Larken Rose

Monday, June 06, 2005

Larken Rose trial scheduled for July 11, 2005.

Monday, January 19, 2004

Spilled Beans, Part II

Dear Subscriber,

I just gave you some idea of how the message with be spread. Now, what is IN the message? There are really two parts to answering this:

1) The INFORMATION the viewer will learn.

2) The MESSAGE around it.

Again, information is worthless if it is not in a message that is understandable, memorable, and compelling to the audience. If they hit "stop" or fall asleep, the information is worthless. So after giving a summary of the information in the thing, I'll mention a few things that I think will make the message actually effective.


The INFORMATION revolves around the "income tax" deception. Coming from me, I doubt that's a surprise to anyone. The thing will give just enough of the "nuts and bolts" of the law to show the audience that there is real substance proving the point. It will be enough that they can understand, accept, and remember the "punchline" of the issue, without getting into every little detail (though it gives people a way to look into such things if they want). But unlike "Theft By Deception," this is NOT just an academic look at the law. It deals with government censorship, inability to answer questions, etc. In short, it reports the facts surrounding the issue better than the media ever has (or ever will). If the media was doing its job, this is what they would have done.

That's the raw info, which by itself doesn't look particularly new or thrilling... which brings me to the MESSAGE:


Millions of dollars have been made on remarkable stupid and/or useless products, because of effective advertising (the MESSAGE). For years now
we've had all the INFORMATION we needed, but no way to effectively deliver it to mainstream America. Again, the message (the "propaganda," though that usually has a negative connotation) is everything. I won't bother explaining everything that's in the presentation, but here are a few things that will make this message far more effective than anything I've seen before (including my own video):

1) It will be 20 to 30 minutes long, to keep it within the attention span of the average viewer. (Even 30 minutes would be pushing our luck, if the content weren't compelling... but it is.)

2) The thing will be available in all sorts of formats (mini-CDs, normal CDs, online, DVD, VHS, etc.), so anyone can view it. (We might even make a
printed version.)

3) Instead of being presented by some uncredentialled nobody (like me), we have a dozen or so CPAs and attorneys explaining things. Credentials mean a whole lot to mainstream America (though they mean almost nothing to me). Having a few former IRS and DOJ officials on the thing helps too.

4) The presentation is narrated (not by me) in a friendly and objective way that won't scare off the viewer (like "evangelization" mode does).

5) The visual (and audio) presentation alone gives the thing credibility. This won't be some over-compressed camcorder shot (with bad audio) of some wacko ranting in his basement. This will be something that you can show anyone you know, without a shred of hesitation or shame.

There's a lot more to it, but that should do for now.

I am convinced that NO ONE will be able to watch this thing, and then say "oh, that's nonsense." (Well, a few people might say that if others are
around, but they won't believe it themselves.) I am also convinced that EVERYONE who watches it will understand that something is "rotten in
Denmark." Just telling the story surrounding this issue makes those running the IRS look as slimy as they are.

I confess, this summary of what's in the message looks pretty bland compared to what the message itself looks like. You'll just have to wait to actually SEE the thing, to really know what we're talking about. It will speak for itself. Hey, at least I'm done taunting and teasing everyone about the thing, without telling them anything about it.


Larken Rose

Sunday, November 30, 2003


From: "larken" larken@taxableincome.net
Date: 2003/11/30 Sun PM 03:40:37 EST
To: dkenline@bellsouth.net
Subject: Concrete


Dear Subscriber,

Reality, though sometimes difficult to figure out, is not mushy or uncertain. WE may be uncertain about something, but reality is NOT. Reality is concrete. Reality doesn't have varying "opinions" about the size of the earth, or the temperature at which copper melts. What is, IS, whether we understand it or not.

"The law" is something MADE UP by people. It is a collection of artificial concepts, fabricated by human beings (often less-than-virtuous human beings, if you ask me). However, there is STILL a "concrete" component to the law, which is why it is WRITTEN DOWN. If they WRITE THE LAW DOWN so us mere peasants can see what it requires of us, we must be able to rely on what is WRITTEN DOWN to decide what the law requires.

I hear a lot about "res judicata," and frankly, I think it's more of a mental disorder than a principle of law. It basically means "we already ruled on that"; it's when some court makes some declaration about the law, and then after that courts refer back to that "ruling" and accept it as automatically valid, without considering the basis for it.

In a way this serves a purpose, in that it's nice to have some consistency in what the guys who wear black dresses are going to proclaim on any given day. But in a way, it's also utterly insane. In short, the principle dictates that a court today will not consider THE LAW ITSELF to determine something, but will simply blindly accept some PRIOR court "opinion" as being automatically valid.

