Login
Main menu

Slimeballism Confirmed

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

Dear Subscriber,

Yes, it has been confirmed with certainty, the one calling Wesley
Snipes a "coward" at his press conference, just after the jury
verdict, was indeed David Cay "Goebbels" Johnston, propagandist and
blatant liar for the IRS, posing as a "reporter" for the New York
Times. For those who didn't see the video (which I don't see on the
www.ocala.com web site any more), here is the direct quote:

"Is he gonna talk? Is he a coward, or is he gonna talk? Wesley, you
gonna be a brave guy and step forward. You a coward? Hey, Wesley,
you a coward, or are you gonna talk?"

Hey, Mr. Johnston, when's the last time YOU stood up to a
superpower? And you call Mr. Snipes a coward? Nice neutral
"reporting" job there.

At my own trial, for which "Goebbels" Johnston only attended the
day of the verdict (which was obviously all that mattered to him),
as soon as the baseless verdict of "guilty" was read, Mr. Johnston
was trying to barge his way through our supporters, with a huge,
openly gleeful grin on his face, to ask me for a "comment." (He
didn't get one.) Now compare that to the obvious anger and hatred
he exhibited towards Mr. Snipes after he was acquitted of the most
serious charges against him. Come on, folks. How can anyone even
PRETEND that Mr. Johnston is a "reporter," rather than an outspoken
proponent of the federal extortion racket?

Heck, even people who LIKE him admit it. One tax law professor
called Mr. Johnston "the de facto chief tax enforcement officer of
the United States," and he didn't mean it as an insult. Here's the
link:

http://www.motherjones.com/radio/2006/07/johnston_bio.html

Let's see: he constantly lies about the nature of the 861 evidence,
constantly insults and demonizes those who understand it, NEVER
tells his readers where to learn more about the issue (but mentions
the Quatloos slander-fest as an authority), rejoices with glee when
people are silenced or imprisoned for believing it, and shows
obvious anger and frustration when those who believe it DON'T
suffer.

Yep, sounds like your basic New York Times reporter.

Hey, Mr. Johnston, the fascists whose butts you kiss have been
dodging questions about the 861 evidence for a DECADE, even when
THOUSANDS of hard-working Americans asked them. So why aren't you
calling those elitist bastards "cowards"? Does someone like Mr.
Snipes, a guy with actual guts--a "real man," as Mr. Bernhoft
accurately described him--have more of an obligation to answer the
questions of a dishonest hack like you, than our "public servants"
have to answer questions from those whom they are supposed to
SERVE?

You are a liar and a joke, Mr. Johnston, and despite your bogus
"Bulshitzer" prize for your pro-extortion spin and propaganda, the
world will one day know it.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.861.info

(P.S. For those who don't know, Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of
Propaganda for Adolf Hitler.)

Wesley Snipes Verdict

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/01/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Well, the verdict is in for the trial of Wesley Snipes. It's not a
simple guilty OR not guilty, though.

Mr. Snipes was charges with TWO felony violations having to do with
filing a supposedly false claim, trying to get money BACK he had
paid before. He was ACQUITTED of both of those charges.

He was also charged with six counts of misdemeanor "willful failure
to file." He was ACQUITTED on three of those charges, and CONVICTED
on the other three. At the moment, I have no idea why that would
happen.

The maximum sentence Mr. Snipes could receive is three years--a lot
better than the possible 16 he was initially facing.

At the same time, Doug Rosile and Eddie Kahn were convicted of the
felony counts, for helping prepare the claims for refund. That is a
horrendous injustice, but most people are only going to pay
attention to what happened to the famous guy.

Here is the government propaganda (I can't bring myself to call it
a "news story") as it appeared on the AOL "news" channel:

http://tinyurl.com/2spf5x

The article describes Rosile and Kahn as "a delicensed accountant
and a tax protest leader." The story goes on to say that Wesley
Snipes "used tax protest arguments long rejected by courts." How
nice of the Associated Press to pass off government press releases
as "news." (It's not a "tax protest argument"--it's what the law
SAYS.) The story then repeats the lie (mentioned in my prior post)
that Mr. Snipes "threatened the government and individual agents in
his pursuit." He did no such thing, or he would have been CHARGED
with that.

The story said that Eddie Kahn was involved in "tax scams" for
years, and said that Doug Rosile "allegedly prepared the fraudulent
documents for Snipes." Another bald-faced lie. A fraudulent
document is one which lies about the facts. Mr. Snipes' claims
didn't lie about anything; they were based on his understanding of
his legal requirements, and there is NOTHING "fraudulent" about
that.

