Friday, August 12, 2005

Larken - Day Five

95 Old Comments:

There is no hope for this country. It was lost a long time ago. Larken is a hero on the order of any solder that has fought for our freedoms in any war! The verdict does not change the truth!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 12:43 PM  

I agree. There is no hope for this country because the average American has become so lazy and self-absorbed. Probably 50% of the "common knowledge" of the average individual is simply wrong - despite the subject. For example, the average person thinks that the rubber tires on a car will protect them from lightning strikes. WRONG! A couple inches of rubber cannot stop what several hundred or thousand of feet air cannot stop. Science has conclusively proven this, but that doesn't stop people from making this false statement nearly every day. So in some respects I can see how an ignorant jury whose only real care in life is going to work everyday and making money could buy the prosecution's arguments. They have been trained since birth to believe the government and to believe everything they see on the news. However, I personally would think that - right or wrong - Larken really believes what he believes. As such, I would have to find him "not guilty." But as the old saying goes, you don't find the truth in a courtroom. It is merely a stage play and the jury gets to pick which act they liked the best.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 12:53 PM  

I think there is still hope, but it will take yet a lot more effort, and many more heroes like Larken, to bring about the restoration of our liberty. The mere fact that this trial took place has raised awareness to some degree, and that can only help us.

By Blogger Sir Smarty Pants, at 8/12/2005 12:54 PM  

Another example of the ignorance of the people brought about by the NEA, government schools and TV. The elite are doing their jobs well; we must do better. We must put aside our internal differences within the truth movement, and focus on our differences with the criminal despots of society.

By Anonymous hank, at 8/12/2005 1:07 PM  

I still think that there's hope as well.

The problem is the lack of knowledge/information access among the populous.

I have the hope that, with the rise of the internet and its' increasing dominance as a news and information source, the truth will finally start making headway among the people.

But I am definitely a little depressed about the outcome today...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 1:10 PM  

That the verdict does not change the truth is right on. I say Larken should pay the @#**##@s, lick his wounds and then get back out and continue to spread the word. I will contribute $100 to help pay those taxes and keep him on the air so to speek. Anyone else want to chip in? Also can anyone tell me how people like Perlman and this USDA sleep at night?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 1:24 PM  

I can't get the audio portion to work on the blog. Please tell me what happened?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 1:27 PM  

I am simply devastasted. Since I was not there to hear the entire trial I can only say by listening to the posts that Larken was not criminally willfull. I can't see how the jury could have convicted him. I think it its time for another tea party. What is Larken facing as far as sentencing?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 1:33 PM  

What a bleak day for America -- and, obviously, Larken and family. However, this is not that large a surprise, given the way the court rules bind the defense. I *did* think the jury had paid enough attention in this case, from the commentary on this site, that they would be able to perceive the truth, but obviously that just was not enough to overcome the "baseball bat".

So... now we know that it is very hard to break through the prevailing paradigm in the mind of our fellow Americans. I already knew that, and you probably did too. So I don't think this truly changes much of anything, generally, with the exception of morale -- and *that* is something which *we* control... if we want to.

I suggest everyone focus on supporting Tessa now. We can hobnob about Larken and his case after that.

Re: Larken paying the "taxes" he "owes", I can't speak for him but I am sure he is reluctant to do that, since -- despite the verdict -- he has no liability for them in the law. That ol' bat has now come down on his head again, though, pretty hard this time, so it is up to him to decide if he now wants to say "5".

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/12/2005 1:38 PM  

Faith, Hope and Charity are excellent virtues to have and do, but let us not be naive. What we really need to do is work like hell really fast. The Internet is slated for wholesale censorship by the real evil doers. The income tax is headed for enhancements - sales tax, ftaa tax, global tax; the ss# and DL# is headed for enhancements - UNID, RFID; the right to bear is headed for criminal status. Where is your line in the sand?

By Anonymous hank, at 8/12/2005 1:41 PM  

Dark days are upon us when a jury is even presented with the opportunity to decide what a person may or may not believe, one way or another.

Furthermore, the IRS seems to have skated past yet another obstacle without being forced to explain Section 861. If it's frivolous, why is it in the IRS code at all?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 1:45 PM  

If Russia can't stand up to the U.S. government, I don't think us few patriotic souls have a chance. If I were a believer of the Bible, I'd say that the end times were here. South America is looking mighty nice about now. Attention all hands, abandon ship, before we go down with it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 1:48 PM  

No, do not abandon ship! America is still the greatest experiment in government that was ever on the face of this planet. And, she is worth fighting for. Although change is much needed, jumping ship now will simply delay or thwart that needed change. Keep your faith and your energy about you. All is NOT lost. The government may have taken the baseball bat to one citizen, but how many bats do they have? If just 1 million (< 1% of US population) of us chose to take Larken's route, the IRS would simply be overwhelmed and it WOULD get national attention. It may take many more fallen heroes before this fraud is over, but fight we must. The truth will eventually set us all free.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:00 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:07 PM  

Reading the quatloos site is really a drap, checked it out.
The people at Quatloos call Larken a "egomaniac" but in there posts they flaunt there ego and have rude remarks and have there own problems which they think Larken is guilty of.
Unfortunatly there are organizations like Quatloos, but lets not get down.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:07 PM  

I meant to say Quatloos was a "Drag", not drap :)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:08 PM  

The reason that the government won this case is that Larken left unrebutted the 1099's issued to him by third party payors. I used to follow Larken's and Thurston's info about 861 and was met with a stone wall and the position declared frivolous by the IRS. No refunds were ever received by me using this so-called evidence. Larken misunderstands the application of 861. The truth about the tax law is to be found in Peter Hendrickson's book "Cracking the Code, The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America." Go to www.losthorizons.com and you will find plenty of people who have received refunds of ALL their money (SS and Med as well) from the IRS and many states. This also includes employment taxes received by one business so far for two years worth of 941's AND the 940's too. Get Cracking the Code and read it. You will then understand how the government was able to win this one against Larken.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:14 PM  

Willfulness crimes have three parts.
1. There must be a clear duty.
2. The accused must clearly understand the duty.
3. The accused must then must fail to perform the duty.

Remove any single element and there is no willfulness crime.

If there is no clear duty, it is impossible to fail to do such duty.

As these trials are orchestrated, there does not need to be a clear duty. There does not need to be any duty. The jury only has to believe that some duty exists. This totally removes the lack of existence of such duty as a defense against willfulness.

Thus, if the jury believes that the duty is to; turn around three times; click one's heels together twice; while chanting "The Government is omnipotent"; at the first stroke of Noon, Monday through Friday, Holidays excepted; Then the failure of the accused to do such duty is a willfulness crime if the accused also believes the same.

In other words, the actual duty under law does NOT NEED TO EXIST.

A review is in order.

The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

The CONSENT of the governed. That would be those who must follow the LAW.

