Main menu

If I were them...

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/16/2003)
---

Dear List Subscriber,

I often write about how I think WE should do things in an effort to get the
truth out about the "income tax" deception. But in coming up with
worthwhile tactics, it's just as useful to look at the "chess board" from
the other side--what is THEIR best move (and how should it be countered)?
This message is about what I would do if I was the U.S. Minister of
Propaganda (and didn't mind lying, cheating and stealing). The following is
written from that perspective, regarding the best way to HIDE the truth
about the income tax.

-----------------------------------

First and foremost, do not let the issue reach the level of a rational,
national discussion. Use any distraction, intimidation, vilification,
mischaracterization, or obfuscation possible to avoid that. If the issue
even looks remotely debatable to the general public, the game is over. (The
resources are simply not there to try to forcibly collect money from
100,000,000 people who feel no obligation to pay up.) There are several
tactics that must be employed, all at once on different fronts. Here are a
few pointers:

Vilify anyone who questions the conventional wisdom. Paint them as scam
artists, law-breakers, and generally unpleasant people. Use envy whenever
possible. Pick a few examples, ones easy to vilify, and put them front and
center in the debate. (Present these people as representing ALL of your
opponents.) Point out the RICHES of these people; focus not on the issue,
but on how these "scam artists" are making MONEY off of the issue. Talk
about their expensive cars, houses, etc. Make the common folk resent them
for their wealth. Cause divisions by portraying the "examples" as being
rich because they didn't pay their "fair share," in contrast to the "honest,
law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes." (This also strengthens the
assumption that the question is about whether people should pay "their
taxes," not whether they actually OWE the tax.)

Use guilt by association whenever possible. Do not address any argument as
if it deserved a rational response, whether it has merit or not.
Characterize any issue with a similar sounding "punchline" as "one of those
tax protestor arguments." The general public will be unable to distinguish
the truth from the garbage, and so can easily be led to view ANY who
question the conventional wisdom as "those law-breaker tax-protestors."

Find the WEAKEST opponent, and put him on a pedestal. Find one or two who
use theories easy to disprove, and portray THEM as the best the other side
has to offer. Don't hesitate to GLORIFY them to a certain extent, as "one
of the leaders of the tax resistance movement." Set them up, and knock them
down. Focus on those who are easy to paint as charlattans. If you cannot
deter all public attention away, then focus public attention on their
WEAKEST link, portraying it as their "best shot."

Frame the debate as this: On this side, we have the learned, honorable
public servants, just urging people to be good, law-abiding citizens who pay
what they owe--and on this side we have the tax cheats, whose arguments have
been struck down over and over, and who have either been IMPRISONED before
(e.g. Irwin Schiff), or are now being PROSECUTED (e.g. Lynne Meredith).
Present THEM as the loyal opposition, as they are easy to refute, and to
hold up as examples of "here's what happens to you if you resist." (This
has a significant effect, even if some spectators think the "examples" might
be correct. "What's the point, if I'll go to jail for saying it?") By the
same token, AVOID addressing the issues as academic debates; speak in terms
of "ARGUE THAT AND YOU'LL GO TO JAIL." (The implication is that "resistance
is futile," whether it is correct or not, "so why bother looking into it?")

There are a few things that may go contrary to instinct, but which are the
wise choice. For example, LET these "examples" make their case, at least to
some extent. Allowing their incorrect theories to be stated publicly again,
followed by a reciting of how many people have GONE TO JAIL for arguing such
things, is much more effective than censoring them. (This also gives the
impression that you are generously allowing the other side to have its say,
while you are actually doing anything possible to silence those who
understand the truth.) Giving THEM "air time," while DENYING air time to
those who actually make an argument that matches what the law says, will
teach the public that "this is the best they have."

In fact, even knowingly allow those "examples" to have their followings.
Occasionally send one of their followers to jail, as an "example" to show
everyone else. The number of their followers will remain relatively
insignificant, and they can be used as guinea pigs from time to time to keep
everyone else in line. They will also usually be groups that are easily
stereotyped as right-wing, mentally-unstable zealots. (When one of them
acts that way on his own, don't interrupt; show it to the world; have THAT
be the image that everyone associates with "not paying your taxes.")
Conversely, NEVER EVER be caught in public having a rational discussion with
educated, well-spoken, and rational-looking people. You CANNOT WIN such a
debate. For anyone who fits that description, find ANYTHING you possibly
can--or just make something up--that will bring into question his character
or respectability.

Another counter-instinctive method to use is NOT to publicly try to debate
the substance of those who rely on the law itself. However good you think
your rebuttal might sound, if you lead the public to the SUBSTANCE of the
issue at all, you will be inadvertently leading a certain segment of the
population to the truth. Of course, NEVER publicly mention the actual names
of the web sites, videos, etc. that explain what the law itself says. Do
not show the public where to get the other side; give them only YOUR
"version" of what the other side thinks.

NEVER portray the substantive issues as even debatable. Use every
derrogatory insult you can think of (i.e. "scam," "bogus," "frivolous,"
"ridiculous," "nonsensical," etc.). The more reasonable the explanation,
the more UNreasonable you have to portray it. One convenient tool to use is
the fact that the old-school tax protestors often go out of their way to
bash those who actually understand the law. Spin it as "even the well-known
tax protestors say that THAT issue is hogwash."

In addition, by all means muddy the waters. Make ALL opposing views look
like one big, undecipherable and nonsensical mess. Make it look like no one
on the other side agrees with anyone else. Intentionally mischaracterize
positions. For example, when dealings with those who rely on what the LAW
says about which income is taxable, accuse them of arguing that wages aren't
income, or that only foreign income is taxable, or that the tax is
unconstitutional, etc. The vast majority of the public will be unable to
distinguish one argument from another; it will become one big unintelligible
mess that they will choose to avoid.

Never underestimate the power of blatantly lying, provided you do it
carefully. As long as you can later say "well what I meant was..." feel
free to either "spin" things to the extreme, or blatantly lie. Say the
Supreme Court has ruled against the 861 evidence. It's a blatant lie, but
when someone calls you on it, say that what you meant was the the court has
upheld the tax as constitutional. Of the very few who will ever know you
lied the first time, only a handful will see through such a
"bait-and-switch" tactic.

Dodge substance, and display credentials. The public worships credentials,
no matter how baseless the claims of the people who have them. A
particularly good example is federal judges. The public have the general
impression that "rulings" by judges must be the result of objective, well
thought out reasonings (though this belief has been somewhat weakened by a
few ridiculous rulings recently). It doesn't matter how low the level of
the court, or whether the "ruling" is legally binding on anyone, or how
baseless the "ruling." Saying "the Tax Court has ruled that 861 is
frivolous" will sway most of the people most of the time; they will never
bother to look up the cases, or look into the substance of the issue. If
they believe that "authority" has spoken, most will back off.

