And here is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
(FBI) definition of “terrorism”, extracted from Dept. of the Navy training
on terrorism:
The definition of “violence” and “violent” used
above from Black’s Law dictionary is as follows:
Note that the object of terrorism can and often
is the government. Remember that in this country, the people are
the sovereigns and the government is their agent or servant. They
direct and manage their government using elections and jury service.
Therefore, terrorism directed at the people is effectively terrorism
directed at the government.
So if the government is using any kind of force
against a member of society and cannot or will not cite a specific law
either making the action they are opposing a crime within their jurisdiction
or making you liable to do something that you aren’t doing within their
jurisdiction, then they are involved in an act of “terrorism”, because
they are applying force unlawfully. There is no other way you
can look at it. Not only that, but if they evade or avoid justifying
their behavior, then you can add to the charge that they are “obstructing
justice” and covering up wrongdoing! Hiding the unlawfulness of
what they are doing by evading responsibility for justifying it or refusing
to address the legal issues authorizing it is obstruction of justice
in violation of
18 U.S.C.
Chapter 73: Obstructing Justice.
Do any of the above elements describing terrorism
decribe the activities of the IRS? They sure do! Therefore,
the IRS is a “terrorist organization” and the USA Patriot Act and
18 U.S.C.
Part I, Chapt. 113B can and should be used to oppose unlawful IRS
efforts at enforcement against either natural persons or any kind of
business that is outside the federal zone. Such unlawful enforcement
actions include:
All of the above are terrorist activities if the
law does not specifically authorize them or if they are accomplished
outside of the federal zone, and chapter 5 provides over 300 pages of
proof showing why any efforts on the part of the IRS to enforce income
taxes, and especially in the 50 states and outside of federal enclaves
within those states, are unlawful activities in the context of Subtitle
A income taxes of natural persons.
Along these lines, below is an interesting letter
from Larken Rose which he sent to the U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft,
a few weeks after they illegally raided his home for publicizing the
illegality of the IRS’ enforcement activities. He wrote this letter
on June 11, 2003 and we obtained it off his website at
http://www.taxableincome.net/debate/war/ashcroft3.html:
June 11, 2003
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to you to report terrorist activity happening on
American soil. The good news is that the perpetrators will
be easy for you to find. The bad news is this: they will be
easy to find because many of them work for you. You will probably
want to ignore the rest of this letter, because it is not about
the kind of terrorism you care about: the kind that endangers your
power. On the contrary, this terrorism increases your power,
and only endangers the freedom of the American public, which is
why you will do nothing about it (except condone it). However,
I feel compelled to report it to you anyway, because your unresponsiveness
will show a lot of people that you do not care at all about their
freedom or well-being.
On May 6th of this year, there was an armed invasion
of my home carried out by the IRS under the guise of a “search warrant.”
In reality, my “crime” was that I spoke my mind, and the IRS did
not like what I had to say. So a dozen or so armed agents
raided my house, confiscated my computers, and stole several cases
of my “Theft By Deception” video. Could it be that the IRS
does not want a public discussion of this issue?
Both on my web site (www.taxableincome.net) and in my video (“Theft
By Deception”), I explain my findings and conclusions—based entirely
on the law itself—concerning the proper application of the federal
income tax.. The video does not tell anyone to do anything, and
if the web site tells anyone to do anything, it is to ask perfectly
reasonable questions about how they should determine what they legally
owe. (The web site does not give legal advice, or tell people
what to do in their own disputes with the IRS.)
The government will not tolerate this public expression of my
beliefs, despite the fact that it is unquestionably “non-commercial”
speech protected by the First Amendment. Nor is the government
willing to have an open, rational discussion about what your
own law books say. So the IRS and your underlings at the
DOJ have tried to silence me. In 2001, the IRS made the asinine
accusation that the expression of my conclusions constitutes an
“abusive tax shelter” under 26 USC § 6700, and that I should therefore
be silenced via court order. That allegation was utterly baseless,
so they soon gave up on it. The DOJ then attempted to subpoena
everything I had ever written about taxes, privately or publicly,
in a case that was not even about me. (It was an injunction
case against Thurston Bell, with whom I had no business dealings
and very little personal contact.) The U.S. Attorney in the
case (Evan Davis) even admitted to me on the phone that the subpoena
was overly broad. So that attempt at intimidation and harassment
also failed.
