861 Evidence mini-presentation

[rushpat]

It looks like Larken Rose and company have finished their minicd presentation for the 861 source evidence for viewing.

They are publishing minicd's in the hundreds of thousands, and will make a downloable version soon. However, the online version looks to be ready for viewing now.

Pass this one on:

http://www.861.info

Not arguing with Rose and his position, but he had his day in court. They beat him to a pulp, naturally. It's "frivilous," they say.


Randy

[kurte]

Hey Randy, Just curious, when did Larken go to court? I am not aware of any such event, and he seems to make an excellent case for his position.Certainly one I agree with. There is no requirement by law to pay income tax on domestic income. Check out his video.

Ooops. My bad. It was Thurston Bell that got busted.


Sorry 'bout that.


Randy

[Ice]

The below is an email I received... anyone's thoughts on these statements are welcome.


<FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff>http://www.usadaily.com/News/03232004_IRS_documentary_video.htm</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New">
Quote:
If the IRS is correct in its interpretation of the law then there may be many confused people. The following are Larken Rose's question, which he claims the IRS won't specifically answer:

Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC S: 861(b) and 26 CFR S: 1.861-8 (in addition to any other pertinent sections) to determine my
taxable domestic income?

2) If some people should not use those sections to determine their taxable domestic income, please show where the law says who should or
should not use those sections for that.
End Quote.

Like his fellow Libertarian scam artist, Joe Banister, they have complete contempt for the people that they are trying to scam. Larken asked these questions numerous times on the misc.taxes newsgroup over at groups.google.com& http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Larken+Rose%22

and knows the answers to these questions:</FONT><FONT face="Courier New">

Q1: No.

Q2: 861 is in Subchapter N. Subchapter N Part 2 says whom it applies to:
A. Nonresident Alien Individuals
B. Foreign corporations
C. Miscellaneous persons (working for foreign entities, etc.)

Larken knows that Subchapter B applies to him, for which there is no&separate section for determining source, since IRC 61 explicitly says: "from whatever source derived".

Larken, like Joe, want to discredit those who aren't liable and want to follow the tax code to the letter, by baiting people who are liable, e.g.&employers, to misapply it. Joe is obviously a gov't plant, as an "ex-IRS agent."& Larken might also be a plant, since he isn't being held w/out bail for trial, as was Richard Simkanin, one of their victims. If so, he'll lose the case, get a slap on the wrist, and have his fine paid by the same people who wrote his newsletters.</FONT>


&

Hi, Ice....


Man, you have a gift for hitting me where I live, don't you?


Bannister? Wouldn't trust him, period.


Rose? "Something" ain't right. Sure was a long time from when he got started until action was taken against him.


Truth time: I'm slowly developing the same distrust of most "leaders" in the so-called patriot movement as I have of BB and its agents.& This is based on personal experiences as well as just hanging around for over four years watching it all play out.


Too many people selling a "get out of jail free" card. Too many people buying 'em and still going to jail. Something is very wrong with this picture.


I've reached this point: It's my ass on the line. I welcome advice and wisdom and input from anyone and everyone. But until *I* verify it--every single word--I'm taking no one's "suggestions" about any "how-to's."


So far, after all these years&(and as someone clearly trustworthy told me recently), the only thing that really works is "stick to the basics."


Any idea, Ice, on who said that?


Randy


&

[Ice]

Randy,


Any idea on who said what?


If you want something to check out, to research, to confirm for its validity --- then check this out:


http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuri...showtopic=3649


You will find this to be very interesting.


Ice

[rushpat]

I've seen Larkin in person and he seemed to be holding back an anger. I've also met Sherry Jackson Peele (who's in the video) and talked with her and asked questions. I believe she's totally sincere in her beliefs.

I don't think either is a BB plant. I don't know about Bannister but haven't heard enough yet to think that he is.

I don't think 861 is the end-all, be-all of the tax argument, but yet another piece of the puzzle. I am, however, happy this video has been made available, as it will get more and more people questioning and at least challenging them on the tax issue.

[Ice]

Actually, I can't see why anyone would doubt Larkin... it's all there in the code.


The above post which claims Larkin is wrong didn't really go into too much detail.& But, it's just one of those things that requires "research".& And I think you will probably find that Larkin's questions are still valid.& The emphatic "No" offered to Q1 above seems to be refuted in the video link.


Besides, if there wasn't anything to it - why won't any of the "experts" or government officials offer any answers to those simple questions?& Instead they offer threats and refusal to respond... or just plain SILENCE.& And we know what silence means... don't we?


Ice

Everyone should&keep this in the back of your minds: <U>ALL</U> movements (especially recent history) that have become successful and became a threat to a power structure have had agents planted within.& The disinformation campaigns of today's intelligence community are at the pinnacle of their achievements with&multiple layers of cut-outs and ops.


Trust your instincts and do your due diligence; truth is sovereign and strongest of all.


-squirrels