Main menu

Proof vs. Punishment

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/16/2008)

It never ceases to amaze me how bad Americans are at thinking.
Unfortunately, that applies to many in the freedom movement as well
as the general public. I'm not just talking about me not liking
their conclusions; I'm talking about the complete absence of logic
in the way they think.

If you were to suggest that the platypus is warm-blooded, and I
slugged you in the nose for suggesting that, does that prove you
wrong? No. Does it prove you right? No. Does it prove anything
about what you said? Obviously not. Whether you're right or not
depends upon what the EVIDENCE shows (e.g., whether the internal
temperature of a platypus fluctuates significantly). And it depends
upon nothing else.

Yes, that example is a bit silly, but not any more silly than what
many people, including both government propagandists and some pro-
freedom folk, argue. "You went to jail, so why should I listen to
your theories?" If I had claimed to have some risk-free way to not
give the IRS any money (which I never have claimed), then me
getting into trouble would be relevant. If, however, I said, "Hey,
look what the law books say!" and got put in a cage for it, that's
not proof of anything. And if instead the feds had left me alone,
that also wouldn't prove anything. Whether my legal conclusions are
correct--whether anyone's conclusions about anything are correct--
depends completely and entirely upon whether EVIDENCE and LOGIC
supports those conclusions.

For quite a while now, some people have been touting Pete
Hendrickson's book, "Cracking the Code" (at least the second book
by that name) as the Holy Grail which would save everyone from the
IRS. And some people couldn't imagine why I wasn't joining in the
chorus, based on the claims of people using his "method" with some
success. Even with a legal position I believe to be correct, I have
long cautioned people that being RIGHT doesn't mean you're SAFE.
Often it's the opposite: it's dangerous to be right when the
government is wrong, as Voltaire said. When people were citing
several large refunds that the IRS had issued to people who had
relied on the 861 evidence, and when the IRS wasn't doing much to
the people who brought up that issue, I repeatedly warned people
NOT to cite that as proof of anything. The fact that you DIDN'T get
punched in the nose (or prosecuted) is no more proof of what is
true than the fact that someone DID get punched in the nose. "I got
a refund!" is not proof that your claim was legally correct, nor
would failure to get a refund be proof that your legal position is
NOT correct. That's as true of the theories in "Cracking the Code"
as it is of the 861 evidence.

(For those of you who like to use, "Look at all these refunds," as
proof of something, do an online search and find out how make
refunds have been issued based on the completely baseless "slavery
reparations" scam. The number dwarfs anything the "tax honesty
movement" has ever accomplished. And it proves nothing.)

Unfortunately, it seems like many people don't really CARE what is
true and what isn't. They care what, as they put it, "works." In
other words, they want an easy solution, and they don't want to be
bothered with having to find out what is TRUE and what is not in
the meantime. And if the truth can't magically save them, they
don't seem to even care what is true. In short, they have no real
love of the truth; they just want to keep more of their money.
Wanting to keep what is rightfully yours is perfectly justified,
but some of us also value truth for truth's sake, no matter who it
saves or who it gets into trouble.

To get to the point, I just heard that Pete Hendrickson, author of
"Cracking the Code," has been indicted. However, while I think that
several of Mr. Hendrickson's legal conclusions are dead wrong, you
will NEVER hear me claiming that him being indicted is proof that
he was wrong, any more than I'd say that someone NOT getting
indicted is proof that he was right. But a LOT of people in the
movement were spouting that logical fallacy for a long time, as
they have done so for countless theories in the past.

Please, back up and grasp reality. The federal income tax provides
some people with a LOT of power, not just because of the money, but
because of the control it gives over the economic decisions of tens
of millions of people. Whether those in government get that power
through legitimate taxation, or through fraud and deception (and
you know which I believe it is), why would anyone expect them to
willingly give up that power? If someone says, "We don't owe this
tax," the people whose power is at stake will of COURSE try to shut
that person up, whether he's telling the truth or not. Yeah,
sometimes they are slow about it, but in the long run they're never
going to condone less power for themselves, or tolerate people who
try to achieve that. When someone gets indicted, or convicted, or
gets an injunction against them--whether it's me, or Mr.
Hendrickson, or anyone else--it proves one thing: PEOPLE IN
GOVERNMENT LIKE POWER. (And who still needed any further proof of
that?) And that's all it proves.

