Main menu

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
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


Larken Rose

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.

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


Larken Rose

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),

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 §

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:


Larken Rose

Shoe on the Other Foot

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/18/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

This message needs a very prominent disclaimer. This is because the
federal control freaks and their hired thugs, who don't hesitate to
resort to overt oppression and violence themselves, are scared to
death that one day their victims will decide to do a little
"enforcement" of their own. You see, "government" folk can kick
down doors, taser people, drag people away, shoot people, imprison
people, steal property, and otherwise harass and intimidate the
peasantry as often as they like, but if you happen to make some
comment about the purpose of the Second Amendment, well then,
you're a TERRORIST! (The feds accusing someone of being a
"terrorist" is a little like Hitler calling someone an anti-
semite.) So I want to make this perfectly clear, so that even a
hired federal goon or a judge can understand it: I am NOT
advocating the following scenario. Far from it. I am pointing out
how irrational and thug-minded the feds' method of "debate" is, by
seeing what their rationale would look like in the other direction.
So, with that being said, imagine the following story appearing in
"Domestic Terrorist Weekly":

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

April 15, 2010
(c)2010 Associated Militant Press - Washington, DC

This week the Militia Department of Justice announced the arrest of
another in a long line of "freedom protestors" who have been
thumbing their noses at the American public, duping people into
handing over money they didn't owe. "This should send a strong
message to any other freedom protestors that their lawlessness will
not be tolerated," said Militia Attorney General Trooth D. Fender,
after the arrest of so-called "district judge" Powe R. Happee,
adding that "These scam artists are duping the public and
defrauding innocent people, and must be held accountable."

Last month Common Law Court Justice B. Dunn issued an injunction,
barring an extremist cult publication called "The New York Times"
from printing any more tax-related articles. "This abusive
extortion scheme is an affront to all law-abiding citizens," said
Judge Dunn in his ruling, before imposing a ten-year prison
sentence on David Cay Johnston, the leader and head guru of the
"freedom deniers" sect at the "New York Times" cult.

"If you tell Americans that they owe the tax, you can expect to be
forcibly silenced," said tax expert Ikan Reed. "Even the few judges
and IRS agents who have been found not guilty of fraud have had all
their money stolen and their houses burned to the ground, as a
warning to others who might be considering taking their advice."
Mr. Reed also added, "I mean, if we all owe the tax like they
claim, why do these guys keep getting captured and locked up?"

Commissioner of Liberty, Propper T. Wrights, said that he is asking
the Militia Congress for more powers to fight against the freedom
protestors, including the ability to impose more severe fines and
penalties against the promoters of the "61 fraud scheme"--a
frivolous argument in which proponents claim that Section 61 of the
Internal Revenue Code means that all income is taxable for all
Americans. "These frivolous scams must be stopped at all costs, to
protect the innocent," said Mr. Wrights.

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

Aside from a little pointless "turnabout-is-fair-play" daydreaming,
what's the point here? It is this:

Would kidnapping a few dozen IRS bureaucrats prove that we don't
owe the tax? No. Would hanging a judge or two prove us right? No.
Would forcibly silencing opposing views show the validity of our
position? No. What proves someone right is EVIDENCE and LOGIC. Any
bozo should be able to understand that.

So why is it that the government, and its lapdog media, constantly
harp on how much the feds have HURT people who say "861"? (And
they're hoping to do the same to Wesley Snipes.) What kind of moron
thinks that THAT is proof that the 861 evidence is invalid? "Hey,
we locked some people up, stole lots of money and property, and
silenced a bunch of web sites. See? We told you they were wrong!"
Nice mentality.

Luckily, most of us outgrew this outlook on life at about age
three, when we realized that smacking our sibling in the head
didn't actually prove that we were in the right. Trouble is,
neither federal judges nor IRS and DOJ thugs have figured that out
yet. They still think locking people up, issuing injunctions and
swiping property is an adequate substitute for rational discussion.
Or rather, they think it's okay for THEM to use violence instead of
words; but if they even suspect for a second that WE might resort
to violence, they run crying to the nearest armed federal thug.
What a bunch of hypocritical, spineless cowards.


Larken Rose

Urgent: Anyone Near Ocala (FL)?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/17/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

I just learned that there is still a heap of those "861 Evidence"
mini-CDs at a warehouse. In the near future, anyone who wants to
pay postage for a box or a case can have them. However, right NOW
what we're looking for is someone in the vicinity of Ocala,
Florida, where the Wesley Snipes trial is happening, who wants to
wander around outside the courthouse there handing out "861
Evidence" mini-CDs. We'll ship a case (there are 1,200 disks in a
case) to the first person who is able to do that.

Be warned, I have no idea how that trial is going. I haven't heard
a peep, so as far as I know, it may be over any second now, or it
may drag on for another week. But if you have the time and energy
to stand around handing out mini-CDs in Ocala, send an e-mail to
"This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." and let them know where to ship the disks.
Don't e-mail me, because I don't have the disks. And for right now,
send an e-mail ONLY if you can hand out mini-CDs at the Ocala
courthouse; if you want some 861 mini-CDs for anything else, in a
couple days I'll tell you how to get them.


Larken Rose

You Cult Freaks!

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/17/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Some people think I'm being melodramatic when I use terms like "tax
heretic." On the contrary, I am being literally precise. "Heresy"
is a forbidden belief, a conclusion which the powers that be will
not tolerate--not because they can prove it's wrong, but because
they have DECLARED it to be wrong.

