Larken Rose.

[pigpot]

Where is Larken Rose wrong here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

[wserra]

I approved this post not to answer piggy's question, but to comment on it. This is called a "troll". In general, if Rosie speaks 5000 words on that video, he is likely wrong 5000 times. If you want to start a conversation on one or two of them, feel free. However, since this is overwhelmingly likely to be a piggish attempt to get back to his prior sophistic nonsense about how taxation is slavery, or there are no states - whatever - the thread is unlikely to stay open long.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Pottapaug1938]

Piggy, I would rather go outside and watch the grass grow than watch that video. You are using the typical troll maneuver of trying to shift the burden of proof, when in fact it is on you and Rose to show that the prevailing interpretations of the law are wrong. Besides, even if the video convinced us, that doesn't mean bupkis until and unless Rose convinces a court that his fantasies are legally correct, AND THE APPELLATE COURTS UPHOLD THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION.

[rumpelstilzchen]

If you want to start a conversation on one or two of them, feel free.

Yeah go on, pigpot. Choose one of his comments and tell the forum why you believe that comment is correct.
Your turn.

[Famspear]

Where is Larken Rose wrong here....

AVE, MEA TROGLODYTARUM!

As others have noted, Larken Rose is wrong at each and every step of the way in that video.

Larken Rose is old, old, old, old, old, old, old, old damaged goods. I invite you to do a word search in this forum using the word "Larken." You should find about 33 pages of hits.

Larken Rose is an anarchist whose motto was "You're not the boss of me!" Larken had some problems with a parent or parent figure during the first five years of his life, and has never resolved those problems satisfactorily in his own mind. Find a good reference text on psychology, and look up the term "transference."

In terms of Larken's idiocy regarding the U.S. Federal income tax, Larken espoused the dumb-as-dirt "861 argument." That argument didn't work for him; it didn't work for Thurston Bell; it will never work for anyone.

See also:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/larken-rose

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#section861

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_prote ... 1_argument

[Famspear]

On Larken D. Rose and his wife Tessa David Rose:

A loony protester named Larken
To the genuine law would not harken.
Had he stayed on his toes,
He and sweet Tessa Rose
Could’ve spared themselves lives that were darkened.

Famspear (that's me); Aug. 6, 2008, at
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2833&p=43870&hilit=+Tessa#p43870

And:

A pitiful beggar named Larken
For some donated dollars is barkin’.
If the ranting would stop,
He might not be a flop --
He might find that his mind would be sharpened.

Famspear; Oct. 16, 2008

By the way, both Larken and his wife Tessa spent time in Federal prison after being convicted of Federal tax crimes.

Larken Rose was inmate number 58421-066, and was released on December 29, 2006.

Tessa David Rose was inmate number 59518-066, and was released on February 9, 2007.

In short, these two clowns are old, old, old, old, old, old, old, old news, and their nonsense was completely de-bunked many years ago, right here in this forum, and in Federal court.

[Famspear]

Another clown who promoted the "861 argument" was Eddie Ray Kahn:

On Eddie Ray Kahn:

There once was a preacher named Eddie
Whose grasp of tax law wasn’t steady.
So he thought he’d have fun
With ol’ "eight-sixty-one"--
Now, his prisoner’s cell will be ready.

Famspear, June 11, 2008, at
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2574&p=39516&hilit=Kahn#p39516

Seventy-two year old Eddie (who for some reason is listed as "Eddie K. Kahn" instead of "Eddie R. Kahn" at the Federal Bureau of Prisons) is inmate number 18325-008, and is scheduled for release in April of the year 2026. He's already been in prison for many years.

Actor Wesley Snipes got tangled up in Eddie's tax protester idiocy and, of course, spent some of his own time in Federal prison.

For more on Eddie:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/eddie-kahn

[The Observer]

All one needs to know about Larken Rose and whether his beliefs about taxation and government authority are correct is to know that Larken was found guilty in a court of law and was sentenced to prison. Case closed.

[JamesVincent]

I'm not wasting bandwidth on my phone to watch Barkin' Larken. Is it a new video? More importantly, does it have the chick from his one video?

