Main menu

another postponement

(originally launched into cyberspace 03/15/2006)

Dear Subscriber,

Tessa's sentencing has been postponed again, this time until April 19.
The Rule 29 motion was denied. Thanks for all the ideas about making
the
phone bills cheaper. Most of these were not allowed, or we found that
they wouldn't actually save money. Larken is doing well and keeping
busy
with writing and music. He always welcomes letters.

Sincerely, Shawn Rose

MONEY ORDERS for Larken:

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Larken Rose
58421-066
P.O. Box 474701
Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001

LETTERS for Larken:

Larken Rose
58421-066, Unit G
Federal Prison Camp
P.O. Box 200
Waymart, PA 18472

LETTERS & CONTRIBUTIONS for Tessa:

Tessa David
c/o Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

Complying With The Law (Part 7)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/13/2006)

( Note: Prior messages in this series can be found here:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/LarkenRose/index.html )

Dear
Subscriber,

Once upon a time there was an income tax law, and
that law included a section which said (to paraphrase) that in the
case of CERTAIN people (i.e., foreigners, and Americans with
possessions income) income from inside the U.S., such as wages
earned here and interest from domestic investments, was taxable.
Why didn't it mention the domestic income of ALL U.S. citizens and
residents? Was it the mother of all typos? Was it something that
has since been "fixed"? Is income earned here NOW taxable for all
of us? Let's trace that section of law through the years, and see
if we can find out.

1) Through the 1920's, the section (then 217)
was very plainly only saying that domestic income was taxable "In
the case of a nonresident alien or of a citizen entitled to the
benefits of section 262 [meaning those who get most of their income
from federal possessions, such as Guam or Puerto Rico]." It said it
right up front, and in plain English. No one could mistake the
section to mean that domestic income is taxable for ALL Americans.

2) In 1932, that section of the law mostly remained the same,
except the phrase about "in the case of a nonresident alien..."
disappeared. By itself, the section (then 119) seemed to be saying
that the listed types of domestic income are taxable for anyone who
receives them. HOWEVER, the official Executive Branch regulations,
which require the approval of Congress before they are passed, did
NOT change. They continued to say that the listed types of domestic
income are taxable for FOREIGNERS, and for Americans with
POSSESSIONS income. And they said that in several places. So the
correct application of the law had not changed. (In the following
couple of decades, however, some (but not all) of the regulations
admitting that vanished from the law books.)

In 1954, when the
section became Section 861 (which has remained essentially the same
ever since), Congress specifically said that the application of
that part of the law had NOT significantly changed (except for a
slight change in an obscure rule about nonresident aliens
temporarily in the country). In other words, what Section 119 meant
before, Section 861 means now. The statute itself changed hardly at
all, but the wording of the related regulations underwent some
extremely suspicious changes:

3) You may recall from prior
messages in this series that Section 1.861-8 of the regulations is
where we're repeated told to go to determine our "taxable income
from sources within the United States." Well, what the equivalent
section said prior to 1954 was that the listed types of domestic
income were, after deductions, to be included as taxable income, in
the case of NONRESIDENT ALIENS and FOREIGN CORPORATIONS doing
business in the U.S. After 1954, the "in the case of..." phrase
once again disappeared.

4) That section, before and after 1954,
gave an example of how to determine taxable domestic income. All
the numbers remained the same, but prior to 1954 the example was
plainly about "a nonresident alien individual," but after 1954 that
phrase was changed to "a taxpayer."

5) The regulation about
domestic interest previously said, as plain as day, that interest
on U.S. investments was to be included in the "gross income" of
foreigners and people with possessions income. After 1954, the
section remained exactly the same, except for the REMOVAL of the
phrase about foreigners and possessions stuff. (Remember, Congress
said that application of this part of the law had NOT changed.)

6)
After 1977, though Section 861 of the statutes didn't change at
all, the main regulation for determining taxable domestic income
(Section 1.861-8) went from ONE page in length to over THIRTY
pages, and many new "legalese" terms were introduced (which did not
exist in the statutes or any other regulations), such as "operative
sections," "specific sources," "statutory groupings," etc. The
section STILL says that domestic income is taxable in the case of
people engaged in certain activities (including foreigners doing
business here, and Americans doing business in federal
possessions), but it now explains it in the most convoluted manner
imaginable.

Again, the history of the section shows that the scope
and application of the section has NOT CHANGED since the 1920's,
when it obviously said that domestic income was taxable for
FOREIGNERS and for Americans with POSSESSIONS income. So what was
the purpose of the changes shown above? They all have the tendency
of leading the reader to believe that domestic income is taxable
for EVERYONE, though they never come right out and SAY that. Why
have those sections NEVER, in over 80 years, said anything about
the domestic income of an American who lives and works just in the
50 states?

