Main menu

Upcoming Events

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/04/2003)
---

Dear List Subscriber,

(First, I WILL be sending out Part II of "Playing Against Cheaters" very
soon. It was delayed because the plan changed a bit.)

(Second, we are now up to 158 people who have sent the second letter to Pam
Olson.)

And now, on to the point of this message...

There a few upcoming events I thought I'd let you know about. (None of them
cost you anything.)

1) On the morning of February 11th, from 10 to 11 a.m. Eastern time (9 a.m.
Chicago time), I'll be on Ron Newman's radio show on 1280 WBIG.

2) On the evening of February 18th, I'll be giving a talk at the Inquirer
Building in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. (I'll give driving directions
soon.) The talk is sponsored by the Montgomery County (PA) Libertarian
Committee, but is open to the public, and is free.

3) On March 1st, I'll be giving a talk at the Trenton (NJ) Marriot,
sponsored by the New Jersey libertarian folks. (I'll give exact times and
directions soon.)

4) On the evening of March 5th (Wednesday), starting a 7:00 p.m., there will
be a free public showing of "Theft By Deception" at the following address:

Cuyahoga County Public Library, Berea Branch
7 Berea Commons
Berea, OH 44017

It's free, but space is limited, so if you want to attend, contact Kurt J.
Tischer at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

These free showings happen every once in a while, and I'll try to list more
of them here. To those of you who wish they could see the video for free,
YOU CAN. Go see it.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://www.theft-by-deception.com

Lawyer-Think

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/03/2003)
---

Dear List Subscriber,

Lawyers have a really bad reputation. But not bad enough. So I'm going to
help out a bit with this message. (My apologies to the decent folks who
happen to be lawyers, to whom the following doesn't apply. All five of
them.)

Lawyers don't like truth. Notice I didn't say they don't like "THE" truth,
and I'm not even talking about the income tax issue here. They don't like
the existence of an objective, knowable truth. It is incompatable with
their job and their whole mindset.

"He could afford a really good lawyer." How often have you heard that?
What the heck is a "good lawyer"? Is it one who can find out the truth, and
present it in a logical, understandable way? No, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE.
It is one who, REGARDLESS of the evidence, can tap-dance and obfuscate
enough to get a judge (another lawyer) to rule in his favor.

I have had the privilege of observing dozens of attorneys responding to the
861 evidence (to the video, the questions, the report, etc.). Some very
strange responses show up over and over again. Here are a few examples,
which show how lawyer think:

1) "That's just your interpretation." Well duh, no kidding... though it's a
bit odd to call believing what the law SAYS an "interpretation". But the
implication is that there ISN'T a truth, only a variety of "opinions" and
"interpretations." Often after saying that, they won't give a SHRED of a
rebuttal of any of the substance. They won't say what their OWN
interpretation is--often they admit they don't know enough about the
sections to even have one--nor do they find anything wrong in the reasoning.
Their WHOLE point is to call it an "interpretation," as if to reduce it to
"well you like vanilla, but someone else might like chocolate."

2) "The courts will rule against you." Again, they often say this WITHOUT
being able to refute a word of the issue. They are predicting that ANOTHER
lawyer (a judge) will say that we're wrong. I actually agree with that
prediction, but "the courts will rule against you" is NOT an answer to "do
you think this is right?" Actually, it's an admission that lawyers don't
CARE whether something is right or wrong, only whether they can spin it to
their advantage. And that leads to...

3) "Even if you're right, it doesn't matter." I've seen or heard at least a
half dozen lawyers say that, almost in those exact words. To them, it
doesn't MATTER if the government is stealing a trillion dollars a year
through fraud and extortion. What "matters" is whether they can do a dance
to make a judge (a lawyer) "rule" in their favor. It doesn't matter what
the LAW says; it matters what a lawyer ASSERTS that a law says.
(Incidentally, that was one of the biggest fears of the founders of this
country: a system of "law" both arbitrary and unknowable, which any "judge"
could spin any way he wants.)