Forgetting to say "allegedly," or quoting federal thugs, the story
refers to "the dubious '861 argument.'" Then, showing how little
they care about the truth, the story said that the issue "refers to
Section 861 of the tax code, the law holds that foreign-source
wages of U.S. citizens are taxable." Section 861 is about DOMESTIC
income. It says NOTHING about foreign-source income of anyone. They
continue their mischaracterization of the issue with this: "But tax
protesters take that to mean only such income is subject to tax,
and no wages made in this country are." Wrong, wrong and wrong.
We're not "tax protestors," 861 isn't about foreign income, and the
argument is NOT that wages earned in this country are never
taxable. There wouldn't BE a Section 861 if income from sources
within the United States (including compensation earned here) was
never taxable.

With the media acting as blatant propagandists for the federal
extortion machine, it's no wonder the general public is so
clueless. Thankfully, someone on Mr. Snipes' jury had enough of a
brain to refuse to convict him of MOST of the charges. If only they
had brains enough to acquit on all of them.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.861.info

My Favorite Weasel?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/01/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

I'm really hoping SOMEONE on this list can answer a question for
me. I just saw a short video clip of Wesley Snipes and his
attorneys outside the federal courthouse in Ocala, just after the
jury announced its verdict (five "not guilty," and three
misdemeanor convictions). On the tape, someone is very plainly
badgering Mr. Snipes, asking if he will talk to the media, or if
he's a "coward." Mr. Snipes' attorney, Mr. Bernhoft, responds, and
calls the obnoxious heckler something like "Mr. Johnson." I REALLY
want to know, was that overtly angry, bitter, attack dog none other
than David Cay Johnston, propagandist and IRS mouthpiece for the
New York Times? I know Mr. Johnston really is that bitter and
angry, because I've experienced it in personal e-mails and phone
calls, but I can't imagine him losing it that badly in public,
where he usually manages to put up a half decent facade of being an
objective "reporter." So was that him? Someone must either have
been there, or can ask Mr. Bernhoft (who obviously recognized the
guy) about it. I'm dying to know.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.861.info

Stupidity Overload

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/28/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

It was almost ten years ago when I released the first version of my
"Taxable Income" report. These days I get exhausted just thinking
about telling people about the 861 evidence. Those who seek to
discredit the issue--whether they be IRS agents, tax preparers,
"reporters," or people in the "movement"--are still repeating the
same utterly bogus assertions they were almost a decade ago. Is it
because they have bad memories, or because they are incapable of
following simple logic, or because they're intellectually
dishonest? Well, there are people in all three categories, but the
end result is the same.

Unfortunately, most people play the game of, "Who should I
believe?" They don't examine evidence, and they are really bad at
logic. That is why the substance-free emotionalism that passes for
"reporting" is so effective. In all the collection of "stories"
trying to demean and libel Wesley Snipes, have you seen anything
remotely resembling a look at the SUBSTANCE of the issue? Of course
not. No need. The "reporters" know that their readers have the
attention span and mental capacity of fruit flies. Substance is a
turnoff to Americans, while no lie is too idiotic to print.

The mainstream media "reporters" are STILL calling the trial of
Wesley Snipes a "tax evasion" case, even though there are NO counts
of tax evasion charged, and never were. They've also had fun
flinging around terms like "cult" and "anti-government," and the
obligatory "frivolous." They don't even bother disguising the
attempted character assassinations anymore. Recently, they've even
tried to paint Wesley Snipes as a terrorist, though without using
the term, by saying he threatened the IRS with "collateral risk" if
they prosecuted him. Oooh, aaah! Yeah, it makes for some fine
emotionalism, but it's another lie. In a letter, Mr. Snipes warned
the IRS that "pursuit of such a high profile target will open the
door for your increased collateral risk." Obviously he wasn't
talking about kneecap-smashing; he was talking about the trouble it
would cause for the IRS if they LOST such a prominent case. Are
reporters so stupid that they couldn't figure that out?

When the misinformation agents working for the feds are such
shameless liars, and the American people are, for the most part,
incapable of following a line of logic for more than five seconds,
it's no wonder that most public debate about the trial is 100%
brainless emoting, and 0% substance. A fair number of properly
trained sheep are opining that Mr. Snipes should be locked up
forever for making lots of money and not paying his "fair share."
And that's about the extent of most people's thought process (using
the term "thought" extremely loosely).

And that's why I find all this so frustrating. Trying to persuade
the general public with evidence and logic is like trying to
discuss quantum physics with a hamster. Yes, the 861 evidence is
somewhat involved, but the basic idea is pretty darn simple:

1) There are specific sections of the law which explain when income
from inside the U.S. is taxable (i.e., when it is subject to the
federal income tax).
2) For over 80 years, those section have shown domestic income to
be taxable for foreigners, and for certain Americans who also
receive income from federal possessions, but NOT for the average
American.
3) Therefore, it is only logically and legally proper to conclude
that the domestic income of most Americans is NOT subject to the
federal income tax.

