Facade of Legality

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/29/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

The IRS, with the help of the DOJ and the federal courts, is an
extortion machine. (But most of you already knew that.) All the tap-
dancing they do about "law" is nothing more than a show they put on
to try to give the impression that what they do is somehow legal,
and therefore legitimate. But they don't care one bit about the
law. They care about getting money, whether people owe it or not,
and they will use any means--legal or not--to destroy those who
don't pay the "protection" fee. They will try to hurt you if you
don't comply, and afterwards fabricate some legal excuse for why it
was okay for them to do so.

If the folks at the IRS and DOJ really did care about the law, and
thought they were truly collecting only what was "legally" owed,
they would NOT behave the way they do. They could still be zealous,
still prosecute some people, etc., but a few things would be very
different.

In my trial, the JUDGE (acting as back-up prosecutor) took me to
task for not filing returns reporting my income as if it were
taxable, and then filing a claim for refund to get it back. Then
the DOJ picked up on that bizarre argument: that if I really
believed I didn't owe it, I would have PAID it, and then tried to
get it back. (Gee, I wonder if we should all do that for EVERY tax
we don't think we owe. I don't think I owe any Albuquerque, NM
property taxes--because I have no property there--but maybe I
should pay them, and then try to get them back, to please the
federal courts.)

But aside from the silliness of the argument, the prosecution and
the judge all decided that I was evil for NOT giving the IRS money
and then filing a claim for refund to try to get it back. In fact,
they harped on the fact that I DIDN'T sue the IRS as if it proves
that I believe I owe the tax. (How's that for a logical non-
sequitur?) So, if I were a good citizen, according to the
government, I would give the IRS lots of money, and then file a
claim for refund (1040X), and if they denied that, I would sue to
try to get my money back. That, in my case, is what they declared I
SHOULD have done, and I was a nasty criminal because I didn't do
that.

In the case of Dr. Tom Clayton, however, he was nasty criminal
because he DID do exactly that. The DOJ called his claims for
refund "false claims"--when they were no such thing--and charged
him with multiple felony counts of filing false returns (26 USC
7206(1)). The claims themselves made no secret about the reason for
the request for refunds: he had concluded that he had previously
paid taxes on NON-taxable income. Nonetheless, the DOJ fascists
painted that as a CRIMINAL act, and flung him in prison for it,
where he is right now. (Incidentally, he did appeal his conviction,
and that gross misapplication of the "false returns" statute is one
of the main issues being challenged.)

What it boils down to is that if you don't accept on faith the
conventional wisdom regarding the federal income tax, there is
NOTHING you can do to make the federal fascists happy. If you
merely speak your mind, they will criminalize that, and call it an
"abusive tax shelter," or a "corrupt attempt to interfere with the
administration of the tax laws." If you don't file, they will
prosecute you, and say you should have paid and then sued to get it
back. But if you pay up, and try to get it back, they will
prosecute you for filing "false claims." In some cases even asking
QUESTIONS is portrayed as a criminal act by these lunatics (which
IRS Special Agent Donald Pearlman did in my own little
inquisition).

There's a reason I call it "heresy": that's exactly how they treat
it. In short, you are EVIL if you BELIEVE something they don't
like. No matter what you do, you are a heretic, and they will find
an excuse to persecute you--even if you're doing exactly what they
said the last "tax heretic" SHOULD have done. The IRS has its
indisputable doctrine (which happens to contradict the law), and--
from their cult-like vantage point--it is IMPOSSIBLE to honestly
disagree with them. Any who disagree are sneaky, nasty criminals,
who should be burned at the stake.

Luckily, the government can't fling people in prison without the
consent of the American people (by way of the jury box). Unluckily,
the American people tend to be idiots, who not only blindly believe
the gospel according to the IRS--which by itself would be
understandable--but who whole-heartedly AGREE that not accepting on
blind faith the proclamations of any moronic federal bureaucrat is
a SIN, and that anyone who does so DESERVES to be put in a cage.

Every once in a while, however, someone with a brain ends up on a
jury. It happened in Vernice Kuglin's case. It happened in Joe
Banister's case. It happened in Tommy Cryer's case. And, with any
luck, it is happening right now, in Sherry Jackson's case, which
(as I understand it) started today. We shall see.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. This is a good opportunity to once again suggest that, if you
want to help out Dr. Tom's family during his incarceration as a
political prisoner, find the "Click & Pledge" button at the bottom
right hand corner of the http://www.theft-by-deception.com web
site. You can either do a one-time donation, or better yet, have it
be a monthly recurring thing. Even $10 a month from a bunch of us
would be a big help.)

Thumb-Twiddling

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/22/2007)
Dear Subscriber,

A while back we had oral arguments regarding my appeal, but they
were really limited to one very narrow technical issue the court
had some questions about. The rest of the appeal will be decided
based on the motions filed. All the back-and-forth stuff has long
since been filed. I expected a ruling before this, but still no
word. Either way, I will let this list know as soon as I hear about
a ruling on the case. So I'm not trying to keep you in the dark--
I'm just impatiently thumb-twiddling myself, waiting to hear
something.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

Shoot The Messenger

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/07/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

On a few occasions I have met people who disagree with my legal
conclusions about the federal tax laws, but who are also disgusted
at my prosecution, and the obvious censorship motivation behind it.
(Usually, however, people who are devoted to maintaining
"conventional wisdom" don't seem to care much what happens to those
who disagree.)