Likewise, use conventional wisdom like a club. History shows quite well how
the masses will cling to what "everyone knows," and can easily be made to
ridicule, despise, and even attack anyone who says something contrary to
what "all the experts" say. It also helps to portray the issue as beyond
the grasp of the general public, and this is particularly easy regarding tax
law. Do not even bother to try to explain the SUBSTANCE to the public;
always talk as if they, the mere peasants, can't possibly understand and so
they should always ask a "reputable tax professional" what the law means.

Do not fight everyone who opposes you. USE them. For example, all those
people arguing about the 16th Amendment are an ASSET to the deception, not a
liability. (The same is true of the followers of countless other theories.)
Their stated goals may sound bad to you, but what they actually ACCOMPLISH
is very useful. They are the absolute BEST distractions from the truth,
because they do not come from us; they come from those who are allegedly our
opponents. (Heck, if you can get away with it, FUND them.)

There is NO BETTER TOOL to preserving the conventional wisdom about the
income tax than the "tax resistance movement" itself. Keep it alive, and
even put it center stage, whenever the TRUTH threatens to drown out all the
incorrect theories and arguments. There are plenty of "untax gurus" whose
personal income matters more to them than the truth, and they will willingly
(and for free) act as the biggest NAYSAYERS of those who understand the law.
Again, there is no better weapon, because those who hate the tax will view
those people as their ALLIES, not their enemies. They will trust them, and
you can use that trust to obfuscate the truth, at least from those most
vehement about defeating us.

------------------------------------

Okay, now I'm out of evil, power-happy authoritarian thief mode. I'm
betting some of you were angered by some of what I said. And I KNOW that
those who want the truth hidden delight in your anger. You are their best
weapon.

Governments have understood propaganda for thousands of years. These days
(when a bunch of people have access to firearms), MOST government power is
the result of propaganda, rather than brute force. Those who do not
understand the game, no matter how noble and brave they are, can easily be
twisted into being pawns of the ENEMY, without their knowing. Are you one
of them?

Here's a hint: if you respond to what I say, or what the government says,
with mere EMOTION, you are a tool to be used by anyone who understands the
game. If you respond with THOUGHT, you can defeat those who would use you.

You can BELIEVE, and FEEL... and be a mere playing piece. Or you can
UNDERSTAND, and THINK... and right this wrong. Pick one.

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. Don't bother sending any angry letters to me about the above message.
They will only tell me that you are a pawn, easily manipulated and dragged
about by your emotions. Getting emotional might help you win a tug-of-war,
but it will make you lose a game of chess.)

What a Find! (oops!)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/14/2003)
---

Dear List Subscriber,

First, I just made a great find!... on my own web site. Oops. (That shows
how organized I am.)

A bunch of people have had trouble finding the cross-reference from 61 to
861. There are two obstacles to doing that: 1) it's NOT in the
cross-reference found in the TEXT of the statute at 61(b)--it's in the
cross-reference usually found after the amendments, and; 2) it has been
removed (along with all other editorially-supplied cross-references) from
the GPO printing of the code since 2001.

Anyway, the "find" (on my own site) was a page that has a few scans which
may come in handy, including scans of the cross-reference in the three main
printings of the Code (USC, USCA and USCS). (See, I didn't just make it
up.) There are a couple other relevant scans there. Here is the page:

http://www.taxableincome.net/exhibits/

-------------------------------------

In other news, some people have wondered (out loud) if my web site will be
the next shut down, or whether my video will be banned. Fear not.

First of all, on the legal front the feds have no leverage to shut me down
(and they know it), because I go out of my way to NOT tell people what to
actually DO about their alleged taxes, except that I tell them to determine
what they owe based entirely on the LAW ITSELF (what a scofflaw I am, huh?).

As most of you know, they once STARTED to try the "abusive tax shelter"
accusation on me, and we had a meeting about it. To those who haven't read
about it, it's a fun read, especially the meeting transcript. Here's the
link:

http://www.taxableincome.net/extortion/thugs/silence.html

(I haven't heard a peep about it since 10/18/01.)

So their "legal" ability to shut down my site is next to nothing. But if
they DID fudge the law enough to try it, it would fail anyway. (Notice I
don't expect the "law" to protect me.)

A bunch of people across the country back up my whole web site on a regular
basis, and can immediately put up "mirror" sites (exact copies on other
servers). Furthermore, I can immediately hand off ownership of my sites to
other people who are waiting in the wings. The same is true of the video;
there is a line of people who automatically acquire the copyrights to it if
anything happens to me (death, injunction, prosecution, whatever). There
isn't a thing they can do to silence this. (Gotta love that internet... and
they hate it.)

They can only get injunctions prohibiting certain INDIVIDUALS from doing or
saying things; they cannot ban a video or a web site. If they ever stopped
ME from saying what I say (and they won't), they would have to do the same
to several THOUSAND others, one at a time, to accomplish anything. It ain't
gonna happen.

-------------------------------------

In other other news, a couple people may have concerns about being on this
update list, since the government has demanded that Thurston Bell turn over
his client list (and they wonder if something similar might happen to me).

Fear not. First of all, you aren't my clients. Notice I don't tell you
what to do about your alleged taxes (to the annoyance of many of you).
Subscribing to a discussion list is not the same as paying for tax advice
services. They have no legal leg to stand on to get this list.

But perhaps more importantly, I don't HAVE the list of people subscribed. I
could get it if I wanted, but I don't have it. (I could also delete the
whole thing from where I am, if I ever felt the need, which I doubt will
ever be the case.) The list is maintained elsewhere, and the feds would
probably never want it, and they sure won't ever GET it. I'm not going to
let them harass YOU just for looking into the issue. (I find it sad that in
this "free country" we even have any reason to be worried about receiving
information.)

------------------------------

Finally, a bunch of you have asked for David Cay Johnston's e-mail address.
I doubt it will do any good saying anything to him (since he considers THE
LAW ITSELF to be "irrelevant minutia"), but I'm not going to hide it from
you. Here it is:

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

The truth goes marching on.

Sincerely,

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

"Reporting?" Hardly.

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/13/2003)
---

Dear List Subscriber,

From time to time I like to prod the other side's propagandists, to find out
their current psychology, level of panic, etc. No publication better
represents the mainstream media than the New York Times. (Many other
mainstream papers simply cut and paste NYT stories, without bothering to
confirm any of the facts.) And no "reporter" (and I use the term loosely)
has written more about 861 in the New York Times than David Cay Johnston.
From past experience, I already knew Mr. Johnston to have a selective
memory, reporting things he had every reason to know were utterly false. So
I don't expect him to become honest or informed, or to change his tune, but
I did want to get an example to show to YOU folks, which illustrates what
we're up against in the mainstream media.