I would bet money that 98% of the American people are incapable of
comprehending the meaning of the three prior sentences. I don't
just mean they won't believe it; I mean they literally wouldn't be
able to figure out what those words MEAN. They would never get
around to deciding if it is true, because they don't have the
mental capacity to even grasp what is being claimed.

Unfortunately, I speak from experience. I've spent years responding
to an unending streams of asinine non sequiturs. "You mean the tax
is unconstitutional"? No. Had I meant that, I would have SAID that.
"You mean you don't like paying taxes?" It has nothing to do with
what anyone likes; it's about what the law says is taxable. "You
mean you want taxes to be lower?" No, I mean what I said: domestic
income, according to the law itself, is NOT TAXABLE for the vast
majority of Americans. "You mean we should stop paying our taxes?"
No, I mean they aren't your taxes. "Won't I get in trouble?"
Probably, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the law
imposes a tax on you. "My CPA says I owe the tax." Your CPA doesn't
outrank the law. "Don't people go to jail for not paying?" Yes, and
that doesn't change what the law says either. "Well, I don't mind
paying taxes for the things government does." What you do or don't
mind has nothing to do with whether you legally owe a tax or not.
"What would happen to the government if we all stopped paying?"
What does that have to do with whether you OWE it or not?

It just never ends. The common man reacts with a set of irrelevant,
emotional knee-jerk responses, and nothing more. Ask a hundred
average Americans whether they think Mr. Snipes should go to jail,
and they'll all have an opinion: most will condemn Mr. Snipes for
not doing what everyone else does, while a few will resent the IRS
enough to want Mr. Snipes to win. But ask those same people if they
have any idea WHY Mr. Snipes stopped filing, and you will find that
they are utterly clueless. So why are people so eager to give
opinions regarding things they know NOTHING about?

Sorry if this message isn't exactly up-beat, but I had to vent a
little. The fact is, most modern Americans can't think. Had they
been born here two hundred years ago, they would be in the mobs
hanging runaway slaves. Had they been born in 1940's Germany, they
would have been Nazis. Had they been born a few centuries earlier,
they would have believed that the sun goes around the earth, and
would have cheered as those who said otherwise were imprisoned. In
short, this country consists of lots and lots of unthinking morons
being oppressed by a handful of evil megalomaniacs. And those
unfortunate enough to be capable of thought are caught in the
middle.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.861.info

Accuracy Not a Priority

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/26/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

There are countless 861-bashing articles coming from the mainstream
media recently. Because of the Wesley Snipes trial, they really
need to keep people from looking at it, so they say "frivolous"
over and over and over again, and stress the nasty things which
happen to anyone who says "861." And getting the facts right
doesn't seem to be a high priority for them--insulting, demonizing,
and threatening non-conformists is their only goal. The following
link gives an example: a "story" (hit piece) written by "Enrolled
Agent" (meaning she has IRS permission to represent people) Eva
Rosenberg. It was posted on MSN's "money central," as well as the
"FoxBusiness" web site.

http://tinyurl.com/yq3ft9

Here are a few things the author got dead wrong:

1) The article claims that Wesley Snipes "was indicted on eight
counts of tax evasion." There are NO counts of tax evasion (26 USC
7201) against Mr. Snipes. There are two charges relating to filing
claims for refund, and six charges of misdemeanor willful failure
to file tax returns.

2) The article calls me a "tax protestor," quoting Steven H.
Kassel, another "Enrolled Agent" who has been demonstrating
profound ignorance of the law for years on online discussion
boards. A tax protestor is (obviously) someone who protests a tax,
which I'm not doing.

3) The article says I maintained a web site "challenging Section
861 and the constitutionality of the income tax." Both, of course,
are dead wrong. I don't "challenge" ANY section of the tax code,
and I've been saying the tax is perfectly constitutional for almost
a decade.

(Amazingly, the article says that for the details of my trial, one
can go to the "Quatloos" web site, as if that substance-free
slander-fest is accurate or reliable. If you want the details of my
trial, stand by for a book which QUOTES what happened.)

4 & 5) The article includes this: "Do tax protesters lose every
single case? Have they no victories whatsoever? Well, there is one.
Tommy K. Cryer was acquitted of tax evasion in U.S. District Court
in Louisiana on July 1, 2007." Two more glaring errors (not
including the continuing misuse of the term "tax protestor"). First
of all, Mr. Cryer wasn't tried for tax evasion. More importantly,
there is "one" victory? What about Lloyd Long? What about Vernice
Kuglin? What about Joseph banister? What about the 17 defendants in
the huge case in California that were all acquitted? (The case name
eludes me at the moment.)

