Main menu

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

Missed Opportunity? Maybe not.

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/16/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Yesterday I got a call from CNBC, to see if I could do an on-camera
interview for a few-minute segment about the Wesley Snipes trial.
As it happened, it wasn't possible for me to do it then. (I'm not
sure if the segment happened anyway.) In retrospect, I'm not
particularly sorry it didn't work out.

The other "guest" was going to be David Cay Johnston, IRS Minister
of Propaganda who writes for the New York Times. That in itself is
rather telling. Why would a "reporter" be on a show basically
playing the part of the pro-IRS advocate? Anyway, the segment was
to be only four minutes long, so the chances of getting anything
worthwhile in was slim to none anyway. Even a one-hour show is only
enough to scratch the surface, and that's if actual discussion is
allowed. Of course, Mr. Johnston would harp on the two things he
always harps on: 1) the government people who have ASSERTED that
the 861 evidence is wrong (or "frivolous"), and 2) what happens to
people who understand the issue and act accordingly. And he would
avoid like the plague the SUBSTANCE of the issue. (The number of
times Mr. Johnston has flip-flopped on the issue, both on his
description of the 861 evidence and his response to it, makes Mitt
Romney look consistent.)

I would have liked to have asked Mr. Johnston why it is that he has
NEVER, in any of the articles he has written about the 861
evidence, mentioned a web site where his readers could go to learn
more about the issue. He has, however, mentioned the establishment
stooges at "Quatloos," as if THAT substance-free slander-fest is a
respectable, reasonable web site.

In the end, I don't think the mainstream media will ever be the way
to get the truth out. They are about sound bites and
sensationalism, and keep their message simplistic enough for couch
potato America. The majority of mainstream media viewers consist of
unthinking doofuses like the ones who convicted me, and Tessa, and
Dr. Tom, and many others, based entirely on the argument that the
government "told us" we were wrong. Trying to get them to think
outside of the box is a lost cause, and I'm finished wasting effort
on that.

As for the people who CAN think for themselves, and who actually
care about things like evidence and logic--well, they probably
aren't wasting time watching the superficial propaganda that the
mainstream media tries to pass off as "news." So the truth will
just have to continue to crawl forward through the alternative
means of communication, like the internet. Of course the feds, with
the help of the courts, are trying to silence the truth there, too.

Speaking of which, I'm now off of "supervised release." I hope to
rebuild some of the perfectly protected free speech that was
formerly on web sites like www.taxableincome.net and www.861.info,
before the U.S. "Department and Justice," with the help of Judge
Michael Baylson, unconstitutionally coerced me into taking them
down prior to my sentencing. Yes, I'll be filing returns pretending
my income is taxable, and giving the IRS money I don't owe. But I
won't shut up.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Though it sounds weird, in a way I'm happy to announce that
Tessa and I earned so little in 2007 that the IRS will be getting
dang near nothing from us, even using their standard misapplication
of the law.)

Wesley Snipes on Trial for 861

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/14/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

It's been a while since I sent anything to the 861 list, but this
must be mentioned. The trial of Wesley Snipes begins today, and so
of course the New York Times has their hit piece, authored by David
Cay Johnston, propagandist and liar for the IRS. Here is the


Of course, it starts out with the usual envy routine: Mr. Snipes
made lots of money, but how much did he pay in taxes on all that
income? Zero! Oh, what horrible, nasty tax cheat he must be! Mr.
Johnston then uses his own little dishonest term "tax deniers" to
describe anyone who disagrees with the conventional wisdom about
the income tax. And if you think I'm being too caustic by calling
Mr. Johnston a liar, check out this quote from his "story":

"Adherents say a regulation applying the 861 provision does not
list wages as taxable, though it does say that 'compensation for
services' is taxable."