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution says, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The reality that the arrogant servants working in the 10 mile square have forgotten that as servants "THEY" do not have the power, "WE" do.

Powers granted are powers that can be REVOKED by The consent of the governed.

It has been said that the press is the "fourth estate". This is incorrect. WE are the fourth estate whenever WE sit on a jury.

When we sit on the jury, we have the power to consent or to not consent to the LAW. If we consent to the law, then we pass judgement of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The corruptness of the legal system is evident in the court cases where judgements have been made stating that the judges DO NOT have to inform the jury that THEY are the fourth estate. See http://www.fija.org/index.html

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/12/2005 2:14 PM  

I am a believer in the Bible, and the endtimes ARE here. However, just as with the tax issue in which the average person believes what the government tells them, most "religious" people believe what their organizations tell them. Thus, the Truth about the endtimes is shrouded in false talk about computer chips, "Left Behind," and other such un-Biblical teachings. Consequently, people are looking in one direction while they are being sucker-punched from another. The Bible does speak in Thessalonians about a "powerful delusion" that the world is given over to in the last days. Surprise, surprise...it's here! The people have been deludeded by the government, deluded by preachers, and deluded by many others into believing things that are not true, simply because they will NOT take the time to study things for themselves. As the Bible says, "...you are slaves to the one whom you obey." (RO 6:16)

Kind of like Larken in regard to taxes, I didn't start reading the Bible for myself until a couple of years ago. And boy was I surprised to find that modern "Christianity" doesn't exactly fit with what the Bible actually says. When I started comparing each teaching to what the Bible had to say, I found that many of them just didn't hold water. As a result, I now look at the Bible and Christianity in a whole new light - and now ask others not to judge a book by it's cover (or its supposed adherents) until they actually read it for themselves.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:21 PM  

Sonny, Everyone who was anyone in the bible went to jail or was in captivity for a time. Some even killed. In order to be called a Christian you must endure some persecution during your lifetime.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:31 PM  

"In order to be called a Christian you must endure some persecution during your lifetime."

I think that may very well be the stupidest thing I've ever read. Your faith makes you a Christian...period.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:35 PM  

If Larken has to file, he should read Pete Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" (www.losthorizons.com) and file the way described there.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:41 PM  

I'm not surprised. Not even a little bit. Walk into the star chamber and you put yourself into their purview. What did he expect? They didn't prosecute him because they thought they were going to lose.

Tessa will probably get far worse treatment and you can be sure, the Arthur will not prevail.

Fish in a barrel.

For what?

Do a Google Search for "Larken Rose" - you'll find nothing except for two items in News printed by a patriot writer. Mumia Abu Jamal can get more press and he's already convincted.

By the end of the day all the news wires will have their story.

Who kept the media quiet all week?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 2:59 PM  

Where were the legal scholars and constitutional scholars to testify on behalf of Larken's behalf?

There were none, because he was simply wrong, as the jury decided.

The rantings of the lunatic fringe doublewide crowd doesn't change the fact that Larken is now a convict, just like so many others in the TP movement (Schiff and Clarkson, for instance).

Oh, well, the TP idiots will move off of 861 and adopt some other equally stupid argument next, just like they did after Phil Marsh died in prison.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:04 PM  

"I Am The Light of The World" - John 8:12.

That's the bottom line.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:08 PM  

We are now reaping the rewards of a populace educated primarily in the puhblick skoolz. I would bet that the majority of that jury knows who Britney Spears' hubby is, but wouldn't know a right if it bit them in the butt.

That the judge is now apparently attempting to "motivate" Larken to file evidences that he is not an impartial arbitor of the trial, but a participant in the attempt to squelch him. He is similar to the magistrate depicted in "Braveheart" who gave Wallace the opportunity to "swear allegiance to the crown" (read: publically abandon all he has fought for) in exchange for a swift death (vs "purification through pain"). Or like when cardinal Cajetan demanded that Martin Luther recant his writings under pains of penalty for heresy (read: burn at the stake), Luther replied that if any man can show his errors based upon the scripture, he himself would be the first to burn his own writings.

What did these historical figures do? Would history have remembered them if they had done the opposite?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:11 PM  

How long will Larken get?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:17 PM  

It is almost impossible to win against the government. First you have governments courts that select the jury pool. You have government judges, government rules, government prosecutrs.

The judges allow the prosecuters almost unlimited liberty to submit any kind of degerotary evidence, regardless of if it is related to the trial. The judges prevent the defense from presenting most evidence its favor. They want let the jury hear the law. The juries in addition to being selected for the government court selected pool are intimidated by the court. The government can rely on the media to present only its side. We have government schools that indocternate instead of teaching. And it goes on and on.

My only hope is an economic colapse, and that may be impossible because technogoly is advancing faster the the inefficiencies caused by the government.

By Anonymous DC Wornock, at 8/12/2005 3:21 PM  

Should Larken acquiesce...
(to accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively -- often used with in and sometimes with to
synonym see ASSENT for all you public schoolers out there)

...and file the past years taxes in exchange for "lighter sentencing or probation" would that affect any appeal opportunity (read Supreme Court one day))??

Just curious, whether that might wipe out the "final" appeal afforded us by the Constitution, the foundational law?

By Anonymous Deconstituting, at 8/12/2005 3:22 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:24 PM  

Please correct me if I am wrong here..did the judge in his instructions to the jury state

"if you have income, you have to file";

If this is a verifiably incorrect statement and the jury relied on it to convict Larken. Dosen't this void the conviction?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:27 PM  

The hope will not come from more "heroes" like Larken. Larken is a martyr, not a hero. A hero remains to do more heroic acts, a martyr is forever removed from the game. I hope Larken is able to appeal, but this movement must stop challenging the government on their own turf. These are kangaroo courts, not purveyors of justice. We must step up the media campaign online and elsewhere to generate real interest in average Americans. Getting our asses handed to us in court one-by-one isn't going to solve anything. We must generate a real movement and then act in unison... something which cannot be ignored or brushed aside.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:28 PM  

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:28 PM  

Last Friday morning I nailed Jesus to a cross. In the afternoon, we buried him. On Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, there are witnesses who will testify that they saw Jesus alive, and well with no wounds.

Prosecutor, what charges if any will you bring against me?

Christians offer nothing to Larken's defense except useless words.

It pisses me off to hear them quote their IRS manual.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:29 PM  

From what I've heard posted on this blog, it looks to me that what you have here is a directed verdict.

First, the judge and the prosecution together prevented Larkin from putting on any really effective defense by carefully limiting what he could present.

Second, The "Judge" in his instructions to the jury essentially TOLD them Larkin was guilty by telling them his interpretation of the law and that they had to accept that. (A blatant violation of his Oath of Office.)

The prosecution set the jury up to swallow all of that in final rebuttal (people can't interpret the law) and the sheeple, when it was reinforced by the judge, bought it.

