Main menu

Facade of Legality

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

Dear Subscriber,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Larken Rose

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