Main menu

Thuggery Not Enough?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/20/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Apparently the technique of "revenue via terrorism" doesn't seem to
be working out as well as the federal government would like these
days. The feds just suffered a huge loss in a tax trial against
nine defendants, with a whopping 161 charges filed. Some charges
ended in a hung jury, while some ended in acquittals, but not one
ended in conviction. Here is the story:

The case had nothing to do with the 861 evidence. It had something
to do with paying people in silver and gold, instead of Federal
Reserve Notes. I'm not clear on the details, nor are the details
important for the point I'm trying to make here. What struck me
about the story--and what sounded all too familiar--is that instead
of the IRS providing specific opinions on legal issues, stating
their own position clearly and concisely, and going through the
process of arguing it administratively, they chose to PROSECUTE

That being the case, the public defender for one of the defendants
said "we're not going to take someone's liberty from them, on
something that a (certified public accountant) with a master's
degree doesn't even know. That's a scary country, and I don't live
in that country." Actually, he DOES live in that country, but in
his case it turned out better than usual.

The feds' attitude is clear: Why waste time talking about law, and
having to cite stuff and make well-reasoned, supported arguments?
We can just HURT those who disagree, instead!

Well, that worked well in my case, and many others, but it doesn't
seem to be a sure bet anymore. It didn't work with Vernice Kuglin,
or Joe Banister, or Tommy Cryer, or in the case mentioned above. It
also "unworked" in a case coming from the Anderson Ark thing, in
which the convictions of two defendants were just thrown out at the
appeals level. (Who knows--maybe next week the Third Circuit will
also do the right thing, and "unconvict" me.)

Some might say that it's enough for the feds to win MOST of the
time--that that is enough to maintain their extortion machine.
Well, it's not. For bullying to work indefinitely, the bully has to
remain pretty much undefeated. If he starts losing, even if only in
a small fraction of cases, the threat of "I'll beat you
up/prosecute you!" just doesn't have the same impact. If just 1% of
the bully's victims decide to take their chances, and stand up for
justice, the bully is in BIG trouble.

While the IRS and DOJ terrorists having been going full stream
trying to demolish anyone who questions the "conventional wisdom"
about the income tax--with prosecutions, injunctions, collections,
etc.--and as a result have been looking pretty scary recently, the
fact remains that the IRS is still in serious trouble. Keep in
mind, we're in the LAST phase before the truth wins:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident." [Arthur Schopenhauer]

Or, if you want an extra step in there:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight
you, then you win." [Mahatma Gandhi]

Either way, the feds are quite obviously in the violently fighting
stage. I hope the next stage comes soon.


Larken Rose

Past 861-related messages can be found here:

Details of Appeals Hearing

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/18/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I have the details of the oral arguments which will occur in the
appeal of my conviction. Again, it will be happening at the federal
courthouse (844 N. King Street) in downtown Wilmington, Delaware
(NOT in Philadelphia*). The case is U.S. v. Larken Rose (case
number 05-5199), and the hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m., on
Thursday, September 27th, in courtroom 6A (on the sixth floor).

The hearing should be fairly short. The court has given each side
15 minutes for argument, though if the court wants to hear more, it
often goes longer than that. And again, only the search warrant
issues (First and Fourth Amendments) will be addressed at the
hearing, though my appeal raises other issues in the written
motions. As I understand it, a ruling in the case should happen
within a few days of the hearing.

So if you want to come along, feel free. As in any appeal, the only
question before the appellate court is whether the trial court
judge (Judge Michael Baylson) did what he was supposed to do. We're
arguing that he should have granted my motion to suppress, which he
didn't. While I'm at it, let me mention a few more points which
people have asked about:

1) If the appeal is successful, I get "unconvicted," but the
government could try to prosecute me again. Since I've already
served the sentence, they wouldn't have much to gain by doing so,
except for the "making an example" propaganda routine. (On the
other hand, they'd have a lot to lose if they tried again and lost.)

2) There are several issues raised in my appeal, any one of which
can be the basis for the conviction to be thrown out. If we win on
the issue of suppression, however, the government wouldn't be
allowed to use anything they got from the 2003 raid of my house
(including e-mails in which I say nasty things about the IRS--as if
that is proof of a crime). In theory the government could still try
me again, but they could use almost nothing they introduced at the
first trial.

3) If I win (either the government doesn't take it to trial again,
or I get acquitted the second time), my conviction disappears, but
all I get for the year of wrongful imprisonment is an official
"oops." Only very rarely does is a suit for wrongful incarceration
successful. (In addition to the wrongful imprisonment, the court
also fined me $10,000, which I'm almost finished paying off. If I
won I'd get that back.)