Everything else was window dressing.

www.jail4judges.org is an idea whose time has arrived.

I urge you to support the SD initiative with all of the ability and resources at your disposal. It could be our last chance to return America to Liberty short of armed rebellion.

http://www.southdakotajudicialaccountability.com/index.htm

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:29 PM  

WE ARE DOOMED. LARKEN ROSE GUILTY ON ALL FIVE COUNTS. Now the IRS has a case they can quote from, MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR THE REST OF US. Well, it looks as though the 861 did not fly in Philly and now won't fly anywhere else. The whole case started to fall apart when Larken decided to represent himself. First, Jurisdiction should have been challenged. This is a Federal case and there must be a FEDERAL jury to fill these seats. They are not likely to find a large pool to choose from. Second Jury instructions should have been drafted in a manner limiting Judge intrusion. Choosing the right pool of jury is the most important part of a trial.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:36 PM  

""Second, The "Judge" in his instructions to the jury essentially TOLD them Larkin was guilty by telling them his interpretation of the law and that they had to accept that. (A blatant violation of his Oath of Office.)""

Ok, I agree that the judge's interpretation is dead wrong if not criminal...now show us how to go after this judge for his blatant violation...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:38 PM  

It seems that most of the thoughts about the verdict are completely missing the point. The trial had NOTHING to do with whether Larkin's interpetation of the IRC was correct. It was about whether Larkin BELIEVED his interpetation was correct. That is THE LAW. It is just as much of the law as any of the other laws, whether we agree with it or not...whether we agree with a person's interpertation of it or not. Anyone with a brain knows that Larkin believed what he stated. Therefore, for a jury to conclude that Larkin didn't believe what he was saying is tatamount to complete and total stupidy of THEIR responsibility to FOLLOW THE LAW regarding willfulness. So, who is really the criminals in this case.....I submit that the jury is for NOT following the law. The Larkin bashers are focused on THEIR interpetation of the law and feel that they have a right to their opinion, which they do. But when someone disagrees with them, they themselves just can't follow the law concerning willfulness. Just shows how screwed up, arrogant, and self serving this country has become. REMEMBER, the correctness of the interpetation of the law was NOT the issue in this case. Quit doing what the government is doing....confuse and distract the audience with non-relevant information.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:51 PM  

How long will Larken get?

If he captitulates, maybe he gets probation. But probation will come with some ugly strings, i.e., as a condition of probation, he will probably not be permitted to express his views on the subject of taxation, to anyone at anytime! We saw those kind of tactics in Schiff's earlier convictions.

If he doesn't captitulate, the judge will deal out a harsh sentence.

Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.

I can't speak for Larken, but I would support whatever decision he makes. He's done a great service for the tax honesty movement, and I wouldn't fault him if he decides to devote some attention to his families needs.

However, I highly suspect that Larken's level of integrity is so high (unlike the idiot degenerate who keeps posting prison sexual remarks), that he will not compromise his integrity as suggested by the blackmailing government accomplice in this case, a.k.a. "The Judge."

Larken, whatever you do, there's a whole bunch of us who will stand behind you 100% percent.

Thank you for laying everything on the line for us.

And to the idiot degenerate previously referred to, GFY.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:51 PM  

Now it is time to mount the appeals case. Hopefully a defense fund will be started, and appeal issue's will be filed. The verdict could be overturned during an appeals case.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:54 PM  

Is there any reason why an IRS persdon cannot be called as a hostile defense witnees?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 3:55 PM  

What's the definition of "Conflict of Interest"??

If the judge is getting paid a Federal salary, the only income the Federal government has is from taxes & this was a tax case...appears the judge would have a vested interested in ONLY ONE OUTCOME!

Don't ya think??

By Anonymous Deconstituting, at 8/12/2005 3:57 PM  

The reason Larkin was convicted is that he assumed the burden of proof in trying to convince a jury that his interpretation of the 861 matter was correct. Even if he was correct, it is not the way to defend yourself. When the judge gave the jury instructions and they heard the judge spout out law that applies to "taxpayers", then his fate was sealed. Want to know the absolute truth with total certainty? Go to www.ottoskinner.com and you will see why Larkin lost, and Vernice Kuglin, Gabe Scott, Lloyd Long etc, prevailed against convictions.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 4:08 PM  

Vernice Kuglin, Gabe Scott, Lloyd Long all still had to pay their taxes.

Vernice is probably out flying right now trying to work off hers. Probably only about 15 years to go until she's even.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 4:20 PM  

I think we kinda thought of Larken Rose as a Martin Luther standing before the Diet of Worms. "Here I stand. . . .So help me God."

It turns out that he may have been only a John Wycliffe or a Jan Huss. Wycliffe is called "the morningstar of the Reformation." Huss was burned at the stake. All of this a hundred or so years before Martin Luther posted his theses on the door of the church at Wittenburg.

Luther was accused of being a "Hussite." He denied it, but he did say that Huss spoke the truth in many of his writings.

So. If Larken Rose is Huss, we're still waiting for our Martin Luther. He will come along in due time. The truth can only be suppressed for so long before the stones cry out.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 4:22 PM  

I too am thankful to Larken Rose for his selfless dedication to the truth. As someone else said, he likely would have done better at trial if he had not chosen to represent himself. On he other hand, an acquittal would have left the matter as just another individual case that the government lost at the trial court level. It would not have created a precedent. Now Larken has the opportunity to appeal. If he wins on the appellate level he will establish a precedent for all others in the USA, depending on how far up the appellate laddder it goes, and depending on the basis for the reversal if the appeal is successful.

I look forward to hearing of Larken's appeal, seeing a full transcript of the trial court record posted on the internet so we can see first hand all the governments's ken should not misconduct practiced by the government and the court in this farce of a trial. Larken should not attempt to solely represent himself on appeal. He will need lots of asssistance from qualified appllate counsel.

To the coward idiot degenerate "anonymous" who has been posting snyde sexual comments, I too say "GFY" and worse. You're either a brain dead ignoramous or work for the IRS or the prosecution team.

Same comment to the intellectually stunted inflated ego morons at the Quatloos web site.
4:51 PM

By Anonymous HK, at 8/12/2005 4:32 PM  

Jim Here.

This battle will never be won by force but only by truth and through God's rule within the individual, i.e. His Kingdom. However the hearts of most are not interested in the truth. But that may change in the not to distant future ( MANY financial indicators say so ) when people finally realize our money system is smoke and mirrors and our fiat currency finally comes unglued. And it will. It always does. It's just a matter of time. But when it does, this country will be brought to it's knees and then by God's grace and the prayers of those who believe, there will be the oppurtunity for those to be shaken from their daze.

Hebrews 12:25b
...If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens."[e] 27The words "once more" indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.
28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:15 PM  

Larkin lost primarily for one simple reason. He himself is the one that distorted the code sections and regulations to fit his purpose. Look at what the prosecution offered.