Then the government tried the most blatant thuggery against me
so far: the armed invasion of my home last month. By
sending to your office (and to the IRS) letters swearing that I
received income, and swearing that I did not file income tax returns
or make payments to the IRS since 1997, and by making my situation
and my actions completely public, I removed any need whatsoever
for them to invade my home and steal my records and my computers.
I had given you all the factual evidence you could want (without
being asked for it), and given you an explanation of why my actions
were completely legal and proper (i.e. because I do not owe the
tax). The only things you would need to prove to convict me
of tax evasion or failure to file a tax return is that my income
is taxable and that I have no reason to suspect otherwise.
So why did the government choose thuggery? Because in a “fair
fight,” you would lose.
Very telling was the fact that while being deposed by Evan Davis
(in the Thurston Bell case), and while being interviewed during
the raid of my home, government agents kept asking me, in essence,
what it would take to shut me up (though not in those words).
They asked whether a court ruling would make me change my mind and
stop saying what I was saying; they asked if an injunction would
do it; they asked if prosecuting me would do it. They wanted
to know what it would take to silence me. I told them then
what I will tell you now. There is only one thing that will
ever shut me up: showing me, using logic and legally-binding citations
of law, that my conclusions are incorrect. No amount of terrorism,
insults, or threats will do it. (I am happy to report that
the IRS’ latest Gestapo-style stunt against me has back-fired dramatically,
drawing the attention and anger of a lot of people who previously
had paid no attention to the issue.)
Once again, I hereby request that you supply me with direct
written answers to the enclosed six questions about how
to determine one’s taxable income, and I am going to suggest that
others also ask you to answer those questions as well. However,
once again you will not answer them because to do so would
expose the largest financial fraud in history, which would endanger
your power. You will do what many other government officials
have done when confronted with the evidence: you will show the world
that you are willing to terrorize citizens who speak their minds,
but you are either unable or unwilling to answer perfectly reasonable
questions about what the law itself says. The IRS and the
“Department of Justice” care not at all about the “rule of law”;
they care only about whatever will maintain or increase their own
power.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: if you
believe I am breaking the law, then prosecute me.
By being completely open about my situation and my actions, I have
already done most of the work for you. You do not need to
invade my home, steal hundreds of copies of my video, censor my
web site, or do any of the other fascist stunts that the government
seems so fond of. All you need to do is prove that my income
is taxable, and prove that I have no reason to suspect otherwise.
I am even enclosing something you can give to any U.S. Attorney
who wants to try me, describing exactly what he must prove to convict
me. If the only way to settle this is with you trying to imprison
me, so be it. If the government wants to shut me up, then
stop the clandestine IRS/DOJ terrorism, and do it “by the book.”
Put me on trial, in view of the public, so they can see the evidence
for themselves. (Perhaps you know you would lose if you
did.)
If this letter seems a bit harsh, it is because I do not like
it when the organization whose sole purpose—according to the Declaration
of Independence—is to protect the inalienable rights of the people,
spends so much time and effort trying to shut me up, even going
to such lengths as executing an armed invasion of my home!
(You may be interested to know that I have had more than one person
who grew up in Nazi Germany telling me that they know how I feel,
and that they sympathize.)
I (and thousands of others) know that the entire government,
top to bottom, is utterly incapable of refuting my conclusions,
because my conclusions agree with what the law itself says.
Every tyrannical stunt that the government tries will only make
the public angrier when the truth becomes widely known. But
tyrants never learn from history; they always resort to any amount
of violence to hang on to power, even though that tactic almost
always backfires. The IRS and your “Department of Justice”
apparently are doomed to learn the same lesson, since you are utterly
incapable of rational and open discussion, as you will now demonstrate
by failing to answer the enclosed questions.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
cc: Eileen J. O’Connor
U.S. D.O.J. / Tax Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Enc: “Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income”
“Things You Need to Prove to Convict
Me”
Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income
1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b), and the related
regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8, to determine my taxable
domestic income?