[notorial dissent]

The challenge was to Pigpot, not to general comment. Let him speak or forever hold his tongue.

What oh Pigpot with your towering legal intellect just what DID Barkin' Larken get right, since that will be the far and away shorter list? Please answer in clear and complete sentences and provide authorities to back yp your claims, hint Utuby doesn't count, only real world real time answers count.

[Jeffrey]

Is it a new video?

Larken makes an impassioned argument concerning the evils of government and the benefits of anarchism.

Which is great but we don't live in an anarchist society.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Is it a new video?

Larken makes an impassioned argument concerning the evils of government and the benefits of anarchism.

Which is great but we don't live in an anarchist society.

The fantasies just won't go away, thanks in a large part to the internet.

[pigpot]

The challenge was to Pigpot, not to general comment. Let him speak or forever hold his tongue.

What oh Pigpot with your towering legal intellect just what DID Barkin' Larken get right, since that will be the far and away shorter list? Please answer in clear and complete sentences and provide authorities to back yp your claims, hint Utuby doesn't count, only real world real time answers count.

I tried but a moderator simply made an ad hominem attack that wasn't based upon logic and empirical evidence. I put my answer over on Marc's site which is a far freer site and easier to discuss upon, so you are more than welcome to discuss it here or there.

[pigpot]

What oh Pigpot with your towering legal intellect

You won't allow 95% (estimate by guess) of what I post so how is that even a challenge. I've said over the years for all of you (Quatloos and JREF) to try and best me in a debate on / in a free forum or chat we can log onto, one on one but you won't because you know what will happen. You'll lose. Go and get fatty "D'rok", "Justice Rooke". God he's fugly. Imagine that rolling on top of you in the morning with his bacon breath. Bring "Rooke" out and let me go with fat boy. Is fat boy even on here?



Squeak, squeak little mouse. Come on fatty... take the bait...... (Snicker... you mean snigger).

[wserra]

I tried but a moderator simply made an ad hominem attack that wasn't based upon logic and empirical evidence.

False. Piggy's "try" consisted in its entirety of a link to something on Stevens' site. Having been asked to point out something worth discussing from Rosie, piggy cites Stevens, a classic example of wandering goalposts. Grixit disapproved it. I'm going to approve one more of piggy's posts, so that everyone can see the pearls of wisdom they've been missing. It's the one immediately above. Then the clown parade stops.

[Burnaby49]

That picture is of Judge Rooke, scourge of Canadian freemen, shaking the hand of another judge from his court being elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada. Pigpot, some sad pathetic guy somewhere trying desperately to be acknowledged as having even any trivial relevance, mocks the photo but it looks like real achievement in my world.

[rumpelstilzchen]

pigpot, choose one of Larken's comments, post it on here and explain in your own words why you believe he is right.
My guess is the mods would allow that post to pass Quality Control.

[Famspear]

....I've said over the years for all of you (Quatloos and JREF) to try and best me in a debate on / in a free forum or chat we can log onto, one on one but you won't because you know what will happen...

We know what would happen. But that's not the reason that people won't "debate" you.

The reason that others won't debate you is: You've already demonstrated, in post after post, that you don't have enough on the ball to be considered a player, kiddo. You're a nobody in this world, and the rest of the world is not here to prove to you that you're not a nobody.

[Pottapaug1938]

....I've said over the years for all of you (Quatloos and JREF) to try and best me in a debate on / in a free forum or chat we can log onto, one on one but you won't because you know what will happen...

We know what would happen. But that's not the reason that people won't "debate" you.

The reason that others won't debate you is: You've already demonstrated, in post after post, that you don't have enough on the ball to be considered a player, kiddo. You're a nobody in this world, and the rest of the world is not here to prove to you that you're not a nobody.

Not to mention that Piggy is a champion at goalpost-moving, evading direct responses and several other rhetorical dodges. Debating him would be like trying to nail some mercury to a plank.

[rogfulton]

Debating him would be like trying to nail some mercury to gelatin.

FIFY