And that leads me to the "case law" fetish that almost every lawyer has.
For those who don't know, "case law" is where a judge makes a "ruling" on
some issue. (As several legal experts have told me, it is possible to find
"case law" to support just about any argument, on either side of any
dispute, which makes it all a joke.) And what is "case law" usually based
upon? OLDER case law. So the legal profession consists mostly of a LAWYER
citing a LAWYER (judge) citing a LAWYER (judge) making something up. If the
evidence itself had any bearing, it was only in that FIRST case about the
issue. A few steps later, the evidence is GONE, and the "authority"
consists entirely of the fact that A LAWYER SAID IT BEFORE.

The 861 evidence is a prime example. An ex-bureaucrat Tax Court "judge"
(who may not have even been a lawyer), calls the issue "frivolous." Then a
lawyer (judge) says he won't overturn that "ruling." Then another
bureaucrat cites the first bureaucrat and the lawyer saying it. Then the
IRS lawyers cite BOTH bureaucrats and the lawyer saying it. Then the
low-level IRS paper-pusher give out form letters with LAWYERS citing LAWYERS
citing BUREAUCRATS. If you trace it back to where it actually came from,
there is NOTHING THERE.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how the law works (or doesn't work) in
this country.

If anything should qualify someone as a "religious zealot," it is your
average lawyer. There are dozens of people on this list who have researched
and studied what the LAW says about "gross income" and "taxable income," and
income from sources within and without the U.S., far more than ANY judge
ever has. A tax is a STATUTORY requirement. It exists because Congress
passed a LAW, which was WRITTEN DOWN, and encoded into the statutes of the
USC. If someone is far LESS familiar with the statutes and regulations
(past and present) than you are, why would their "opinion" or "ruling" be
worth anything?

A fine example is the recent injunction against Thurston Bell. In his
"ruling," the judge in that case (Judge Conner) showed that he knows JACK
SQUAT about this portion of the law. That is somewhat understandable, as he
probably never had any incentive to look there before. What is downright
insane is that he would make a "ruling" that FORCES someone to SHUT UP,
based on the judges IGNORANCE, when that "someone" (in this case Thurston
Bell) knows far more about the ACTUAL EVIDENCE than the "judge" does.

If you know a lot about computer networking, do you think your PLUMBER
should be able to pass a "ruling" telling you how to do it? Or if you know
plumbing, do you think a computer network engineer should make a "ruling"
telling you how to do plumbing? It's absurd, yet that's EXACTLY what these
"judges" are doing when they pass down "rulings" about something they
obviously know almost nothing about.

Judge Conner claimed that 26 USC § 861(a)(3) means that the wages of all
Americans are taxable. He claimed that, because he knows JACK SQUAT about
how that part of the law works. (If you watch Step Six of "Theft By
Deception," you will see that Judge Conner fell hook, line and sinker for an
INTENTIONAL deception.) If I could sit Judge Conner down, and question him
about the sections, ANYONE watching would know that he doesn't nearly know
enough about those sections to make any sort of "ruling" about them. Again,
I don't fault him for being ignorant about that part of the law, but I DO
fault him for being arrogant enough to make his "ruling" about it without
FINDING OUT how those sections work and what they are about.

(If you are one who will doubt yourself because someone who has no idea what
he's talking about "rules" against you, then you need to pay more attention
to EVIDENCE and less attention to lawyers.)

I have also noticed that lawyers don't mind as much arguing about the 5th
Amendment, or the 16th Amendment, or the direct/indirect tax issue, etc.
They are exactly what lawyers thrive on: debatable things to be argued about
and litigated ad nauseum. Anyone can theorize about some Constitutional
provision until the cows come home, and that doesn't say anything about
lawyers in general.

But with the 861 evidence, most run for cover, because to argue it they have
to argue that the government intentionally committed a huge fraud, AND argue
that the lawyers MISSED IT for more than 80 YEARS. That is one thing that
"the experts" never like to do: admit that "the experts" have no clue.

In most cases, lawyers get visibly angry, sometimes downright malicious,
when confronted with this issue. (Sometimes they maintain their composure
for a few minutes, while trying a few excuses about why 861 should be
ignored.) To them, there isn't allowed to BE an objective, knowable truth,
and there CERTAINLY isn't allowed to be a truth that CONTRADICTS what all
their lawyer buddies (including judges) have been saying for the last 80
years. And finally, even if the law itself DOES show that, it "doesn't
matter," because their lawyer buddies (especially judges) will CONTINUE to
give their baseless "rulings" and "opinions."