2) If some individuals—including myself—should not use those
sections for determining their taxable domestic income, please show
me where the regulations say who should or should not use those
sections for that.
Reason for first two questions: The regulations under
26 USC § 861(b) (26 CFR § 1.861-8 and following) begin by stating
that 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 the U.S. has been determined. (The
regulations then say that Sections 862(b) and 863(a) describe how
to determine taxable income from outside of the U.S.) Section
1.861-1(a)(1) of the regulations confirms that “taxable income from
sources within the United States” is to be determined in accordance
with the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8. (See
also 26 CFR §§ 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c).)
3) If a U.S. citizen lives and works exclusively within the
50 states, and receives all of his income from within the 50 states,
do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show such income to be taxable?
Reason for question: Section 217 of the Revenue Act of
1921, statutory predecessor of 26 USC § 861 and following, stated
that income from within the U.S. was taxable for foreigners and
for U.S. citizens and corporations deriving most of their income
from federal possessions (but did not say the same about the domestic
income of most Americans). The regulations under the equivalent
section of the 1939 Code (e.g. §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9,
29.119-10 (1945)) showed the same thing. The current regulations
at 1.861-8 still show income to be taxable only when derived from
certain “specific sources and activities,” which, concerning domestic
income, still relate only to foreigners and certain Americans receiving
income from federal possessions (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4),
1.861-8(f)(1)).
4) Should one refer to 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine
whether the “items” of income he receives (such as compensation,
interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income
tax purposes?
Reason for question: The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3))
state that a “class of gross income” consists of the “items” of
income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, etc.).
The regulations (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(b)(1)) then direct the reader
to “paragraph (d)(2)” of the section, which provides that such “classes
of gross income” may include some income which is excluded for federal
income tax purposes.
5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income
found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of
the average American not on that list?
Reason for question: After defining “exempt income” to
mean income which is exempt, eliminated, or excluded for federal
income tax purposes (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)), the regulations
give a list of types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which
are subject to tax), which includes the domestic income of foreigners,
certain foreign income of Americans, income of certain possessions
corporations, and income of international and foreign sales corporations,
but which does not include the domestic income of the average American
(26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).
6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation
by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject
to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution,
not taxable by the federal government?
Reason for question: Older income tax regulations defining
“gross income” and “net income” said that neither income exempted
by statute “or fundamental law” were subject to the tax (§ 39.21-1
(1956)), and said that in addition to those types of income exempted
by statute, other types of income were exempt because they were,
“under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government”
(§ 39.22(b)-1 (1956)).
Things You Need to Prove to Convict Me
This enclosure describes exactly what a U.S. Attorney must prove
in order to have me convicted of willful failure to file (26 USC
§ 7203) or willful tax evasion (26 USC § 7201). Since I have
consistently made it publicly known that 1996 was the last year
for which I filed a federal income tax return or made payments to
the IRS, and since I have consistently admitted that I received
enough income in each of those years that if my income was taxable,
both returns and payments would have been legally required—and
I would not hesitate to admit both of those facts to any jury—all
you must prove is that: 1) the income I received is taxable, and;
2) I had no reason to suspect otherwise.
In fact, since judges often say that they alone will declare
to a jury what the law is (and forbid any debate on it), and since
the judge will most likely (incorrectly) assert that my income is
taxable, probably the only thing left for you to prove will be that
I believe my income is taxable according to the law itself.
So here is what you must prove:
--------------------------------------------------------------
First issue: Determining taxable domestic income
You must prove at least one of the following two things:
1) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or
have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief
that I should use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR
§ 1.861-8 to determine my taxable domestic income (i.e. my “taxable
income from sources within the United States”).
(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since numerous
legally-binding citations specifically state in plain English that
I should use 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 to determine
my “taxable income from sources within the United States.”
