Main menu

Complying With The Law (Part 8)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/17/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

So now you've had a crash course (or crash
rehash) of the 861 evidence. While the conclusion (that most of us
never owed a penny in federal income taxes) is obviously difficult
at first to accept, the path leading to that conclusion consists
entirely of solid steps.

1) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense,"
"without merit," or "stupid" to think that there are some kinds of
income which, though not exempted by any particular section of the
tax code, are nonetheless NOT subject to the federal income tax
because they are, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the
federal government"? Since, as we've now seen, that's exactly what
many decades of official income tax regulations SAY, how could any
honest person call it "frivolous"?

2) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that income from
international trade MUST be reported as "gross income," and taxes
must be paid on such income? Since the current regulations, and 80+
years of older regs, have said exactly that (while NOT mentioning
purely domestic income), how could any honest person call it

3) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or
"stupid" to think that, when the law specifically points out things
to which it applies, we should conclude that it does NOT apply to
anything NOT specifically pointed out? Since the Supreme Court has
said exactly that over and over again (and the principle of law,
"inclusio unius," dictates it as well), how could any honest person
call it "frivolous"?

4) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without
merit," or "stupid" to think that we should all use Section 861 of
the tax code, and the related regulations, to determine how much
(if any) taxable DOMESTIC income we have? Since a pile of citations
straight from the government's own lawbooks say exactly that, how
could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

5) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that income from
inside the U.S. is taxable for nonresident foreigners, and for
certain people who also receive income from federal possessions
(e.g., Guam, Puerto Rico)? Since over 80 YEARS of statutes and
regulations which "evolved" into the current 861 and its
regulations say that as plain as the nose on your face, how could
any honest person call it "frivolous"?

6) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to wonder why the sections
of law about "income from sources within the United States have
NEVER said that such income is taxable for any U.S. citizen who
does NOT do business in federal possessions? Since that has been
true for over 80 years, how could any honest person call it

7) Again, is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without
merit," or "stupid" to think that, when the law specifically points
out things to which it applies, we should conclude that it does NOT
apply to anything NOT specifically pointed out? Since the Supreme
Court has said exactly that over and over again (and the principle
of law, "inclusio unius," dictates it as well), how could any
honest person call it "frivolous"?

So let's put all the non-
frivolous, perfectly reasonable (if not downright undeniable) steps
together, and see what we get:

There are some kinds of income, not
exempted by any statute, that are nonetheless tax-free because of
the Constitution itself. Income from international trade, however,
MUST be reported as "gross income," and taxes must be paid on such
income. There are particular sections of law to be used to
determine when income from INSIDE the U.S. is taxable, and for over
80 years those sections said that such income is taxable for
foreigners, and for Americans with possessions income, but did NOT
say that U.S.-source income was taxable for all Americans. It is
well established that one should NOT assume that tax laws apply to
any matters which are not specifically pointed out.

Not to beat a
dead horse, but notice again that all of this is about how to
properly determine one's taxable income--in other words, how to
correctly COMPLY with the law. It's not about a loophole, a trick,
a protest, or anything of the sort--it's about DETERMINING WHAT WE
OWE, and that's all. So why are the feds so fond of calling people
"tax cheats" and "tax protestors" for talking about this stuff? Why
do they paint this conclusion as a "fraudulent tax scheme"? Why do
they vilify, demonize, threaten, and prosecute people for believing
what THE LAW says, or even for just asking QUESTIONS about the law?

Name-calling is one thing, but how despicable is it for the feds
to throw people in PRISON for believing what you see above, having
NEVER cited ANYTHING in the law refuting any of it? Is it okay when
they refuse to answer simple questions, and instead publicly
slander people, characterizing them as criminals and tax cheats,
execute armed invasions of their homes, subject them to a mock
trials at which all relevant evidence is suppressed, and finally
throw them in prison?

The term "terrorism" is often defined as
the use of force to achieve a political end. Doesn't that describe
what the IRS and DOJ have been doing? Whatever you believe the
truth to be, or whatever you think of my conclusions, is it okay
with you that your government uses violence to deal with the issue,
instead of using the law, or reason, or evidence, or logic?

In my
next message, you'll hear a bit about what our lovely "public
servants" have done to one person in particular, and you can decide
for yourself who is on the side of justice.