But just like the scientific community, the medical community and others
have learned the hard way, over and over again for a few THOUSAND years,
sometimes us mere peasants decide to check out the evidence for ourselves...
which usually results in the "experts" looking incompetent or criminal. No
wonder lawyers are trying so hard to bash the issue. Would YOU want to be a
successful, wealthy, well-known tax attorney when all your clients find out
that you don't know SQUAT about what the tax laws actually say? (Can you
say "class action lawsuit"?)

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://www.theft-by-deception.com

Why Bother?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/02/2003)
---

Dear List Subscriber,

So far over 100 people have sent the second letter to Pam Olson. At the
same time, a bunch of people have expressed to me their attitude about it,
which is something like: "Why bother? They'll never answer, they'll keep
saying it's frivolous, so what's the point?" If the point was to actually
get answers, I agree that it would almost certainly be a waste of time. But
that is NOT the purpose.

There are now 2,300 people on this update list, some of whom have been
fluent in the 861 evidence for several years, and some of whom don't know
what it's all about yet. And of course, there are a couple thousand
somewhere in between. (And I welcome all of them.)

For those of us who are familiar with the issue, and familiar with the
evasions, accusations, vilifications, and threats from our "public servants"
(and their nationwide campaign to censor anyone who publicly speaks of the
issue), we are about ready to strangle someone. It isn't all that
fulfilling to send out another letter which we know will either get no
response, or some worthless form letter that doesn't answer anything. "So
why bother?"

My parents have been paying close attention to this issue for at least a
couple years now, and when I recently described some of the newest tactics
of the feds, my mom (hi, mom!) was more than slightly annoyed. One example
was that if you want to take an issue to the Appeals Division of the IRS,
you will now have to do so ALONE and OFF THE RECORD. Their new "policy"
(which blatantly violates 26 USC § 7521) is to disallow witnesses and
recording devices for ANY hearing before the Appeals division, including
"Collections Due Process Hearings." What kind of "due process" is it if you
are FORBIDDEN from having any record of it, and FORBIDDEN from having
someone else even WITNESS what happens in there? (Can't you just picture
the lone wooden chair in the damp basement, the swinging light overhead, and
"Switchblade Tony" standing in the shadows?)

Many of you on this list already knew about that fascist "policy," but I bet
this is the first many of you have heard of it. To those of you who didn't
know that (and if you ask the IRS they will openly admit that that is now
the official Appeals "policy"), are you at least slightly shocked? Would
you feel comfortable meeting with the IRS in SECRET, where you will have
ZERO record of whatever they do or say--not even a witness?

I did not demand an Examination hearing to actually get due process, but to
be able to show OTHER PEOPLE the treatment we get, and what the IRS thinks
passes for due process. Here are some "educational" transcripts (from
meetings that WERE recorded... which might show you why they don't want
meetings recorded):

http://www.taxableincome.net/extortion/case3/transcript1.html
http://www.taxableincome.net/extortion/case1/transcript1.html
http://www.taxableincome.net/extortion/case6/transcript.html
http://www.taxableincome.net/extortion/case4/transcript.html

That is WHY I sent my recent letter to John Ashcroft: not because I thought
he would do the right thing, but so I can show OTHER PEOPLE that the
"system" doesn't care at all about the law and due process. Here is that
letter:

http://www.theftbydeception.com/declaration.html

The reason for Operation Honest Inquiry was NOT to get answers, since many
of us know that they CANNOT answer the questions without collapsing the
biggest financial fraud in history. Again, it was to show the surreal
responses that the WHOLE SYSTEM gives in response to perfectly reasonable
questions. Here are some of the results of Operation Honest Inquiry:

http://www.taxableincome.net/takestand/honestinquiry/responseindex.html

And that is WHY I am asking people to send letters to people like Pam Olson,
Jim South, and others who will soon be added to the list. It is NOT because
I expect to get open, honest answers. Far from it. It is so I can show
OTHER PEOPLE that our "public servants," from the top of the system to the
bottom, are either unwilling or unable to answer simple questions about how
to figure out what we owe.

And it WORKS. I can't even count how many people were converted, not by MY
explanation of the 861 evidence, but by watching how the OTHER side responds
to it.