I don't at all mind when people at first think that
what I'm suggesting can't possibly be true. But whatever the truth
is, there must be an explanation for the evidence that exists. It
sure LOOKS like someone was trying to make it more difficult to
understand that the sections for determining taxable domestic
income only show income to be taxable for certain people engaged in
international trade, but NOT for all Americans. Can you think of
any innocent explanation for all those changes?

Some people think
that merely calling something a "conspiracy theory" makes it
untrue. But of course, sometimes there ARE conspiracies, where a
group of people cooperate to commit a fraud. The fact that this
would be the biggest financial fraud ever (tricking 100,000,000
people into handing over a trillion dollars a year that they don't
actually owe) doesn't automatically make it untrue. Again, whatever
the truth is, there must BE an explanation of the evidence. When
the government says "frivolous" and "nonsense," and harrasses,
vilifies, robs, censors, and imprisons people, that's not an
explanation of the evidence--it's merely an effort to SUPPRESS the
evidence.

Now why, do you suppose, might they want to do that,
instead of explaining what it really means? If I'm off my rocker,
or if I'm missing something, misquoting or misreading something,
wouldn't it behoove the government to politely point that out,
instead of trying to forcibly silence me? Shouldn't they be EAGER
to answer questions, explain sections of law, and clear up all this
"confusion"? So why won't they?

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. I know how to admit it when I made a
mistake: apparently it was Voltaire, rather than Plato, who is
quoted as having said "It is dangerous to be right when the
government is wrong." Thanks to the several people on my list who
pointed that out.)

Updates on Larken and Tessa

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/11/2006)

Tessa's sentencing has been postponed until March 15. On February 15,
Judge Baylson will hear oral arguments on Tessa's Rule 29 motion.

Several people asked about the length of Larken's sentence. He was
given
15 months, but a percentage of that is "good time," and another
percentage
is halfway house time. He should be released to a halfway house in
late
November.

A number of people also asked about sending money directly to Larken.
You
can send a MONEY ORDER to ANY federal inmate at this address (just
change
the name and number):

MONEY ORDERS:

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Larken Rose
58421-066
P.O. Box 474701
Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001

Payments are by money order ONLY. The major expense for inmates is
telephone time. They are charged very high rates for phone time, and
they
can't possibly earn enough to cover it, so the families have to keep
sending money if they want to hear their loved ones' voices. It would
be
a great relief to Tessa to have this expense covered. Larken is
concerned
about getting more money than he needs; if this happens, I'll tell you
all
to stop sending it for a while.

Just to clarify, the above address is only for money orders to go into
Larken's commissary account. Below is the address for sending LETTERS:

LETTERS:
Larken Rose
58421-066, Unit G
Federal Prison Camp
P.O. Box 200
Waymart, PA 18472

I got a few requests to change email addresses - if you just scroll
down
to the bottom of any one of these messages, you can update your email
address, or subscribe or unsubscribe to/from the list.

Sincerely, Shawn Rose

No Bail

(originally launched into cyberspace on 12/3/2005)

---

Dear Subscriber,

The Third Circuit denied our motion for bail pending appeal, so I will be
reporting to the Canaan prison camp in Waymart, PA on Monday morning.
Here is what my mailing address will be (starting Monday):

Larken Rose
Reg. No. 58421-066
USP Canaan - Satellite Camp
Waymart, PA 18472

I would ask that you don't waste time and effort feeling depressed or
angry about this. (I'm already planning some projects I hope to complete
during my incarceration.) This won't be pleasant, but it's better than a
firing squad. We hoped for better, but it could have been a lot worse.

Again, my main concern now is that Tessa and Elyssa are taken care of.
This is not the life I wanted to give them, and not the life they deserve.
So if from time to time you can throw a little help their way, I know it
would be greatly appreciated, by them and by me. Some day, in some way, I
hope I can pay you all pack for your kind support. Donations can be sent
here:

Tessa David
c/o Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

(Donations can also be made via PayPal to "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.".
Tessa has access to my PayPal account, so it will work even when I'm "on
the inside.")

I'll try to stay in touch with the list from time to time. There's so
much I wish I could tell you all, but it will have to wait.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Surrender Delayed

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/28/2005)
---

Dear Subscriber,

This is just a quick note to let you know that my self surrender date has
been delayed a week. (I learned that while driving downtown, about an
hour before I was going to turn myself in.) So I'm out for another week,
pending our appeal from the district court's denial this morning of our
motion for bail pending appeal. If a panel of two or three Third Circuit
judges decides, upon preliminary review, that our appeal raises
"substantial issues," then I can stay out while the real appeal of my
conviction and sentencing happens.

As you can see, it's a bit complicated, but the bottom line right now is
that I'm scheduled to turn myself in next Monday, instead of today. We'll
try to keep you informed, and thanks again for all your support.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Message From Larken

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/23/2005)

---

Dear Subscriber,

As you may have heard, yesterday I was sentenced to 15 months in federal
prison, and I have to turn myself in Monday to begin the sentence. We of
course had hoped for better, but it could have been a lot worse. (Tessa's
sentencing won't happen until February 15th.)