He used the terms "wages" and "income" in regards to taxation. He failed in doing so for within the tax code these terms have a different meaning and both are taxable. Therefore when he stated that he had drawn wages and had income he in effect convicted himself.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:39 PM  

anonymous wrote, "The reason that the government won this case is that Larken left unrebutted the 1099's issued to him by third party payors."

The mere existence of prima facie evidence does not constitute a bona fide liability.

By Anonymous kt, at 8/12/2005 5:44 PM  

My 2 cents...

Larken & Tessa:
I don't know either of you personally but I have read almost all that you have written via your internet sites and mail lists. I'm so sorry about the 'justice' you received today. I for one, however, would like to thank you for all you've done and continue to do. You both are winners in my book regardless of what the world and your enemies may think. You have stood up for your beliefs, even though they are currently unpopular and misunderstood, and you have done so at great personal risk. There are simply not that many people who have that kind of courage. God bless and protect you in the days to come.

Quatloos Guys:
What circumstances have occured in your lives that would make you so petty and cruel? No compassion, no concern, no understanding, no pity. Not even one second of your time seems to be 'wasted' on a thought or concern for the suffering of anyone other than yourselves. To the contrary; your time and effort is spent on denigration, slander, insults and vilification. How sad of you leaving behind basic courtesy, kindness and compassionate behavior. In your private moments of introspection (and I really hope you haven't abandoned them also), can you honestly tell us that, in your heart or hearts, you feel Mr. Rose has done what he has done without actually believing it was true? Does it madden you that much that some people may believe in a principle and be willing to defend it? If not, then why the derogatory labels: "Lunatic", "Idiot", etc.? Is it amusing to trade sophomoric barbs, crass tasteless humor, and 'witty' repartee with your other 'sophisticated' and erudite pals at the expense of other people and their feelings?
Shame on you.

The Future:
No country has ever fallen as far into despotism as America has and ever recovered from it; History is quite clear on this. If there were enough kindred spirits within this country willing to do what was needed to reverse this trend it would already have taken place. We're doomed as a free nation; our liberties and freedoms will continue to erode away at a faster (and more brutal) rate as time goes on. God have mercy on us. Perhaps this is our reward as a nation for making it our policy to remove and deny God at every turn. If we kick God out (or even politely ask Him to step aside), then we also turn away his blessings and protection. We're getting exactly what we've asked for. A bitter pill indeed. In the final chapter, justice will prevail; we should (and must) continue to fight for it but we need to understand that this battle is mainly a moral struggle and we need Divine help and armor to wage war against it successfully.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 6:10 PM  

How do I say this? I truly admire Larkin and Tessa and fully agree with the 861 position. I have not followed them down the path though. It has been said many times that the power lays with the people. The people are the problem, the courts, the IRS, the DOJ and, ultimately, our elected representatives are the symptom.

Until the people want something else bad enough to vote for someone other than a Demopublican, or a Republicrat, or even vote at all, there is little hope that judges will care about justice or that INFORMED juries will even exist.

The average human being living in this country will not even know or care about the grave injustice done to Larkin and many others. They are scarcely aware of the injustice that is being done to themselves.

I'm sorry that we all get to be called human beings. Most are still just a little more than evolved monkeys.

Some of the monkey-things, that call themselves human beings, have made themselves known, but they do so from the cover of the trees ... anonymous said ... and then the monkey makes noise.

Perhaps there is some hope for Tessa, with counsel. I hope there is still the potential for Larken to appeal.

I am not a Christian so I do not pray for them, but I join Christians in wishing them well. Sadly, my well wishes are of little value.

By Anonymous Ernie, at 8/12/2005 6:12 PM  

Come on folks, what did you really expect to happen?

Individuals taken to court are not going to change anything.

Only numbers people, mass movement numbers, will change the system.

I find very humorous those people who are "shocked" by the outcome.

Get real!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 6:20 PM  

Larken Rose and his wife are heroes. They have a backbone onlike some-other on this list. Having said that, however, I believe that his approach to this issue it brings no useful fruit no matter how correct he might be. If he had stood on the law, the constitution and U.S. Supreme law cases on taxation he would have boxed the government in. There is nothing frivolous about the constitution and supreme law case on tax issues. I am praying for him and his family.
Get a life some of you! stand-up for the wrongs that your government perpetrates on the people. If you don't these wrongs will forever remain. Amen!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 6:45 PM  

"Larken Rose and his wife are heroes."

Heros? Larken and Tessa had a nice life and home for their children. Now, their children are going to be deprived of parents while mommy and daddy are in jail, they will face the stigma of their parents being jailbirds, and of course they will lose their house to pay the back taxes, interest and penalties.

Larken and Tessa will shirk their responsibilities and claim its "the government's fault". But other families don't force this trauma on their children, and Larken and Tessa only need to look in the mirror to see where the true responsibility lies.

Anybody believe that Bob Schulz will take up donations to help the Rose children? Of course not. He'll abandon them just like he abandoned Dick Simkanin and Al Thompson just when they needed help the worst.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:00 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:04 PM  

Posts like the last one are just as slanderous as the DOJ was in there press release.
If you had any rationale, you would see that larken put his life on the line because he "believed" what he was doing was correct.
Go back to watching American idol or ABC EMHE.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:06 PM  

Regardless of what Larken is, what is isn't is a Man who had bad intentions, he believed in and did his best to stand for what he thought was correct.
Next time you decide to stand for something you think is right, put some tape over your mouth, and see how you like it. It wouldn't change the fact that you believed you were right.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:08 PM  

Blog Administrator:
Not exactly sure what the content is on those posts that you're removing but is there any way to keep them by perhaps using a little creative editing? Like "eat s*** you mother-******" so we can at least judge the content and character of the message for ourselves? Freedom should allow people to be A**holes if they want.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:18 PM  

Date Line June 7th 1944: D Day called off because whole army decided it was safer and it was more responsible to the families of the solders if there was no invasion. Brass says "It is more important that we send our boys home that fight for freedom."

Quoteing from a resent post:
" Larken and Tessa will shirk their responsibilities and claim its "the government's fault". But other families don't force this trauma on their children, and Larken and Tessa only need to look in the mirror to see where the true responsibility lies."

You unprincipled wimp. Heroes have always put it all out for the future generations. But those lacking in character would not see or understand that. Larkin is responsible, that is the point. He chose to fight for us and to stand on principle. Sacrifice is not in your vocabulary is it?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:37 PM  

Date Line June 7th 1944: D Day called off because a bunch of losers didn't want to pay for it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:40 PM  

Hey all,

The blogs commenting features do not allow me to edit comments. They only allow deletions.

The comments involved were disgustingly vulgar and offensive and served no constructive purpose. Responding to them only draws us into flame wars and distracts us from productive discussions that are relevant to the cause.