The people new to the issue, and the people who have not yet heard of it,
are not going to just jump on board just for the heck of it. They need to
see the EVIDENCE for themselves. They need to see how the OTHER side
responds. Yes, to those of us who have had our noses in this stuff for a
few years, we wish we could tell newcomers "it's bad, and we're right, and
just take our word for it." But of course that doesn't work, and we can't
ask people to do that. We have to PROVE it to them, one at a time, with the
actual EVIDENCE.

And we are making a pile of evidence which, when the story goes national
(not "if" it does), will sink this fraud like a ton of bricks. The day some
reporter dares to do a REAL story on the issue--not just parroting whatever
their government contacts feed them--he will have enough "meat" to do
several WEEKS' worth of stories on it.

Some of us have seen the injustice up close and personal. We feel more like
strangling someone than writing letters. But there is a purpose here beyond
the letters themselves.

Okay, I'll stop preaching at you (for now), but if you haven't yet sent the
second letter to Pam Olson, please do so (whether you sent the first one or
not). Here it is in Word format:

http://www.taxableincome.net/PamOlson2.doc

Some people have had problems with that file, so here it is in html format
(you can just "cut and paste" it into any word processor to print it):

http://www.bmstahoe.com/IncomeTax/PamOlson2.htm

If for some reason you can't do that either, here are a few people who have
volunteered to print it out for you, if you just e-mail them your name and
mailing address (they will fill that in on the letter, and send it back to
you ready for you to sign and mail):

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Once you've sent it, if you want to be on the list of those who have sent
it, send me your initials, state, and date the letter was sent, like this:

"L.R. (PA) 1/21/03"

If you look at the letter you will see that regardless of what you know
about the issue, and whether you even agree with it, the questions are
perfectly reasonable, and a refusal by the feds to answer them is perfectly
UNreasonable. For those of you chomping at the bit to do something MORE
than sending polite petitions, stay tuned. Until then, please get everyone
you can to send the thing. It WILL be worth it in the end.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://www.theft-by-deception.com

Mr. Johnston Flunks...

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/01/2003)
---

Dear List Subscriber,

Yesterday I sent a two-question test for David Cay Johnston, reporter for
the New York Times. Recently he has argued over and over again that Section
861 of the current statutes says that the domestic income of almost everyone
is taxable. He says that if the regulations under Section 861 say
otherwise, then they are wrong, and are "outranked" by the statute.

Yesterday I pointed out one simple example, to see if he could explain it.
I point out that the predecessor to 861 (Section 119 of the 1939 Code) was
worded almost exactly the way the current 861 is worded. That STATUTE
seemed to say that all interest from domestic investments was to be included
as "income from sources within the United States."

However, the REGULATIONS written to implement that part of the statutes said
that interest from domestic investments was to be included "in the gross
income from sources within the United States, of NONRESIDENT ALIEN
individuals, FOREIGN corporations, and citizens of the United States, or
domestic corporations which are ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 251
[which only apples to those who get most of their income from federal
possessions]" [26 CFR § 29.119-2 (1945)].

I asked Mr. Johnston two questions about that strange situation. Here is a
direct quote of my questions:

< begin quote >

1) What on earth made the regulation-writers think that THAT is what the
regulations should say (i.e. why did they put in the part about nonresident
aliens and such, when the statute did NOT say that)?

2) Why on earth did Congress APPROVE those regulations for twenty-some
YEARS, thus giving them the "effect of law"*?

[* - "Treasury regulations and interpretations long continued without
substantial change, applying to unamended or substantially reenacted
statutes, are deemed to have received congressional approval and have the
effect of law." - U.S. Supreme Court, UNITED STATES v. CORRELL, 389 U.S. 299
(1967)]

What a strange "interpretation" of that statute, don’t you think? If
Congress MEANT that interest from domestic investments was taxable for
EVERYONE, why did the regulation-writers write THAT (shown above); what on
earth possessed them to add in those others things, and why didn’t Congress
complain about it, and make them change it?

< end quote >

Well here is Mr. Johnston's answer, in it's entirety:

"Section 861 only applies to --
1. Those living in the United States who have income from outside of the
United States.
2. Nonresident aliens who have taxable income from inside the United
States.
For everyone else, notably individuals who work in the United States for any
employer, Section 861 is irrelevant."