Imagine how insane that is in any context OTHER than "law." If you and I were discussing the average life span of hermit crabs, and my argument was "oh, I already ruled last week that hermit crabs live an average of two years, so there's nothing to discuss," you'd think I belonged in a looney bin (and you'd be right). Yet this is EXACTLY what the "judges" of the Tax Kangaroo Court (and other, real courts) routinely do. "We already said that's wrong--though we didn't really say why--so we'll just quote ourselves saying that, and that's the end of the discussion." What kind of god-complex lunatic thinks that way?

But there is a level of insanity, now practiced nationwide by the IRS and the DOJ, that is even MORE looney.

As you may recall, at my suggestion a few dozen people (at least) sent letters to Patrick Meehan, the U.S. Attorney "investigating" me, asking him the six "lethal questions" about how to determine one's taxable income. This might ring a bell:


Anyway, I just heard of a response someone got (the only one I've heard of so far), which was a letter back saying that Mr. Meehan's office "does not provide advice on personal tax issues," and suggesting that the person contact the IRS if he has questions.

Never mind for a moment that the questions were about how ANYONE should determine taxable income, not about "personal tax issues." The letter suggests that we ask the IRS, which more than A THOUSAND of us did, without a response. If you ask Congress or the DOJ, they refer you to the IRS; if you ask the IRS, they don't answer. If you ask it in court, they insult you, and don't answer. Who is there left to ask?

So what is more looney than basing a system of law on baseless assertions ("res judicata")? Answer: having a system of law where NO ONE inside the system knows how the law works. It's bad enough to have the public not understand the law, but to have the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT either unable or unwilling to say how their OWN LAWS apply is... I can't think of a word insulting enough. Then to have them "investigating" people for supposedly disobeying a law that the government CAN'T TELL YOU HOW TO OBEY converts them from mere lunatics to insane criminal terrorists.

How many of you, having seen the six "lethal questions," are sure what the answers are? (I am, and I know a lot of you are.) How many of you who are NOT sure continue to sign tax returns SWEARING UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY a statement saying how much "taxable income" you had? Isn't that sort of an odd thing to do? How can you swear how much you owe if you're not sure how to FIGURE OUT how much you owe? "I hereby swear that based on my ignorant wild guess, this is how much I owe..."

But even that is not as odd as having federal thugs THREATENING YOU if you don't, when they also DON'T KNOW HOW to determine what number actually goes there. "You'd better swear that you have a certain amount of taxable income, even though no one in government seems to know how determine how much that would be." When the IRS is out of business, it will be worth laughing about. Right now, for many it's worth crying about.


Larken Rose

Monday, November 03, 2003

Cardboard Wombats

From: "larken"
Date: 2003/11/03 Mon PM 07:31:09 EST
To: dkenline@bellsouth.net
Subject: Cardboard Wombats

Dear Subscriber,

1) No, the Theft By Deception site ( http://www.theft-by-deception.com ) has
NOT been shut down by the feds. It has instead been shut down by a glitch
(almost as annoying, though not as evil, as the federal government). It
will be up again shortly.

2) This Thursday (November 6th) from 7 to 10 p.m. there will be a meeting
held at the Best Western Brandon Hotel & Conference Center, at 9331 Adamo
Drive (Brandon Blvd.) in Tampa, Florida. (That's one mile off I-75 Exit
257.) You can call the hotel (at 813-621-5555) for directions.

At the meeting will be Sherry Jackson, CPA and former IRS Revenue Agent, and
John Turner, Enrolled Agent and former IRS Revenue Officer. (I won't be
there.) Admission is $20, to help pay for the room, and you're encouraged
to be on time if you want to get a seat. (No children, please.) If you
need more info, Sherry Jackson can be reached at P.O. Box 460, Redan, GA
30074, or at 770-981-7758.

(I don't usually announce such things, but Sherry's efforts to end this
fraud are well above and beyond the call of duty, so I'm doing it this

3) Thanks to the dozens (at least) of you who decided to ask Mr. Patrick
Meehan, U.S. Attorney, how you're supposed to determine your taxable income.
When he responds (scheduled to occur just after hell freezes over), I'll let
you know. Here is my letter again, for those who missed it before:

To those who wonder, we ARE going to try to get access to the grand jury
ourselves (assuming there is one), in case Mr. Meehan refuses to give them a
copy of my letter as I requested. I would never trust my enemy (like
someone who authorized an ARMED INVASION OF MY HOME*) to voluntarily do the
right thing.

* By the way, the raid on my home is FAR from being the worst thing the IRS
has ever done. There are countless people who have undergone much worse IRS
terrorism than I have, and when I mention the raid, I don't want it to sound
like "boo hoo, poor me!" I just use it to emphasize what a lawless bunch of
terrorists these people are. There are countless other examples of their
terrorism I could use, but (for obvious reasons) the one that comes to my
mind is the one that happened to me. For the many who have suffered worse
at the hands of the federal Gestapo, I pledge not to stop until this fraud
is gone.