A Good Cause

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/17/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Today I got an e-mail from someone who said: "I
can't afford to be put in jail and loose my job because I followed
the law, but don't know how to keep the Gestapo from bullying me
and twisting the truth and making me a criminal with a record." How
does it make you feel to know that an American is afraid to OBEY
the law, and tell the truth, for fear of what his government might
do to him? It would be bad enough if one person felt that way, or a
dozen, or a hundred. But his lament is not at all unique. THOUSANDS
of people are now regularly surrendering money to the IRS that they
firmly believe they do NOT owe. Whether or not you agree with them,
anyone professing to cherish freedom ought to be disgusted with a
government that achieves "compliance," not with reason and law, but
with coercion and intimidation. Thomas Jefferson said that when the
people fear the government, there is tyranny. (How many people do
you know who are NOT scared of the IRS?)

And the fear of the feds
is not at all baseless. Two days ago, someone I know very well went
to prison. He is scheduled to be in for five years. Five YEARS.
Think of that. What would justify sticking someone in a cage for
five years? Did he kill someone? Assault someone? Rob someone?
Defraud someone? Nope. Did he at least lie about something, hide
something, or engage in some shady financial dealings? No. (He'd
probably be in Congress, not prison, if he did that stuff.) No,
while the official charges were about not filing returns, and
trying to get money back he had erroneously paid before, his true
sin was to stand by his principles, speak his mind, tell the truth,
and point out government wrongdoing. His name is Dr. Charles Thomas
Clayton. And since I know him well, let me describe his sins to

In 1998, after finding my "Taxable Income" report on the
internet (on someone else's web site), he contacted me. We
discussed the issue at great length. Once convinced that my
conclusions were correct, he was determined to have the information
publicly available. So he donated the funds to create the web site, which included my "Taxable Income"
report, and related articles and documents. Everything on the site
was free to anyone who wanted it. Dr. Clayton (known to many as
"Dr. Tom") made that possible.

Later, not satisfied with the speed
at which the truth was spreading, we discussed making a video
version, since reading a 60-page legal brief wasn't something most
people were likely to do. I daydreamed aloud to Tom about how the
best way to explain the issue would be with the use of computer
rendering/animation software (like you may have seen in Toy Story,
Monsters Inc., etc.). However, I told him that wouldn't work,
because the equipment and software for that is so expensive. But he
was so determined to have the American public, particularly those
folks NOT as well off as himself, have this information, that he
kept asking me for a number: just how much would it take to make
such a video? Ultimately he donated tens of thousands of dollars of
his own money, for the hardware, software, and initial copying
costs. And when I say "donated," I don't mean "invested." He
DONATED it, REFUSING to make any agreement whereby he would ever be
paid back a dime. He did it because he felt obligated to do it. And
so the "Theft By Deception" video ( )
became a reality.

Keep in mind, Dr. Tom was in the perfect
position to let someone ELSE deal with the problem. He had a lot to
lose, but he put it on the line anyway. Why? Because the man has
principles, and a devotion to the truth I have rarely seen
elsewhere. Now the feds are determined, not only to lock him up,
but to destroy him financially. They illegally rushed a lien onto
his home so that he couldn't sell it before going in, so his family
could get the equity from it. They want to make sure that his
family suffers as much as possible. I want to make sure they don't,
as you'll see below.

Between funding various information-
spreading projects, Dr. Tom was writing letters of his own to all
sorts of government officials, seeking rational answers to rational
questions, trying to get an honest dialogue going with anyone in
the federal government. He wrote to Andrew Card, Bush's chief of
staff. Along with many of us, he wrote to the IRS Commissioner, the
Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and many more. He
went to the trouble of finding the IRS attorneys specializing in
Section 861 of the tax code (David Bergkuist and Barbara Felker),
trying to get them to answer the questions. He received insults and
threats, but no answers.

He hid nothing. He explained his
position, and SOUGHT OUT opposing views from the government; he
asked for answers, invited discussion. For his trouble, he had his
home raided on May 6, 2003, the same day mine was raided. It
quickly became abundantly clear (the feds didn't even bother being
secretive about it) that his funding of the "Theft By Deception"
was the reason that a dozen armed agents invaded his home. They
took every copy of the video they could find, under the guise of a
"search." (We had already sent over 100 FREE copies of the video to
all sorts of government officials, so the contents weren't any
secret to the feds.)

