Source: http://losthorizons.com/Trolleries/JudicialMyths.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:03:43+00:00

Document:
Assertion: "The courts have ruled against CtC!"
THE TROLL COMMUNITY TRIES TO FRIGHTEN FOLKS AWAY from the liberating truth revealed in CtC by suggesting that CtC has been tested and found wanting in courts across the land. The reality is the exact opposite.
The judicial acknowledgement of CtC's revelations-- particularly at the Supreme Court level-- is deep, broad and monolithic. Anyone needing a reminder or a refresher can see a very concise summary here, or a still-concise but more in-depth presentation here.
THERE ARE OCCASIONAL EFFORTS by a handful of lower courts to create an impression of opposition to CtC. But all such efforts rely on readily-demonstrated evasion, misrepresentation or exploitation of some procedural quirk available to the courts, or outright lies, such as those by several federal appellate courts unmistakably exposed here (the video version) or here (the text version). The reliance on these dodges tells the whole tale by itself, since this wouldn't be done even once by any court ever if there were actual grounds for opposing CtC.
For instance, in 2006, while engaged in a pretense of complaining about refunds made to my wife and me of amounts withheld from me in 2002 and 2003 (follow that link, friend, and all others as they appear-- you may imagine you know what you would see, but you'd be wrong), DoJ attorneys were reduced to writing a ruling for the judge's signature which includes, among many other fictions and falsehoods, a false "finding" that CtC argues that only government workers are subject to the income tax.
The judge did indeed sign this ruling. The ruling has since been cited in other cases, and appears as a citation on a number of IRS publications (United States v. Hendrickson, EDMI No. 06-11753 (2006)).
This ruling is the chief example referenced by those asserting that "the courts have ruled against CtC", and is the basis for the handful of rulings by other courts in which CtC is disparaged (at which we will look below). These other rulings assume the correctness of the "finding", without investigation, and use that assumed "fact" as the grounds for their own declarations that CtC makes false or frivolous or otherwise wrong arguments.
BUT THIS "FINDING" IS FALSE, and actually fraudulent. This "finding" of what purportedly appears in CtC was made by a judge who years later admitted to having never read the book. Further, of course, the "finding" is wrong.
Now, do you think that this bs would be resorted-to if a court (or the government) had any ACTUAL grounds for disputing what is said in CtC?
IN FACT, IN THAT SAME CASE in which the false finding is made the government made an unprecedented request of the court. It asked that my wife and I be ordered to repudiate our CtC-educated filings and replace them with government-dictated filings declaring ALL of our earnings to be taxable "income". See a brief detailing the orders and the elaborate falsehoods involved in the case here.
This order was sought in the hope of giving the government the pretense of grounds for asserting that we owe taxes for 2002 and 2003, something it has never been able to do without our production of these false statements. Still think the courts or government have any actual basis in law for disputing what CtC reveals?
By itself, this one example definitively debunks the assertion that "CtC has been ruled against by the courts". The manifest reality is that CtC is so correct that the courts, and the government they serve, are being tied in knots by the book's accuracy and significance. Nothing more need be said.
HOWEVER, MORE CAN BE SAID. So, let's go a bit further, just to emphasize and more broadly illustrate that the government and its courts are entirely unable to actually dispute anything presented in CtC.
As noted elsewhere, the government does not sue the CtC-educated. But in increasing numbers, CtC-educated Americans have been suing the government, and these cases are providing interesting demonstrations of modern judicial acknowledgements of the correctness of CtC.
In every such case with which I am familiar, when courts have ruled against these educated, law-upholding plaintiffs they have done so by evading the issues actually raised in the suits. Those relying on these rulings being mistaken as evidence of judicial dispute of CtC hope that their readers won't go to the trouble of learning the background of the cases and reading the filings, record of proceedings and rulings.
More than anything, those misrepresenting these rulings hope their readers are not CtC-educated.
LOOK, FOR INSTANCE, at the ruling in Steve and Sarah Waltner's lawsuit against the IRS. The Waltner's had sued in the federal Court of Claims to compel the IRS to make refunds concerning amounts withheld during each of three years, properly-claimed by way of timely amended returns.
The Court of Claims eventually dismissed the Waltners' suit. The grounds alleged for the dismissal tell the tale.
"[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"."
Plainly, $0 is a legitimate and recognized amount of income, and one qualifying as "information upon which tax could be calculated", since the IRS itself helpfully calculates a tax liability based on that amount of income.
"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 further that not only is the court "reasoning" that the "third party forms" are to be accepted as infallibly 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 manifestly absurd on its face. The second 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", per 26 U.S.C. §§ 6201(d) and 7491(a). No attempt whatever was made to bear this burden.
"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."
that these inconvenient affiants don't really believe what they say (because they said something different in previous years).
...and then wonder why the court didn't just go right to these questions, and instead evaded them with its absurd nonsense.