Consider Galileo. Did the clueless "authorities" who persecuted and
imprisoned him have any PROOF that what he was saying was wrong? Of
course not. Instead, there was evidence available to all that the
wise men of "the church" were clueless jackasses. The official
doctrine of the "authorities" back then was that the earth was the
middle of everything, and everything else revolved around us.
However, anyone who took a little time to track the movement of the
other planets through the sky could see that at times they would
apparently swerve around wildly. If they were going around us, like
the moon, they would just make smooth, simple arcs. Instead, the
planets were doing loopty-loops, and some people noticed that.
(Galileo was not the first.)

So, after Galileo wrote down his evidence and logic, and his
resulting conclusions--e.g., the earth goes around the sun--what
was the rebuttal from the establishment? Did they respond with
facts and figures, evidence and logic? Of course not. They
responded with cries of "Heresy!" And what does that mean? It
means, "WE say what the truth is, and the truth is what we SAY it
is, because we say it--and we say you're WRONG!" Well, that radical
Galileo kept saying it anyway, so they imprisoned him. (Wow, this
story somehow seems really familiar.)

Now consider the income tax issues. Without getting into details,
as I've done recently, many people have now seen, with their own
eyes, evidence which unmistakably DISPROVES the "conventional
wisdom" (aka accepted doctrine) about the income tax. As just one
example, the so-called "experts" think that all income is taxable
unless specifically exempted by statute, but decades of regulations
have stated that some income is exempt, not because of any section
of the tax code, but because of the Constitution itself. (See
Article 71 of Regulations 111 (1920's), 26 CFR 39.22(b)-1 (1956)),
and the current 26 CFR 1.312-6.)

And how has the establishment responded to that hard evidence? With
contrary evidence? With alternative explanations? Of course not.
They responded with "Frivolous!," the modern equivalent of
"Heresy!" In all my years of studying the issue, and TRYING to get
rational counter arguments out of the government, I have NEVER seen
any court ruling, at any level, any IRS ruling, or even an IRS form
letter, which even MENTIONS the regulations saying that some income
is not taxable because of the Constitution itself.

But they don't need to. They yell "frivolous," and that ends all
debate. It is a SIN, don't you know, to believe something that the
high priests of taxation have declared invalid. Don't ask for
citations, or evidence, or lines of reasoning. THEY SAID SO is all
you need to know. To not believe as they do (no matter what the
reason) makes you a heretic, a sinner, and in need of mental
adjustment and correction. Still think I'm exaggerating? Check out
this article:

Here are some highlights, straight from the mouths of the self-
annointed high priests of tax law.

1) J.J. MacNab, supposed a "tax expert," declared that the 861
evidence is "a cult belief." (Having tried to question Ms. MacNab
in the past about a few things which the LAW says, I can personally
vouch for the fact that she is astonishingly ignorant of the law,
and doesn't CARE that she has no rebuttal or explanation whatsoever
to any of the 861 evidence.)

2) She goes on to say that "You're not going to become a tax
protestor unless you're really angry, a little bit paranoid--you
have to think someone is hiding words in the code that the rest of
us don't see." So you can't believe you don't owe income taxes as a
result of study and logic. No, it's because you're psychologically
maladjusted, and in need of attitude correction. Don't worry, I'm
sure the federal Ministry of Love will be happy to help you out.
(In another article, she opined that "tax protestors" are mainly
middle-aged, poor, white, male racists. Well, I have the "white"
and "male" qualifications.)

3) One tax lawyer in the article opined that "if there was a legal,
efficient way to evade taxes, chances are we'd already know about
it." Um, HOW? When someone tells you--no, SHOWS you something you
don't know about, how do you react? With insults and veiled
threats. I can just picture the self-righteous "authorities" of the
past declaring, "If the earth went around the sun, we'd already
know about it."

4) But the most amazing, sickening thing in the article was where
another attorney was talking about a lottery winner who wasn't
happy with how much the feds wanted, and ended up believing some
unorthodox tax theory (I have no idea which one). Here is the
attorney's follow-up comment (have a barf bucket handy): "It wasn't
until two special agents from the IRS showed up with guns at his
kid's school that he discovered what he was doing wasn't right." He
discovered that what HE was doing wasn't right, because armed U.S.
Nazis showed up at his kid's school?!?!

There you have it: "We can HURT you, and that PROVES you're wrong!"
YOU should feel bad, because THEY hurt you (thereby proving that
you were in the wrong). In other words, might makes right. That is
the theme of EVERY propaganda piece put out by the U.S. extortion
racket (and faithfully parroted by people pretending to be
reporters): HERE is what will happen to you if you believe this!
Even if they don't lock you up, they'll take all your money!
Repent, sinner! Um, can we get some answers, or a rational
discussion? No! Shut up, heretic!

I spent a year in prison because some utterly moronic bureaucrats,
and a handful of profoundly ignorant lower court "judges," "TOLD
ME" that the 861 evidence was invalid. And twelve village idiots in
the jury box, who would never be "heretics" themselves (because a
prerequisite to thinking outside of the box is having a brain)
decided that was enough. You see, I COULDN'T believe what I was
saying, because self-proclaimed "authorities" TOLD me I was wrong!

At Galileo's sentencing, he was rebuked for having the gall to
believe "that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after
having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture" by
the authorities. So he was imprisoned, and coerced into saying that
his conclusions were wrong. In his recantation, he described his
own sin as having expressed his theories about the earth and the
sun, even "after having received a notification that the said
doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ." They gave him "notice," and he
had the gall to not change his mind. Damn heretic!

Not much has changed in the last three hundred years.


Larken Rose