Main menu

It Ain't Just the Money

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/14/2003)
---

Dear List Subscriber,

The U.S. government should not be taking a trillion dollars from the people
every year. I have believed that for ages, long before I knew anything
about tax laws. But today, that is NOT the point. When people want to
argue with me about how much the government "needs" to save us all from the
horrible dangers of life (most of which are exagerrated or just plain made
up by the government spin doctors), they are missing the whole point. What
government should "tax" from us is one issue; what they should STEAL from us
without any legal basis is another.

Should the government STEAL a trillion dollars a year? Should our "public
servants" DEFRAUD us (not tax us) of a trillion dollars a year? I would
hope that whatever government goodies anyone may want, they don't think it's
okay for the government to ignore its own laws and just STEAL it from us.

The money is not the whole problem here. It is something far worse. If you
are willing to let your kids inherit a country where well over HALF of what
they produce is taken by politicians, without putting up a fight, that's
pretty bad. But if you're willing to let your kids inherit a country
controlled by completely lawless thieves, then you should be ashamed of
yourself.

Either your income is taxable, or it isn't. The LAW is what determines
whether it is. If it IS taxable, there is still the moral question of
whether such a tax is morally, economically, and politically justified. But
if it is NOT taxable, then what? Then the first question is: should
government take from you (by force) money you do not owe? I hope no one on
this list would answer "yes."

But there is another question, the answer to which is even more disturbing
to me. If, after looking at the law itself, you find reason to believe that
you do NOT owe a certain tax, what should happen to you (in this supposedly
"free country") if you MENTION that conclusion? Even if your conclusions
are mistaken (but honest), should not the administrators of the law politely
discuss the issue? Should they not be able to point out where they think
you may be misreading something? Should they not ENCOURAGE such
discussions, and welcome a polite discourse to settle the matter?

"The Internal Revenue Service encourages the discussion of any Federal tax
matter affecting a taxpayer." [26 CFR § 601.501(c)]

Of course they should. Why write down the law if you cannot believe what it
says? Why have law-administrators if they aren't administering what the LAW
BOOKS actually say? And why even pretend to have "due process" if an honest
disagreement about what the law requires cannot be dealt with in an open,
civilized, non-threatening manner?

Let's suppose that you look at a few regulations (such as 26 CFR §§
1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c), etc.), and
based on their plain wording, you conclude that you should refer to Section
861(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the related regulations at 26 CFR §
1.861-8, to determine your taxable domestic income. Based on those sections
(which can all be found at the following link), is it not understandable
that many of us non-lawyer mere mortals would conclude such a thing?

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/26cfr1v9_02.html

Perhaps something else would indicate otherwise. Perhaps we are misreading
something. (Many of us know better, but just for the sake of discussion...)
Since there is obvious justification to SUSPECT that we should be looking at
861(b) and 1.861-8, what would the proper response of a legitimate
government be to such a claim? Well, here is what is very likely to happen
to you if you BELIEVE what their OWN LAW BOOKS say:

1) If you politely ASK the IRS or your congressman about it, your question
will probably be ignored entirely.

2) If you get any response, it will be a form letter which does NOT at all
answer the question, but which instead implies that you are a CRIMINAL, and
that you are arguing something "frivolous" (for asking a question). The
letter will also probably indirectly threaten you with fines and
imprisonment if you don't obey the law. (Again, in response to you asking
HOW to obey the law.)

Suppose you are radical enough to believe what the law books say, and file a
tax return, claim for refund, etc., mentioning it. (Keep in mind, it is a
CRIME to sign a return that you believe to be incorrect.)

3) Your return will probably get "lost," and they will act like you never
filed it. (This violates EVERY aspect of due process.) Either that, or
they will send you a letter, threatening to steal $500 from you if you do
RETRACT the return that you believe to be correct. (Amazingly enough,
sometimes they will pretend they never received the return AND try to
penalize you for sending it.) The penalty may soon be $5000.

But at least you have the right to due process, right?

4) If you ever MENTION that particular section of their OWN regulations,
they will openly (and illegally) try to deny you ANY due process hearings,
at Examinations or Appeals. If you mention THAT section, you have no right
to anything. You are a criminal. (This violates 26 CFR § 601.105, and
EVERYTHING they print in their "Publications" (e.g. 1, 5, 556, etc.) about
your rights.)

5) If you request that their lawyers address the issue (via "technical
advice") they will say they get to ignore those procedures as well, by
declaring your position to be "frivolous" (Revenue Procedure 2001-40).