So, yes, Steve and Sarah Waltner were ruled-against in their lawsuit. Does that ruling prove that CtC is wrong? Or does it prove that CtC is so right that a corrupt judge, who wants to rule against someone properly invoking the law revealed in the book in order to preserve a scheme that she sees crumbling all around her, is forced to resort to blatant evasions and idiotic nonsense?
The correct answer is plainly the latter of these alternatives. And yet this is the sort of ruling the troll-community has to trot out to scare folks away from the truth. The reason? This kind of corrupt contortion is the best the trolls can come up with in their effort to suggest that "the courts have [meaningfully] ruled against CtC".
IN FEBRUARY OF 2016, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT in Wisconsin used the same dodge to avoid the substance of the CtC-educated plaintiffs' claims. The suit was brought by Scott and Debbie Gillespie and sought to compel the government to issue a claimed refund.
In this case, the district court didn't waste nearly so many words on its evasion of the real issues, saying only, "Because plaintiffs' amended return did not evince an honest attempt to satisfy the law, it did not constitute a valid claim and plaintiffs have not satisfied the statutory prerequisites for filing suit. Thus, plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Like the dismissal in the Waltners' case, the court here is resorting to an assertion that the Gillespies can't really believe what they're saying in order to avoid considering the validity of their claim as an objective matter.
That is, the court is evading a decision on whether Scott and Debbie's earning actually qualify for the tax, something that the government would plainly insist upon if such a decision would find that to be true, for a variety of reasons. That this question is being dodged, instead, reveals that the conclusion on that point, were it to be made, would be in the Gillespie's favor, and both the court and the government know it.
ANOTHER CASE CITED BY THE TROLL COMMUNITY is a tax court case brought by Steve Waltner. Steve had petitioned against an effort by the IRS to collect a "frivolous return" penalty against him.
Steve actually withdrew his petition before a ruling by the tax court, having decided to re-file in district court instead. But the case is cited by the trolls nonetheless because the tax court judge, a fellow named "Buch", clung to it on the pretext of imposing a sanction on Steve and used his ruling to spend dozens of pages purporting to critique CtC.
But like all other instances of the same sort, Buch reveals the truth he is trying to attack by the falsities and dodges to which he is compelled to resort in the effort. Further, Buch undertakes his dissembling attack on CtC while his colleagues in the IRS, its Tax Court and its Office of Chief Counsel were facing exposure for a series of forgeries and perjuries in two other CtC-related cases involving Steve Waltner and his wife Sarah.
Buch's pretense of disparaging CtC begins with a series of irrelevant smears directed at me personally. These include regurgitations of self-serving DOJ PR department misrepresentations of an 1990 indiscretion which is more accurately discussed here. Buch also-- almost comically, considering that his goal is to discredit me-- presents the "outcome" of the DOJ and judicial frauds exposed here here and here (albeit without sharing with his readers the exhibits which reveal the government crimes involved).
The ad hominem attacks are followed by strawmen set-ups and knock-downs through misrepresentations of content in the book and a ferocious exclusion of context. Buch even misrepresents statutes and other authorities, and cherry-picks inapt or out-of-context supports for his own assertions.
Buch pretends to do a chapter-by-chapter review/critique, but actually only selects individual sentences from each assemblage of chapter-length material-- absent of context and supporting or clarifying material. Or he just declares what his reader is supposed to believe is said in CtC (but isn't) without even the benefit of an excerpt. Then he attacks his own misrepresentation.
"Starting with the premise that taxes are either direct or indirect, Cracking the Code lays the foundation for the remainder of the book on two fallacies. The first is that “federal direct taxes which affect citizens of the several states must be apportioned.” The Constitution at one time required this apportionment; however, with the adoption of the 16th Amendment in 1913, this rule no longer applies to income taxes."
“But it clearly results that the [erroneous] proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment [purportedly] exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned."
United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
So, I think I am on pretty good ground saying, “federal direct taxes which affect citizens of the several states must be apportioned”, and I think Buch is sinking fast into deep water when he calls my statement a "fallacy".
The Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong."
"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…"
"If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 12. Whether the [income] tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of critical importance [for this analysis]. If not that, it is an "impost" (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 622, 158 U. S. 625; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soble, 7 Wall. 433, 74 U. S. 445), or a "duty" (Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S. 546, 75 U. S. 547; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 157 U. S. 570; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 178 U. S. 46). A capitation or other "direct" tax it certainly is not."
Brushaber merits special mention, because Cracking the Code misleadingly cites that case. A stockholder brought suit to against a corporation to prevent the corporation from paying taxes imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913. The Supreme Court summarized the stockholder’s arguments, stating: “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them.” Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 10. The Supreme Court then proceeded to untangle the stockholder’s arguments, which ultimately proved to be losing arguments. Yet Cracking the Code cites the Supreme Court’s summary of the losing arguments as though it were the Supreme Court’s analysis of the underlying constitutional issues. Cracking the Code, supra note 16, at 19-20.
