Main menu

Expertise On Display

(originally launched into cyberspace on 04/26/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

The following link is to a story about Ed Brown, which also
mentions me. All in all, I'd say the reporter actually REPORTED
things in this case (imagine that), instead of just parroting
government officials. (Be sure to copy the entire link into your
web browser to make it work.)


Some have asked whether I think what I did was worth it, and in one
sense, I don't (as the article states). I don't believe that trying
to protect the property and freedom of the American people was
worth what I put my family through, mainly because at least twelve
Americans (and they probably represent a majority) obviously didn't
WANT me trying to stop the government from defrauding them. I stood
up for the truth, and did the right thing, and the unthinking
sheople put me in a cage for it. If I sound a tad bitter, it's
because I am. For those of you who want the truth, I will continue
to spread it. For the rest, "crouch down and lick the hand which
feeds you; may your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen."

But the main thing I wanted to mention from the article were the
comments of a Michael Mello, a CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR at
Vermont Law School. He was quoted as saying the following,
concerning what the judge in Ed Brown's case allowed as evidence:
"I don't think he was required to let in any evidence about why
they believed they weren't required to pay their taxes. That's not
something that the government had to prove as an intent element."

This is a CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR. Those of you at all familiar
with the concept of "willfulness" know that his statement couldn't
possibly be any more incorrect than it is. State of mind, or
intent, is an ESSENTIAL element of "willful" tax evasion and
failure to file. As far as I can tell, in Ed and Elaine Brown's
case--just as in mine--"willfulness" was the ONLY issue in
question, as their not filing and not paying was no secret.

In THE governing case on "willfulness" (Cheek v. United States, 498
U.S. 192 (1991)), the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that
"a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates
willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding
is objectively reasonable." So why did a CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR
not know this? And why did he spout off, on the record, without at
least looking it up? Probably because he suffers from the delusions
of adequacy so common among self-proclaimed "experts": he thinks
his CREDENTIALS give his opinion value, whether it's backed by any
evidence or not.

Once again, the "experts" demonstrate absolute ignorance of the
law. And we're supposed to defer to THEM in deciding what is true
and what is not? Speaking of which, I'll shortly be posting some
comments about the radio show debate between myself and another law
professor, Jonathan Siegel.


Larken Rose

Happy National Perjury Day! (from Tessa)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 04/16/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Today is the day when millions of Americans commit perjury. Most
of them do it by “cheating” on their tax returns, misrepresenting
facts in order to keep more of their hard-earned money, and then
signing, under penalty of perjury, that those facts are true. This
is ultimately good for the government because guilty people are
quiet and subservient, wanting nothing more than to go unnoticed.
If these guilty people include judges, lawyers, and jurors, then so
much the better; the corruption of the justice system only makes
the IRS more invincible.

Others, like me and Larken, commit perjury openly under direct
threat of imprisonment, swearing that our nontaxable income is
taxable. Filing correctly, according to the best of our knowledge
and belief, would land us in jail for a long time. How many
others, I wonder, are swearing that their nontaxable income is
taxable to avoid the trouble that we have experienced? From my
perspective, this does not seem like a bad choice. Why take the
high road when it’s so long, so expensive, so lonely, and in the
end you are betrayed by the very people you set out to save?

I believe there is a very important place for people who want to
avoid trouble, and that place is on juries. Cleverly disguised as
brainwashed sheep, educated people who know the meaning of the
words “reasonable doubt” can get onto juries and aquit people.
Because judges and prosecutors collaborate to misuse the federal
rules of evidence and keep all exculpatory evidence out of court, I
believe that a reasonable doubt exists in every single federal
case. In tax cases, there is also conflict of interest for the
judge and the lawyers on both sides.

Marcie Brooks, the heroine juror in the Whitey Harrell case who
appears the movie “America: Freedom to Fascism,” demonstrates the
power of one juror. I wish that she could have been there for me,
and I wish that I could be there for someone else. But because of
the path I’ve taken, I will never get onto a jury again. I urge
others to accept if they are called. And when you sign that tax
return that you know is a lie, think of yourself as an undercover
agent for freedom.

Tessa Rose

Saturday's Show

(originally launched into cyberspace on 04/12/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

This Saturday morning, from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. (Eastern time),
I'll be doing a debate-style show with Jonathan Siegel (law
professor at George Washington Univ), whose attempts to refute the
861 evidence I've discussed before. After the show intro, we'll
each have a chance to give a little statement, followed by a debate
segment, followed by fielding questions and comments from anyone
who wants to call in.