6) They will issue a Notice of Deficiency, and tell you you can petition Tax
Court (where an ex IRS agent will play the part of "judge," and no jury will
be present). If you do, the Tax Court will steal up to $25,000 from you for
mentioning that section, and dismiss the case without ever answering the
question.

7) Luckily, you now have the right to a Collections Due Process Hearing.
Here is how it works: you will come ALONE, you cannot have ANY record of
what happens there, the Appeals officers will openly REFUSE to discuss
ANYTHING except your payment schedule. (This violates 26 USC §§ 6330 and
7521.)

(Note: if a new law proposed by Congress is passed (part of the Care Act of
2003), you will be fined $5000 for REQUESTING such a hearing, and of course
will be denied such a hearing. Funny how in 1998 they granted a right to
these hearings, and now want to effectively undo them by PUNISHING you for
requesting one if you MENTION a section out of their OWN law books. I
suppose it would be a little too embarassing for Congress to come right out
and say "Ya know those rights we said you had in 1998? Well, we decided you
don't deserve them after all." But in effect, that is EXACTLY what they are
trying to accomplish now through other means.)

8) Then they will steal your money, having NEVER answered your question,
never presented ANYTHING in the actual law contradicting the citations you
were relying on, and never giving you anything resembling an open hearing
with an unbiased officer presiding. (This violates the "due process" clause
of the Fifth Amendment.)

9) Suppose you think that's bad. Suppose you try to tell other people about
it. Then they will try to SHUT YOU UP by force with a court injunction.
Don't believe me? Check this out:

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

You can forget about that outdated little thing called the First Amendment.
THIS issue deserves no due process. You should be crushed by any means
necessary, denied all due process, publicly ridiculed, insulted, slandered,
threatened, and robbed. (Welcome to America.)

According to the Supreme Court, the issue addressed by the First Amendment
"goes to the heart of the natural right of the members of an organized
society, united for their common good, to impart and acquire information
about their common interests" [Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233
(1936)]. But hey, if the government REALLY doesn't like what you are
saying, forget it.

Somewhere buried in the Constitution, though I can't seem to find it, must
be the "frivolous" clause. It must say something like this: "if any
government bureaucrat asserts that a citizen's beliefs are 'frivolous,' then
all First Amendment rights to publicly discuss it, and all Fifth Amendment
rights to be afforded due process, are null and void."

The Supreme Court also said (in the same case cited above) that the evils to
be prevented by the First Amendment "were not the censorship of the press
merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent
such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely
essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights
as citizens." Apparently they overlooked the "frivolous" clause.

That case concerned a "tax" on newspapers in particular, similar to English
taxes which people had been fighting tooth and nail for decades. Their
complaint was not just that they didn't want to pay a tax. "The aim of the
struggle was not to relieve taxpayers from a burden, but to establish and
preserve the right of the English people to full information in respect of
the doings or misdoings of their government." Imagine that: people being
free to TALK ABOUT government misconduct.

Oops, the dang court keeps forgetting the "frivolous" clause. Once some
bureaucrat declares something to be "frivolous," ALL Constitutional rights
are out the window. Forget having hearings, forget discussing the matter
rationally, forget due process, and forget even being able to DISCUSS it in
public without incurring the wrath of the federal extortion racket.

"[S]ince informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon
misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a
free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern."

Why do you think the feds are publicizing the injunctions, the Tax Court
decrees, and the IRS and DOJ "press releases" which vilify, insult, and
threaten people who mention 861? They can't afford for this to be
DISCUSSED. They can't win the issue in an honest discussion, so they have
to do everything possible to PREVENT an honest public discussion. Is that
okay with you?

This is not just about the money. This is about whether we have the spine
to resist overt tyranny. If not, then the wealth of this country has been
wasted on undeserving cowards. If the American people are content to avoid
making waves, and ride the wave of prosperity caused by the freedom that
others FOUGHT AND DIED to achieve, then I am ashamed to be an American.

In the next two months (prior National Extortion Day, April 15th) we will be
launching major campaigns to publicize the truth. If you are willing to
help out (with time, effort, money, or whatever), please do. I will shortly
unveil a lot of the specifics of the game plan for this tax season.

The 861 evidence is a "nonsensical," "stupid," "frivolous," bogus "scam."
That's what several high-ranking government officials have said. So either
slink into submission, or prepare to fight back. Down the road you may have
to explain to the next generation the choice you make today. Do what will
make them proud of you.

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. If you want to help out financially, do NOT send money to me. Even if
I spent every dime wisely to help the cause, I don't like what it LOOKS like
to have a lot of money go through me. When we show the specific plan,
you'll see where you can send it, to directly help the different campaigns.)