See 26 CFR §§ 1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b),
1.863-1(c), and Treasury Decision 6258.)
2) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or
have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief
that the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8
do not show my income to be taxable.
(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the
current regulations, as well as 80 years of predecessor statutes
and regulations, plainly show that income is taxable under those
sections only when it derives from certain specific sources or activities
(which I do not engage in), which all relate to international or
foreign commerce. See Section 217 of the Revenue Act
of 1921; Sections 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9 and 29.119-10 of
the 1945 regulations; and the current 26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4)
and 1.861-8(f)(1).)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Second issue: Exempt income
You must also prove at least one of the following two
things:
1) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or
have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief
that the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation,
interest, rents, etc.) are not always taxable, but are in
some cases exempt or excluded for federal income tax
purposes.
(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the
income tax regulations show that those “items” are sometimes
exempt (even if that income is not specifically exempted
by any Title 26 statute). See 26 CFR §§ 1.61-1, 1.265-1,
1.861-8(a)(3), 1.861-8(b)(1). The regulations for decades
have shown that the Constitution itself excludes some types of income
from taxation. See Article 71 of Regulations 62 (1922),
Sections 39.21-1 and 39.22(b)-1 of the 1956 regulations, as well
as 26 CFR § 1.312-6.)
2) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or
have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief
that where the regulations list types of commerce, income from
which is not exempt (i.e. income from which is taxable),
the type of income I receive is not included.
(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the
income tax regulations have long included a specific list of the
types of income that are not exempt, which has always been limited
to certain international or foreign commerce (such as U.S. citizens
receiving foreign income, and foreigners receiving U.S. income),
but does not include my income. See Article
31 of Regulations 62 (1922), Section 39.22(a)-1 of the 1956 regulations,
and the current 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii).)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Because the two issues above each lead to the same conclusion
using independent citations and reasoning, you must prove
at least one of the first two, and at least one of the second
two. In doing so, you can rely on only those citations
that I have already seen (due to the “willfulness” factor), and
that are the legal equivalent or superior to Treasury regulations.
In other words, you can rely only on statutes, regulations,
or Supreme Court rulings. According to the Internal
Revenue Manual, any court rulings other than those of the
Supreme Court, as well as any IRS letters, notices, letter rulings,
revenue rulings, procedures, publications, or forms are insufficient
and irrelevant, as they do not carry the legal weight of
the regulations relied upon above.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of the above, you may wish to argue that even though
26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 do determine
taxable domestic income, and even though those sections do not
show my income to be taxable, I should nonetheless blindly assume
that my income is taxable anyway. In addition, you
would have to argue that even though the “items” listed in 26 USC
§ 61 are not always taxable, and even though my income
is not on the list of non-exempt types of income,
I should nonetheless blindly assume that my income is taxable
(non-exempt) anyway. But the Supreme Court has had
a few things to say about assuming that a tax applies to matters
not specifically pointed out:
“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established
rule not to extend their provisions, by implication,
beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their
operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed
out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against
the government, and in favor of the citizen.” (Gould
v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917))
“On behalf of the government it is urged that taxation is a practical
matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon
which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions.
But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed
is most important for such statutes are not to be extended by implication
beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful,
the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of
the taxpayer… [If the government] seeking to recover the
tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the
subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law
the case might otherwise appear to be [quoting Lord Cairns].”
[U.S. v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179 (1923)]
(See also Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303 (1938); White v. Aronson,
302 U.S. 16 (1937); and Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, 284 U.S.
552 (1932).)
In addition, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition)
says that the doctrine of “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”
(the inclusion of one is the exclusion of others) means that “where
law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall
apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted
or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.”
Can you recognize the government’s terrorism against
this man? We sure can! All he wants is an
accountable government that is a servant and protector of its people.
What he gets in response is harassment, legal terrorism, evasion,
and propaganda. This is unconscionable in a free society
and every bit as reprehensible as the acts of the Stalin in Russia or
Hitler in Germany.