When he called the DOJ to complain about the
obvious First Amendment violation, the lawyer there told him that
he could file a complaint, but it probably wouldn't be processed,
because it would be a "conflict of interests." Why? Because, as the
government's own lawyer said, the DOJ was trying to STOP THE
DISTRIBUTION of the video--a video they have NEVER alleged is
illegal, and have no injunction against. Yet they took every copy
they could find, even though the Supreme Court says that search
warrants are NOT to be used to confiscate protected First Amendment
materials. (Are you getting a little queasy yet? Does this sound a
little too much like fascist book-burnings for your tastes?)

Funny how the government couldn't find the resources to answer a
few simple questions about the law, but could find the resources to
raid this man's home, prosecute him, and now imprison him. Speaking
of prosecution, those of you familiar with my case probably won't
be surprised to learn that the government, with the help of the
"judge" in his case, went to great lengths to SUPPRESS all relevant
evidence from his trial. (He wasn't allowed to show the jury the
video, for example.) It was not a trial; it was a witch-hunt. After
his selfless contributions and efforts, he was demonized, treated
as a criminal and a villain, and forbidden from defending himself.
Now he is in prison.

There are countless other ways in which Dr.
Tom has been an advocate of the truth, from funding THIS e-mail
list (that's why you didn't pay anything to subscribe), to helping
out financially with the 861 Evidence presentation, to making sure
I could afford to do my part in exposing the issue, and so on. I
won't even try to list them all (or remember them all) right now.
Suffice it to say that he is being punished precisely because he
gave of himself so that YOU could know the truth about what is
being done to you by your own government. After all that, his first
concern still is not himself; it is that his family be taken care
of. And I intend to do everything in my power to make that happen.

Right now, having mortgaged our house to give the IRS nearly
$70,000 already (despite knowing that we didn't owe it), and with
the IRS still wanting over $70,000 from us, not to mention the
court wanting another $15,000 in penalties, my wife and I today
will be sending Dr. Tom's family $100. I say this not to boast,
because $100 is hardly worth boasting about. (I hope to soon be
able to send a lot more than that.) Rather than as a lame boast, I
tell you this to illustrate that however bad your finances might
be, in the long run $100 is chump change. It's a very small "thank
you" to give for someone risking so much--and losing so much--for
the sake of justice.

There are about 6,000 people on this list.
The vast majority will give nothing. But if 10% each give $100,
that will go a long way towards supporting the family of this
American hero--albeit an "unsung" hero. He put himself in harm's
way for YOUR sake, and is now being tortured for it. Let's at least
make sure his family is well taken care of during his stay as a
political prisoner. So before you get back to your daily routine
and it slips your mind, get out your checkbook, write that check--
if not for $100 then for whatever you can afford (if that's more
than $100, great)--and send it along to Tom's wife at the following
address. (If you'd rather make donations in some more anonymous way-
- -money order, or even cash if you dare trust the post office with
that--in case you have concerns about getting the IRS' attention,
that's fine too. It all counts as gifts, which even the IRS knows
are not taxable.)

Donna Clayton
202 N Vesper Bend Circle
Woodlands, TX 77382

Be sure to make the donations out to Donna,
not Tom, not only because he's not there (obviously), but because
it's not for him; it's for his family. Most of us will never know
what his family has gone through, and will go through, because of
Tom's loyalty to the truth. Let's at least help spare them further
financial problems.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Whatever you would have given to support Tessa and me, give
it to Dr. Tom's family instead.)

(P.P.S. If you still insist on
helping out Tessa and myself, feel free to buy my book from the web site--though I'd rather have people buy it
because it's a good book, rather than as an act of charity.)


(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/04/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

There will be a pause in messages from me,
probably at least until Friday, when Tessa comes home, so I can get
some stuff done for her. In the meantime, here are a few things you
could check out:

1) I don't know who made the following "YouTube"
video, but it's worth watching. (I only just saw it myself.) It's
about the feds' case against Wesley Snipes, who they've been
demonizing for a while now for using the 861 evidence. (Or, if you
prefer the completely inaccurate, insulting terminology the feds
use, the 861 "frivolous tax fraud scheme.") In case you're
wondering, no, I don't have any contact with Mr. Snipes (unless
he's secretly lurking on this list), but I'm definitely rooting for
him to beat the pants off the feds. Of course, they want to hang
his head on the wall as a trophy, and certainly won't let anything
like the truth or the law get in the way of that. So here is the

2) If you
haven't seen it before--or even if you have--the "861 Evidence"
presentation is still archived on a bunch of different sites. Pick
any one of the following links (they are all the same thing) to
view the presentation.