Mr. "Goebbels" Johnston, Minister of Propaganda for the federal
extortion machine, knows full well that that is NOT at all what the
861 evidence is about--not even remotely close. So why LIE about
the issue? Simple: because it's a lot easier refuting that made-up
position than refuting the truth. (Some people do argue that wages
aren't income, but Goebbels knows damn well that the 861 evidence
is NOT about that at all; it is about whether the "source," or type
of commerce, from which wages/compensation and other income
derives, is shown in the law to be taxable.)

The propaganda piece does mention some people who have been
acquitted, and also mentions people who have been prosecuted,
convicted, enjoined, and/or robbed for believing in the 861
evidence. In other words, "They're wrong, because they got hurt."
Nice logic. And, to add to the demonization of the tax heretic du
jour, the article states that Mr. Snipes was associated with "the
Nuwaubians, a quasi-religious sect of black Americans who promote
antigovernment theories and who set up a headquarters in Georgia in
the early 1990s," and stated that Mr. Snipes requested (but was
denied) a federal permit for a "military training compound" there.
Hey, why not throw in some comments about "extremists," or even
"terrorists," just to make the demonization complete?

I've never talked to Mr. Snipes (as far as I know), and know very
little about his case. If he wins, of course, it will be a huge
victory for the truth, and a huge blow to the extortion machine.
Even if he loses, however, (which I'm obviously hoping doesn't
happen) it would still bring attention to the 861 evidence.

The most noteworthy thing about the "story" in the New York Times
is how much it talks about the consequences of not filing, or of
saying unorthodox things, while saying almost NOTHING about the
substance of the issue. (The one thing it did say, quoted above,
was an outright lie.) And this is just what the American tyrants
want: let's talk about what will happen to you if you commit tax
heresy by not blindly believing them, instead of talking about what
their laws actually SAY. That's what makes it a propaganda piece,
rather than anything resembling actual reporting. And once again,
Goebbels Johnston has continued his perfect record of NEVER giving
people a web site where they can learn more about the 861 evidence--
the position he blatantly and intentionally mischaracterized in
today's New York Times "story." Well, in case anyone doesn't have
it already, the link below will get you a free download of the
recent update of my "Taxable Income" report, which shows in detail
what the LAW has to say about the issue:



Larken Rose

Remember, Remember...

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/05/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Remember, remember, the fifth of November... (For those of you who
haven't yet seen "V for Vendetta," do.) Well, today is the Fifth of
November, and after much internal debating, I decided to send this
message out.

As most of you know by now, I am not a Constitutionalist. The
Constitution pretended to delegate to politicians the right to rule
the rest of us. Yes, it was supposed to be a rather limited form of
dominion, but it still pretended to give politicians the right to
initiate violence (via "taxation" and "regulation") against people
who have committed neither force nor fraud. As such, the document
is absolutely bogus and illegitimate, as is the "authority" it
pretended to create. (See "The Constitution of No Authority," by
Lysander Spooner, for a more thorough explanation.)

Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. As a result, he believes
that those in Congress have the right to forcibly take money from
people to whom it rightfully belongs. He does, however, think that
such robberies should be done within the rules of the Constitution
(e.g., via limited "excise taxes"). But while he is appropriately
offended by the very concept of an "income tax," for example, he
accepts the legitimacy of smaller, more avoidable types of
authoritarian robbery. I don't.

That is my disclaimer, so no one misunderstands the REST of this
message as actually condoning "limited" injustice.


There are many reasons why the cult of "democracy" is an insane
farce. One is that it is used by tyrants to create the illusion
that the people WANT the tyranny which is imposed upon them. The
old rhetoric that in a democracy, the people are the government,
and thus are ruling themselves, is as popularly accepted as it is
insane. What kind of a self-destructive schizo would even WANT to
forcibly boss himself around, and how delusional is it to think
that when Congress bosses you around, YOU are really in charge?

Anyway, the power of the democracy myth comes from the illusion
that somehow the tyrants "represent" us, and so it's okay for them
to do what they do. There are many reasons why such a belief is
silly, but the one I want to mention today is the goofy idea that
public opinion dictates the "government" we have, instead of the
other way around.

