Main menu

All Gone

(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/07/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

So you know, the "861 Evidence" mini-CDs are now all gone, so don't
try ordering them. There may be a few orders which were sent out
which are still in the mail. If you already ordered, you'll either
get your disks very soon, or you'll get your payment back.


Larken Rose

Last Call for 861 Mini-CDs

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/26/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

This may be your last chance if you want to get some "861 Evidence"
mini-CDs. Again, we learned of a stash still in existence, and
they're being unloaded for $15 for a box of about 100, or $30 for a
case of about 600. That includes shipping--and in fact, it's almost
nothing BUT shipping and handling. Last I heard, there were only
about a dozen cases left, so if you want some, don't wait. The
first orders received will be the ones that get filled. (If you
order too late, you'll still get your money back.) Again, don't e-
mail me. I don't have the disks. Instead, send check or money order
(or cash, if you dare) to the following address, and tell Peter
where to send the disks:

Peter McCandless
3515 NE 50th St.
Kansas City, MO 64119


Larken Rose

861 Evidence mini-CDs

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/10/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

As I mentioned before, some "861 Evidence" mini-CDs still exist,
and you can get them for just the shipping and handling costs.
First of all, DO NOT send orders to me. I don't have the disks.
Send orders to the address below, with payment made out to "Peter

Peter H. McCandless
3515 N.E. 50th St.
Kansas City, MO 64119

It's $15 for a box of about 100, or $30 for a case of about 600
(which comes to five CENTS each). But if you want them, order
quickly, because there are only about 20,000 (a couple dozen cases)

For those who don't remember, this is the little Flash presentation
which plays on computers, on the little miniature CD's (not to be
confused with my "Theft By Deception" DVD). It's the presentation
that talks about the 861 issue, as well as the letter-writing
campaigns and the government's censorship thuggery, and has
interview clips from various credentialed folk.

If you want some to spread around, order them NOW, or you might
miss out. At $30 a case, I don't expect them to be available for
very long. You can only order by mail, via check or money order (or
cash, if you dare), and whichever orders are received first will be
filled first.


Larken Rose

More on Goebbels

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/04/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Normally I wouldn't care much what some extortion apologist has to
say, but since David Cay Johnston pretends to be a "reporter," and
since his propaganda appears in the New York Times, it's worth
pointing out, not only how biased he is, but also how dishonest he

Regarding calling Wesley Snipes a "coward," in an effort to goad
him into answering the questions of a government propaganda hack,
David Cay Johnston said: "I said it and I make no apologies for my
reporting techniques, which I lecture on widely and always draw a
large audience." Well, it's nice to know that lots of other people
apparently also want to know how to be obnoxious buttheads. So I
guess that makes it okay.

But, to be fair, being an obnoxious butthead isn't as bad as being
dishonest. So is Mr. Johnston at least an honest butthead? I'll
report; you decide. Mr. Johnston just sent the following summary of
his stated position (or should I say, "frivolous section 61 tax
fraud scheme"?) in an e-mail to someone, who forwarded it to me:

"Just what do you believe given that Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution ("The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes...) and Internal Revenue Codes sections 63 (all income is
gross income) 61 (gross income less deductions and exemptions is
taxable income) and Section 1 (a tax is hereby imposed on the
taxable income...followed by charts of incomes and taxes due) have
been upheld by the courts without exception since 1913?" [David Cay

So Section 61 means that "all income is gross income," and Congress
can tax anything it pleases? Does he actually believe that? Aside
from pointing out that Mr. Johnston got Section 61 and 63 reversed,
at the moment I won't give any comments of my own regarding Mr.
Johnston's stated position. I would, however, like to pass on some
comments from various U.S. Supreme Court justices and regulation-
writers at the IRS and Treasury:

1) “It is elementary law that EVERY statute is to be read in the
it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it
was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”
[McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)]

2) "It should be noted, too, that the court, speaking of the extent
of the TAXING power, used these cautionary words (p. 541): There
are, indeed, certain VIRTUAL LIMITATIONS, arising from the
principles of the Constitution itself." [Bailey v. Drexel
Furniture, 259 U.S. 20]

3) "And while [the federal income tax] cannot be applied to any
income which Congress HAS NO POWER TO TAX [citations omitted], it
is both nominally and actually a general tax." [William E. Peck &
Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)]

4) “‘From whatever source derived,’ as it is written in the
Sixteenth Amendment, DOES NOT MEAN from whatever source derived.”
[Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938) (dissenting opinion)]

5) "The tax imposed by chapter 1 is upon income. Neither income
exempted by statute OR FUNDAMENTAL LAW, nor expenses incurred in
connection therewith, other than interest, ENTER INTO THE
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME as defined in section 21." [26 CFR 39.21-
1, Meaning of net income (1956)]

6) "Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt
from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items,
however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified.
No OTHER items may be EXCLUDED from gross income EXCEPT (a) those
items of income which are, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, NOT TAXABLE BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT;..." [26 CFR 39.22(b)-1, Exemptions;
exclusions from gross income (1956)]

7) "Among the items entering into the computation of corporate
earnings and profits for a particular period are all income
exempted by statute, income NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, as well as all items includible in gross
income under SECTION 61 or corresponding provisions of prior
revenue acts." [26 CFR 1.312-6(b)]