The following is a letter I just wrote to him, in response to some comments
he made via e-mail to a few people:

-------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Johnson,

Here is some evidence that is inconvenient to your agenda. I expect you to
pretend you never saw it (as you have done with other "inconvenient"
citations I have provided to you).

> DCJ wrote:
> Mr. Bell told the court that his argument
> rests on the regulations which implement
> Section 861... Regulations are written by
> government agencies to implement the laws
> that Congress passes. A regulation cannot
> itself make new law. A regulation cannot
> undo what Congress has done. All a
> regulation can do is IMPLEMENT what the
> statute says... Now to believe what Mr.
> Bell says one would have to believe that
> the IRS's own lawyers drafted regulations
> that exempted most of the wages paid in
> the United States from tax.

After all this time, after all your reporting on this issue, have you really
done that little research into the substance of the issue? I guess your
hunger for truth stops where the truth might jeopardize your comfortable
beliefs.

Your argument is rather odd, in that it seeks to IGNORE the regulations
under Section 861, under the claim that they cannot change the underlying
law. Who is suggesting that the regulations are inappropriate? You seek to
dismiss out of hand decades of regulations because you just want to look at
the STATUTES. In case you were not aware of this, those regulations, having
remained substantially unchanged for decades, are considered to HAVE THE
FORCE 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."
[United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967)]

Oops. But you'd rather not address the regulations, so you dismiss them all
as if they don't matter. (And apparently you don't bother to ponder WHY the
regulation-writers would write such things.) They are the OFFICIAL Executive
Branch interpretation of the law. The IRS is bound by them. If they DID
improperly limit the application of some statute (which is not at all the
case with 861), they are still binding on the IRS until THROWN OUT by a
court of law (not until thrown out by a reporter). Have they been? No. So
they are still binding on the IRS, and still act as our official
notification of what the law requires (under the Federal Register Act). Yet
you want to brush them all aside, and replace them with YOUR incorrect
reading of the statutes. Exactly where did Congress delegate to YOU the
authority to interpret the statutes? You apparently think that YOUR reading
outranks the reading of the IRS regulation-writers. (That makes you a tax
protestor in my book.)

> So, since Section 861 itself makes all
> wages earned in the US subject to tax
> whether paid by a domestic company or
> a foreign company the regulations
> cannot undo that.

Have you noticed that IRS Chief Counsel does NOT argue what you just
claimed? If your interpretation of the law is correct, why does the IRS not
respond with an enthusiastic "YES!" every time someone asks if they should
use 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 to determine their taxable domestic
income? Why do they instead try so hard to DISTRACT from those sections, if
those sections say that the income of most Americans is taxable? Don't you
find that odd? Or do your reporter instincts not get curious about things
which might endanger your beliefs and your agenda?

Below is the EVIDENCE showing that your conclusion is dead wrong. I expect
you to ignore it.

If you bothered to actually pay attention to the substance of the issue, you
would know that the current Section 861 and following came from Section 217
of the Revenue Act of 1921. (Treasury Decision 8687 shows that the Treasury
Department still refers to the 1921 statutes to decide what CURRENT
regulations should say.) Have you seen that section? Obviously not, and you
have obviously not watched "Theft By Deception," or you would not want to
hang your hat on 26 USC § 861(a)(3). (Again, I would point out that what you
are saying is NOT what the IRS lawyers argue.)

The predecessor STATUTE to Section 861--since you like statutes so
much--said that in the case of nonresident aliens, foreigner corporations,
and U.S. ctizens and corporations who receive most of their income from
federal POSSESSIONS, certain types of income (such as compensation for
services performed in the U.S. and interest from U.S. investments) was to be
treated as income from sources within the United States, and was to be
included in full as taxable income (the term then was "net income") from
sources within the United States. Any third-grader could see that the
section was NOT saying that MY "compensation for services performed in the
United States" was taxable.

So when did the drastic change occur to this section of law, Mr. Johnston?
When did it expand to suddenly cover the domestic income of most Americans?
Was it in 1939, when the STATUTE dropped the phrase saying who it was about,
but the wording of the regulations--regulations which received the APPROVAL
of Congress--remained the same? Was it in 1954, when Congress said the
application had NOT changed? When was it? I think even you would admit that
the 1921 statute (Section 217) did NOT say my income was taxable, whatever
you want to believe some other section might have said. So if you believe
that 861(a)(3) says that MY income is taxable, I want to know WHEN that
rather significant change occurred.

You have plenty of connections inside the IRS. Why not get THEM to answer
this, for the public good? Why not ask THEM to put in writing the answers to
the first two questions of Operation Honest Inquiry? You obviously think the
answers should be "yes" (use 861) and "yes" (it shows our income to be
taxable). Ask the IRS lawyers why they won't say that in writing. I don't
suppose your reporter instincts find it odd that in my own case, after the
IRS examiners ADMITTED they couldn't answer my questions, they then said
that IRS District Counsel had instructed the examiners NOT to send the issue
to the lawyers. Why weren't the lawyer eager to make the argument you just
made? Why are they so eager, despite what the regulations say in plain
English (see 26 CFR § 1.861-1(a), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a), 1.863-1(c)), to
distract people away from Section 861, if (as you claim) it shows most
domestic income to be taxable anyway?

While government officials continue to froth about the issue being
"frivolous," people by the hundreds are examining the EVIDENCE for
themselves, and finding the exact opposite. Your argument shows that after
all this time, you still have not bothered to examine the substance of the
issue. You can parrot the government disinformation line all you want (or
make up your own line, which CONTRADICTS the government's position, as you
are doing now). The fraud is still doomed.

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. Please pass on this message from me to your IRS and DOJ buddies: I
DARE you lying thieves to prosecute me.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is the response I got back from Mr. Johnston.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Rose,

How interesting that when you are faced with a set of facts that you dislike
you turn to an ad hominem attack. It looks like Larken Rose is not one to
let facts get in the way of his theories.

As I have told you before, if any judge ever rules that you are right I am
sure it will be Page One news. Meanwhile, your note shows that you continue
to focus on irrelevant minutia and to ignore fundamentals of law. So let's
go through the facts that matter that you digress from:

1. Mr. Bell conceded that his position rests on the regulations, not the
statute itself.

2. A regulation cannot undo a statute.

3. For the regulation to do what Mr. Bell and you claim it would have to
undo the statute by creating a tax exemption for wages that Mr. Bell
conceded to the court does not exist in the statute.

4. The judge found that no such exemption exists and he called Mr. Bell's
arguments "nonsensical."

5. Even if the regulations DID create the exemption that you and Mr. Bell
claim then any judge who agreed with your interpretation would no doubt rule
that the regulation is invalid. Why? See # 2 above, a regulation cannot undo
a statute.

