Lawyer Think
February 3, 2003
Lawyers have a really bad reputation. But not bad enough. So I'm going to help out a bit with this message. (My apologies to the decent folks who happen to be lawyers, to whom the following doesn't apply. All five of them.)

Lawyers don't like truth. Notice I didn't say they don't like "THE" truth, and I'm not even talking about the income tax issue here. They don't like the existence of an objective, knowable truth. It is incompatible with their job and their whole mindset.

"He could afford a really good lawyer." How often have you heard that? What the heck is a "good lawyer"? Is it one who can find out the truth, and present it in a logical, understandable way? No, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE. It is one who, REGARDLESS of the evidence, can tap-dance and obfuscate enough to get a judge (another lawyer) to rule in his favor.

I have had the privilege of observing dozens of attorneys responding to the 861 evidence (to the video, the questions, the report, etc.). Some very strange responses show up over and over again. Here are a few examples, which show how lawyer think:

  1. "That's just your interpretation." Well duh, no kidding... though it's a bit odd to call believing what the law SAYS an "interpretation". But the implication is that there ISN'T a truth, only a variety of "opinions" and "interpretations." Often after saying that, they won't give a SHRED of a rebuttal of any of the substance. They won't say what their OWN interpretation is--often they admit they don't know enough about the sections to even have one--nor do they find anything wrong in the reasoning. Their WHOLE point is to call it an "interpretation," as if to reduce it to "well you like vanilla, but someone else might like chocolate."
  2. "The courts will rule against you." Again, they often say this WITHOUT being able to refute a word of the issue. They are predicting that ANOTHER lawyer (a judge) will say that we're wrong. I actually agree with that prediction, but "the courts will rule against you" is NOT an answer to "do you think this is right?" Actually, it's an admission that lawyers don't CARE whether something is right or wrong, only whether they can spin it to their advantage. And that leads to...
  3. "Even if you're right, it doesn't matter." I've seen or heard at least a half dozen lawyers say that, almost in those exact words. To them, it doesn't MATTER if the government is stealing a trillion dollars a year through fraud and extortion. What "matters" is whether they can do a dance to make a judge (a lawyer) "rule" in their favor. It doesn't matter what the LAW says; it matters what a lawyer ASSERTS that a law says. (Incidentally, that was one of the biggest fears of the founders of this country: a system of "law" both arbitrary and unknowable, which any "judge" could spin any way he wants.)

And that leads me to the "case law" fetish that almost every lawyer has. For those who don't know, "case law" is where a judge makes a "ruling" on some issue. (As several legal experts have told me, it is possible to find "case law" to support just about any argument, on either side of any dispute, which makes it all a joke.) And what is "case law" usually based upon? OLDER case law. So the legal profession consists mostly of a LAWYER citing a LAWYER (judge) citing a LAWYER (judge) making something up. If the evidence itself had any bearing, it was only in that FIRST case about the issue. A few steps later, the evidence is GONE, and the "authority" consists entirely of the fact that A LAWYER SAID IT BEFORE.

The 861 evidence is a prime example. An ex-bureaucrat Tax Court "judge" (who may not have even been a lawyer), calls the issue "frivolous." Then a lawyer (judge) says he won't overturn that "ruling." Then another bureaucrat cites the first bureaucrat and the lawyer saying it. Then the IRS lawyers cite BOTH bureaucrats and the lawyer saying it. Then the low-level IRS paper-pusher give out form letters with LAWYERS citing LAWYERS citing BUREAUCRATS. If you trace it back to where it actually came from, there is NOTHING THERE.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how the law works (or doesn't work) in this country.

If anything should qualify someone as a "religious zealot," it is your average lawyer. There are dozens of people on this list who have researched and studied what the LAW says about "gross income" and "taxable income," and income from sources within and without the U.S., far more than ANY judge ever has. A tax is a STATUTORY requirement. It exists because Congress passed a LAW, which was WRITTEN DOWN, and encoded into the statutes of the USC. If someone is far LESS familiar with the statutes and regulations (past and present) than you are, why would their "opinion" or "ruling" be worth anything?

A fine example is the recent injunction against Thurston Bell. In his "ruling," the judge in that case (Judge Conner) showed that he knows JACK SQUAT about this portion of the law. That is somewhat understandable, as he probably never had any incentive to look there before. What is downright insane is that he would make a "ruling" that FORCES someone to SHUT UP, based on the judges IGNORANCE, when that "someone" (in this case Thurston Bell) knows far more about the ACTUAL EVIDENCE than the "judge" does.

If you know a lot about computer networking, do you think your PLUMBER should be able to pass a "ruling" telling you how to do it? Or if you know plumbing, do you think a computer network engineer should make a "ruling" telling you how to do plumbing? It's absurd, yet that's EXACTLY what these "judges" are doing when they pass down "rulings" about something they obviously know almost nothing about.

Judge Conner claimed that 26 USC 861(a)(3) means that the wages of all Americans are taxable. He claimed that, because he knows JACK SQUAT about how that part of the law works. (If you watch Step Six of "Theft By Deception," you will see that Judge Conner fell hook, line and sinker for an INTENTIONAL deception.) If I could sit Judge Conner down, and question him about the sections, ANYONE watching would know that he doesn't nearly know enough about those sections to make any sort of "ruling" about them. Again, I don't fault him for being ignorant about that part of the law, but I DO fault him for being arrogant enough to make his "ruling" about it without FINDING OUT how those sections work and what they are about.

(If you are one who will doubt yourself because someone who has no idea what he's talking about "rules" against you, then you need to pay more attention to EVIDENCE and less attention to lawyers.)

I have also noticed that lawyers don't mind as much arguing about the 5th Amendment, or the 16th Amendment, or the direct/indirect tax issue, etc. They are exactly what lawyers thrive on: debatable things to be argued about and litigated ad nauseum. Anyone can theorize about some Constitutional provision until the cows come home, and that doesn't say anything about lawyers in general.

But with the 861 evidence, most run for cover, because to argue it they have to argue that the government intentionally committed a huge fraud, AND argue that the lawyers MISSED IT for more than 80 YEARS. That is one thing that "the experts" never like to do: admit that "the experts" have no clue.

In most cases, lawyers get visibly angry, sometimes downright malicious, when confronted with this issue. (Sometimes they maintain their composure for a few minutes, while trying a few excuses about why 861 should be ignored.) To them, there isn't allowed to BE an objective, knowable truth, and there CERTAINLY isn't allowed to be a truth that CONTRADICTS what all their lawyer buddies (including judges) have been saying for the last 80 years. And finally, even if the law itself DOES show that, it "doesn't matter," because their lawyer buddies (especially judges) will CONTINUE to give their baseless "rulings" and "opinions."

But just like the scientific community, the medical community and others have learned the hard way, over and over again for a few THOUSAND years, sometimes us mere peasants decide to check out the evidence for ourselves... which usually results in the "experts" looking incompetent or criminal. No wonder lawyers are trying so hard to bash the issue. Would YOU want to be a successful, wealthy, well-known tax attorney when all your clients find out that you don't know SQUAT about what the tax laws actually say? (Can you say "class action lawsuit"?)


Larken Rose

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship

Last revision: August 14, 2009 08:07 AM
   Home  About  Contact This private system is NOT subject to monitoring