The web site of the show is and you can
see their blog set-up, their visitor poll, and other stuff there.
For those unable to listen live on Saturday, I've been told they
also have a podcast at:

The call-in number for the show is (904) 266-1320. I'm hopeful that
this will be one of those very rare opportunities to have a civil,
rational discussion with someone from the "other side."


Larken Rose

Should be Interesting

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

Dear Subscriber,

As many of you know, getting anyone from the "other side" to
rationally discuss the 861 evidence has been like pulling teeth.
(They tend to fling out a few assertions, a barrage of insults and
threats, and then refuse discussion.) Well, one of those rare
opportunities will occur this coming Saturday, when I will be
debating Jonathan Siegel, law professor at George Washington
University, regarding the 861 evidence. Here is the web site:

Tune in, and I think you'll see why the other side doesn't usually
invite discussion on the topic.


Larken Rose

Support Our (Other) Troops

(originally launched into cyberspace on 04/06/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

The following was forwarded to me to post to this list. It's from
Dr. Tom.

- ------------------< begin quote >----------------------

Donna and I are overwhelmed by the kind donations and words of
encouragement. It is very hard to have been beat up as we have, but
there are some fundamental issues "cooking" in the appeals court
that will help everyone in the near future. At least, that is what
I hope. I would appreciate letters from anyone, as it makes what I
am going through less lonely. The address is:

FCI Satellite Camp
Tom Clayton, Reg# 06269-078
P.O. Box 629
Bastrop, TX 78603

- -------------------< end quote >-----------------------

(Among other annoying restrictions during my "supervised released,"
I'm not allowed to write to Tom, so I hope you'll all do it for

Speaking of appeals, in case I haven't mentioned it before, my
appeal was filed many months ago (by a well-known, very competent
attorney), and the back-and-forth motions have all been filed. At
some point (not now) I'll explain the main issues of the appeal, or
maybe post the entire appeal somewhere. For now we just have to
wait for the court to get around to hearing the case, which will be
months from now.

As for Dr. Tom, I think it's time again to all send a little help
his family's way. Even having been on the inside, I know how easy
it is to forget about the political prisoners who are paying the
price for telling the truth. Who wants to think about that? It's
discouraging and frustrating, and it's not like we don't have
expenses and troubles out here, right? We're all trying to make
ends meet. (Tessa and I still have about an $80,000 penalties-and-
interest "end" that needs meeting, which would be bad enough if we
legally OWED it...but I digress.)

If your car needs a $200 repair, you just grumble and pay it,
right? When your washing machine dies completely, you curse it and
then buy another one. We all have lots of unavoidable expenses, and
so things that are optional we often ignore. "I can't afford it."

This morning Tom Clayton woke up in federal prison, as he has done
for many mornings, and will do for many more. I know him, and I
know that today he will wonder how his family is doing, how they
will get by, as he has done for many days, and will do for many
more days. Personally, having been there, I don't consider helping
his family to be an optional expense. It is just one of the costs
of living in a not-so-free country.

Once again Tessa and I will be throwing $100--which we "can't
afford"--their way. Again, $100 isn't worth bragging about. I
mention the amount only to illustrate that $100 is either a whole
lot of money, or hardly any, depending upon how you look at it. If
you ask me, it's hardly any, when used to help out the family of
one of the most principled people I've ever met. If you feel that
way too, then by all mean pay your "political prisoner bill," and
send a donation (made out to "Donna Clayton," not Tom) of whatever
you can afford (or whatever you can't) to the following address:

Donna Clayton
202 N Vesper Bend Circle
The Woodlands, TX 77382

History is full of people who were persecuted for standing up for
the truth, who were later vindicated...a few hundred years later. I
hope (and I expect) that Dr. Tom will be vindicated a lot more
quickly than that, but in the meantime, let's do what we can to
help make things a bit easier on him, whether it be in the form of
words of encouragement to him, financial help for his family, or


Larken Rose

Botched it Up

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

Dear Subscriber,

Wow, I botched that up good. Let's try this again: Tessa and I will
be on Peter Mac's new radio show this Saturday, 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
Eastern time (noon to 2:00 Central). I gave the wrong time before.
You can listen live by going here (look for the "Listen Live" link
in the upper left):

While I'm at it, for those who asked, below is a "snail mail"
address where I can be reached. Be warned, however, that whether
it's via e-mail or snail mail, while I try to read everything I
get, I don't have time to respond to it all, so please don't feel
offended if you get a delayed response or no response at all.


Larken Rose
Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006