I have no problem with dissenting opinions, but some of the post thus far have crossed the line of decency.

Now that you have brought it up, I'm realizing that there is a round about way of editing these comments. I could copy and paste the comment into a new post, edit it there and deleting the orignal offensive post.

I agree "Freedom should allow people to be A**holes if they want", but while they have the right to spew obscenities, I don't have to listen to it, and I don't have to post it for eternity.

It is important that all opinions are heard. However, comments from people celebrating the horrors of prison life have no purpose here.

I hope you'll trust that my intentions are pure. I'm don't enjoy censoring comments, but some of these were just to vulgar and inflammatory to stand.

I appreciate your understanding, and I'll do my best to limit intervention. I'll also try to edit just the offensive language. Thus far some of it has been pretty ugly.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/12/2005 8:44 PM  

To the person who asked about the censored posts:

I saw the first 2 or 3 prior to their removal. They were bully-style "trash-talk" celebrations of Larken and Tessa being headed for prison and sexual abuse there. While I entirely sympathize with your wish to preserve the record (and freedom of speech), let me assure you that no valuable ideas or perspective were lost here in removing those posts (for the record, I didn't see the most recent one). Whether it's still better to leave them up is a judgment call, and I'll support the blog administrator either way.

We are dealing with some *extremely* depraved people -- not that most of us didn't already know that.

To the person who made the D-Day cancellation remark calling us "losers", let me first offer you my congratulations on being (I can only assume) a "winner". Now, what do you suggest someone who wants to be a "winner" do when they observe their government acting in violation of the law? What, in such a circumstance, should a German "winner" have done in, say, 1934, or a Chinese "winner" have done in, say, 1940 -- or 2005, for that matter? Ultimately, what do you "win" if you give birth to an unlimited government?

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/12/2005 8:53 PM  

No doubt most of you TPs would have skulked and draft-dodged in 1941, just like you would have in 1776.

You were the type of folks that when representatives of the Continental Congress came asking for funds for the troops at Valley Forge were told to bug off becauses no taxes were owed because they weren't sanctioned by the Crown.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 9:08 PM  

Blog Administrator:
Thanks for the clarification. And you're right; alowing vulgar and vile posts that offer no opinions and only serve to hurt and offend should have no place here. But boy does it show the underlying character and motives of those who celebrate the chains of tyranny that now ensnare us.

For the life of me I can't understand how anyone who gives even a modicum of thought and effort into understanding the 861 issues can fail to see the government's duplicity in this matter. Why do they not simply answer the questions with cites of law instead of opinions and assertions? Could it be that their motives and desires lie elsewhere?

After some reflection into the government's motives and operandi, I have come to the conclusion that they have successfully usurped the law and made it, via the courts, their primary instrument of oppression using the following tactical steps:

1)Write and enact laws that are basically incomprehensible; they will then need to be 'interpreted'.

2) Convince everyone that the role of the judiciary is to 'interpret' the law.

3) Viola! Now the law is whatever you can get a judge to say it is. After all, we have vested him with that responsibility. And remember to keep reminding the public that only judges are allowed to play the interpreter role.

Never mind that the law is now fluid and ever-changing. Never mind that the real purpose of the courts, to judge cases based on the law, has been abondoned Never mind that the laws should be written so that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand them law and the obligations they create.

Successful tyranny, Course 101: Convincing the people to allow their government to control and enforce 'interpreted' law.

What a sham! But a profitable racket for those in the law business! And the price? Simply the freedom and liberty of everyone; no refunds or exchanges.

-- rv

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 9:29 PM  

What is really funny is that it is the so-called "libertarians" who are the first to start censoring posts. Doug Kenline started doing that a lot on his blog when there were things he disagreed with.

Oh well, being a libertarian is just a sham for some to try to come to power where they can be bigger control freaks than ever before. Let us never forget that much of the impetus behind the Bolshevik movement that deposed the Czar would be that there would be greater freedom for the masses.

Censor away, Comrades!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 9:39 PM  

Right on, rv. If I may suggest some preemptory steps prior to your three, that would be to:

a) Dumb down the general population and keep them stoopid (in particular, with regard to their rights), yet productive enough so that their wealth may be extracted, and;

b) Keep them amused, distracted and interested in abounding trivialities. Let them keep just enough stuff and be juuuuust comfy enough so that they won't notice their water heating up, and;

c) Make a few "examples" out of uppity folks like Larken.

And viola! The groundwork for judicial oligarchy has been laid. Isn't that great?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 9:55 PM  

Boy, look at the twits go!

"Anonymous said...

No doubt most of you TPs would have skulked and draft-dodged in 1941, just like you would have in 1776.

You were the type of folks that when representatives of the Continental Congress came asking for funds for the troops at Valley Forge were told to bug off becauses no taxes were owed because they weren't sanctioned by the Crown."

Actually, the Founding Fathers were the "TPs" then.

Thanks for the comic relief, mr. brave "anonymous" silly person.

Then we have another brave anonymous silly person:

"Censor away, Comrades!"

That *may* have some effect on those who didn't see the original trash posts, although I doubt it, since its effectiveness rests entirely on the reader's presumption of bad character on the part of the blog administrator (whose identity is known), the only evidence for which is this comment from you (who choose to remain anonymous). That effectiveness will be further undercut by honest, non-anonymous people such as myself who can vouch for the fact that the original smut posts were worthless.

Care to try again, ace?

Folks, remember the purpose of these cowardly trolls is simply to goad us into behaving badly. Disappointing times are always ripe orchards for such demons. You might want to refrain from giving them what they want. ;-)

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/12/2005 10:01 PM  

Just so I understand.

You're suggesting that we should be classified as comrades because we won't tolerate insensitive, vulgar, trash talk about the horrors of prison including disgusting and insulting anatomy references.

It seems to me, people that want to post that trash can start their own list, and I wish them luck in getting a following.

If you really savor such comments, post your name and email address and I'll be happy to forward all of future trash to you for your enjoyment.

Personally, they sicken me and I believe anyone else with some semblance of decency.

As I said previously, dissenting comments will remain. Vulagarity will be removed. It is a pretty simple rule. Consider that when you draft your post. Then you won't have to whine about censorship.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/12/2005 10:04 PM  

Dear Anonymous at: 10:39pm -

As I was the first person to ask about the deletion of the blogs and their applicability, let me answer your comment.

As an intelligent adult, don't you think you're stretching it a bit to make that comment? Discussing and sharing opinions is one thing; allowing purely hateful and crass diatribes is another.

In an issue as volitile and contentious as this one there will, unfortunately, always be those, on both sides, who rant and scream. Is it constructive to call names and insult others because they hold a contrary opinion? Does that help or only further divide us and keep us from getting at the truth of the issues? Does truth matter or is it only 'winning' that matters?