First of all, that didn't answer the questions at all. It also directly
contradicts what Mr. Johnston has been arguing for several weeks at least.

Again, this is a fine example of what we're up against. Mr. Johnston knew
that the example I gave demolishes his claim that Section 861 is showing ALL
domestic income to be taxable. (His non-answer basically admits that.)
When I prove his position to be wrong, what does he do? Does he even
DISCUSS it, or ponder WHY the regulations say that? Nope. He changes to
some other argument--anything that will support conventional wisdom.

Is THAT the kind of curiosity, and instinct to investigate, that makes a
great reporter? Or is that the kind of
"pay-no-attention-to-the-disturbing-evidence" that makes a great spin-doctor
for the IRS? You decide.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://www.theft-by-deception.com

P.S. Mr. Johnston also constantly harps on how no judge, lawyer, public
official, etc. agrees with our position, as if that constitutes a
substantive rebuttal to anything. He will soon have to change his tune on
that one as well. (Hmmm... I can just see a mafia lord saying "all of my
henchman say that your allegations of fraud against me are frivolous.")

A Test for Mr. Johnston

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/31/2003)
---

Dear Mr. Johnston,

I am sending a copy of this message to a couple thousand individuals who
subscribe to my e-mail updates, and whatever response you send I will
forward to them as well. From it, they can judge for themselves your
knowledge of the law, your open-mindedness, and your honesty.

A fairly involved discussion can be had about all the complexities of the
regulations under Section 861 and the predecessor statutes and regulations
(regarding "statutory groupings," "operative sections," "allocation of items
of income," "classes of gross income," etc.). I could ask dozens of
reasonable questions, and-—based on my past experience with you-—I expect
you would respond with dozens of evasions. That may seem a bit harsh to
some who read this, but your response to the one clear example below will
tell them if I am being unfair in my treatment of you.

WHAT YOU THINK:

You claim that Section 861 shows the domestic income of most Americans to be
taxable. You cite 861(a)(3) (and the related regulations at 1.861-4) which
discuss compensation for services performed in the United States, and claim
that such compensation is taxable for EVERYONE because of the wording of
Section 861 of the statutes. I assume you would make the same claim
concerning the other items listed in 861(a), such as interest on domestic
investments (861(a)(1)), dividends from domestic companies (861(a)(2)),
rentals of property located in the U.S. (861(a)(4)), etc. You also claim
that, even if the regulations under Section 861 did exempt the domestic
income of most Americans (which you deny that they do), the statute takes
precedent and such a regulation would be irrelevant. (If you think I have
mischaracterized your position, let me know.)

WHAT THE REGULATION-WRITERS THINK:

The predecessor to the current Section 861 and following was Section 119 of
the 1939 Code, and both the House and the Senate (in their reports on the
1954 IRC) stated that "no substantive change [was] made" when 119 became 861
and following. Section 119(a) from 1939 was almost identical to the current
861(a). Here is part of what that STATUTE said:

"Sec. 119. Income from sources within United States
(a) Gross income from sources in United States.
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources
within the United States:
(1) Interest - Interest from the United States, any Territory, any political
subdivision of a Territory, or the District of Columbia, and interest on
bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing obligations of residents, corporate
or otherwise, not including... [exceptions omitted]"
[Section 119, Internal Revenue Code of 1939]

I assume that you would claim that that statute (just like the current
861(a)(1)) means that interest from domestic investments-—with a few rare
exceptions-—is taxable for EVERYONE. Granted, based on that STATUTE alone,
that is an easy impression to get. However, here are the REGULATIONS which
were written to implement that part of the statutes (emphasis added):

"29.119-2. Interest.
There shall be included in the gross income from sources within the United
States, of NONRESIDENT ALIEN individuals, FOREIGN corporations, and citizens
of the United States, or domestic corporations which are ENTITLED TO THE
BENEFITS OF SECTION 251
  • , all interest received or accrued, as the case
    may be, from the United States, any Territory, any political subdivision of
    a Territory, or the District of Columbia, and interest on bonds, notes, or
    other interest-bearing obligations of residents of the United States,
    whether corporate or otherwise, except... [exceptions omitted]" [26 CFR §
    29.119-2 (1945)]

    (* One was only "entitled to the benefits of section 251" if most of his
    income came from federal possessions.)