4) If I win the appeal, am tried again, and convicted again, I
expect I would just get sentenced to "time served" (what I already
did). Since I was coerced into giving them returns pretending I
owed the tax, and giving them lots and lots of money I didn't owe
(and entering an installment agreement for what's left), I can't
imagine why the sentence would go up the second time around. So the
second time around I'd pretty much have nothing to lose.


Larken Rose

(* Apparently the Philadelphia appeals court is so backlogged that
some cases, including mine, are being sent to other courthouses.
That's why my appeal is happening in Delaware, and it's also why it
took so long to happen at all.)

Spectators Welcome

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/14/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I just got word today that on Thursday, September 27th, at the
federal courthouse in downtown Wilmington, Delaware, oral arguments
regarding the appeal of my bogus conviction will be heard. A ruling
on the appeal should happen very soon thereafter.

The arguments will happen in open court before a three-judge panel.
Well-dressed, polite spectators are encouraged to attend. So you
know, the hearing will NOT be about the 861 evidence itself (which,
in the context of a criminal trial, I wasn't ALLOWED to argue
about), but will instead focus only on First and Fourth Amendment
issues, as they relate to the armed invasion on my house on May 6,
2003. Specifically, this part of the appeal has to do with the
trial court's denial of my motion to suppress, based on the
obviously unconstitutional, censorship-motivated nature of the IRS'

There are a few other issues addressed in the written motions of
our appeal, all of which were filed long ago, but they won't be
discussed at the hearing. My appeal is being handled by Peter
Goldberger, a well-known and exceedingly competent appelate
attorney. He'll be doing all the arguing; I'll just be a spectator.
If you want to be a spectator too, mark your calendar for September
27th. When I know the exact times, courtroom, etc., I'll let the
list know all that stuff.


Larken Rose

[ September 18, 2007, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: 3rdEar ]

Plain as Day

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/04/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

By far the most common argument made against the 861 evidence boils
down to "You're not supposed to look there! Those rules are for
someone else!" Oddly, the IRS and tax professionals can't seem to
agree amongst themselves who SHOULD use those rules, but somehow
they're sure (some of the time) that it's not you and me.

There are LOTS of rules in the tax code that only apply to certain
people, and in every case, the rules make it abundantly clear,
right up front, to WHOM the rules apply. For example, let's compare
two sections: Section 860 and Section 861. (Section 860 is the last
section in Subchapter M, and Section 861 is the first in Subchapter
N, so despite being right next to each other, they aren't at all
about the same things.)

Let's begin with Section 860, and see if we can tell WHO is
supposed to use the rules found therein. Is it everyone? Is it just
certain people? Here is where the section appears in the
arrangement of the code:

Subtitle A - Income Taxes
Subchapter M - Regulated Investment Companies and Real Estate
Investment Trusts

Sec. 860. Deduction for deficiency dividends
(a) General rule - If a determination with respect to any
QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY results in any adjustment for any
taxable year..."
(b) Qualified investment entity defined - For purposes of this
section, the term "QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY" means - (1) a
regulated investment company, and (2) a real estate investment
Notice how often it just slaps you in the face, saying who those
rules are for. The related regulations are the same, over and over
again saying that these rules are about any "qualified investment

When only CERTAIN people are supposed to use a particular part of
the law, the law SAYS so, and it does it blatantly and repeatedly.
No one needs to guess or theorize about who is supposed to use
Section 860. No insinuation or extrapolation, no inference or
deduction is required.
Now let's see where Section 861 is located, and what it says:
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
Subchapter N - Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without
the United States

  • Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
    (a) Gross income from sources within United States...
    (b) Taxable income from sources within United States...

    [* If you are looking in some printing of the tax code other than
    the USCS printing, you will find a different, INCORRECT title for
    Part I. For the complete explanation, download my free "Taxable
    Income" report from the link near the bottom of the front page of
    the web site.]
    Nothing in Section 861 gives the slightest hint that the rules
    therein are only for certain people, or that most of us shouldn't
    be looking there.

    Likewise, where the indexes of the tax code point to 861 regarding
    domestic income, under topics such as "gross income," "taxable
    income," "deductions," and "sources of income," there is nothing
    even remotely suggesting only CERTAIN people should look there.
    Here is how the cumulative bulletin sums up what 861 and following
    are all about:

    “Rules are prescribed for determination of GROSS INCOME and TAXABLE
    INCOME derived from sources WITHIN and WITHOUT the United States,
    and for the allocation of income derived partly from sources within
    the United States and partly without the United States or within
    United States possessions. §§ 1.861-1 through 1.864. (Secs 861-864;
    ‘54 Code.)” [Treasury Decision 6258]

    The first section of regulations under 861 (26 CFR 1.861-1)
    elaborates on the concept, explaining that 861(a) and related regs
    are for determining domestic "gross income," and 861(b) and related
    regs are for determining domestic "taxable income." You can find
    that section here:

    So where, in all that, does it say that only CERTAIN people, in
    CERTAIN situations, should be looking there to determine their
    "taxable income from sources within the United States"? When a part
    of the law only applies to certain people, the law SAYS that,
    unambiguously and repeatedly, as shown above.