The current political circus is a fine example. The establishment--
both of its faces (Republican and Democrat)--gives us ONE choice,
with two names, and pretends that it's what the people want. The
people are offered a choice between Tyrant A and Tyrant B, and when
they choose one, that is painted as the CONSENT of the governed.

Ask yourself, who in this country would, in the privacy of his own
thoughts, without the influence of media propaganda, think, "Gee, I
really want my life to be run by Mitt Romney"? Who would, on his
own, think "I really want that guy Rudy Giulliani running my life"?
What is there about ANY of the Republican candidates that would
make anyone actually WANT them to become President? There is only
ONE reason we have heard their names: because the tyrant club has
advertised them to us. They have accomplished NOTHING, aside from
fabricating their own importance, in the hopes of obtaining the
power to control others.

But, as I know many of you are now internally screaming as you read
this, there is an exception. His name is Ron Paul. Lots of people
REALLY want him to win, because they REALLY believe in what Dr.
Paul believes in. He doesn't have to put on a show, or keep up an
act. Unlike every other candidate in either party, he really IS
what his supporters WANT. He is who he says he is, and believes
what he says he believes--and a LOT of people like that.

And that's why the tyrant machine has been doing its scam of
fabricating popular opinion for months now. The Republican
establishment, not to mention the statist media, are doing
everything they can to give the impression that Ron Paul doesn't
matter: he can't win, he's only supported by a few kooks on the
internet, he's not worth talking about, etc. In short, they are
doing everything they can to convince the public that what YOU want
is the tyrants THEY want you to support.

Who in their right mind would be even slightly enthusiastic about
the prospect of having Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or Barrack
Obama in the Whitehouse? What do those lying thieves even believe
in? Well, it changes week to week, depending upon what they think
will get them votes. The reason that BOTH faces of the
authoritarian ruling class really want to belittle and marginalize
Ron Paul is that: 1) he actually believes what he says; 2) he
believes in a lot more freedom than we have now, and; 3) lots of
people like that.

The tyrants must keep up the facade of public-supported tyranny, to
keep their perceived legitimacy intact, and Ron Paul is the biggest
threat to that to come along in a very long time. While it is true
that constant collectivist propaganda from the media and
"government" have pushed a lot of people into believing that
freedom is bad and authoritarianism is good, far fewer people
believe that than you would think from watching the mainstream
media. And the powers that be are scared to death that the massive
support Ron Paul is receiving will mess up their little charade.

And it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that today--this
Fifth of November--I invite all of you to financially support the
campaign of Ron Paul. No, I don't think he'll win, and if he does,
I don't think he'd be able to accomplish much (if anything) in the
way of "legal" reform. However, having the American people hear
from someone who actually believes in the Constitution, which
hasn't happened in a very long time, would be a very refreshing
change from the constant collectivist authoritarian tripe which
spews out of the radio and TV day in and day out. Who knows, maybe
a few Americans might even start THINKING about such things.

In the daily statist propaganda (usually disguised as "reporting"),
you can just hear the underlying message dripping from the rhetoric
of both "wings" of the ruling class: "No, no, THIS is the
respectable spectrum of discussion! THESE are the beliefs and ideas
you're allowed to consider! THESE are the kings you're allowed to
choose from! THIS is what you're allowed to think!" And Ron Paul is
way outside that usual, accepted realm of discussion. And that's
what I love about him, and why I want to see his message rip
through the bland, predictable totalitarian propaganda of EVERY
other "candidate" currently being forced onto the American public
under the guise of "democracy."

In conclusion, though I remain an anarchist, knowing that the
superstition of "authority" is inherently insane and horribly
destructive, today I'm going to be giving my $100 to Dr. Paul's
campaign, for the simple reason that I really want to watch the
tyrant propaganda machine choke on its own rhetoric, as just a dash
of truth pollutes its persist collectivist indoctrination message.
I encourage all of you to do the same, and to do it today.



Larken Rose