If, as some on this blog are sure to agree with, hold to the beief that we're all victims of an out-of-control judiciary and legislature, don't you think that they just love to see their 'subjects' tear each other apart? Better for them that we fight viciously amongst ourselves instead of taking proper revenge on them, eh?

As long as I have been following this whole 'TP' issue, as you call it, I must say that in most cases the degeneration of topic discussions usually comes from your side; I'm not saying that this is always true, just most of the time; if you have followed these types of discussions before and remain truly honest to yourself, I think you'd have to admit that (or maybe not, huh?)

Anyway, cruel and uncalled for comments ruin it for everyone and I for one was satisfied with the admins explanation and understand why he had to do it. What a shame that it was necessary though.

-rv

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 10:08 PM  

I just now checked out this thread after getting word of Larkin's conviction.

It's a shame that Larkin got convicted. And at the point it is a fact that he has no one to blame but himself. He's always accepted responsibility for his own actions. It's too bad that he will suffer as a result. Unfortunately, I was afraid that this would happen. There are a lot of folks who defend themselves who then get destroyed by the polished DOJ trail attorneys. The Tax Division's playbook is online at the DOJ website.

The average person just cannot step up to the plate and understand trial procedure. I've seen it before, and I saw by some of Larkin's posts that he didn't understand procedure. That being said, Larkin is a very brave soul, and I wish the best for him and his wife. He stood up for what he believed in. Not many folks will turn off the TV long enough to do that.

The real shame is that the court and jury system is so incredibly screwed up. Most folks are on juries because they made it past vior dire by proving that they are morons.

Trying to get a jury to understand anything other than "this guy didn't pay taxes, and so you had to pay more" is a tough job.

During another trial I saw an IRS criminal investigator coming out of the judge's chambers one morning when I was in the courtroom early compiling exhibits. That amounted to an unlawful ex parte communication. So what - it happens all the time. Why do you think that the U.S. Attorney's office is often in the same building as the federal court? They all get their paychecks from the same government. And their offices are just down the hall for a reason.

On another note -

Some of the moronic troll posts are really hilarious. Someone posts something obscene, then complains when it gets deleted.

The principal of being a libertarian is the right to associate with whomever one chooses - and to hell with political correctness.

That means that one doesn't have to tolerate the sophistries advanced by two-brain-celled trolls on one's own blog page.

It's essentially a private property issue. The blogger who lets people post here does so at his own pleasure.

If he sees something repugnant, or if he just doesn't like your writing style, he can remove it if he so chooses. So go complain at some of the porn sites where you got the ideas for your posts about prison sex.

BTW, you maroon - the founders were "TP's."

And if you're happy about Larkin's conviction, go #&@* yourself. Go post at the government sycophant's blog page, you neocon but-kissers. And send in your money to your masters. Ever read ANYthing about how your taxes are spent? For example, the gubmint FUNDS the Taliban to the tune of millions of bux, then declares war on them. The gubmint hands out foreign "aid", and "forgives" the debts of numerous foreign countries - most who hate our guts - to the tune of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars, because they can collect it from you brown-nosing tax lovers, who think it's great that the government will be putting another person in jail. Oh, yeah your taxes will be paying for that too.

We are funding the tyranny that will stomp us all. Larkin just got clobbered before you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 11:16 PM  

Even the people on this site still believe in the government and the courts to do the right thing. They cannot accept that the system is rigged. No matter what approach is used the system is rigged.

They talk about appeals. Anyone having read appeals in tax cases know that appeals are worthless. Basically, the higher courts just ignore all the facts and arguments and confirm the convictions without comment. And the Supreme Court will never accept a tax case.

Everything is set up for convictions. Government schools that indocternate. Government media maskerading as a free press. And of course government courts, government rules, and government judges all taking bribes to obtain convictions.

The Germans supported Hitler no matter how bad he was. The people of the USA support the government no matter how it is and becomes.

And look at morality. Parents have turned their children over to the government. Girls start having sex at 14 and younger. Half are sexually active by 16. Based on government studies. They are taught they have to have sex to healthy. Check MSN. 60% have sex within the first three dates. Only 6% believe in waiting until marriage.

Check the Yahoo personals in the bigh cities. Almost all the girls below 24 are looking for fun and games and hot boys. They want sex not long term relationships. I believe it is all hopeless.

By Anonymous DC Wornock, at 8/13/2005 12:13 AM  

It is NEVER hopeless.

BTW... can anyone determine that the jury wasn't stacked?

Just wondering. I could go into my reasons (yes, plural) for wondering, but I'd rather just ask the question first. If it can be determined that it wasn't, there's no need for speculation.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/13/2005 12:23 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger DBeauregard, at 8/13/2005 1:00 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger DBeauregard, at 8/13/2005 1:09 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger DBeauregard, at 8/13/2005 1:23 AM  

To: Larken and Tessa Rose,

I admire your courage in this fight, and even though you lost the battle, the war is definitely not over! I too am in this quagmire, as I am sure many others are...or will be when they open their eyes to the truth that you have helped expose. I too was very hesitant in the beginning to accept what I have learned after thousands of hours of reading material... such as what was posted on your website. I didn't however take your word for it...as I didn't from ANY of the websites I have visited...but on the actual content as written in the law!

I expect that someday, I too will be faced with having to defend my beliefs on what I perceive to be the truth...and when I do...whether the outcome puts me in your position or not, I can at least say that I did my best! I guess that is more than most people can say!

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

By Blogger DBeauregard, at 8/13/2005 1:41 AM  

I have to say I am surprised by the verdict. I am shocked by the authoritarian position taken by the government. I also think that it is unfair that the judge side steps the first element of wilfulness in favor of the government by declaring there is a legal duty. I think that is what alllows the authoritarian arguement to work. Thus, maybe it is time to shift the public education efforts and resources into educating juries of their duty to judge the law and the facts.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 4:43 AM  

Yes, we should have medical transcriptioners teaching the law instead of law professors.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 8:28 AM  

"Yes, we should have medical transcriptioners teaching the law instead of law professors."

Good point! Nobody can understand the law except the elite! Law professors, judges, IRS, etc. are GOD when it comes to what the law means. The rest of the peons need not think, so quit trying!

There, doesn't that feel better, now?

You can go back to watching your sitcoms now.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 9:03 AM  

Doesn't the law belong to the medical transcriptionist just as much as to the law professor?

After reading the law myself as well as reading the opinions of it from both Mr. Rose and others, including law professors, it seems to me that the most honest and guileless one was Mr Rose's.

I truly don't understand why Mr. Rose's detractors are filled with such anomosity and hatred for him. A healthy disagreement is one thing; blind rage and venom are another.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 9:22 AM  

Is it not a fundimental problem that law is so complex it needs to be interpreted by a 3rd party? If we accept that, is not the game over, tyranny has prevailed.