    The real problem is not in the law books; it is in peoples' heads.
    When twelve jurors, for example, heard that IRS bureaucrats "TOLD"
    me I wasn't supposed to look at 861 (after telling me they weren't
    familiar with that part of the law, and weren't really sure what it
    was about), the jurors couldn't imagine how I could still disagree.

    "Oh, those rules are only for people who..." At my trial, several
    government folk asserted that, though none of them backed up their
    claims with the smallest shred of evidence. Where does the law SAY,
    or even HINT, that I'm not supposed to use those rules? It doesn't.
    But they can simply ASSERT that it is so, and the average sheep
    will take their word for it.

    What I find most discouraging at this point is how little evidence
    and logic matter to people (including a lot of people in the "tax
    honesty movement"). The "argument" over the 861 evidence, if it can
    even be called that, has become utterly absurd. One side quotes
    what the law SAYS, while the other side asserts that it MEANS
    something completely different from what it says. It's like trying
    to argue with someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5. If they are so far gone
    that they literally refuse to see what's right in front of them,
    what's the point?

    Being right, and having piles of evidence to prove it, doesn't
    matter much when the general public is not only incapable of
    critical thought, but unwilling to even look at evidence which
    might threaten their comfortable assumptions. I'll keep putting the
    evidence out there for the few who actually want it, but at this
    point I don't think any amount of concrete evidence--whether about
    the federal income tax or anything else--can penetrate the thick,
    empty heads of the indoctrinated masses. I wish I had something
    more upbeat to end this message with, but at the moment I don't.
    Maybe in a few hundred years, the truth-tellers of today will be
    vindicated (a la Galileo). Or maybe not. Maybe in a few hundred
    years, people will go back to thinking that the sun goes around the
    earth, because "authority" says so.


    Larken Rose
  • Ray of Hope?

    (originally launched into cyberspace on 09/01/2007)

    Dear Subscriber,

    As I've mentioned before, the appeal of my bogus conviction is
    scheduled to be heard on September 25th. (I don't know that
    anything will actually be happening worth being there for; they may
    just make their ruling based on the motions filed.) The appeal
    raises several issues, one of them relating to the absurdity of
    letting the government harp on how some IRS bureaucrats and lower
    court judges asserted that my conclusions were incorrect, while
    prohibiting the jury from seeing or hearing statements from other
    credentialed people (including former IRS and DOJ folk) who agree
    with me. In other words, the DOJ could say "This IRS agent told him
    he was wrong!" while I was NOT allowed to say, "Well this IRS agent
    told me I was RIGHT!" Sounds fair, doesn't it?

    In excluding any testimony or evidence about other people agreeing
    with me, the judge in my case said that what OTHER people believe
    is completely irrelevant to the issue of MY "willfulness." I found
    that rather odd, since EVERYTHING the government presented was the
    opinion of OTHER people; they cited nothing from ME hinting that I
    believe I owed the tax (because I don't).

    Anyway, I just learned that a federal Appeals court hearing a case
    stemming from the "Anderson Ark" group just THREW OUT convictions
    for "willful" federal tax crimes for very similar reasons (U.S. v.
    MORAN, 05-30215 and 05-30226 (9th Cir. 2007)). The Morans appealed
    their convictions on four grounds, three of which were ruled
    against by the court. The fourth, however, dealt with the fact that
    the trial judge prohibited the defendants from introducing
    testimony about how their beliefs were based "among other things,
    on opinions from a CPA and outside experts." Just as in my case,
    the judge claimed "hearsay" as the justification for excluding such
    evidence (as well as claiming a Rule 403 exclusion, which I won't
    bother explaining at the moment).

    "On two occasions during the trial, the district court excluded
    testimony by Mrs. Moran about what she had learned from outside

    In the second instance, the government was asking one defendant
    about a letter from an attorney who questioned the legality of the
    defendants' actions. When the defendant tried to talk about how
    OTHER experts had said their actions WERE legal, she was cut off,
    and not allowed to talk about that. (Wow, sounds familiar: if
    someone DISAGREE with a defendant, it's relevant proof of
    "willfulness"; but when someone AGREES with the defendant, it's
    irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay. Sounds fair.)