I will be turning over this e-mail list to Tom Clayton. I hope to be able
to mail him messages for him to e-mail to this list while I'm "inside."

To try to minimize the harm to my family, I went back and filed returns
for 1997 through 2004. In addition, the people who maintain the
www.861.info, www.taxableincome.net, and www.theft-by-deception.com web
sites have taken them down, in the hopes of improving my sentence. Judge
Baylson made it clear on two occasions that the existence of those web
sites, and the continued selling of my "Theft By Deception" video, would
have made my sentence worse.

As a result of filing returns and taking down the sites, the judge
yesterday rejected the prosecution's request for a maximum sentence (which
could have been as high as five years). He also dismissed the
government's attempt to increase the sentence based on alleged perjury,
which they requested based on the reasoning that if the jury didn't
believe me, I must have lied on the stand. (Apparently this is not an
unusual thing for the government to ask for, but interestingly, Judge
Baylson had the same take on it that I did: that such a penalty amounts to
punishing someone for taking the stand in his own defense.) For those
rulings, I am grateful.

What I believe about the correct interpretation and application of the law
has NOT changed, and will not change unless and until someone presents me
with EVIDENCE (not assertions) that I'm wrong. That certainly did not
happen at trial, where neither the government nor the court had much to
say about the issue, other than "frivolous." (Interestingly, at
sentencing the government was obviously angry that I haven't recanted my
BELIEFS, but Judge Baylson made it quite clear that I had a right to
believe anything I want, and that he was not asking me to change my
beliefs.)

But the bottom line is that I feel like I have failed. I failed my
family, and I failed all of you. I misjudged how a dozen "average"
Americans would view the case, and would reach a verdict.

At the moment we intend to appeal, but I'm not sure we can afford to, in
light of what we're paying the IRS, what we've already paid in legal fees,
and the $10,000 fine imposed by the court (as part of the sentence).
Despite the much-appreciated generosity of those on this list, we ended up
with remaining legal bills of between $10,000 and $20,000. (I had
intended to give you all a precise, itemized list, but there are a lot of
other things I have to do before Monday.)

I guess what it comes down to is this: whether we can afford to appeal
depends upon whether YOU think it's worth funding. The price tag could be
as much as $40,000. (It would be filed by Peter Goldberger, well known
across the country as an outstanding appeals attorney. In fact, the judge
at sentencing twice commented on what a good attorney Mr. Goldberger is.)
Split among 6,400 people (the number of people on this list), this would
only come to $6.25 per person (though of course, in reality the number of
people who contribute is always a fairly small percentage of those asked).

But I also want to make a separate, more desperate, and more shameless (or
shameful) plea to all of you. I cannot express how much it pains me to
know the stress and pain that my efforts have brought upon my family.
Tessa remains incredibly (and inexplicably) supportive, and even our
daughter seems to be taking it as well as could be expected. (They plan
on visiting a lot.) They don't deserve what's happening to them, and
right now I don't really feel like I deserve their support.

I have no right to ask any of you to try to help fix the problems I've
caused for my family. But I'm going to anyway. I cannot praise Tessa
enough, and to have her suffer for her courage and support is something I
can't bear to imagine. To get to the point, I am unjustifiably begging
each of you to please help financial support my amazing, precious wife
while I'm in prison, so finances are one thing she doesn't need to worry
about. I have fun imagining what would happen if each of you went
hog-wild and donated $250, so Tessa would get $1.6 million (that even the
IRS would know isn't taxable)! Of course, that won't happen, but any
support you could give would be greatly appreciated. I can't bear to
think of Tessa having financial problems while I'm in no position to help.
Again, I have no right to ask, but I have to.

Whether for legal expenses, or just to help Tessa out financially,
contributions can be sent to the following. However, ALL DONATIONS SHOULD
BE MADE TO "TESSA DAVID." (The money is not really for me, and I won't be
around to sign checks anyway.) So you know, we will NOT be using
donations to pay the alleged back taxes, or the fine imposed on me (or any
that might be imposed on Tessa at her sentencing). We are already dealing
with that ourselves by getting a home-equity loan.

Contributions can be sent here:

Tessa David
c/o Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

(If you prefer to make donations via PayPal, they can be sent to
"This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.")

Tessa and I can't express how much all of your support, moral and
financial, has helped us, and asking for MORE support is not what we were
hoping we'd be doing at this point. Then again, neither was preparing to
go to prison. This is the fate that resulted from my own choices, and I
will deal with it as best I can. Thank you for all your support.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(P.S. Very soon I will be publishing a book, unrelated to the tax issue,
called "How to be a Successful Tyrant (The Megalomaniac Manifesto)." I
think a lot of you will like it, and hopefully that will make some money
for Tessa in a way other than shamelessly begging for handouts. We'll
make sure you hear about the book when it's out.)