I cite this material as evidence of the fact that the Brushaber court slaps down the erroneous notion that the 16th Amendment authorized a non-apportioned direct tax (which was Frank Brushaber's notion and is Ronald Buch's, as well). This doesn't comprise the whole of the court's analysis of the underlying Constitutional issues (for instance, the Brushaber court also flatly declares the income tax to be an excise, as I also quote in CtC). But I think I can confidently say that what I excerpt IS part of the court's analysis of the Constitutional issues involved in the tax and the 16th Amendment... (BTW, you can find a more complete discussion of those issues here).
Other than a couple of footnotes, this is the total of what is said regarding the "fallacy", allegedly-asserted in CtC, "that the Federal Government has legislative authority over only the District of Columbia and U.S. territories and thus lacks the authority to impose taxes within any State." But even in just that little bit of material we can see two common practices of dissemblers at work.
First, there is the bald assertion that CtC says that due to the legislative jurisdictional limitations described, the federal government, "...thus lacks the authority to impose taxes within any state." And yet, somehow Buch fails to present any language from CtC saying any such thing. There's a simple reason: CtC does not say any such thing.
In fact, while the chapter Buch is discussing is not one in which CtC presents how and where the income tax is and can be imposed (making his assertion regarding this "fallacy" at this point just an outright and particularly cheap strawman), CtC plainly says, in the opening paragraph of the section Buch is mendaciously discussing: "In addition to prescriptions as to how taxes are laid, there are also jurisdictional issues involved in taxation. A government cannot tax-- directly or indirectly-- any thing or any activity outside either its legal or its geographical jurisdiction."
Plainly, CtC acknowledges that geographical considerations are NOT the sole considerations regarding any power to tax. That power applies wherever legal jurisdiction goes, which can be in or out of union states, or anywhere in the world, for that matter.
In fact, CtC teaches that "within any state" is not even a relevant concept to the application of the income tax, because that tax is based entirely on legal jurisdiction. But because this is, in fact, the basis for the tax-- something Buch desperately want the public to misunderstand-- Buch simply misleads his readers about what CtC says.
The second dissembler's ploy used by Buch in this portion of his screed is the failure to present-- even if only to attempt an honest rebuttal-- what CtC offers in support of the book's actually very qualified assertion that federal jurisdiction is limited within state territory (not absent, as Buch suggests).
“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction."
“It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possess no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the States, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions, and subject to the free exercise by the Federal Government of rights with respect to the use, protection, and disposition of its property”.
THESE ARE JUST TWO QUICK DEMONSTRATIONS of Buch's dissembling-- which were found in his very first two assertions. There is no need to go on; the entire package the man presents is just more of the same careful, practiced disinformation, misrepresentation and deceit.
In fact, Buch even goes so far as to repeat the government's favorite canard, that CtC argues "that only Federal workers are subject to tax"-- Memo., p. 58, thereby revealing that he never really read the book at all. See this hoary and ridiculous false ascription thoroughly debunked and revealed for the cheap and telling lie that it is, here.
The dissembler finishes his screed with equally false declarations that CtC-educated filers have been prosecuted for those filings (see here for debunks of this lie) and other dire statements. These are clearly meant for dissemination by the government as part of PR campaign hoping to frighten Americans away from the individual-empowering, state-restraining information in the book.
First, as is always the case, efforts like Buch's, which rest on careful misrepresentations, simply underscore the truth of what they attack. The only time one needs to resort to misstatement is when one can't actually argue against what is really said.
Second (and this is the funny one), EVEN WHILE BUCH WAS GNASHING HIS WAY THROUGH THIS CORRUPT EXERCISE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WERE GETTING THEIR COMPLETE REFUNDS BY RELIANCE ON EXACTLY THE BOOK THIS FELLOW WAS STRUGGLING TO DEFAME.
In the years since Buch's contribution to the long-running campaign to suppress CtC, more tens of thousands of CtC-educated refunds have issued. All were thoroughly vetted by the same IRS for which Buch works.
Third, as noted above, Buch's deceitful pretense of a challenge to the accuracy of CtC just happened to take place while his agency (and particularly his division of the agency) was finding itself in the crosshairs of well-documented allegations of forgery, perjury and conspiracy, as laid out here, all committed as part of a corrupt effort to evade or overcome CtC-educated filings. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to come to your own conclusions as to what this implies about the honesty and sincerity of Buch's presentation.
THE "BOTTOM-LINE" REALITY IS THAT JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO CtC uniformly acknowledge the accuracy of the book's information, even if sometimes this is only shown by the corrupt court being forced into contrivances and contortions in its effort to rationalize an adverse outcome for the educated litigant. The reality is that no court has ever "ruled against CtC".

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.