3) And, if you're interested,
here is something someone wrote about my recently-released book
(NOT about the tax laws):

You'll hear from me again soon. Oh, by the way, the
appeal of my wrongful conviction was filed many months ago, the
government filed its response, and we're about to file our reply.
So maybe in the not-too-distant future we'll see what happens with


Larken Rose

Complying With The Law (Part 6)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/02/2007)

( Note: Prior messages in this series can be found here: )

Dear Subscriber,

At this point, some of you may be thinking, "Well, if this guy went
to prison, what good is this info?" Good question. Let me add to
your apprehension by saying this: If you want to avoid trouble,
IGNORE the parts of the law that tell you to use 861 (and related
regulations) to determine your taxable domestic income. Oh, and
ignore the thing about some income being excluded because of the
Constitution. Oh, and ignore the fact that everywhere the tax laws
discuss the issue of commerce, only certain international trade is
mentioned. In fact, for the purely practical-minded among you, you
might want to pretend you never heard about any of this. And you
definitely don't want to hear what comes next, because we're about
to see evidence of the largest financial fraud in history,
perpetrated by the most powerful government in history.

As Plato said, it's dangerous to be right when the government is
wrong. I don't suggest that people do what I did, so if blissful
ignorance is your goal, you can stop reading now. If you don't want
to be faced with evidence that should anger and frustrate you,
don't continue. If you don't want to know when you're being
defrauded and robbed, and if you don't want to know what your
government has become, read no further. You can choose to be like
those Germans who didn't WANT to know what Hitler was up to, or the
Russians who turned a blind eye to what their country became. On
the other hand, you might have the attitude...

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to
the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this
the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for
liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having
eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so
nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever
anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole
truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." [Patrick Henry]

For radicals with that attitude... on with the show!

As an exercise, try using the following section to determine your
taxable domestic income:

“(a) In the case of a nonresident alien or of a citizen entitled to
the benefits of section 262
  • , the following items of gross income
    shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:
    (1) Interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing
    obligations of residents, corporate or otherwise;
    (2) The amount received as dividends from a domestic
    (3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the
    United States;
    (4) Rentals or royalties from property located in the United
    (5) Gains, profits, and income from the sale of real property
    located in the United States;
    (b) From the items of gross income specified in subdivision (a)
    there shall be deducted [the allowable deductions]. The remainder,
    if any, shall be included in full as net income from sources within
    the United States.”

    (* One could only be entitled to the benefits of section 262 if
    most of his income came from federal possessions, such as Guam or
    Puerto Rico.)

    So, did you have any trouble using that to determine YOUR taxable
    domestic income? It clearly says that U.S.-source income is taxable
    for CERTAIN people (probably not including you), but it said
    nothing about the income of the average American. So the rest of us
    can't do much of anything with it; it says nothing about OUR

    So why should we care? Because what you see above is the
    "grandfather" of Section 861 said back in the 1920's (back then it
    was Section 217). Would anyone mistake that to mean that domestic
    income is taxable for ALL American citizens and residents? No. It
    very specifically stated for WHOM such domestic income was taxable
    (foreigners and people with possessions income), and very
    conspicuously did NOT mention Americans who live and work only
    inside the 50 states. And THIS is where the current sections for
    determining one's taxable domestic income (861 and regs) came from.
    (Are you starting to see WHY the IRS is so desperate for us NOT to
    look at this part of the law?)

    Why on earth would the law specifically say that those types of
    domestic income, including wages earned inside the U.S., are
    taxable for FOREIGNERS and for CERTAIN Americans (who have
    possessions income), instead of saying that domestic income is
    taxable for EVERYONE? "Conventional wisdom" says that income earned
    in the U.S. is taxable for everyone. So why would the lawmakers go
    out of their way, using more words, to NOT say that it's taxable
    for ALL Americans?