6. Based on fundamental principles of law every appeals court judge
reviewing such a decision would uphold it because a regulation cannot trump
a statute.

7. However, if there is no exemption created by the regulation, which is
what Judge Conner ruled just as a growing number of judges have in unrelated
cases, then of course the regulation would stand.

That's why I call all of the minutia you sent irrelevant. You digress into
all sorts of irrelevant minutia, but fail to keep your eye on the ball.

Did you sleep through both Logic 101 and basic algebra, Mr. Rose? Or do you
just willfully blind yourself to facts that are inconvenient to your cause?

The ball is this:

Mr. Bell has undone the 861 position with his own words. And all the minutia
you throw up on the Internet cannot undo this simple fact: Mr. Bell and your
versions of the 861 position are based on the regulations saying something
contrary to what the statute says and a regulation cannot undo a statute.

But as I said, if any judge ever finds that there is even a scintilla of
merit to the 861 position I am sure it will be news and if he finds that you
are right I am positive it would be front page news in every newspaper in
the country. And if that ever happens I will report it without fear or
favor, just as I have all along.

Meanwhile, ad hominem attacks reflect poorly on your character.

The fact is that yet another judge has found that the 861 position is
nonsense and to anyone who actually understands how law works that is no
surprise.

David Cay Johnston
Reporter
The New York Times
(from home)

P.S. Another simple fact you keep getting wrong. Your email misspelled my
name.

But more to the point -- there are a growing number of judges up to the
Circuit Court of Appeals who have rejected this argument. There is not a
single judge anywhere who has found a scintilla of merit to your claims.
-----------------------------------------

And here is my second (and final) response:

-----------------------------------------

DCJ wrote:
> Mr. Rose,
> How interesting that when you are faced
> with a set of facts that you dislike you
> turn to an ad hominem attack.

And what "facts" would those be, if you don't mind pointing them out to a
"tax cheat" (who you would of course never personally attack)?

> As I have told you before, if any judge
> ever rules that you are right I am sure
> it will be Page One news. Meanwhile,
> your note shows that you continue to
> focus on irrelevant minutia and to ignore
> fundamentals of law.

The LAW ITSELF is now "minutia," and your provably false claims about how
the regulations don't matter is "fundamentals of law." Interesting.

> So let's go through the facts that matter
> that you digress from:

Let's.

> 1. Mr. Bell conceded that his position
> rests on the regulations, not the statute
> itself.

And did he say the statutes were WRONG? If so, he was incorrect. The
regulations clarify the proper meaning, scope, and application of the
statutes. That's what they're for.

> 2. A regulation cannot undo a statute.

Correct. Who is suggesting that it can, or that it did?

> 3. For the regulation to do what Mr. Bell
> and you claim it would have to undo the
> statute by creating a tax exemption for
> wages that Mr. Bell conceded to the court
> does not exist in the statute.

Thank you for telling me what I claim. However, you're dead wrong (again).
The statutes and regulations match precisely. You didn't bother to learn how
Subchapter N works, so you read 861 out of context. Tell me, using the EXACT
SAME LOGIC, do you not conclude that 862(a)(3) shows the income of most
people in China to be subject to the U.S. income tax? It doesn't SAY that
income is exempt, does it? Be careful; you wouldn't want to argue that the
general rules in 861 and 862 might not be the end of the line in determining
what is taxable.

> 4. The judge found that no such exemption
> exists and he called Mr. Bell's arguments
> "nonsensical."

Yes, he said that. It's wrong, but he said it. The regulations do NOT creat
the exemption.

> 5. Even if the regulations DID create the
> exemption that you and Mr. Bell claim...

The regulation does not create the exemption. If Mr. Bell said it does, he
is incorrect. The regulation SHOWS what is taxable, and correctly reflects
both statutory and fundamental law.

> ...then any judge who agreed with your
> interpretation would no doubt rule that
> the regulation is invalid.

You're the only one I know of even hinting that the regulations MIGHT be
inappropriate.

> 6. Based on fundamental principles of
> law every appeals court judge reviewing
> such a decision would uphold it because
> a regulation cannot trump a statute.

No kidding. If Mr. Bell thinks that a regulation "overrides" a statute, he
is incorrect. I certainly have never claimed such a thing (despite various
attempts by the IRS to mischaracterize the issue). The statutes and
regulations are in perfect harmony. (If they weren't I expect Congress would
not have approved them for more than 80 YEARS in a row.)

> That's why I call all of the minutia you
> sent irrelevant. You digress into all
> sorts of irrelevant minutia, but fail to
> keep your eye on the ball.

Thank you for doing exactly what I said you would do: ignore evidence that
doesn't fit with your agenda. You dismiss 80 YEARS of statutory and
regulatory history--i.e. the LAW ITSELF--as "irrelevant minutia." You don't
even bother to make a PEEP about them, because they blow to hell your
ignorant claim that 861(a)(3) means that MY income is taxable. (Again, the
IRS lawyers are smart enough NOT to make such a claim, but you don't find
that odd.)

> Did you sleep through both Logic 101 and
> basic algebra, Mr. Rose? Or do you just
> willfully blind yourself to facts that are
> inconvenient to your cause?

I just quoted a nice collections of legally relevant statutes and
regulations, showing the proper scope of Section 861. In your response, you
cited ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with any legal weight. Then you accuse me of being
blind to the facts. I notice that you didn't answer my question, so let me
try again, and make it even simpler:

1) Did Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921 show the domestic income of
the average American to be taxable?

2) Has the scope of that section significantly changed between 1921 and the
current Section 861 and following?

3) If you answered "yes" to #2, please point out where and when it changed.

> Mr. Bell has undone the 861 position
> with his own words.

While I suspect you misquoted him (since I've seen you misquote both of us
repeatedly), what Mr. Bell said does not change the LAW. (I think even you
would agree with that.)

> And all the minutia you throw up on the
> Internet cannot undo this simple fact:
> Mr. Bell and your versions of the 861
> position are based on the regulations
> saying something contrary to what the
> statute says...

Thank you for that incorrect "fact," but the regulations do NOT contradict
the statutes. I just gave you CITATIONS (which you ignored) which help show
why the current regulations are absolutely correct about which domestic
income is taxable, and which foreign income is taxable.

> But as I said, if any judge ever finds
> that there is even a scintilla of merit
> to the 861 position I am sure it will
> be news and if he finds that you are
> right I am positive it would be front
> page news in every newspaper in the
> country. And if that ever happens I will
> report it without fear or favor, just as
> I have all along.

Remember you said that. I will. (You seem to suffer from a logical disorder
that most lawyers suffer from: the idea that what the law itself SAYS means
nothing until it is blessed by someone with a robe and a gavel.)