It has occured to me for a long while that having lawyers make law is a very serious conflick of interest.....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 9:33 AM  

I saw the indignities perpetrated, the vilification and the venom on the part of the Prosecution, the collusion of the "judge" with the gov't. It is telling the efforts of the gov' to divert attention from this issue...why? I for one now want to see where the 861 position is incorrect. Being told it is 'frivolous' is not acceptable. What so they want to keep hidden? A 32 cent stamp, a 12cent letter explaining Larken's error is in order and not, like fishing for sardines with nuclear weapons, "answering" by destroying him, his wife and family..why are they doing this? To humiliate a man publicly for asking, clearly, embarasing questions. The extortionists provide a disturbing model for those who contemplate disagreement and I posit they do not provide Larkin with a clarification of his 861 position because they cannnot. That probalby, the income of most Americans IS NOT taxable and has never been taxable as much research points out.

'might makes right' is the beginning of the final stage.
We have seen this happen before. It is disturbing that it is happening here; people accept it.

...it is high time we demand an open investigation about taxation, about the lies in regards to the WMD, the destruction of Iraq, the 911 coverup..

Americans, it is time.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 10:20 AM  

Anonymous 10:22 stated, "I truly don't understand why Mr. Rose's detractors are filled with such anomosity and hatred for him. A healthy disagreement is one thing; blind rage and venom are another.

It is no different than the hatred given Galileo by the church.

It is no different than the hatred given to Jesus by the priests and pharisees.

It is no different than the hatred given any innocent soul that effectively challenges the existing "Authority".

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 12:00 PM  

The second plank of the Communist Manifesto calls for a graduated income tax. If you support the income tax, you are a communist--no two ways about it. If you support the income tax and are a government employee, you are a traitor, since communism goes against everything this nation and its founding principles stand for. You cannot have it both ways. This may seem simplistic, but issues often boil down to simple principles.

It has been stated in many places and by many sources that the income tax is unnecessary for revenue to pay for government. The income tax is used primarily for social control. The idea that "good citizens" pay "their fair share" is a socialist concept and misleading since the graduated personal income tax is not needed to fund government, anyway.

How an "American" can support a tax that is not necessary; is misapplied; and goes against the very fabric of what this nation is supposed to be can only be explained by ignorance, petty jealousy, and plain evil.

Do the people who are rejoicing in Larken's conviction really like the income tax as it's misapplied and want to keep paying out portions of their earnings to the government? Are you that deluded?

By Anonymous Doug, at 8/13/2005 12:53 PM  

Larken was innocent. I know that because having spoken to him several times I know he was *FULLY CONVINCED* (i.e. believed) his position was correct. The fact that he was found guilty smacks of either absolute jurist ignorance or corruption in the court proceedings.

While I hold Larken and Tessa in high regard as heros and abhor the actions taken against them in court, my sympathy is of little effect. The question we should all now be facing is: "What do we do about it?"

I believe that another poster had it correct: its not a legal battle any more, the courts are compromised. It is now a publicity battle. What we must do is publicize and educate. Not with ranting and raving, but with sound reason and evidence.

Here is what American's must be educated about:

1. Americans are the soveriegns, not the government. The government was orgnized to serve the people (sovereigns), and those sovereigns (the people, collectively) can disband the government without any appeal to law if they deem it is no longer serving them well.

2. Americans have the right to judge both the law and the facts, as jurists, in any court proceeding. Judging the law is one of the greatest checks and balances the founders included in order to ensure Congress did not run amok with its lawmaking.

3. Americans have significant rights including free speech, freedom of the press, redress of grievances, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to bear arms, etc. We must assert these rights or lose them forever.

4. Evidences of the injustices being committed daily by our servant government.

I could go on, but I think you all get the point. Re-educating America is now our highest priority.

By Anonymous RASP, at 8/13/2005 5:03 PM  

To Rasp at 6:03pm:

You're right, of course, but how?

Mr. Rose & company had a good idea with the 861 Evidence CD and Theft by Deception videos, but how effective, overall, has it been?

This is not to say that it has had no effect. And as time goes on perhaps its influence may be more widely felt; I pray that it may be so.

Considering the fact that all it would take would be one, just one, juror who understands the true issues involved, empanelled on an important tax case like Mr. Rose's, to produce a positive result, is there any way to educate whatever percentage of an informed populous as necessary to ensure that patriots have a least a good chance of being called to jury service? I can tell you honestly that had I been on that jury there would have been no conviction.

So, that being said, how can we enlist a critical mass of knowledgeable voters, jurists, politicians, etc. to make a difference?

Publicity...publicity...publicity...

The current mass media has already shown itself to be encamped on the side of the status quo, but can that be changed?

Is there anyone within our camp of patriots knowledgeable in PR? Anyone who knows how to launch effective educational campaigns?

How about our churches? Since, as I've said before, I think this is primarily an issue of morality, why have our churches been so silent?

Are there any celebrities who would be willing to speak up? Any media stars like Hannity or O'Reilly?

How about anyone with the resources and clout of say a Bill Gates or a Governor Schwarzenegger? If Mr. Rose's trial had instead been a trial for Mr. Gates, can you imagine how different it would have been?

In summary, I think you're right about the current state of court corruption, and without changes in public understanding and involvement, we'll continue to see more travesties of justice (and, alas, at an ever more increasing level of cruelty and ruthlessness).

-rv

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 8:48 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/14/2005 12:46 AM  

You may have a point there. A particular man who was relatively well-known and well-respected -- within the tax honesty movement -- recently decided to abandon his web site and email list efforts and focus his energies on finding those high-profile individuals we need to join our cause. (If you think about it... celebrities are just people, too; they should be interested in the fraud in about the same proportions as anybody else.)

I really need to get back up to his place for another visit....

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/14/2005 12:47 AM  

Yes today is a sad day in deed. But it was only a battle lost and not the war. Larkin still has a powerful tool at his disposal. And that is Cracking the Code by Peter E. Hendrickson. The law is that you must file a tax return. If Larkin files using the laws and code as described in CtC, unless he has "income" as defined in the tax code, he would still have no tax liability and would comply with the Judges order to file. This would then open a flood gate for others to follow.
I salute larkin for his courage and love of his Country.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 7:49 AM  

Hannity ... What Hannity said:

IRS vrs Larken Rose - tax trial of the century
http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6992

Since we are a nation of 'rule of law', one can not be taxed without a tax law doing so. So, where does one look to determine a tax? Answer- in the tax law! (also called 'tax code').