    Recall that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that we are NOT
    to interpret tax laws as if they apply to matters "not specifically
    pointed out." It would be hard to think of a better example of the
    law specifically pointing out certain things, while conspicuously
    omitting other things. If you really owe the tax, why on earth
    would the law say only that income from inside the U.S. is taxable
    for certain people OTHER THAN YOU? If they meant to say it's
    taxable for everyone, why didn't they?

    Now, you might wonder, how does the government explain this? They
    don't. I've never seen any IRS form letter, any notice or lower
    court ruling, talk at all about the history of Section 861. I have
    seen a couple people, who apparently are ignorant of the history of
    the section, claim that 861 means that domestic income is taxable
    for everyone (though IRS Chief Counsel lawyers know enough that
    they have never argued that). In the following messages we'll see
    why someone might think that, and why it's dead wrong. In the
    process we'll see clear evidence of cover-up and fraud, perpetrated
    by the federal lawmakers and regulation-writers.


    Larken Rose
  • Message From Tessa

    (originally launched into cyberspace on 01/31/2007)

    Dear Subscriber,

    I'm interrupting the current series of
    messages to this list to send you the following message from my
    wife, Tessa. If you want to write to her while she's "inside," do
    it very soon, because their mail system there seems really slow,
    and she'll be out of there on Friday, 2/9/07. (In other words, if
    you don't send something now, she'll probably be out by the time
    she would have gotten it.)


    - -------------------------------
    - -
    From Tessa Rose (1/27/07)

    Dear List Subscribers,

    Greetings from Danbury, Connecticut. I am now halfway through my 30-
    day vacation with the BOP (Bureau of Prisons). By the time the
    novelty of all this wears off, it will be time for me to go home.
    This is not a bad place to be, really. It's just not a place you
    want to be stuck in for a very long time. Going in was the hardest
    part for me--not knowing what it was really going to feel like or
    how mean people were going to be. But, with the notable exception
    of the rude lady who wanted a free strip show, the people involved
    in the intake process were polite and respectful. They did their
    things, and then turned me over to the inmates, who softened my
    landing here with their sympathy and generosity.

    Now, two weeks
    in and halfway through, what I feel most is gratitude. I am
    grateful for the opportunity to come here and meet all these lovely
    women--to hear their stories and witness their pain, to marvel at
    their resourcefulness and spirituality, to live, for only 30 days,
    a life that other women are forced to live for years and years. I
    have seen and learned so much in this short time, so much that I
    will never forget.

    I also thank the government every day for
    placing me in the honored company of all the people in history who
    have been imprisoned for telling the truth and doing the right
    thing. When I walk the hallway of Danbury FPC, I am also walking in
    the footsteps of great people. This makes me feel both very proud
    and very humble; proud to be part of that great company, and humble
    to be the least of them.

    Lastly, I am grateful to those who have
    brightened my captivity by sending cards and letters. When I walk
    away from Mail Call with a fistfull, my step is lighter, knowing
    that you are still there for me.

    Love to all,

    Tessa D. Rose
    Danbury FCI (Camp)
    Federal Correctional Institution
    Danbury, CT 06811

    Complying With The Law (Part 5)

    (originally launched into cyberspace on 01/29/2007)

    Dear Subscriber,

    The issue which this series of messages
    addresses is often called the "861 evidence." You may note,
    however, that I haven't even MENTIONED "861" until now,
    demonstrating that there is a whole lot more to the issue than one
    section. But now it's time to address 861 itself. For reasons shown
    below, I believe that one should use Section 861 of the federal tax
    code, and the regulations related to that section, to determine
    one's taxable DOMESTIC income (income from inside the U.S.).
    However, the vast majority of tax professionals do NOT use those
    sections for that, and the IRS very much does NOT want people
    looking there. Let's consider a few things that the lawbooks
    themselves say:

    1) Section 861 itself is titled "Income from
    sources within the United States" (while Section 862 is about
    income from outside of the U.S.). The first two subsections of 861
    are titled "Gross income from sources within United States" and
    "Taxable income from sources within United States."

    2) If you
    look in the indexes of the tax code, under "gross income," you'll
    see entries regarding "sources within the United States," which
    direct the reader to Section 861. If you look under "taxable
    income," you'll see entries referring to 861 regarding income from
    within the U.S. If you look under "deductions," you'll see 861
    referenced regarding determining taxable income from sources within
    the United States.

