Main menu


(originally launched into cyberspace on 05/31/2008)

A pet peeve of mine, as you may have noticed, is that so many
people decide what to believe based upon WHO said it, rather than
based upon whether it makes any sense, or whether there is any
evidence backing it up. The government takes advantage of such
intellectual laziness by relying heavily--almost completely, in
fact--upon declaring that "the courts have ruled against" any
arguments the government doesn't like.

As I've stated before, courts don't rule on anything. Courts cannot
think or talk. PEOPLE give opinions. For some reason, the opinions
of certain people (such as people who wear black dresses and refer
to themselves as "the court") are assumed by many to be inherently
valid--or at least worthy of more credence than the opinions of the
common rabble. Setting aside whether "judges" SHOULD be more
knowledgeable about the law, is there some reason why they
shouldn't be expected to provide a speck or two of EVIDENCE or
LOGIC to back up their stated opinions? Is any statement the gospel
truth just because it came out of their mouths (or out of their
clerks' word processors)?

Consider, for example, my own trial. In his instructions to the
jury, Judge Michael Baylson declared my legal conclusions regarding
the 861 evidence to be incorrect. He didn't bother to say anything,
or even give the slightest hint, about WHY they are wrong, or HOW
they are wrong. He didn't mention the substance of the issue at
all, or cite anything from the law in an attempt to refute it.
Instead, he simply trusted that the jurors would blindly accept his
"opinion" as valid and correct, simply because it came from him.
(In all trials these days, the judge tells the jury that they MUST
take his word for it when he tells them "what the law is"--which
isn't actually true, but I don't want to get into the issue of
"jury nullification" at the moment.)

So how much credence do the opinions of "judges" deserve? Again,
consider my trial as an example. Judge Baylson said very little
about tax law at all. Over the several-day trial, he probably spent
less than fifteen minutes in total talking about tax law. The few
opinions he did offer included the following claims (and his
statements are all directly quoted in my new book, "Kicking the

1) The original Constitution did not authorize income taxes.

2) Congress' ability to tax incomes was created by the 16th
Amendment. (As an aside, Judge Baylson couldn't actually remember
which amendment it was, or when it was enacted.)

3) There was no federal income tax prior to the enactment of that

So those are the "opinions" of a federal judge, which many would
assume to be authoritative and based upon a comprehensive knowledge
of federal law. Trouble is, all three statements are indisputably
WRONG. As the Supreme Court said in Stanton v. Baltic Mining,
Congress possessed the ability to tax incomes since the beginning
of the country (though there are, and have always been, limitations
upon that power). In the same case, the Supreme Court also stated
that the 16th Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation" upon
Congress, and in Peck v. Lowe, added that the 16th Amendment did
not extend the taxing power to any new or excepted subjects. And
finally, Congress DID enact federal income taxes in the 1860's and
through the 1890's, well before the 16th Amendment was enacted,
contrary to Judge Baylson's assertions. (At another point, while
interrupting and interfering with my explanation of my beliefs,
Judge Baylson firmly declared that the case of Peck v. Lowe had
"nothing whatsoever" to do with income taxes, despite the fact that
the case itself clearly shows that it is entirely about the 1913
federal income tax act.)

My trial, as well as my dealings with the IRS for years before,
gives numerous examples of federal bureaucrats, judges and others
spewing out one baseless assertion after another, backing them up
with NOTHING from the law, and willfully disregarding solid,
legally-binding evidence showing their opinions to be dead wrong.
And yet many people--including those in government and those on my
jury--STILL subscribe to the goofy idea that everyone ought to
defer to anyone claiming to be "authority," rather than looking at
any evidence for themselves.

There's a reason I refer to myself and others as "tax heretics":
because that is precisely how the powers that be treat us. They
feel no need (and have no ability) to refute our positions with
citations and argument; we are evil, you see, because we believe
something after those pretending to be "authority" have DECLARED
our conclusions to be incorrect. In other words, our beliefs have
been condemned as heresy, and so continuing to hold such beliefs is
unforgivable. If you think I'm exaggerating the way those in power
view things, read my book, which uses example after example of
their OWN words to show how delusional they truly are.

(You can pre-order your copy at or
by sending $22 to the address below.)

Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006