Rose, Larken

[Joey Smith]

[quote]Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Credentials versus Evidence
From : 861-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent : Tuesday, March 6, 2007 6:22 PM
To : dkenline [at] hotmail.com
Subject : Credentials versus Evidence

(Please pardon the length of this e-mail. Unlike some people, I
have a nasty habit of actually quoting citations to support the
points I make, which tends to lengthen things considerably. Plus,
I'm naturally long-winded.)

Dear Subscriber,

Yet another "expert"
opinion poo-pooing the 861 evidence was recently brought to my
attention. It would be a full-time job to respond to all of them
(the status quo always has a lot of beneficiaries, and therefore
proponents), but the general gist of most of them can be addressed
with one response. The example I'll use this time comes from a
professor of law at the George Washington University Law School (in
DC), so one would think that it would at least be a little more
credible than the remarks of some untrained paper-pusher. Here is
the link to the (attempted) refutation of the 861 evidence:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... es/861.htm

An
important first thing to note about the article is that it cites
absolutely nothing from the law. Not one word. Anywhere. As is
often the case, it consists of a string of unsupported assertions.
The closest thing to legal support Mr. Siegel gives is to say that
"the rest of the tax code (especially sections 1, 61 and 63) shows
that U.S. citizens are taxed on their income from all sources,
whether from within or outside the United States." Again, nothing
from the law is quoted.

As many of you know, Section 1 imposes a
tax on one's "taxable income." It says nothing about how to
determine what is and what is not "taxable income." Section 63
generally defines "taxable income" to mean "gross income" minus
deductions. It says nothing about how to determine what is or is
not to be included in "gross income." Section 61 not only says
NOTHING about geographic origin of income, or the type of commerce
which generates the income (which is addressed in great detail in
Subchapter N of the code, beginning with Section 861), but Section
61 itself, for many decades, was followed by a cross-reference
referring the reader to Section 861 regarding "Income from sources
WITHIN the United States," and to Section 862 regarding income from
OUTSIDE of the United States. (If the wording of Section 61 meant
that geographic origin didn't MATTER, why on earth would we be told
to look somewhere else concerning geographic origin?)

I expect
that Mr. Siegel is basing his conclusion upon the wording "all
income from whatever source derived" from Section 61, though he did
not bother to quote even that. But the first thing that should be
addressed is actually a psychological point: WHY did he feel no
need to cite ANYTHING from the law? My guess is that, being a
professor of law, he is accustomed to having his students assume
that he knows what he's talking about. In other words, his
credentials ARE his support, and the only support he thinks he
needs. (Conversely, many people might view my LACK of credentials
as all that is needed to render my "opinion" worthless, despite the
fact that I quote from the law itself constantly, as you'll see
below.)

Mr Siegel asserts that 861 and its regs exist, not to
determine whether domestic income is taxable, but merely to
"determine[] whether income is considered to be from a source
within the United States or from a source outside the United
States." While that is ONE thing that those sections do (though he
cites nothing demonstrating that), the implication is clearly that
one should NOT look there to determine whether his domestic income
is TAXABLE. Again, nothing is cited supporting such a claim.

Being
sans credentials myself, I must defer to the statutes and
regulations. Mr. Siegel states that whether one's income is foreign
or domestic "doesn't matter" and that 861 "is irrelevant" for most
U.S. citizens, "because U.S. citizens are taxed on all income from
all sources." However, here is what the official Executive branch
regulations say:

“(c) Determination of taxable income. The
taxpayer’s taxable income from sources WITHIN OR WITHOUT the United
States WILL BE DETERMINED under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 [and
following].â€

[Quixote]

An
important first thing to note about the article is that it cites
absolutely nothing from the law. Not one word. Anywhere.

Bizarre. Apparently Larken trusts the Rosettes not to read the offending article. If they did, they would find all the Code citations necessary to refute the 861 delusion.

