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