how you can help see to it that the petition for re-hearing is granted.)

----------


## foofighter20x

> Why don't you at least watch what you are commenting on.  The very beginning of the first video goes into the court cases.
> 
> How are you "merely informing" anyone of anything with more government propaganda from your links?


1. I did watch the videos.

2. I know more about the case, as I've gone and looked at the actual case file and not gotten my knowledge solely from YouTube clips.
a. The only court battle Hendrickson has had so far was that the IRS/DOJ attempted to review his financial records.
b. Hendrickson sued to enjoin the investigation in Omaha, seeking a court order to quash any subpoena of financial records.
c. He lost.
d. He appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
e. He lost again.
f. He petitioned for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
g. The SCOTUS denied cert. (i.e., he lost again)
h. He petitioned again for appeal, for the rehearing your post claims he filed.
i. He was denied cert. again.
j. Having lost at every step, the government has investigated and indicted him on criminal tax charges.

Those are the facts of the procedural history. Care to add any more?

The fact that people got their money back is no indication that his legal theory/interpretation is in any sense correct. It just means the government hires employees who can be easily duped. As I said above: I never claimed those working in government were competent.

And if saying they _will_ drag you to court (a word on which I never placed any emphasis, but fine, characterize it however your fantastical imagination wants) is reckless; then, there's a good probability they might once they discover the mistake. Is that no longer reckless?

----------


## Nationwide

> So, if you are going to get this book and do this, be aware of the consequences.


The consequence to me was ... thousands of extra dollars in my pocket and that much less to every Godforsaken-congressional scam tyrant from here to Wall Street.

----------