    The Appeals court bluntly stated: "The defendant is entitled to
    testify about the tax advice he received — subject, of course, to
    cross-examination — and exclusion of this testimony is error."

    The court also said something my appeal states: "Such testimony
    does not constitute hearsay when not offered for the truth of the
    matter stated." (Without getting into the technicalities, a
    "statement" isn't hearsay at all if it's not introduced to prove
    the matter asserted. So, for example, when I wanted to play
    excerpts of radio shows on which Sherry Jackson, former IRS agent,
    AGREED with my findings, it was NOT being introduced to prove the
    matter asserted--i.e., that most of us don't owe the tax--but as
    something impacting my beliefs (or "state of mind"). So it wasn't
    "hearsay" at all.

    (Incidentally, the same applies to the exclusion of my video, my
    report, my web sites, etc., which is a BIG part of my appeal. They
    aren't "hearsay" at all, because they were NOT being introduced to
    prove the matter asserted: that I don't owe the tax (which I wasn't
    even allowed to argue); they were going to be introduced as
    evidence of my beliefs, or "state of mind.")

    Perhaps my favorite sentence from the ruling--because it sounds so
    much like my case--was this: "The government's questioning of Mrs.
    Moran raised the implication, as her counsel explained at trial,
    that the Hayes letter was the only opinion the Morans ever
    received, thus opening the door to redirect about what other legal
    opinions they had received."

    Of course, one court doing the right thing doesn't mean another one
    (in a different district) will, but if the Third Circuit rules
    against our appeal (after the Ninth Circuit ruled the other way on
    the same issue), there will be an obvious conflict between
    districts, which may be enough to get the case heard by the Supreme
    Court. That would be fun.


    Larken Rose

    Final Raffle Notice!

    (originally launched into cyberspace on 08/31/2007)

    Dear Subscriber,

    I just wanted to mention one more time the fund-raising raffle
    thing for Sherry Jackson, to help with her upcoming battle with the
    federal leviathan. Again, the way it works is really simple. You
    send Sherry a $10 donation and get a ticket; or you send any
    multiple of $10 for multiple tickets (e.g., send her $60 and get
    six raffle tickets). Make sure to mention that it's for the "United
    We Stand" fund-raiser/raffle thing, unless you are just making a
    straight donation. To participate, send a check or money order (or
    cash, if you dare risk it), made payable to Sherry Jackson, to:

    Sherry Jackson
    1560 Fieldgreen Overlook
    Stone Mountain, Georgia 30088

    The drawing will take place at Ed and Elaine Brown's house on
    September 15th, and entries have to be postmarked no later than
    September 10th. So get a move on if you want in on the action. (If
    you happen to be at the Browns' for the drawing, you can buy
    tickets there, too.) Be sure to give an address for where your
    ticket--and possibly your prize--should be mailed. And if you do
    NOT wish your name to be publicly announced, please specify that
    fact as well when requesting tickets.

    The grand prize is a hefty collection of stuff, including
    autographed stuff (books, videos, etc.) by Dr. Jerome Corsi, Aaron
    Russo, Dave von Kleist, Poker Face, John Kotmair, Victor Thorn,
    Randy Weaver, Michael Collins, Irwin Schiff, Ed and Elaine Brown,
    Joe Banister, Bill Benson, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Schulz, Jack
    McLamb, G. Edward Griffin, as well as free one-year subscriptions
    to the American Free Press, the Fort Fairfield Journal and the
    Idaho Observor. (There will also be two runner-up prizes.)

    You'll also get a signed copy of my "Theft By Deception" DVD, and I
    just threw in a signed copy of "How To Be a Successful Tyrant,"
    too. And, though I haven't mentioned this to the people running the
    raffle yet, the very FIRST copy (autographed) of my new book,
    "Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic)," will also go
    to the winner of the raffle, whenever the book comes out (which may
    be a few months yet).

    Incidentally, this Sunday Sherry herself will be on Peter Mack's
    radio show, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Central time. For info on how to
    tune in live, or how to listen to the archived show after the fact,
    go to:

    So whether you want to support Sherry, try to win some cool stuff,
    or both, do it quick.


    Larken Rose

    Disclaimer: The items mentioned for each prize have been promised
    by the contributors mentioned and every effort will be made to
    fulfill noted prizes. In situations beyond their control, those
    managing the raffle reserve the right to substituted any item for
    another. All items in the Grand prize are to be autographed, no
    such claim is made for the second place prizes. Staff
    of and contributors (including me, dang
    it) are not eligible to receive prizes.