Anyone who is even slightly familiar with my case, and who isn't
either insane or a liar, would have to acknowledge that I was
targeted, not because I didn't send the IRS some pieces of paper,
but because of what I SAID--on my web sites, in my report, in my
video, etc. The government didn't really bother to hide that fact.

Well, I'm not the only one. Another attempt at censorhip-via-
prosecution is underway, with the persecution of Sherry Peel
Jackson, a former IRS agent. The actual charge is willful failure
to file tax returns. Watch the following video clips, and the REAL
motivation behind the prosecution will be patently obvious.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F9PSYkWIuIs

My case, Tessa's case, Dr. Tom's case, Joe Banister's case, Tommy
Cryer's case, and many others, were all about SQUELCHING DISSENT.
The government has no substantive rebuttal to these issues, so it
resorts to what "government" always resorts to: violence. And they
are doing the same with Sherry. That's how our "Department of
Justice" deals with tax heretics: "Spout the gospel according to
us, or pay the price!"

Well, when the time comes, I hope it's standing room only at
Sherry's trial, to let the federal fascists know that their
thuggery will not make these issues go away. In the meantime, I
hope we can see to it that Sherry isn't financially ruined by the
federal leviathan. Support her with your eyes, or your wallet, or
both. But whatever you do, PAY ATTENTION to what is happening.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

General vs. Specific

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/05/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I realize that I haven't been talking much about the 861 evidence
lately. Really, I can't think of much more to say. The evidence
speaks for itself; whether someone will look at the evidence or not
is another issue entirely. I suppose every couple of weeks I could
urge you all to tie up a few of your friends, and at gunpoint make
them read my "Taxable Income" report, but I don't think that would
go over too well.

However, I was recently reminded of a point worth adding to my
report, and I thought I'd mention it here, too. This is nothing
new, but I really haven't emphasized it before, and it should be
emphasized.

What is the IRS position regarding the 861 evidence? Well, when
they have one at all, it usually amounts to: "You don't need to
look at those rules under 861; just look at the GENERAL definitions
found in Section 61 and 63."

Of course, if those general definitions were all that mattered, we
would have a two-page tax code, instead of a multi-thousand-page
tax code. Section 61 itself begin, "Except as OTHERWISE
provided...," making it obvious that stopping at the general
definitions is a mistake. Likewise, the regs under Section 61
(namely, 26 CFR 1.61-1) say that where ANY other statute or
regulation deals with a particular kind of income, those other
provisions will apply "notwithstanding" Section 61.

Really that statement is nothing more than an acknowledgement of a
very old and well-established maxim of statutory interpretation,
which can be generalized as "the specific governs the general."
Where any law gives a GENERAL rule, but also includes a SPECIFIC
rule regarding some narrow issue, the specific rule "trumps" the
general. In case you think I'm making this up, here are a few
Supreme Court rulings on the matter:

"As always, '[w]here there is no clear intention otherwise, a
specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general
one, regardless of the priority of enactment.'" [Crawford Fitting
Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987)]

"General language of a statutory provision, although broad enough
to include it, will not be held to apply to a matter specifically
dealt with in another part of the same enactment." [D. Ginsberg &
Sons v. Popkin, 285 U.S. 204 (1932)]

"It is a well-settled principle of construction that specific terms
covering the given subject-matter will prevail over general
language of the same or another statute which might otherwise prove
controlling." [Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904)]

"It is an old and familiar rule that 'where there is, in the same
statute, a particular enactment, and also a general one, which, in
its most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the
former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general
enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its
general language as are not within the provisions of the particular
enactment.' ... This rule applies wherever an act contains general
provisions and also special ones upon a subject which, standing
alone, the general provisions would include." [U.S. v. Chase, 135
U.S. 255 (1890)]

And what do we find in the federal tax code? In addition to the
GENERAL definitions of terms like "gross income" and "taxable
income," we find SPECIFIC rules concerning the issue of when
DOMESTIC income--"income from sources within the United States"--is
taxable (861 and its regulations). And we find such rules going
back over 80 years, always showing such income to be taxable for
foreigners and for certain Americans in unusual situations, but NOT
for Americans who live and work only in the 50 states.

Considering how well-established the above-described legal
principle is, why do you suppose the IRS so often argues: "You
don't need to look to those SPECIFIC rules; just look at the
GENERAL rule!" Their lawyers know darn well that doing so goes
against a very basic, very old rule of statutory construction. But,
with so much money and power at stake, I guess the rules don't
matter much to them.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

Terrorists Win Again

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/05/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

The news is reporting that Ed and Elaine Brown have been arrested
"without incident." So far the story is surprisingly short on
details, but here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/ytejp9

I don't really have any comments at the moment, mainly because
there isn't much information to comment on. But I wanted to let you
know what little there was to tell.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com