(The article then tries to downplay Mr. Cryer's acquittal, by
saying that when you "read further," you "learn that he was only
acquitted of misdemeanor charges for willfully failing to file his
2000 and 2001 tax returns." That's all he was TRIED for! So he was
"only" acquitted of the ONLY charges against him.)

6 & 7) Speaking of Mr. Cryer's acquittal, the article says this:
"Once again, a court case didn't touch on the constitutionality of
income taxes. All it did was settle a civil matter of willfulness."
Two more blunders in one sentence: Mr. Cryer wasn't challenging the
constitutionality of the tax, and the issue of willfulness is
entirely a CRIMINAL, not a "civil" matter.

The question is, are such "reporters" so incompetent that they
don't KNOW how many things they're getting wrong? Or do they not
care whether they're telling the truth, as long as the message
serves their agenda? Well, it doesn't usually take long to find
out. I just sent the author of the article the following e-mail.
I'll let you know how she responds, if she responds at all.

- -----------------------------------------------------

Regarding the 861 Issue

Dear "TaxMama,"

I wanted you to know that your recent "story" was full of blatant
errors, though some of them were no doubt simply repeating the
errors and/or lies of Mr. Steven Kassel--a former IRS Revenue
Officer who is still buddies with the IRS establishment. Below you
can find the text of a message I sent to my e-mail list, pointing
out some of the blatant untruths found in your column.

However, the real point of this note is not to complain about your
demonization of anyone who holds unorthodox tax-related beliefs,
nor your gloating over the incarceration and denial of due process
for such people. Instead, I am hoping that, as a service to the
public, you will take the time to provide specific answers to the
following six questions, regarding the proper way to determine
one's taxable income.

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR §
1.861-8 (in addition to any other pertinent sections) to determine
my taxable domestic income?

2) If some people should not use those sections to determine their
taxable domestic income, please show where the law says who should
or should not use those sections for that.

3) If a U.S. citizen receives all his income from working within
the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show his
income to be taxable?

4) Should one use 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether his
"items" of income (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, dividends,
etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?

5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income
found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the
average American not on that list?

6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by
any statute, but are nonetheless "excluded by law" (i.e. not
subject to the income tax) because they are, under the
Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?

Please note, I will be sharing your response, or your failure to
respond, with my e-mail list of several thousand interested
observers. If you think I am mistaken in my conclusions, this would
be a prime opportunity to enlighten those paying attention to the
issue.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www..861.info

P.S. Below is a brief explanation, along with supporting citations,
for why the above questions are being asked.

Reasons questions 1 & 2: The regulations at 26 CFR § 1.861-8 begin
by stating that 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 the U.S. has been
determined. Section 1.861-1(a)(1) confirms that "taxable income
from sources within the United States" is to be determined in
accordance with the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8
(see also 26 CFR §§ 1.861-1(b), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c)). Cross-
references under 26 USCS § 61, as well as entries in the USC Index
under the heading "Income Tax," also refer to Section 861 regarding
income ("gross" and "taxable") from "sources within U.S."

Reason for question 3: Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921,
predecessor of 26 USC § 861 and following, stated that income from
the U.S. was taxable for nonresident foreigners, and for U.S.
corporations and citizens deriving most of their income from
federal possessions, but did not say the same about the domestic
income of other Americans. The regulations under the 1939 Code
(e.g. §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, 29.119-10 (1945)) showed the
same thing. The current regulations at 1.861-8 still show income to
be taxable only when derived from certain "specific sources and
activities," which still relate only to certain types of
international trade (see 26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4),
1.861-8(f)(1)).

Reason for question 4: The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3))
state that a "class of gross income" consists of the "items" of
income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, rents,
dividends, etc.). The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(b)(1)) then
direct the reader to 26 CFR § 1.861-8(d)(2) which provides that
such "classes of gross income" may include some income which is
excluded for federal income tax purposes. (Section 1.861-8(d)(2)
merely redirects the reader to 1.861-8T(d)(2).)

Reason for question 5: After defining "exempt income" to mean
income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes, the
regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)) list types of income
which are not exempt (i.e. which are subject to tax), including the
domestic income of nonresident foreigners, certain foreign income
of U.S. citizens and residents, income of certain possessions
corporations, and income of international and foreign sales
corporations; but the list does not include the domestic income of
the average American.

Reason for question 6: Older income tax regulations defining "gross
income" and "net income" said that neither income exempted by
statute "or fundamental law" were subject to the tax (§ 39.21-1
(1956)), and said that in addition to the types of income exempted
by statute, other types of income were excluded because they were,
"under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government" (§
39.22(b)-1 (1956)). (This is also reflected in the current 26 CFR §
1.312-6.)

Fixed Link (Oops)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/26/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

The link in my prior message was wrong. Here is the 861-bashing
"story" I was talking about:
http://tinyurl.com/24hokg

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.861.info