Section 61 defines gross income as "all income from whatever source derived," but section 871 provides that foreigners are taxed only on "the amount received from sources within the United States." The rule is clear: foreigners need to know whether their income is from sources within or without the United States, because they are taxed only on their U.S.-source income, but U.S. citizens are taxed on all income from whatever source derived, so for the basic purpose of determining gross income it doesn't matter whether a U.S. citizen's income is from within or without the United States.

Nothing else is really needed.

But if the simple explanation is not enough for you, Siegel provides a link to "More Detail On The 861 Argument" on which he disects Rose's Andy Green example from "Theft by Deception"

[SteveSy]

But if the simple explanation is not enough for you, Siegel provides a link to "More Detail On The 861 Argument" on which he disects Rose's Andy Green example from "Theft by Deception"

Dissects it and then comes up with a conclusion based on nothing but an assumption. His assumption is unsupported by anything. Nothing in 861 tells a person not to use the regulations if all your income comes from within the U.S.. 1.861-8 even refers to section 61 so obviously it must apply to U.S. citizens. However it's impossible to determine your taxable income using the regulations under 861 if you make all your income from within the U.S. and you’re a wage earner even though it specifically references items of income described under section 61.

After all it should if all of you were right considering its title is pretty clear:

§ 1.861–8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.

I've noticed all of the supposed debunkers slyly avoid the fact that 1.861-8 refers to section 61 for items of gross income. That blows a massive hole in every one of their arguments.

[Quixote]

Dissects it and then comes up with a conclusion based on nothing but an assumption.

You're wrong. But at least we're in agreement on the main point, Larken Rose was lying when he said Siegel said nothing about the law.

[jg]

But if the simple explanation is not enough for you, Siegel provides a link to "More Detail On The 861 Argument" on which he disects Rose's Andy Green example from "Theft by Deception"

Dissects it and then comes up with a conclusion based on nothing but an assumption. His assumption is unsupported by anything. Nothing in 861 tells a person not to use the regulations if all your income comes from within the U.S.. 1.861-8 even refers to section 61 so obviously it must apply to U.S. citizens. However it's impossible to determine your taxable income using the regulations under 861 if you make all your income from within the U.S. and you’re a wage earner even though it specifically references items of income described under section 61.

After all it should if all of you were right considering its title is pretty clear:

§ 1.861–8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.

I've noticed all of the supposed debunkers slyly avoid the fact that 1.861-8 refers to section 61 for items of gross income. That blows a massive hole in every one of their arguments.

Nonsense. As noted earlier, because a United States citizen is taxed on all his or her income, from whatever source derived (see section 61), for most purposes it doesn't matter whether a citizen's income is from sources within or without the United States. But sometimes it does matter. The "operative sections" of regulation 1.861-8(f) are just a list of those situations in which it does matter. That's all this regulation does: it lists the code sections as to which it matters whether income is from sources within or without the United States. Section 61 is not listed, because, for the basic purpose of determining what constitutes a U.S. citizen's gross income, it doesn't matter whether the income is from sources within or without the United States

[SteveSy]

Dissects it and then comes up with a conclusion based on nothing but an assumption.

You're wrong. But at least we're in agreement on the main point, Larken Rose was lying when he said Siegel said nothing about the law.

I don't think that "More detail on 861" was there until after Larken sent out his email. I didn't see it when I first read the page.

[Quixote]

Dissects it and then comes up with a conclusion based on nothing but an assumption.

You're wrong. But at least we're in agreement on the main point, Larken Rose was lying when he said Siegel said nothing about the law.

I don't think that "More detail on 861" was there until after Larken sent out his email. I didn't see it when I first read the page.