8) "To the extent that another section of the Code or of the
regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of
income, such OTHER provision shall apply NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 61
and the regulations thereunder." [26 CFR 1.61-1]

9) "For purposes of this section, the gross income to which a
specific deduction is definitely related is referred to as a 'CLASS
OF GROSS INCOME' and may consist of one or more items (or
subdivisions of these items) of gross income ENUMERATED IN SECTION
61, namely: (i) Compensation for services, including fees,
commissions, and similar items; (ii) Gross income derived from
business; (iii) Gains derived from dealings in property; (iv)
Interest; (v) Rents; (vi) Royalties; (vii) Dividends;... [more
items listed]." [26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(3)]

"See... paragraph (d)(2) of this section which provides that a
CLASS OF GROSS INCOME may include EXCLUDED income." [26 CFR 1.861-

I and many other having been quoting all of the above for years. So
did Mr. Johnston never NOTICE these citations, or did he simply
choose to ignore evidence which destroys his neat little
misinterpretation of the law? I don't think he's unobservant enough
for it to be the former. I do, however, believe he's intellectually
dishonest enough for it to be the latter.


Larken Rose

Quietly Outlawing Dissent

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/02/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Trying to keep people updated on all the totalitarian garbage which
the federal government is spewing out these days is a little like
trying to count snowflakes in a blizzard. Nonetheless, there is one
particularly fascist tidbit that I want to point out. John Conyers,
that devout nationalist socialist and hater of freedom, has
proposed a bill that pretends to protect federal judges from
violent meanies. However, the proposed law contains a provision
which outlaws the publishing of "personal information" of any judge
or law enforcement officer "with the intent to cause harassment
[or] intimidation."


With such broad wording, what immediately came to your mind? I
immediately thought of our letter-writing campaigns to all manner
of federal "authorities." Well, they will probably soon be ILLEGAL.
After all, who knows how the federal fascists will choose to define
"personal information" (phone numbers? office addresses?) or
"harassment" and "intimidation"?

In reality, part of the purpose of the First Amendment--the part
about "redress of grievances"--was to say that the people have the
RIGHT to "harass" and "intimidate" those in government. What could
be more basic to the right to petition for redress than being
allowed to say "We think what you're doing is BAD, and we want you
to STOP IT!"? In the Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota (283
U.S. 697 (1931)), this was stated rather bluntly.

"The importance of [freedom of the press] consists... in its
diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of
Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects,
and its consequential promotion of union among them whereby
oppressive officers are SHAMED OR INTIMIDATED into more honourable
and just modes of conducting affairs."

In other words, we're SUPPOSED to be able to pester, nag and harass
our "public servants" into doing the right thing. Well, if Fuhrer
Conyer's law passes, you can say goodbye to that.

Since I was falsely convicted and imprisoned, the feds have upped
the penalty to $5,000 for filing a claim for refund based on
anything the IRS unilaterally declares to be "frivolous." If you
ask the Tax Court or District Court to hear your case, you can be
fined even more. In addition, thanks to the efforts of fascists
like J.J. McNaab, you can now be fined that much for REQUESTING a
"Collections Due Process" hearing. And soon, maybe you'll get
imprisoned for telling people to write to federal cops and judges,
asking them to answer questions about the law. After all, isn't
that "harassment"? You can bet that the federal cowards will view
it that way.

When people no longer dare to openly criticize their own
government, which is already true in a lot of cases here in the
U.S., you're on a one-way express route to totalitarianism. That's
why it was the FIRST Amendment. But the feds can already, without
fear of reprisal, shut down web sites, silence individuals, steal
perfectly legal videos, and otherwise demonize, slander, harass,
rob and imprison those who speak out against government wrongdoing.
(I speak from personal experience.)

So how long are we going to keep pretending this is a "free
country"? Oh, I forgot: you better not say that it ISN'T a free
country. Some elitist megalomaniac like John Conyers might call
that an attempt to harass or intimidate him and his fellow tyrants.
So smile, and sing along with me... "If you're free and you know
it, clank your chains! If you're free and you know
it, clank your chains! ..."


Larken Rose

Not So Invincible After All

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/02/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Overshadowed by the verdict in the persecution of Wesley Snipes was
another verdict, this one in Hawaii. The tax evasion trial of Lucky
Bennett, defended by Larry Becraft, ended with a hung jury. I don't
know anything else about Mr. Bennett, or about the case. I don't
know if it had anything to do with the 861 evidence or not, and I
don't know if the feds will try to retry him. But once again, the
supposedly invincible IRS/DOJ bully failed to do the damage it
tried to inflict. Poor them. It must be tough trying to illegally
extort 100,000,000 people all at once.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Incidentally, I got the facts slightly messed up in a prior
message. The 17-defendant acquittal I was thinking of was not in
California. It was the case involving Franklin Saunders, also
defended by Larry Becraft, which happened in Memphis, Tennessee.)

(P.P.S. I never got any response to my e-mail to "TaxMama,"
pointing out half a dozen blatant untruths in her "story" about
Wesley Snipes.)