I hope Mr. Hendrickson beats the tar out of the feds. But whether
he does or not will have no bearing whatsoever on whether his
conclusions are correct or not. (I expect the feds to do their
usual tap-dance and obfuscation tactics when it comes to the issue
of "willfulness." I believe Mr. Hendrickson's conclusions to be
flawed, but I've never seen any indication that HE doesn't believe
them, and that means he committed no crime.) I'll include a link to
the DOJ fear-mongering piece (which they call a "press release"),
in case anyone thinks I'm making this up--since some people seemed
to think that Mr. Hendrickson had found some magical way to make
the feds be nice to everyone. The "press release" is, of course,
mostly the feds' usual insult, demonize and threaten message, so
don't take my including this link to mean I agree with anything the
feds say in it.

But notice how the feds exploit peoples' inability to think, by
sending out the implied message, "Look what we're doing to this
guy, and that proves he's wrong!" Unfortunately, such stupid
reasoning coincides perfectly with what I've seen a LOT of people
in the freedom movement claim: that NOT getting into trouble (at
least for a while) proves that someone is RIGHT. It doesn't.
Evidence and logic proves what is true, and who is right. Nothing
else does. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people don't have the
time or desire to study things for themselves. So they will do what
they have always done: jump from one claim to another, never
knowing what is true and what is false.

Larken Rose

Re: Giving to Fallen Heroes

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/07/2008)

Two quick things I should have added to the last message:

1) If you'd rather help out Sherry Jackson's family via PayPal,
funds can be sent to "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." (for PayPal all you
need is the e-mail address, if the person has an account).

2) In addition to giving to the families of the political
prisoners, it's also possible, via credit card or mail, to send
funds right to the commissary accounts of inmates, for them to
spend on all the glorious, high-quality items available in prison.
(That was sarcasm.) All you need is the recipient's correct name
and inmate number, such as:

Sherry P. Jackson #59085-019
Charles Thomas Clayton #06269-078
Richard Michael Simkanin #30383-177

With that info, the following page tells you all you need to know
to send them funds, by mail or Western Union:

Larken Rose

[ March 31, 2009, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: 3rdEar ]

A Hero Forgotten or Not?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/06/2008)

It can be depressing to constantly hear about those who have fallen
in battle against the various oppressors and defrauders who wear
the label of "government." That's why I don't like to constantly
beg on behalf of all the various people who have been robbed and/or
imprisoned for telling the truth. But I'm going to do it TWICE this
month, but only twice. This is the first one. (The second will come
in another week or two, to give you some time to recover from this

I assume most of you know at least something of Sherry Peel
Jackson, the courageous lady who went from being an IRS agent to
being one of the leading voices to end the federal "income tax"
fraud. For quite a while now she has been doing time as a political
prisoner, and has quite a while yet to do. Having been there
myself, I can tell you that one of the most frustrating things is
being unable to help the people on the outside who used to rely on
you. Among all the other stupid things prison does, forcing people
to be useless and poor is among the worst. It feels a little like,
"You stay in this cage for a while, and watch your family suffer,
and we'll make sure you can't do anything about it."

I suspect that's what Sherry is feeling about now. And now things
are getting tough for her family, who have to manage life without
her. I hate the word "need," since it is so over-used and misused,
so let me put it this way: They DESERVE our help.

Unfortunately, I can't afford to chip in. Fortunately, I'm going to
anyway, because I know darn well (and so do you) that what you can
"afford" depends almost entirely upon what really matters to you. I
suspect there is hardly anyone on this list who, if they really
tried, could not come up with $100 to spare. Of course, to some
that's pocket change, and to others it's a fortune. But if it was
up to YOU to keep a friend from losing his home, how much could you
come up with on short notice? A lot, I bet.