Then Siegal is more impressive than I thought. In the brief time between Larken sending his e-mail and me first accessing Siegal's site, he was able to put together that well written and visually pleasing presentation.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Isn't Google caching fun? You just never know how long stuff will hang around. Came across this looking into the people behind Freedom Club USA who originated their 'administrative remedy' scheme based on Earl Koskella's gibberish:

http://www.libertyzone.com/LZ-861-list.html

861 Communication List

HOW TO Safely and Easily END
IRS Deceptions, Fraud & Theft

Rally around the single issue of OBEYING the 861 law...

READ Theft By Deception information at http://www.Theft-By-Deception.com and BUY the video... THEN share it with EVERY BODY you encounter!!! - - An accurately informed people won't allow being deceived or enslaved!

Get on the 861 E-Mail Communication list for your state, then begin educating and organizing people in your county to protect their unalienable rights...

IF NO Communication List is listed for your area, then send email to Larken Rose volunteering to create and maintain the communication list for your state...

ARIZONA - 861@achadwick.com / Allan Chadwick http://www.achadwick.com/861/

CALIFORNIA - Agc1952@aol.com / Earl R. Koskella

FLORIDA - iamfreeru2@pngusa.net / Michael Freeman

GEORGIA - dkenline@bellsouth.net / Doug Kenline

HAWAII - sovnation@yahoo.com / Laura Smith
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/808861

INDIANA - sartore@gibsoncounty.net / Darlene Sartore
At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/861-Indiana - - click "Join This Group"
OR Send blank email to 861-Indiana-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

MARYLAND - katibb33@comcast.net / Kate Burton

MICHIGAN - tonyt@mathtutoronline.com / Tony Thomas

MISSOURI and KANSAS - pmccswim@aol.com / Peter McCandless

MONTANA - mbodesign@juno.com / Lyle Myhr Jr.

NORTH CAROLINA - stevekerp@nc.rr.com / Steve Kerp

PENNSYLVANIA - jerryaci@aol.com / Jerry Crawley

SOUTH CAROLINA - Edistonut@aol.com / Bob Nuttall

TEXAS - HA@Albertson.WS / Howard Albertson

Contact information for Larken Rose
larken@taxableincome.net
http://www.theft-by-deception.com

The above comes from a site set up by this clown:

My name is Wayne Galloway. I am a Citizen of the united States and of the state in which I was born. I pay all the taxes I am legally required to pay, and I file all the forms I am legally required to file. These do not, of course, include any tax administered under what will become Title 26 of the United States Code, now cited as the Internal Revenue Code, or any so-called Income Tax, State or Federal. I have enjoyed and asserted this status since the mid-seventies, and beyond the occasional "Did You Forget?" letter, have been unmolested….... If you can say the same (for any period of years) I Salute You!... If not, begin your journey to freedom with the single most important step.... Inform yourself…..... For less than $50 Federal Reserve Accounting Units (FRAUDs) you can obtain a copy of Vultures in Eagle's Clothing by Lynne Meredith... I have watched this impeccably researched work grow through several editions to contain more empowering Sovereignty Awareness Training than any work of its kind. In its pages you will learn who YOU are... who THEY are... WHAT they're up to... and how to Barney Fife their whole program.

I wonder how old this really is.

[Swabby]

At least he has the decency to admit that this book is fiction. I'm curious, but not $15 curious.

"The United States is fast losing its reputation as the land of happiness and prosperity. With a sinking economy at home and rising tensions abroad, fear and discontent are boiling over. The Great American Experiment is faltering. Now a new threat suddenly arises: a domestic terrorist group calling itself “The Iron Web,” a group bent on ending America as we know it. A new President Elect eagerly awaits his inauguration and his chance to bring peace and security back to the country. A rookie federal officer finds himself face to face with the terrorists. And a young woman who knows little, and cares even less, about politics and national affairs is cast into the center of this conflict by a cruel twist of fate. A new and drastically changed America is coming. Some will not want to see it. Some will not live to see it."

http://larkenrose.com/store/34-books/46 ... b-new.html

[fortinbras]

Larken Rose, in support of the suicide air crash into a federal office building in Texas:

http://www.larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/1980.html