    I have two simple questions about this:

    1) What on earth made the regulation-writers think that THAT is what the
    regulations should say (i.e. why did they put in the part about nonresident
    aliens and such, when the statute did NOT say that)?

    2) Why on earth did Congress APPROVE those regulations for twenty-some
    YEARS, thus giving them the "effect of law"*?

    [* - "Treasury regulations and interpretations long continued without
    substantial change, applying to unamended or substantially reenacted
    statutes, are deemed to have received congressional approval and have the
    effect of law." - U.S. Supreme Court, UNITED STATES v. CORRELL, 389 U.S. 299
    (1967)]

    What a strange "interpretation" of that statute, don’t you think? If
    Congress MEANT that interest from domestic investments was taxable for
    EVERYONE, why did the regulation-writers write THAT (shown above); what on
    earth possessed them to add in those others things, and why didn’t Congress
    complain about it, and make them change it?

    I know a few thousand people who would find that curious, to say the least.
    If you cannot answer the question yourself, I’m sure that as the leading tax
    reporter for the biggest newspaper in the country, you have enough
    connections to get someone from IRS counsel to answer it. Whatever answer
    you can give, whether with help from government officials or not, will be
    sent to my e-mail update list. If you choose not to answer, I will tell
    them that instead.

    Sincerely,

    Larken Rose
    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    http://www.theft-by-deception.com
  • Playing Against Cheaters (Part I)

    (originally launched into cyberspace on 01/30/2003)
    ---

    Dear List Subscriber,

    Once upon a time I played high-school football. (I was a mediocre
    second-string cornerback/safety, so don’t expect any impressive glory
    stories.) Every once in a while we’d hear rumors that a team we were about
    to play had a tendency to cheat. Last time I checked, the rules of football
    applied the same to BOTH teams in any game. But some teams ignored them
    whenever they could. (Gosh, I wonder what this could be analogous to.) The
    point is, you had to play differently when you knew the other side was going
    to cheat. For example, when you hear the whistle blow after a play, don’t
    relax yet because the cheaters like to make late hits. In theory there
    should be no need for having to know how to play against cheaters. In the
    real world, know it or you will get a knee in the crotch.

    The IRS "cheats." Constantly. It cheats in so many ways, on so many
    occasions, that going up against them and expecting them to play fair is a
    really bad idea. No doubt at least most of you have heard about some of the
    nasty things they do. You should be insulted, angered, and outraged about
    what they do, but you should NOT be surprised. The IRS is a team who
    cheats, and the refs almost always let them get away with. We have to
    combat the IRS KNOWING that they lie, cheat and steal constantly, rather
    than just playing by the rules and whining about it when they DON’T play by
    them. (That whining may be justified, but it doesn’t accomplish much.)

    The following link shows the testimony from a former employee of the IRS
    Collections Division to the Senate Finance Committee from a few years ago:

    http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.s
    enate.gov%2F%7Eenzi%2Fanon1.htm

    The whole thing is worth reading, but I’ll mention a few choice quotes here.
    First, here’s a quote that shows that this isn’t some "tax protestor"
    sympathizer:

    "Enforced collection of unpaid axes is a necessity. As a result, the danger
    of taxpayer abuse is both inherent and inevitable. Many taxpayers will feel
    they have been abused simply because they do not like the fact that they are
    being compelled to pay their fair share. We understand that "comes with the
    territory" when enforced collection of taxes is part of one's every day
    job."

    So this isn’t just talking about people not like having their stuff swiped.
    It’s something far worse. It continues:

    "[D]oes the IRS cover up occurrences of abuse? The answer is, yes! If the
    true number of incidences of taxpayer abuse were ever known, the public
    would be appalled. If the public also ever knew the number of abuses
    "covered up" by the IRS, there could be a tax revolt."

    This next comment confirms what I often harp on: you shouldn’t expect the
    IRS higher-ups, or Appeals, or any other part of the government, to actually
    make the IRS obey the law:

    "Why do we not know of these "covered up" abuses? The answer is simple. The
    IRS protects itself by management support of employee actions whether those
    actions are right or wrong. This acceptance of abusive actions by management
    is the root cause of taxpayer abuse."