> Meanwhile, ad hominem attacks reflect
> poorly on your character.

You are not a "reporter," as your above comments prove. You dismiss THE LAW
ITSELF as "irrelevant minutia," and cite COMMENTARY about the law as "fact."
If my pointing that out is an "ad hominem" attack, then so be it.

> The fact is that yet another judge has
> found that the 861 position is nonsense
> and to anyone who actually understands
> how law works that is no surprise.

Thank you. I feel enlightened now. If not for you, I never would have known
that 80 YEARS OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY HISTORY is "irrelevant minutia";
what the LAW ITSELF says does not matter; what some judge asserts does. I
must not have been paying attention when they taught me that in school.
Shame on me.

Larken Rose
--------------------------------------

His response was one sentence, basically saying he would care when a judge
rules in our favor. Still no answers.

Above is a great example of why you must examine the evidence for yourself.
The mainstream press is obviously beyond lazy; they are downright dishonest.
To put it nicely, they will report what fits their "perception" of things.
What that really means is: they will report only what doesn't endanger their
career and reputation. Mr. Johnston gave a fine example, by referring to an
explanation based on the INCOME TAX STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THEMSELVES as
"irrelevant minutia." Notice he never answered the question; it was too
inconvenient. He didn't seem to mind that the IRS is NOT arguing what he is
arguing. So long as the conclusion is "conventional wisdom is right," he
doesn't much care how he gets there.

There's no need to have tantrums at Mr. Johnston, and since he dismisses
CITATIONS OF LAW (not to mention Supreme Court rulings saying that
regulations CAN have the weight of law) as "irrelevant minutia," what would
you want to point out to him anyway? He is not worth debating, and his
agenda will not change, at least not until a significant percentage of the
populace knows the truth.

But he does give a good indication of where the other side's propaganda
machine is at. Once they step into specifics, they are sunk. Several
thousand people who watched Step Six of "Theft By Deception" carefully will
know that Mr. Johnston hasn't done his homework, that he fell for the
cover-up (hook, line and sinker), and will understand why the IRS lawyers do
not dare share his lame reliance on 861(a)(3). The more we get into the
specifics, the more the fraud is doomed. So the most well-known "reporter"
on the subject, writing for the biggest newspaper in the world, dismissed
the SPECIFICS IN THE LAW as "irrelevant minutia." They have no other
choice. The devil is in the details.

Sincerely,

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

A Test...

(originally launched into cyberspace on 1/12/2003
---

Dear List Subscriber,

The New York Times will report tomorrow that a judge has signed an order
enjoining Thurston Bell from assisting people with tax matters. I have not
seen the actual order yet, but it sounds like not only will Mr. Bell be
silenced, but the court is trying to require him to publicly post, on his
own site, a statement saying that his conclusions are incorrect. So not
only do they want us censored; they want to force us to blatantly LIE in
their favor. "Just kneel, kiss the ring, and swear allegiance to the King,
and your death will be quick and painless." Welcome to the land of the
free.

I'll have more to say on this soon, but tonight I'd thought I would put this
test before you (at least for those somewhat familiar with the issue): Does
this news affect your own conclusions about the accuracy of the 861
evidence? If so, then your conclusions were a "belief," rather than an
UNDERSTANDING. If that is the case, your conclusions will flop around which
ever way the wind blows. If you have the EVIDENCE, threats and orders of
people wearing the mantle of "authority" will do NOTHING to sway your
conclusions, if they are not accompanied by actual EVIDENCE.

If the news of Mr. Bell being silenced makes you rethink practical or
tactical matters, that's understandable. If you were hoping that the system
would do the right thing, now you know better, and you can plan and act
accordingly. But if you will now bow and kiss the ring, swearing allegiance
to the royal lies and intimidations, then you should do more learning and
less believing.

Is this a major set-back? For a whole lot of people relying on NITE to help
them through the IRS' maze of procedural garbage, yes. But in the long run,
this will NOT slow the demise of the fraud. Again, if you are looking for
those in power to give it up without a fight, just because you asked nicely
and rationally, think again. That is absolutely contrary to the nature of
"government" and "authority." If you view the courts as the final judge,
you should have given up ages ago (as I've said before). But despite what
the status quo proponents would have you believe, the "system" is NOT the
final arbiter. YOU ARE.

When the British troops tried to disarm the colonists at Lexington, do you
think the colonists were SURPRISED when the British troops fired on them?
"Oh goodness me, they SHOT at me!" That's what governments ALWAYS do when
their power is in danger. Why would anyone be shocked that the U.S.
government is viciously trying to shut down anyone who mentions 861. What
should we expect? "Well gosh, since you put it that way, I guess we HAVE
been defrauding you your whole life! Sorry about that." Is there any hint
anywhere in history that ANY power structure would EVER act like that? Of
course not. Look what they have to lose. Of COURSE they will do everything
they can to silence those who are saying things that endanger their power.

Consider this event a test of the knowledge and determination of those who
would resist tyranny. Do we buckle now, because another mortal with a gavel
was convinced to say "frivolous" and censor one of us? I won't. How about
you?

More on this tomorrow.

Sincerely,

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

A Frivolous Summary

originally launched into cyberspace on 01/12/2003
---

( Note: This didn't turn out as short as I was hoping, but I highly suggest
reading it all anyway if you want a crash course in the 861 evidence. Also,
feel free to distribute this however you see fit. - Larken Rose )

-------------------------------------

Dear List Subscriber,

Today (1/12/03) the New York Times is gloating over the fact that a federal
judge in Pennsylvania has signed an order silencing Mr. Thurston Bell and
his web site (www.nite.org). The order also demands that Mr. Bell publicly
say (on his website) that his conclusions are incorrect. (Apparently
censorship was not enough; they demand that he now spout the "royal
rhetoric.")

Various government officials have made the accusation that the issue Mr.
Bell addresses is "frivolous," completely without merit, "nonsensical,"
contrary to established law, "absurd," and even "stupid." (Interestingly,
several of the officials who have made such comments were appointed by the
man who is best known for the line, "I did not have sex with that woman.")

The claim is not simply that Mr. Bell, and others who have reached the same
conclusions, are incorrect; the claim is that their conclusions are so
completely baseless and idiotic, that it's okay--or even necessary--to
silence them using the force of law.

(Based on the same claim, the IRS nationwide refuses to discuss the
substance of the issue, refuses to send the issue to their lawyers for an
official ruling, and refuses to even process many tax returns which mention
the issue, sending out threats of penalties instead.)