The bad news is, though Sherry's husband, Colin, has been doing
what he can on his own, the threat of them losing their home is
becoming very real. I don't know about you, but whatever it takes,
I will not let that happen. Again, I don't like to beg very often,
because it drags down peoples' spirits as well as their
pocketbooks. So I'm only going to send this message ONCE (but to
both of my e-mail lists). If you're going to help, do it NOW,
before you forget. The generosity of this list has always impressed
me when it came time to help someone in need. Despite the fact that
the economy ain't so hot, and a collectivist was just elected to
the White House, I hope you'll impress me again.

Figure out how much you can afford. Then double it, and send a
little bit more than that. Send checks, money orders, or cash if
you dare, to Sherry's husband, Colin, at the address below.

Colin Jackson
1560 Fieldgreen Overlook
Stone Mountain, GA 30088

Yesterday, and the day before, and the day before, and many days
before, Sherry was in prison. Today she still is, and will be
tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, for many days to come.
That is such a horrendous injustice I don't even like thinking
about it. But while she continues to be punished for telling the
truth, on behalf of ALL of us, let's see if we can at least provide
Sherry and her family with a little GOOD news. Again, do it now,
because I won't be asking again.

Larken Rose

That Was Weird

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/07/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

As several of you astute observers noticed, I wasn't on the radio
show I said I was going to be on. Just before the show, I got a
call that something wasn't working right--a technical glitch or
something--and that the show might not work (that they might just
play a rerun instead, which they did). Oddly, it wasn't long after
that that I heard that the We The People Radio Network (which the
show was supposed to be on) just went belly-up. Hmmm, maybe I'm a
bad omen. Inviting me on a show might just crash the whole network.
(Not really.) Anyway, sorry about that. It wasn't my fault... I
don't think. There will be other shows, and I'll let you know of
them. Hopefully they'll work out a little better.


Larken Rose

Following a Clue

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/18/2008)

In response to my prior message about "Fred and Chuck," having to
do with people not WANTING to know the truth, I got a couple of
complaints because I wasn't clear enough about what I meant. Some
got the impression that I was saying, "If you didn't buy my book,
you must not want the truth." That's not quite what I meant.

Some people who are otherwise sympathetic said they hadn't ordered
"Kicking the Dragon" because they already agreed with me, and some
said they couldn't afford it at the moment. I can relate to that
second one; these days I could barely afford to order my own book.
(One person seemed to think that I'm living in the lap of luxury,
counting my millions. I wish. I'm living on the brink of brokeness,
counting my bills. So I can relate to not wanting to spend a whole
$22 on a book.)

And I readily admit, if you've been robbed by the IRS, or they're
trying to, the book will do nothing to help that situation. In
addition, if you've been victimized by the feds, reading "Kicking
the Dragon" would almost certainly just make you MORE angry, if
that's possible.

However, there are still lots of people that I think should read
it, even if they don't see a reason to beforehand. (If I had some
way to charge people for the book only after they read it, and only
if they thought it was worthwhile, without going broke myself in
the process, I would.)

If you know people who have refused to listen to anything
unorthodox about the "income tax," try hitting them with "Kicking
the Dragon" (figuratively speaking... at least at first). It's
amazing what a printed book can do. I've had reports, and even seen
cases myself, where people who dismissed any unorthodox claims
about the income tax as "tax protestor" stuff, after reading the
story, were appropriately stunned and outraged. So maybe the use of
having a copy is not so much for you to read it--though I think
almost everyone would learn something new from it--but for throwing
it at all the Doubting Thomases you know.

How many movies have you seen that start with someone stumbling on
something curious and unexplainable, a clue that eventually leads
to the main story of the movie? Lots. That's often how deceptions,
conspiracies and crimes get exposed in real life too: someone
stumbles on something he can't explain. And that's how "Kicking the
Dragon" introduces people to the income tax deception.