    I’ve lost track of how many times some low-level IRS paper-pusher blatantly
    disobeyed a procedure or regulation that was SITTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM,
    saying that their bosses said that what they were doing was okay. (Right,
    Jerry?)

    "Sadly, some employees repeatedly do not follow proper collection policies
    and procedures and thereby repeatedly abuse taxpayers. There are several
    reasons why this occurs:…
    3. When management condones the abuse, the Revenue Officer believes the
    mistake is acceptable and is free to repeat the error again…
    5. Revenue Officers capitalize on the taxpayer's inherent fear of the IRS
    and the intimidation that they can inflict on taxpayers without any
    consequences for their improper enforcement."

    And further…

    "[O]ccasional frontline employee errors in judgement, violations of the
    Internal Revenue Manual and lack of understanding of policy statements are
    to be expected. However, what is not acceptable is frontline management
    support of these mistakes. What is unconscionable is upper management's
    support or tolerance of frontline management errors."

    The testimony includes a bunch of examples of routine law-breaking that the
    IRS engages in, such as:

    "When a levy is served prematurely, even when the IRS admits that the levy
    was improperly served, the routine IRS response is that when the taxpayer
    provides additional information, the IRS will "consider" releasing the levy.
    When the information is provided, the IRS adds insult to injury by not
    releasing the levy. The IRS cannot seem to grasp the concept that when it
    makes a mistake, it should reverse the error immediately, no matter what the
    consequence to the IRS."

    These are CHEATERS we are playing against, and we have to know that and act
    accordingly. And not just the low level, but the management and the
    LAWYERS.

    "A Revenue Officer, with IRS District Counsel concurrence, can serve what
    are termed, "nominee" liens and levies, against third parties whom the IRS
    "believes" are in possession of assets belonging to the taxpayer. The IRS is
    not required to provide documentation to the taxpayer… The IRS basically
    has the attitude "Sue us to prove that we are wrong.""

    I know this sounds familiar to many of you. Their standard approach to
    people who are showing them what the LAW says about what is taxable is: Well
    we disagree (but we won’t say exactly why), so cough up the cash, and if you
    want to then sue for a refund, you can do that. Ain’t that nice? Here is
    another fine example:

    "I have witnessed Collection Division Branch Chiefs, Assistant Division
    Chiefs, Division Chiefs, Problem Resolution (PRO) employees, and even an
    Assistant District Director, violate or ignore Internal Revenue Manual
    procedures and Treasury regulations simply because they wanted to punish a
    taxpayer."

    Say it isn’t so!

    "I have seen more violations of IRS procedures and policies than I can
    count."

    Yeah, me too.

    "The most appalling aspect of the foregoing examples is that in most every
    instance, IRS management supported the erroneous actions of the Revenue
    Officer."

    Got it? They have APPROVAL from above to be law-breaking thieves. Don’t
    forget it, and don’t expect anything different. Well, at least we have
    other offices that are supposed to stop such nasty abuses! They will save
    the day!

    "The Problem Resolution Office (PRO) is responsible for protecting the
    taxpayer from IRS abuse. But having appealed many taxpayer abuses to the
    PRO, I have found them to be utterly useless."

    Oh well. Guess not. In case you wonder why, you might like this:

    "PRO employees are typically Revenue Officers who came from Collection
    Division and who may very well return to the Collection Division after
    spending some time in the PRO."

    Sort of like having all the cops in your neighborhood be former carjackers…
    soon to return to that line of work. Does that make you feel secure? Some
    additional interesting testimony comes from the former official historian
    for the IRS, which can be seen here:

    http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.s
    enate.gov%2F%7Eenzi%2Fdavis.htm

    She spells out how the IRS illegally destroys tons of records about what it
    has done, so there is no paper trail to prove guilt. She goes so far as to
    say that "[t]here were virtually no records of IRS actions throughout the
    twentieth century in any of the repositories where one would normally find
    federal records," including in the National Archives. When she filed a
    complaint about it, the IRS did their usual retaliation routine against
    "whistle-blowers" (falsely accusing her of various things, threatening to
    arrest her, etc.). I like this summary she gives: "In essence, the response
    of the IRS to question about anything and everything is, "Trust us. We're
    doing the right thing. We just can't tell you what that is because we're
    protecting American taxpayers." And here’s another juicy tidbit:

    "As taxpayers, why would we ever question the one agency that can truly bite
    back? Our fear of suffering a personal attack from the IRS generally keeps
    most of us in check. Our fear of being audited has allowed the IRS to
    theoretically eliminate any potential smoking guns by trashing its own
    records. This ensures that it can never be held accountable for its actions.
    How can you prove any wrongdoing when the evidence is already destroyed?"