Larken Rose

(P.S. There is no relevance to the title of this message. I just didn't
want to have another message titled "A Few Things.")

Thursday, September 04, 2003

Random Stuff

From: larken@taxableincome.net
Date: 2003/09/04 Thu AM 12:55:02 EDT
To: dkenline@bellsouth.net
Subject: Random Stuff

Dear List Subscriber,

1) I think I will be on Peter's show this coming Friday, the 5th. Okay, I'm
pretty sure, and I don't want to bother explaining why I'm not all the way
sure. Anyway, anything you want to know about the show, including how to
listen online, you can find at http://www.petermacshow.com (last time we had
a nice collection of technical problems, but things should be better this

2) A lot of people ask me if I can recommend a CPA or attorney to help them
deal with the IRS. At the moment, the answer is "no," and probably will be
in the future. While there are several professionals who understand the
issue, I'm not sure if any of them are looking for more work. If I publicly
endorsed someone, they would instantly get several hundred calls. (One
reason I don't recommend anyone is that I don't think anyone has a reliable
way to make the IRS obey the law.)

3) Recently I've seen a significant increase in the number of e-mails I'm
getting from people, asking how they should respond to an IRS letter, or
deal with some action the IRS is taking, etc.

First, I'll respond to the honest people seeking help: I do not and cannot
give advice. As you may have noticed, while the feds have gotten
injunctions against Nite.org, Taxgate.com, and countless others, they do NOT
have one against me. That is because I DO NOT DO "case work"; I do not have
clients; I do not give advice. Not only am I not "authorized" to do that,
but I don't know of any "procedure" that will force the IRS to obey the law
anyway. I believe ENDING the fraud is the only way any of us will really be
safe from the federal extortion racket.

Now I'll respond to the IRS agents PRETENDING to be honest people seeking
help: Get a real job.

4) I am flogging myself for having made even a wild guess at the time when
the "secret weapon" would be completed. As usual, it is taking longer. If
I guess again, I'll probably just have to flog myself again later. However,
next week I'll let people know more about what the project is. For those
who care (and for any federal terrorists listening), the project is beyond
the point where doing anything nasty to me would stop the project. So if I
die in a plane crash in Little Rock, the "secret weapon" will still happen.

5) Hopefully the DVD version of the "Theft By Deception" video should be
available in a month or so. (I'll probably have to flog myself later for
saying that.) And no, that's not the "secret weapon."

6) Nothing much has happened much since the federal Gestapo's little
invasion of my home on May 6th. Our Motion to Quash should be filed soon,
and when it is, it will be publicly posted. There will also be legal action
taken regarding the theft of the videos, copies of the "Taxable Income"
report, and "Theft By Deception" bumper-stickers. (That will NOT be funded
by the "861 Truth Fund.") I'm still not in jail, or charged with anything,
or indicted, or dead.

7) Don't worry if there are stretches when you don't hear from me these
days. There is a lot going on, and it's all good, that will keep me busy.

8) For the record, I am sticking by my prediction that the "income tax"
deception will be toast by April 15th, 2004.


Larken Rose

Wednesday, July 09, 2003

Hooray for the Tax Court!

From: "larken" larken@taxableincome.net
Date: 2003/07/09 Wed AM 12:57:15 EDT
To: dkenline@bellsouth.net
Subject: Hooray for the Tax Court!

Dear List Subscriber,

Yes, I really did write "hooray for the Tax Court," and I wasn't even kidding. I just heard from a reliable source that today (7/8/03) the Tax Court ruled that it is IMPROPER for the IRS Appeals division to disallow audio-recording of meetings held before Appeals, including Collections Due ProcessHearings. (That was the new "policy" of IRS Appeals, as of many months ago.)

It's sort of sad that this is even worth celebrating, since 26 USC ยง 7521 makes it glaringly obvious that Appeals is REQUIRED BY LAW to allow such recordings. Why the heck we needed a "ruling" to state the bleeding obvious is beyond me. Oh well.

The next question is, how will the IRS respond? The IRS does NOT consider Tax Court rulings binding on them, except for the particular case before the court (or pseudo-court). So I see two options for the IRS:

1) ABIDE by what the Tax Court said, and make it so that all the thuggery that has happened behind closed doors at IRS Appeals can now be on the record, and can be made available to the public by the person recording it.

2) IGNORE what the Tax Court said, and forever have a clear example of how the IRS does NOT consider Tax Court rulings to be binding.

See the predicament?