In contrast, most of the theories circulating around in "tax
honesty movement" seem to be fabricated, rather than uncovered. As
just one example (I could give twenty), some claim that there is a
magic solution called UCC, where if you complain about your name
being spelled in all capital letters in various documents, and if
you file some magic pieces of paper, you'll be free! Hooray!
Setting aside all the people who have found out the hard way that
such claims are not "get out of tyranny free" cards, my question
is, Where is there any clue to even suspect that that might be
true? I've heard plenty of people ASSERT, "No really, it's true,"
but I've never seen a shred of evidence supporting the "redemption"
thing, or dozens of other theories floating around the movement.

As movie-makers know, if you want to get an audience's interest,
you have to give them a clue--something that THEY can see is weird
and hard to explain. If the viewer (or reader) can't put the pieces
together for himself, he won't be swayed. When you or I tell
someone, "You don't owe income taxes," all he has is our assertion,
and to him it sounds utterly ridiculous. Even when a claim is true,
most people won't believe it until they can put two and two
together for themselves--and even then a lot won't.

NO ONE can read "Kicking the Dragon" and come out the other side
saying, "Nothing suspicious there." The endless barrage of "clues"
just about bludgeons the reader to death, until the truth is
inescapable and undeniable. And I've had a bunch of people,
including people who knew little or nothing about the issue
beforehand, tell me exactly that. Granted, there's still the
challenge of making someone read it. A tactic I use now is to tell
people, if they'll just promise to read the first 50 pages, I won't
bug them anymore. (I don't know anyone who stopped after only 50

Lastly, I've said this before but I'll say it again: Some people
allege that messages like this one are designed to sell my book.
Yeah, of course they are. Duh. I don't know about you, but I'm
rather low on money (or what passes for money these days), and I
make money when someone buys a book. However, at the same time,
self-respect requires me to sell things only when I think they are
WORTH it--worth more than they cost, in fact--and I'm proud to say
that I definitely would put "Kicking the Dragon" in that category.
So if you have the ability and desire to cough up $22--of which $8
goes to the printers and $4 goes for shipping and handling--I'll
proudly fling a book at you (figuratively speaking). The web site
and "snail mail" address are below, or you can even use PayPal by
sending funds to "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.."

Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

Fred and Chuck

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/16/2008)

Once upon a time there was a guy named Fred. One night Fred was
having trouble sleeping, and went to the kitchen for a snack.
Before turning on the light, he happened to glance out the window,
and see some movement in his neighbor's garage. As he watched,
Chuck, another of his neighbors--not the owner of that house--
walked out carrying some garden tools. Fred glanced at the clock,
which said 2:15 a.m. Fred grabbed his camcorder, which happened to
have night vision, and kept watching and filming as Chuck crept
from one house to another, sneaking into any open garages, and
carrying off various items.

Though he couldn't imagine an innocent explanation, the next day
Fred decided to confront Chuck, as politely as possible, about what
he had seen, before mentioning it to the neighbors. So he strolled
over to Chuck's house and knocked on his door. Chuck opened the
door, wearing his usual friendly smile. "Um, I don't quite know how
to say this," began Fred awkwardly, "but I saw you last night,
taking stuff out of other peoples houses. I didn't want to say
anything before talking to you about--." His words were cut short
by a rather vigorous punch in the nose.

"You'd better shut up if you know what's good for you," said Chuck,
and slammed the door, leaving Fred standing there, dazed and with a
bloody nose.

Several hours later, after his nose had stopped bleeding, and had
returned more or less to its normal size, Fred decided he had to
speak to his neighbors about what had happened.

The first neighbor Fred went to just responded with, "That's
impossible. Chuck is a great guy. He would never do that. And if he
were doing something like that, someone would have noticed by now.
I don't believe you. Go away." The neighbor shut the door in Fred's
face, before Fred could even mention the videotape.

As soon as the second neighbor opened the door, he said "Chuck
warned us that you're telling lies about him. He says the
accusation is ridiculous, absurd! So go away." Again the door
slammed before Fred could mention the videotape of Chuck's dirty

The third neighbor also started talking as soon as he opened the
door. "Chuck says you're the crook, Fred, that you steal stuff, and
that you gossip about all of us. I want nothing to do with you."
The door was again slammed in Fred's face.