    Come to think of it, I can’t think of ANY case I’m familiar with where the
    IRS obeyed the law, and I don’t even mean correctly determining which income
    is taxable; I mean even the basic procedural stuff. They lie, cheat and
    steal in almost everything they do. A letter I sent to John Ashcroft a
    while back summarizes some of the institutionalized injustices. Here is the
    link for it:

    http://www.theft-by-deception.com/declaration.html

    In my own case, just off the top of my head, here are a few things they did:

    * They "lost" my amended returns (claims for refund) THREE TIMES, though
    they were all sent via certified mail (so I can prove they received them).

    * They stonewalled for two YEARS trying not to give me the Examination
    meeting.

    * When I said I would represent my wife, they LIED and said I couldn’t.
    Even after I showed them their own Treasury Circular 230, and after they
    accepted the Power of Attorney giving me the right to represent her, they
    STILL illegally tried to talk to her instead of me (for the intimidation
    factor… which failed anyway).

    * Despite being given the questions in advance, they could not state the
    specifics of their OWN position. (That by itself is only mildly annoying.)
    But then they REFUSED to send the issue for "technical advice," even after I
    cited their own manual telling them it was required.

    * They then BYPASSED my right to appeal their refusal to request "technical
    advice," even after I gave them a copy of the regulation REQUIRING it (26
    CFR § 601.105(b)(5)). (I filed a complaint to TIGTA about this; TIGTA
    referred it back to the local office, and there was never another peep about
    them doing anything about the complaint.)

    * They eventually sent out a formal denial (at the Examination level) of my
    claims for refund, WITHOUT ever addressing the issue or stating the
    specifics of their own position (despite promising that they wood).

    * After I requested appeals consideration, the Examiner said that Appeals
    REFUSED to hear the case, alleging that I was refusing to comply with the
    tax laws based on moral, religious, Constitutional or similar grounds.
    (Anyone who is familiar with my case knows that that accusation is idiotic.)
    The Examiner ignored my inquiry about WHO at Appeals had made that decision.

    That’s where my claims for refund stand. Keep in mind, it is now almost SIX
    YEARS since those claims were filed. That is how long they have been
    dragging their feet, and I have yet to see anything resembling "due
    process."

    The point is, they cheat. They cheat to get people’s money. They cheat to
    get injunctions to shut people up. They cheat to avoid having to process
    claims for refund. I’ve watched a whole lot of individuals and
    organizations play the game by the IRS’ rules, and then be shocked when the
    IRS (and the courts) didn’t play by the rules. I hope by now most (if not
    all) of the people on this list understand that the rules DO NOT MATTER to
    the other side, as long as the higher-ups APPROVE of the law-breaking (which
    is almost always). They don’t CARE what the law says, if they don’t think
    there will be PERSONAL consequences for their actions. They know the higher
    ranking thieves approve of their tactics, so they keep doing them. This is
    true of the IRS paper-pushers, of their managers, of the Appeals Division,
    of the supposed "taxpayer advocate" offices, of the Tax Division of the DOJ,
    of the Tax Court, and of the real courts. (The Tax Court is a glorified
    administrative hearing, not a Judicial Branch court.)

    If you think being right about the law will stop the IRS, think again. If
    you are focusing on some administrative or judicial remedy to obtain
    justice, don’t get your hopes up. In short, if you plan to play by THEIR
    rules, and agree to accept whatever THEIR "referees" say, you might as well
    give up now. Send them all your money. Send them your kids. Bow down and
    kiss their feet.

    If that’s not for you, then get ready to play like we’re PLAYING AGAINST
    CHEATERS. Because we are.

    (The follow-up to this message, hopefully tomorrow, will discuss an
    anti-cheater game plan.)

    Sincerely,

    Larken Rose
    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    http://www.theft-by-deception.com