In light of today's "report" in the New York Times, I thought this would be
a good time to put together a relatively brief summary of this "frivolous"
and baseless "argument," that has no support in the law. So here goes:

--------------------------------------

The income tax is imposed upon one's TAXABLE income, and nothing else.
(Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes the tax on the "taxable
income" of individuals, and Section 11 imposes it on the "taxable income" of
corporations.) Every tax professional knows that NOT all income is taxable,
and that only someone who has TAXABLE income can possibly owe the tax. Here
is how the tax professionals determine what is taxable:

Section 63 of the income tax statutes generally defines "taxable income" to
mean "gross income" minus deductions. Section 61 generally defines "gross
income" to mean "all income from whatever source derived," and it includes a
list of some of the more common items of income, such as compensation for
services, interest, rents, etc. There are other sections of the statutes
which say that certain types of income (such as gifts, life insurance
proceeds, income of state governments, etc.) are exempted from the tax. But
other than those specific exceptions, the so-called "tax experts" conclude,
based on the general definitions mentioned above, that the income of most
Americans is taxable.

-------------------------------------------------------

So far we have not seen anything "frivolous"; all of the above is agreed
upon by the status quo tax preparation industry.

But there is a slight problem. You see, according to those general
definitions (found in Subchapter B of the income tax statutes), the income
of several BILLION people is subject to the U.S. income tax. The general
definitions above make the income of a Chinese man in China look just as
taxable as the income of the average American. The general definitions say
nothing about who is receiving the income, or where the income is coming
from; they do NOT limit the tax to those inside the United States.
Obviously Congress did not try to tax everyone on the planet, though you'd
never know that from looking at the general definitions above.

If not for another part of the law--Subchapter N of the statutes--there
would be NO limits on who could have taxable income, and from where.
Subchapter N is entitled "Tax based on income from sources within or without
the United States." As the title implies, this is the part of the law that
specifies when income from inside the U.S. is taxable, and when income from
outside the U.S. is taxable. Sure enough, Part II of Subchapter N shows
that nonresident aliens (which would include all the Chinese people living
in China) are only taxed on income which either comes from the U.S. or comes
from doing business within the United States (see 26 USC § 871). This of
course QUALIFIES the general definitions of "gross income" and "taxable
income," and shows that it is a mistake (at least in this case) to rely on
those general definitions alone.

Some tax professionals will know enough to say, "well if you're a citizen,
it doesn't MATTER where the income comes from; it's all taxable," and they
will point to Section 1.1-1(b) of the income tax regulations, which says
that citizens are liable to the tax, whether their taxable income is "from
sources within or without the United States." (Of course, that still
depends upon what income is TAXABLE income.)

But now we come to something they DON'T say; a citation that no court has
EVER mentioned, despite numerous citizens quoting it. No IRS form letter
addresses it; no DOJ "press release" mentions it; no government lawyer wants
to talk about it. When faced with it, most government officials respond
either with a blank expression, or some pre-fab line about it being
"frivolous." Keeping in mind that the tax professionals AGREE that citizens
are taxed on their taxable income "from sources within or without the United
States," here is what the legally-binding federal income tax statutes say:

"Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer's taxable income from sources
within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of
Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources
within the United States." [26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)]

Note: You can look up most of the citations mentioned in this article
(including the one above) on the government's own web site, here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/26cfr1v9_02.html

Since citizens are taxed on their taxable income "from sources within or
without the United States" (26 CFR § 1.1-1(b)), and the regulations plainly
say that should use the rules in 26 CFR § 1.861-8 and following to determine
their "taxable income from sources within or without the United States," do
the tax professionals use those sections?

Nope. "That's frivolous. It has no merit. It's been ruled against. Now
shut up or we'll shut you up."

You can't figure out what you owe until you determine your taxable income.
The above citation says where to go to determine your taxable income. The
tax professionals DO NOT DO WHAT THE REGULATIONS SAY. How curious.

Well, maybe we're missing something. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at
1.863-1(c), or maybe we're taking something out of context. Most tax
professionals will, in fact, claim that we have no business looking to
Section 861, or the related regulations, which would include 1.861-8, where
the above citation pointed us. So maybe we jumped the gun, and that section
is only to be used by certain people for certain things. Let's find out,
shall we?

"No! Just shut up and pay up, or else!"

Again, the general definitions of "gross income" and "taxable income" (26
USC §§ 61, 63) don't say anything about who exactly is receiving the income,
or where it is coming from. Since the above citation told us to us the
rules of 1.861-8 to determine our "taxable income from sources within or
without the United States," let's see how that section starts. Read it
carefully.

"Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United
States and from other sources and activities.
(a) In general--(1) Scope. Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms
how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United
States after gross income from sources within the United States has been
determined. Sections 862(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to
determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources without the United
States after gross income from sources without the United States has been
determined." [26 CFR § 1.861-8]

Looks clear enough. Sections 861(b) and 863(a) are for determining taxable
income from INSIDE the U.S., and Sections 862(b) and 863(a) are for
determining taxable income from OUTSIDE the U.S.

"NO! THAT'S FRIVOLOUS, COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT, AND THE COURTS HAVE
CONSISTENTLY RULED AGAINST IT!!! < froth, froth >"

Uh... but it's what the regulations SAY in plain English. Are the
regulations "frivolous"? Or is it just "frivolous" to BELIEVE them when
they contradict conventional wisdom? Again, let's make sure we're not
missing something. Here is an outline of 861 through 863:

Section 861: Income from sources within the United States
Subsection 861(a): Gross income from sources within United States
Subsection 861(b): Taxable income from sources within United States
Section 862: Income from sources without the United States
Subsection 862(a): Gross income from sources without United States
Subsection 862(b): Taxable income from sources without United States

Section 863 and its regulations deal with income that comes partly from
inside and partly from outside the United States (for example, if you had a
job where you would travel and do work in different countries), and gives
rules about how to divide up such income into "within" income and "without"
income.

All this matches the statement shown above, that says that "Sections 861(b)
and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a
taxpayer from sources within the United States after gross income from
sources within the United States has been determined," and that "Sections
862(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of
a taxpayer from sources without the United States after gross income from
sources without the United States has been determined." There's no hint
that most of us should just IGNORE those sections. In fact, under Section
61 itself (which generally defines "gross income" to mean "all income from
whatever source derived")=, the USCS and USCA printings of the tax code (and
the USC version up until 2001) even included cross-references such as these:

"Income from sources -
within the United States, see section 861 of this title.
without the United States, see section 862 of this title."

(The indexes of the code contain similar entries.)

The first section of regulations under Section 861 (namely, 26 CFR §
1.861-1) further elaborates on how to determine taxable income from INSIDE
the U.S., from OUTSIDE the U.S., and income from partly within and partly
without. Regarding income from WITHIN the U.S., it says that "The gross
income from sources within the United States, consist[s] of the items of
gross income specified in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income
allocated or apportioned to such sources in accordance with section 863(a),"
and then says that "The taxable income from sources within the United
States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting
therefrom, in accordance with Sections 861(b) and 863(a)," the allowable
deductions. (And the section then refers the reader to Sections 1.861-8 and
1.863-1, both of which are quoted above.) Again, that just reinforces the
citations shown above.