The fourth neighbor, though seeming suspicious and less than
friendly, let Fred say a bit, just enough to mention the videotape.
Somewhat begrudgingly, the neighbor watched the video. At the end,
however, all he would say was, "Well, when you brought it up, you
got a punch in your nose. So who cares whether what you say is true
or not?"

Fred almost went home then, but decided to try the last house he
had seen Chuck take stuff from. The fifth neighbor answered the
door, and Fred quickly summarized the situation, hoping to get it
all out before being punched or having the door slammed in his
face. This time, however, the neighbor listened quietly and
intently, and then asked to see the videotape, which he watched
quietly and intently. After a few more moments of silence, the
neighbor said, "Thank you for letting me know. I'll have to think
about what to do about it, if anything, but I appreciate you
letting me know."

Walking home, Fred felt content. The problem hadn't been solved,
and most of his neighbors had been thick-headed dunces, but at
least one person wanted the truth and got it. And, for the moment
at least, that was good enough for Fred.

The End.


The above story may seem unrealistic. After all, people wouldn't be
so dense that they wouldn't want to know if someone's taking their
stuff, right? Well, it depends upon who the accused thief is.

My "Taxable Income" report, in all its manifestations since 1998,
my "Theft By Deception" video, my web sites, etc., all boil down to
a simple message: "I have proof that you've been robbed, by Uncle
Sam no less." Now you might think, whether they believed that
accusation or not, that people would at least wonder whether it was
true. Oddly, most of them DON'T. In fact, most of the people in the
"tax honesty movement" also DON'T. Consider the most common
responses to the "861 evidence" (which correspond to the various
neighbors in the above story):

1) "That can't be true. Our government would never do that, and if
it did, someone would have noticed." Of course, this says nothing
about the evidence, since people who think like that never LOOK at
the evidence. But what makes that common response especially looney
is the claim--and I've heard people say this on many occasions--
that if that were true, someone would have discovered it, and told
them about it. Um, someone did, and someone did. I guess what they
mean is that someone ELSE would have known about it, and would have
told them SOONER. Well, others tried, and they didn't listen then,

2) "The courts say that's frivolous." So people appointed by the
accused crooks, and paid by the accused crooks, assert that the
accused crooks aren't crooks. And apparently that's good enough for
a LOT of people. What about the evidence? Do the courts have an
explanation for it? No, but apparently they don't need one, as far
as most people are concerned. The mere ASSERTION (called a "ruling"
when a "judge" does it) that the issue is bogus is enough to
dissuade most people from ever considering the evidence.

3) "The government says that this is a tax fraud scheme, and you
were convicted, so you're the criminal." Demonizing an accuser is
nothing new, and the reason it's been around so long is because it
often works quite well.

4) "Well, all it got you was trouble, so I don't want to hear about
it." This response comes not only from the general public, but from
a lot of people in the "tax honesty" movement. In short, if they
aren't spoon-fed a sure-fire, risk-free means of resisting the IRS,
they don't CARE what's true and what's not.

Thankfully, there are some people who want to know the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even if it's unpleasant,
and even if they don't know what to DO about it. It amazes me how
few of such people there are, even in the "movement." Maybe it's
because they really DON'T believe it could be true, and so they
don't want to examine the evidence too closely. Well, for those who
want to look closely, my new book "Kicking the Dragon"--which shows
one way to stand up for the truth and get hurt for doing so--gives
all the evidence you'll ever need. So far, however, less than one
person in ten on this e-mail list has ordered the book. It makes me
wonder, how many people REALLY want to know the truth, and how many
are just playing the wishful thinking game? The number of weird,
baseless arguments in the "movement," and the number of people who
blindly accept them as the gospel truth, is an indication to me
that lots of people WANT a snake oil cure, not the often bitter
truth. Bummer. Well, for the few weirdos like me who value the
truth simply because it is the truth, I wrote "Kicking the Dragon."


Larken Rose