    3) Section 61 gives the broadly-worded general
    definition of "gross income." Up until 2001, all three major
    printings of the tax code (USC, USCA, USCS) included a cross-
    reference under Section 61 itself, pointing to Section 861
    regarding income from sources INSIDE the U.S. You can see scans of
    such cross-references here:

    The regulations which go along with Section 861 include Section
    1.861-1, which is titled "Income from sources within the United
    States," as well as Section 1.861-8, which is titled "Computation
    of taxable income from sources within the United States
  • and from
    other sources and activities." (The part after the asterisk was
    added in 1978.)

    5) Section 1.861-1 addresses three types of
    income: income from INSIDE the U.S., income from OUTSIDE the U.S.,
    and income which comes from both inside and outside. Concerning
    domestic income (income from inside the U.S.), the regulation very
    plainly shows Section 861 and its regulations (and in some cases
    Section 863 as well) to be the place to look. The actual regulation
    can be found here:

    Section 1.861-8 of the regulations begins by saying this:

    "(a) In
    general--(1) Scope. Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general
    terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources
    within the United States after gross income from sources within the
    United States has been determined."

    There are many other sections
    which point to 861 and its regulations regarding the determination
    of one's domestic "gross income" and "taxable income" (e.g., 26 CFR
    1.863-1(c), Treasury Decision 6258), but the above will do for now.
    Notice that none of the above citations give even the slightest
    hint that only certain people should use those sections in certain
    unusual circumstances. No, the lawbooks say over and over again,
    unequivocally and unconditionally, that 861 is the place to be
    regarding income from INSIDE the U.S. (If you have income from
    outside the U.S., other sections, particularly 862, deal with

    Having seen the above, what would you think of someone
    saying that it's "frivolous" for me to think I should use 861 to
    determine my taxable domestic income? How about "baseless"? Maybe
    "ridiculous," or even "stupid"? And, in light of the above, what
    would you think about me getting PROSECUTED, and then thrown in
    prison, for using 861 and its regulations to determine my "taxable
    income from sources within the United States"?

    Well, I did. And
    my wife is in prison right now (halfway through her 30-day
    sentence) for doing just that. You may think I'm making this up,
    because it's so absurd. I am REQUIRED to determine my tax liability
    (if any) the way the LAW says to determine it. Remember, this is
    all about how to COMPLY with the law, and I complied exactly with
    the citations you see above. For my trouble, I was thrown in prison
    for a year.

    People who haven't been following the issue will
    probably have a really hard time believing what I just said. I
    wouldn't believe it myself if it hadn't happened to me. You may
    wonder, what did the government cite from the law itself
    demonstrating that I was wrong to use 861 (and related regulations)
    to determine my taxable domestic income? Absolutely nothing. In
    fact, when I met with the IRS to discuss the issue (at my request)
    they admitted that they weren't familiar with the sections I just
    cited above, and could not answer my questions--one of which was
    whether I should be using 861 to determine my taxable domestic
    income. They said they would do further research and get back to
    me. They never did, unless you call raiding my house in 2003
    "getting back to me." Yep, a dozen armed IRS agents invaded my
    home, stole every copy they could find of my "Theft By Deception"
    video (, my "Taxable Income" report (explaining the
    issue above in detail), etc. Then they prosecuted me for doing what
    the law COMMANDED me to do.

    If you're thinking, "That cannot be,"
    I sympathize. You can get the whole story, with all the surreal
    details, later. For now, just look again at the citations above,
    and ask yourself, is there anything frivolous about what I did? Is
    it ridiculous of me to think I should have referred to Section 861?
    Soon we'll see what those sections say (and then you'll know WHY
    the IRS really doesn't want people looking at those sections). But
    for now, I know of no better "assumption versus evidence" test than
    this: Which would you give more weight to, what the law SAYS (see
    above), or what IRS bureaucrats and tax professionals baselessly
    ASSERT? Most people choose the latter. Apparently the jury in my
    case decided that I was obliged to IGNORE the law itself and
    instead obey the unsupported, legally worthless assertions and
    commands of the people who work for the IRS, DOJ, and the courts--
    who, coincidentally, all get their paychecks from the money the IRS
    collects. Does that seem odd to you?


    Larken Rose