POINT #1: IS IT PATENTLY "FRIVOLOUS" TO BELIEVE THAT ONE SHOULD USE THE
RULES OF 26 USC § 861(b), AND THE RELATED REGULATIONS BEGINNING AT 26 CFR §
1.861-8, TO DETERMINE HIS TAXABLE DOMESTIC INCOME?

Various tax professionals insist that most people should NOT look there, in
spite of the above citations. Why?

"Those sections are only about foreign income."
"Those sections are only for foreigners."
"Those sections are only for those who have foreign AND domestic income."
"Those sections are only for those who need to allocate deductions between
domestic and foreign income."
"Those sections are only for people who need to determine the geographic
origin of their income."

Oddly enough, the tax professionals don't even agree with each other about
what the sections are for, and NONE of them agree with what the regulations
actually SAY the section are for. Where do they get the idea that most
people should ignore those sections? They get it from a false premise and
backwards logic.

As we will soon see, Sections 861(b) and 1.861-8 show various types of
domestic income (income from within the United States) to be taxable, but
NOT for the average American. "Everyone knows that most Americans owe the
tax, so if some sections (like 861 and its regulations) do NOT show that
income to be taxable, people shouldn't be looking there." THAT is the
"logic" of the so-called "experts." Your income MUST be taxable, but 861
and its regulations DON'T show it to be taxable, so you must be looking in
the wrong place. In other words, "that evidence doesn't lead to my
conclusion, so DON'T LOOK AT IT."

"THE COURTS HAVE RULED AGAINST THIS!!! PAY UP OR GO TO JAIL!!! < froth,
froth >"

If you DO look at those sections, and talk about them, and try to get open,
honest answers from your government about the issue, you will be vilified,
threatened, fined, accused of being a law-breaker, and possibly SILENCED BY
FORCE (as Mr. Bell has been). Nifty.

Some tax professionals will point out that 861 and following, and related
regulations, give rules about determining the geographic origin of income,
rules about allocating deductions, etc. They then make the flying leap that
those sections should be ignored for everything else. They simply refuse to
believe that those sections are to be used to determine your "taxable income
from sources within the United States," even though the regulation
specifically and repeatedly SAY that the sections do that (see 26 CFR §§
1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c).) Here is one
of the first things the Treasury Department ever said about Section 861 and
following:

"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]

Again, where does that say most of us should IGNORE those sections? If you
go back, and read ONLY the actual citations in this article (and skip my
commentary), how could any sane, honest person claim that it is not just
wrong, but patently "FRIVOLOUS" to think you should use 861(b) and 1.861-8
to determine your "taxable income from sources within the United States"?
Such an accusation is either the result of complete lunacy, or absolute
dishonesty. (Whether the judge in Mr. Bell's case was an idiot or a
criminal remains to be seen.)

Faced with all the citations above, occasionally a tax professional will
cave, and say "okay, maybe you SHOULD use those sections," but will follow
up with, "but they show your income to be taxable anyway!" And that brings
us to the second point. Having shown abundant reason why we should use
861(b) and 1.861-8 to determine our taxable domestic income, now we must see
what income those sections show to be taxable.

First, it should be explained that the income tax code does not just spring
out of nowhere each year. The tax code has been amended, complicated, and
expanded over the years, but the underlying tax has been in place for over
80 YEARS. The history of any given section can shed led on what the CURRENT
law means. For example, the recent Treasury Decision 8687 shows that the
regulation-writers refer to the 1921 statutes to decide what the CURRENT
regulations under Section 861 should say. In addition, according to the
Internal Revenue Manual, "The courts give great importance to the literal
language of the Code but the language does not solve every tax controversy.
Courts also consider the history of a particular code section..." (Internal
Revenue Manual, (4.2)7.2.1.1 (1999)).

So let us begin at the beginning, and examine where the current Section 861
came from. It came from Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921. At that
time, no one with even basic reading comprehension skills would think the
section was saying that the domestic income of the average American was
taxable. It said quite plainly that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the
case of Americans receiving most of their income from federal POSSESSIONS
(like Guam or Puerto Rico), certain types of domestic income were to be
included in full as taxable domestic income. That section unquestionably
did NOT say that the domestic income of most Americans was to taxable.

The section would later become Section 119 of the 1939 Code. By then the
STATUTE no longer said precisely WHO could have taxable domestic income.
The statute (which has remained the same since) just says which income
counts as income from "within," and which income counts as income from
"without." The statute didn't say anything about when such types of income
were taxable... but the related REGULATIONS did. Again, they quite plainly
showed that domestic income was taxable for foreigners, and for Americans
doing business in federal possessions. (See 26 CFR §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2,
29.119-9 and 29.119-10 of the 1945 regulations.)

Though the regulations underwent wording changes since then to make them
obscenely complicated and convoluted, the SUBSTANCE has not changed. The
general wording of the STATUTES of 861 and 862 still just give rules about
"within" and "without" (without saying WHEN such income is taxable), but the
REGULATIONS spell out when such income is taxable.

(Some now point to 861(a)(3), which addresses compensation for services
performed within the U.S., claiming that that would cover the income of most
Americans. Interestingly, IRS Chief Counsel, and most other high-ranking
government officials, do NOT argue this, because they know the history of
the section, and know that if they AGREE that we should be looking at
Section 861 at all, they are one step away from disaster.)

IRS form letters like to say that the "source" rules in 861 and following
are only about determining the geographic origin of income, and do not
exempt the average citizen's income from taxation. At least in one sense,
this is entirely TRUE. It is also a very lawyer-like response, since it
evades the question, and IMPLIES something false while saying something
true.

The current regulations still show that income from WITHIN the United States
is only taxable when it comes from the various specific activities listed in
26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1), which are all about certain types of international
or foreign commerce (including Americans getting FOREIGN income, and
FOREIGNERS getting income from here). While the path to that conclusion is
now somewhat muddled and twisted (see 26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1),
1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)), the history of the section leaves no room for
doubt: these sections do NOT say that the domestic income of the average
American is taxable.

POINT #2: IS IT PATENTLY "FRIVOLOUS" TO BELIEVE THAT 26 USC § 861(b), AND
THE RELATED REGULATIONS BEGINNING AT 26 CFR § 1.861-8, DO NOT SHOW THE
DOMESTIC INCOME OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN TO BE TAXABLE?

