http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htmNOTE: In response to requests from the growing ranks of CtC-educated Canadian and Australian lovers of liberty and students of the law, CtC Warrior groups are now forming in those two countries!
I'm still wondering how the Supreme Court can deny certiorari and it not be mentioned by Hendrickson somewhere, on the forum or in the newsletter, or by one of the owls!Thule wrote:My goodness. How the blazes can some Aussie read a book stuffed with "quotes" and "information" on US law, and conclude that he no longer should pay taxes in Australia?
It's odd, and quite unusual. But it could have hurt sales. Maybe Petey just PM'd all the users and told them to keep quiet.ASITStands wrote: I'm still wondering how the Supreme Court can deny certiorari and it not be mentioned by Hendrickson somewhere, on the forum or in the newsletter, or by one of the owls!
There's no PM function on Lost Horizons. That was disabled (or never enabled) years ago.Thule wrote:Maybe Petey just PM'd all the users and told them to keep quiet.
The only person to try to spin this into a victory is former Fidei Defensor Weston White.
C'mon, now -- do you really think that dear ol' Petey is actually going to admit to anything which might impair his status at the Supreme Prophet of tax denial?ASITStands wrote:I'm still wondering how the Supreme Court can deny certiorari and it not be mentioned by Hendrickson somewhere, on the forum or in the newsletter, or by one of the owls!Thule wrote:My goodness. How the blazes can some Aussie read a book stuffed with "quotes" and "information" on US law, and conclude that he no longer should pay taxes in Australia?
Hey, Henry Tudor managed to keep that title when he divorced the Pope, why shouldn't Weston do likewise.Thule wrote:It's odd, and quite unusual. But it could have hurt sales. Maybe Petey just PM'd all the users and told them to keep quiet.ASITStands wrote: I'm still wondering how the Supreme Court can deny certiorari and it not be mentioned by Hendrickson somewhere, on the forum or in the newsletter, or by one of the owls!
The only person to try to spin this into a victory is former Fidei Defensor Weston White.
It's quite amazing that nothing has been said about it. It is the nail in the coffin, the swan's song, the death knell, the...you get my point. But in any event, they will just spin it as a victory, so I suppose it doesn't matter. Its like telling someone who thinks he's Peter Pan that all psychologists agree that he's not Peter Pan - it won't make a difference.Pottapaug1938 wrote:C'mon, now -- do you really think that dear ol' Petey is actually going to admit to anything which might impair his status at the Supreme Prophet of tax denial?ASITStands wrote:I'm still wondering how the Supreme Court can deny certiorari and it not be mentioned by Hendrickson somewhere, on the forum or in the newsletter, or by one of the owls!Thule wrote:My goodness. How the blazes can some Aussie read a book stuffed with "quotes" and "information" on US law, and conclude that he no longer should pay taxes in Australia?
Hasn't Petey already said something like, "the Supreme Court has again refused to address the merits of my case (out of cowardice, or under orders from their Masters) because they know that they will have to rule in my favor if they do?"Imalawman wrote: It's quite amazing that nothing has been said about it. It is the nail in the coffin, the swan's song, the death knell, the...you get my point. But in any event, they will just spin it as a victory, so I suppose it doesn't matter. Its like telling someone who thinks he's Peter Pan that all psychologists agree that he's not Peter Pan - it won't make a difference.
I didn't think he had, but I lose track of what he says so easily, not being a follower.Pottapaug1938 wrote:Hasn't Petey already said something like, "the Supreme Court has again refused to address the merits of my case (out of cowardice, or under orders from their Masters) because they know that they will have to rule in my favor if they do?"Imalawman wrote: It's quite amazing that nothing has been said about it. It is the nail in the coffin, the swan's song, the death knell, the...you get my point. But in any event, they will just spin it as a victory, so I suppose it doesn't matter. Its like telling someone who thinks he's Peter Pan that all psychologists agree that he's not Peter Pan - it won't make a difference.
Although most of Cracking the Code consists of Pete explaining why the plain language of the IRC and the court decisions interpreting it contradict his position on income taxes, he makes some observations that apply equally well in any legal system based on English law.My goodness. How the blazes can some Aussie read a book stuffed with "quotes" and "information" on US law, and conclude that he no longer should pay taxes in Australia?
CTC, page 3[Adam] Smith deplores capitations as inequitable, inflationary, counterproductive, and destructive of liberty. Importantly, he makes clear that any tax levied upon and/or measured by the exercise of a basic right-- such as the right to life, liberty, the ownership of property, working, or engaging in trade-- is a capitation.
CTC, page 31To summarize all of this in a nutshell: remuneration for work literally IS labor; and the seizure (whether called a tax or anything else) of remuneration that is the result of simply working for a living amounts to slavery.
It would also prohibit any enforcement of child support obligations.Quixote wrote:CTC, page 31To summarize all of this in a nutshell: remuneration for work literally IS labor; and the seizure (whether called a tax or anything else) of remuneration that is the result of simply working for a living amounts to slavery.
The latter is particularly interesting. If it were true, it would prohobit enforced collection of tax of any sort in a jurisdiction that prohibits slavery. It would also prohibit execution of civil judgments.