Main menu

Trust No One

(originally launched into cyberspace on 07/18/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I often think back to the very telling comment which Professor
Siegel made about the 861 evidence, opining about whose opinions
you should "trust." (He obviously implied that you shouldn't
"trust" me because I was convicted, but you should "trust" him and
the other status quo "experts" because of their credentials.)
However, while there are a lot of situations in life where our
actions and beliefs are, out of necessity, determined based on who
we trust, there are other times when "trust" is completely

Suppose a baseball comes through your living room window, and you
go outside and find two kids, each of whom says the other one threw
the ball. You have no first-hand evidence; all you have is the
conflicting statements of two other people. So, if you're trying to
figure out the truth, you're forced to decide who to "trust"--who
do you think lied to you and who told the truth?

Now suppose you're sitting in your living room, and looking out,
you see with your own eyes one of two kids hurl a ball at your
house, which goes through your window. When you go outside,
however, the ball-thrower kid confidently proclaims, "I'm an honors
student, I go to church every Sunday, and everyone knows I'm a nice
kid, while Fred here is a flunky trouble-maker, and he threw the
ball through your window. Now which of us are you going to trust?"
In that case, of course, "trust" is irrelevant. You saw what
happened with your own eyes; you don't need to take anyone's word
for it, so you don't need to decide who you can "trust."

The power of indoctrination, however, is so potent that a lot of
people will "trust" effective spin doctors, even when they are
saying things blatantly contrary to the person's first-hand
experiences. Some people can outright lie while looking completely
sincere. (Does the phrase, "I did not have sex with that woman"
ring a bell?) And those people often get jobs working as government
spokesmen or as media "reporters" (which are sometimes the same

Liars rarely point to evidence (because evidence is rarely on their
side); instead, they opine that they, and those who agree with
them, should be "trusted," while claiming that people with contrary
beliefs shouldn't be trusted. For example, some Tax Court judge
might proclaim the 861 evidence to be "frivolous," because he said
so. And because he's a "judge," we're all supposed to trust him.
Then another court quotes the first, and as a matter of "trust,"
concurs with the "frivolous" accusation. Then some spin doctor like
David Cay Johnston at the New York Times can report that "no court"
has agreed with the 861 evidence. Everyone on their side is basing
their argument on TRUST: who should you blindly believe? Should you
believe some uncredentialed nobody "tax protestor"/"tax fraud
scheme promoter," or the honorable, objective, highly-trained,
legal expert federal judges?

I choose NEITHER. Why do I need to "trust" anyone when the law is
publicly available? Granted, someone who is supposed to be an
expert might be (and should be) more able to point to the EVIDENCE
supporting a particular conclusion, but if he can't or won't do
that, why the heck should he be "trusted" at all? "Only we can
understand the law, so just take our word for it when we tell you
what it means." How Kafkaesque. And how stupid.

In contrast, my "Taxable Income" report, my video, etc., not to
mention the statements of lots and lots of other people who happen
to share my conclusions about the law (including thousands of you),
don't ask the public to "trust" anyone. Instead, we quote the law.
Yes, we explain our understanding of it too, but NEVER do we ask
people to take our word for it because of who we are (or who we
claim to be). So why does the government spend so much time
demonizing us, and so little time trying to refute the substance of
what we say?

The answer is obvious: in a contest of evidence and logic, they
lose. But in a contest of who to "trust"--who to blindly believe--
they think they can win by painting us as nasty tax cheat scammers.
And no doubt it works on the weak-minded, who wouldn't dare look at
the EVIDENCE themselves, but who instead just guess about who they
should blindly follow. I've often heard people new to issues like
this say something like, "I'm not sure who to believe." My response
is: don't BELIEVE anyone. This is not a matter of faith; it's a
matter of publicly-available evidence and logic.

Unfortunately, most people don't think that way. What they hear day
in and day out gets lodged in their brains, so deep that even
evidence and logic often can't shake it loose. They can't "believe"
that the income tax could be a giant fraud. But I'm not asking them
to "believe" anything; it is the status quo tax "experts" who are
constantly pushing the idea that us mere peasants are incapable of
understanding the law, and that we should therefore just BELIEVE
what they say about it instead of studying it for ourselves.

So let's pretend to be rational, thinking beings, and set aside the
irrelevant issues of belief, faith, and trust, and look at what the
EVIDENCE shows. Here's my challenge, not just to you, but to anyone
else (feel free to forward this message to all your neighbors,
friends and enemies): First, read the new version of my "Taxable
Income" report, which you can get for FREE from the link near the
bottom of the web site. Then, try
your darndest to find a CONTRARY opinion which actually addresses
all of the evidence and points cited in the report, and which
answers the six questions found at the end of the report. If after
a DECADE of the issue being publicly discussed by hundreds of
thousands of people, the other side STILL doesn't have a thorough,
carefully explained and fully-supported rebuttal to the 861
evidence... well, then you'll know WHY they talk about "trust" and
"belief," instead of about logic and evidence.


Larken Rose

[ August 31, 2007, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: 3rdEar ]