Now follow me very carefully...let's actully look in the tax code and find our income tax liability. It's usually helpful to use an index to look up some information. So, let's go to the United States Code index and find where to go for details on "taxable income", or "deductions", and "gross income". Here's what we find in the index:

* Section 61: Income from sources within U.S., see 861

* USC Index: Gross income, sources within U.S., see 861

* USC Index: Deductions, Taxable income from within U.S., see 861

* USC Index: Taxable income, Sources within U.S., see 861

Ok, the index tells us to go to section 861 for income sources within the U.S. Since I don't have foreign income, I use section 861. (if you have foreign income the index says use section 862) By the way, the USC index is NOT on the internet! (I wonder why?)

Ok, simple enough so far, right? Keep following me. The index says go to section 861. But, I want to be REALLY sure I'm suppose to use section 861. Fortunately, other sections in the tax code refer and point to 861 too:

here:

[26 CFR 1.863-1(c)]
"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 ."

Well, that's pretty clear I think! Very clear and unambiguous. It says "...WILL BE DETERMINED..."


But wait! Other sections of the tax code also point and refer the taxpayer to section 861!:


here:

[26 CFR 1.861-1]
"Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States... Part I ( section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax ."


and again in the same section here:

[26 CFR 1.861-1]
"The taxable income from sources within the United States . shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), [allowable deductions]. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1."


and here:

[26 CFR 1.861-8]
"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 here:

[26 CFR 1.862-1]
"Sec. 1.861-8 [is the section] for determining the taxable income from sources within the United States ."


and here:

[26 CFR 1.863-6]
"Secs. 1.861-1 to 1.863-5 [give the principles] for determining the gross and the taxable income from sources within and without the United States."


and here:

[Treasury Decision 6258]:
"Rules are prescribed for determination of gross income and taxable income derived from sources within and without the United States ... 1.861-1 through 1.864. (Secs. 861-864; '54 Code.)"


So as you can see, we are told REPEATEDLEY in the WRITTEN tax code to go to section 861 to determine taxable income. If you don't, it's obvious you are not following the written tax law!

However, when you go to section 861, the ONLY taxable income imposed is if your domestic income is related to certain foreign activities, listed here...



Internal Revenue Code (26 USC)
http://fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/www/contents.html

Thanks,

Larry

By Anonymous Larry in Utah, at 8/14/2005 9:37 AM  

In response to the anonymous poster who posited, "But how do we educate America?"

We don't need PR expertise, we don't need the media to be on our side, we don't need celebrities. None of them will serve on a jury. We need the hearts and minds of registered voters.

Okay, so how?

All good campaigns are won at the grass roots level. Simple, old fashioned, talking to your neighbor is the way to do it. There are patriots in every area of the country. All we need to do is reach about 10% of the population (30 million) and the game is over. This is *vastly* easier today than in the times of the founding fathers.

While several patriots are public and vocal about their beliefs, there are many thousands more (me included, until recently) who are still scared to voice their opinions, publicly fearing conflict, retribution, or shame.

Get over it.

The thing that tipped the scales for me was that I realized I had far more to fear by *not* speaking up. I do not want to grow to be an old man to watch my three sons default into slavery.

I recently decided to "go public" and fight these injustices at every turn. I started with my neighbor and, to my surprise, found that he was wonderfully receptive to the conversation.

The way to re-educate America is one heart/mind at a time. Its the only way solid conviction has ever grown.

Here's what you should do:

1. Get your own conviction up to the point where you're "bursting at the seams" to tell others. Educate yourself, first!

2. Tell *all* your neighbors about the issues you are witnessing, ask for their opinions. Find out if they care about it. Ask them to educate themselves.

3. Strike up a conversation with members of your church, synagogue, or mosque.

4. Good old fashioned door knocking. Start your own grass roots campaign.

5. Post notices around town (community center, grocery store, merchants, anywhere with high public traffic).

6. Regularly hold a "town hall" meeting with the people you've gotten interested from 1-5 above. Make a portion of the meeting a study session where attendees can learn and exchange ideas.

7. As a group, publish an article in the local newspaper.

8. As a group, send a simple press release to local radio stations regarding current injustices and suggest that the station interview your group, or a few of the more articulate leaders.

9. Start a "jury education" group in your area. Teach them how *vital* it is to have educated jurists who know their rights.

10. Encourage membership in the WTP.

11. Blog, blog, blog.

In doing all these things, your attitude and presentation are key. You represent the interests of millions of American's who are otherwise asleep at the wheel. Dress well, speak passionately but not over-zealously, respect other people's opinions, and ensure your messasge is concise and clear.

I recommend that you form groups because of the varied talents in any group. None of us are as strong as all of us. The WeThePeople foundation has an excellent organizational structure already in place. Start using it, if you haven't.

Above all, be persistent. The price of liberty is not occasional meandering, it is not rainy-day rhetoric, it is not complacent musings. The price of liberty is ETERNAL VIGILENCE.

By Anonymous RASP, at 8/14/2005 1:16 PM  

"The second plank of the Communist Manifesto calls for a graduated income tax. If you support the income tax, you are a communist--no two ways about it. If you support the income tax and are a government employee, you are a traitor, since communism goes against everything this nation and its founding principles stand for. You cannot have it both ways."

Wow, that's interesting since the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to tax in Article I, Section 8, and only restricted the tax on incomes in Section 9.

The Founding Fathers must have been Commies before their times. Anyhoo, since you obviously Hate America so much, why are you bothering to hang around?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 2:39 PM  

To Anonymous at 3:39 PM:

Oh, for heaven's sakes; you're not serious with that response are you?

To say that the Founding Fathers were communistic because they allowed taxation at all is simply a ludicrous assertion.

You may be new to these issues so let me ask you: do you understand the difference between direct and indirect taxes? How about the definition of 'graduated income tax'?

No government can, of course, operate without some form of funding, and our Founding Fathers provided for that funding. However, they carefully put severe restrictions on how those taxes could be assessed and collected (although, in retrospect, it seems they were not careful or specific enough!).

These restrictions on the methods and scope of federal taxing power are in direct harmony with their desire to create an effective, yet basically very weak federal government.

If there's anything that Communism is not, it's a weak form of government. But, as our federal government has grown in power, (and a large part of that new power is derived from the resources it is now able to extract via the income tax), the closer and closer it comes to rivaling the power endowed to Communist nations.

The prior poster was absolutely correct in stating that the Communist Manifesto calls for the establishment of a graduated income tax. It also recommends the creation of a central bank as well. Historically, by 1916, the USA had established 2 of the 10 steps recommended by Karl Marx for installing communism in a nation. And, interestingly, this sad series of events was accomplished in our nation a full year before the Russian Communist revolution of 1917. In other words, the USA had already gone 20% communist before communism even got its first foothold in Russia.

Okay, didn't mean to ramble...So, although I cannot prescribe to your idea (perhaps posted tongue-in-cheek) that the Founding Fathers were communists, I certainly believe that our present government is closer to it than I would ever want it to be.

-rv

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 9:24 PM  

http://www.fija.org/torf.pdf
THE SILVER BULLET

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/17/2005 1:37 AM