If the law specifically directs you to use certain sections (i.e. 861 and
its regulations) to determine your taxable domestic income, and those
sections do NOT show your income to be taxable, what should you conclude?
Here is what the Supreme Court says:

"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." [Gould v.
Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)]

Where in Section 861 or its regulations is it "specifically pointed out"
that your domestic income is taxable? Nowhere, because it ISN'T. But why
not? This couldn't have been an 80-year typo. We're not talking about a
mistake, or a loophole. It was written this way on purpose. So why didn't
they tax YOUR income?

The general definition of "gross income" found in the current regulations
defines the term to mean all income from whatever source derived, "unless
excluded by law." If you ask a tax preparer what that last phrase means,
you will almost always get an answer like this: "Well, some types of income,
like gifts and life insurance proceeds, are specifically exempted by other
sections of the code, but everything else is taxable." They have always
believed that the only income exempt for income tax purposes are the types
exempted by the statutes in the tax code. The current 26 CFR § 1.265-1
unequivocally shows that is INCORRECT. It makes the distinction between
income exempted by the tax code, and income exempted for income tax purposes
by "any other law." What other law?

Again, examining the history of the law sheds some light on the issue. The
older regulations defining "gross income" mentioned the types of income
exempt by statute, and then said that no OTHER types of income were exempted
from taxation, EXCEPT those types of income which were, "under the
Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government" (26 CFR § 39.22(b)-1
(1956)). That statement blows apart the entire false premise on which
almost every tax professional bases his conclusions: the premise that only
income specifically exempted by STATUTE is exempted from taxation. They
simply have no explanation for this.

Of course, we can't just GUESS at what is or isn't Constitutionally taxable,
and since the regulations raised the question, they would have to answer it.
They did. The regulations under the 1939 Code clearly said that Americans
MUST include income they receive from "foreign commerce," and that the
domestic income of foreigners and certain people doing business in federal
possessions are to be included (26 CFR § 39.22(a)-1 (1956)). (Note how that
matches exactly what the regulations under the predecessor of 861 said about
when DOMESTIC income could be taxable.)

"That's old. That doesn't apply anymore! Pay up or you're in trouble!"

Though the older sections are not still in effect themselves, they certainly
clarify the meaning of the CURRENT statutes and regulations. For example,
the CURRENT regulations say that the "items" of income listed in the general
definition of "gross income" (26 USC § 61), such as compensation, interest,
rents, dividends, make up "classes of gross income," which in some cases are
EXEMPT from taxation (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(3), 1.861-8(b)(1)). Again, no
court ruling, form letter, or government press release even MENTIONS those
citations, much less explains them. They just pretend they're not there.

Again, we cannot just GUESS at what is exempt, nor do we need to. The
regulations direct us to 1.861-8T(d)(2) which gives a specific list of those
types of income which are NOT exempt (in other words, the kinds of income
that ARE taxable). As in the older regulations, the list includes certain
FOREIGN income of Americans, and the U.S. income of foreigners, but does NOT
include the domestic income of the average American (26 CFR §
1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)). The "experts" have no explanation for this. They
don't know what that list is even for, or why YOUR income isn't on the list.
They can't explain it, so they ignore it. Better yet, they call it
"frivolous" to even MENTION it.

--------------------------------------------------

I won't bother here to get into WHY Congress had to impose such a limited
tax. That and a whole lot of addition evidence can be seen in the "Taxable
Income" report, available for free here:

http://www.taxableincome.net/report/index.html

(The same issue is explained, I believe in a more understandable manner, in
the video "Theft By Deception," which is available at:
http://www.theft-by-deception.com )

------------------------------------

Based on the explanation and citations above, is it not somewhat curious
that the government's response is almost always "THAT'S FRIVOLOUS AND
COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT!!"? If we're missing something, or there is some
other citation which would clarify or correct something, why not PRESENT IT?
Why are judges issuing injunctions against people, silencing them by force,
without ever addressing any of the SUBSTANCE of the above issue (and why is
the Department of "Justice" requesting such injunctions)? Why is there a
nationwide pattern of the IRS openly REFUSING to say what its OWN position
is on the points above? In the vast majority of cases, they won't SAY
whether you should use 861(b) and 1.861-8 to determine your taxable domestic
income, but they will try to FINE you for saying you should. Is that not
odd? Is that "due process"?

Never mind. I take it all back. A couple ex IRS agents, posing as "judges"
in the glorified administrative hearing now called "Tax Court" (whose
"rulings" are not binding on any court, or on the IRS, or on you and me)
have baseless asserted that the issue is frivolous. So it must be.
Evidence be damned. And a couple judges have issued injunctions, relying on
the assertions of the Tax Court "judges." Never mind that they can't figure
out the specifics of their OWN position. Never mind the piles of citations
supporting the issue, and the complete lack of contradictory citations. The
King has said that you pathetic peasants shall not speak of this. He has
decreed it to be frivolous. So shut up and pay up, or we'll fine you
thousands of dollars and silence you by force. Welcome to the land of the
free.

Sincerely,



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

Helping Political Prisoners

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/03/2009)

A few quick (but important) orders of business:

1) There was a time there when I couldn't access the info for
fulfilling orders for "Kicking the Dragon"
(http://www.kickingthedragon.com), due to a really stupid mess-up
(this one NOT my fault, for once). Thankfully, the problem is now
fixed, and I'm almost caught up again. If you ordered the book a
while ago and don't have your copy yet, I apologize, but now it's
on its way.

2) After much nagging from me, the donations have all been
collected for Dr. Tom's family, and the total ended up being well
over $6,000. So, way to go! The list of donors (by initials) is
attached at the end of this message. (Incidentally, that number
does not include the donations made directly to Dr. Tom's
commissary account, which I have no way to track.) All but a couple
thousand dollars have already been sent off to Dr. Tom's family,
and the rest will follow shortly.

3) The previous campaign to help out a political prisoner, that
time Sherry Peel Jackson, also seems to have helped, though I don't
know all the numbers. Again, Sherry and her husband, Colin, were
worried about losing their house. Well, the threat of that is not
so impending anymore. I'll shortly be forwarding a note that Colin
sent to me, to pass on to all of you. In the meantime, if you still
want to help them out (I know they still need it), you can do it
the old-fashioned way, by sending funds directly to this address:

Colin Jackson
1560 Fieldgreen Overlook
Stone Mountain, GA 30088

Or you can help them out WITHOUT spending anything you weren't
already going to spend. In short, whenever you're going to go
shopping online anyway, do it through the following link:

http://www.marketamerica.com/stronglife

That's all. You don't have to do anything else, or pay any extra,
and some of your shopping dollars (which you were going to spend
anyway) will end up helping out Sherry's family. Simple and
painless.

Once again, on behalf of them and myself, many thanks to all of you
who helped out Dr. Tom's family and Sherry's family. (And thanks
again to those who have continued to help out my own family, even
when I wasn't pathetically begging for it.)

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.kickingthedragon.com