"So Mr. Appeals Guy, let me get this straight. You say that it's 'frivolous' for me to even mention Section 861, because of a ruling by the Tax Court--the same court that told you to allow me to record this meeting... but you didn't. So what the Tax Court says matters, except when it's in my favor? Is that about right?"

If they ever get to Appeals with me, that should be fun.


Larken Rose

Friday, May 16, 2003


From: "larken"
Date: 2003/05/16 Fri PM 03:57:47 EDT
Subject: Focus

First, I can't thank all of you enough for the approximately EIGHT HUNDRED personal e-mails of support we received (after I asked for a show of support to show Tessa, my wife).

Based on some other e-mails I have received recently, I thought I should mention a couple things:

1) Somehow some people seem to have the impression that I was stunned by the raid, that I expected to receive justice from the system, and that I'm now discouraged and depressed. I'm not sure how people got that impression, but the exact opposite is the case. I didn't know WHICH thuggery to expect, but this type of stunt doesn't surprise me at all. (It still annoys me, though.) I was NEVER doing this battle expecting the system to voluntarily provide justice, and I've been saying that for ages. Their invasion of my home has only strengthened my resolve to end this fraud. I may be relatively "quiet" for a while, but it's only because I'm busy working on the next thing. For future reference, if I'm not dead, and the IRS is still in business, then I'm still working to expose the fraud.

2) Several people have generously offered to help with my legal expenses. In part due to the generosity of some attorneys who are helping already for nothing or next to nothing, I expense my expenses to be very low. But there are a couple other factors, too. For example, I refuse to give the feds the satisfaction of knowing they are disabling my efforts, by me using up my time and resources on my own personal case. I've been telling you all that defending yourselves, one by one, from the federal leviathan is an inefficient, ineffective use of our resources. Now I intend to "lead by example." My primary goal is what it always has been: spreading the truth about the income tax until the fraud falls. I will be taking legal steps to minimize their ability to censor me, but protecting my own rump is NOT my focus here. I do not want the dragon to just stop biting me. I want the dragon destroyed. It will happen soon, and we should all be pushing for it as quickly as possible to minimize the number of people terrorized by it in the meantime.

Once again, I will use a military analogy. Every commander knows the tactic of sending forces to a certain place, NOT because that place is important in and of itself, but just to lure the enemy's forces away from what IS important. I intend to defend myself from IRS intimidations and harassments, but NOT at the expense of the real goal: spreading the truth. (In fact, I believe their invasion of my home will actually be a big HELP in showing the public that "something is rotten in Denmark.") While I will be taking some legal action in response to their attempts to terrorize me and my family, I am NOT going to waste all my time trying to sue people. When this "dragon" is gone we will ALL be better off, and THAT has to be the goal for which we are aiming.


Larken Rose

Authority To Carry Firearms

After hearing about the raid on my home, several of you asked me if IRS agents even have any authority to carry firearms. No, they don't. But their lawyers IMAGINE the authority by deciding it's IMPLIED in the ability to make arrests. (What a load of bunk; ANYONE can make an arrest.) I have a FOIA response saying as much.

I doubt they'll care, but I intend to tell the Pennsylvania folks that twelve people were on Pennsylvania state land, driving vehicles containing loaded firearms, and carrying concealed firearms, without a permit. (I, on the other hand, AM legally authorized to carry a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania.)

In case you don't believe me (that they aren't authorized to carry firearms), here's the statute. Notice that "(a)" is about ATF agents, and it DOES say they can carry firearms, and "(b)" is about IRS agents, and it DOESN'T say they can.


Sec. 7608. Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers

(a) Enforcement of subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms

Any investigator, agent, or other internal revenue officer by whatever term designated, whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal, seizure, or forfeiture provisions of subtitle E or of any other law of the United States pertaining to the commodities subject to tax under such subtitle for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible may -


(2) execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States;

(3) in respect to the performance of such duty, make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in his presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws
of the United States if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, such felony; and

(4) in respect to the performance of such duty, make seizures of property subject to forfeiture to the United States.

(b) Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than Subtitle E

(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal revenue laws, any other criminal provisions of law relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible, or any other law for which the Secretary has
delegated investigatory authority to the Internal Revenue Service, is, in the performance of his duties, authorized to perform the functions described in paragraph (2).

(2) The functions authorized under this subsection to be performed by an officer referred to in paragraph (1) are -


(A) to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States;

(B) to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the internal revenue laws committed in his presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony; and

(C) to make seizures of property subject to forfeiture under the internal revenue laws.


Incidentally, while a dozen illegally-armed IRS agents were rummaging around my house, I pointed out to the local police officer who was there that every one of them carrying a firearm was in direct violation of Pennsylvania law, as they were not "duly authorized" to carry firearms. He said he didn't want to get into it. Protect and serve, huh?


Larken Rose