Main menu

All Gone

(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/07/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

So you know, the "861 Evidence" mini-CDs are now all gone, so don't
try ordering them. There may be a few orders which were sent out
which are still in the mail. If you already ordered, you'll either
get your disks very soon, or you'll get your payment back.


Larken Rose

Last Call for 861 Mini-CDs

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/26/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

This may be your last chance if you want to get some "861 Evidence"
mini-CDs. Again, we learned of a stash still in existence, and
they're being unloaded for $15 for a box of about 100, or $30 for a
case of about 600. That includes shipping--and in fact, it's almost
nothing BUT shipping and handling. Last I heard, there were only
about a dozen cases left, so if you want some, don't wait. The
first orders received will be the ones that get filled. (If you
order too late, you'll still get your money back.) Again, don't e-
mail me. I don't have the disks. Instead, send check or money order
(or cash, if you dare) to the following address, and tell Peter
where to send the disks:

Peter McCandless
3515 NE 50th St.
Kansas City, MO 64119


Larken Rose

861 Evidence mini-CDs

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/10/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

As I mentioned before, some "861 Evidence" mini-CDs still exist,
and you can get them for just the shipping and handling costs.
First of all, DO NOT send orders to me. I don't have the disks.
Send orders to the address below, with payment made out to "Peter

Peter H. McCandless
3515 N.E. 50th St.
Kansas City, MO 64119

It's $15 for a box of about 100, or $30 for a case of about 600
(which comes to five CENTS each). But if you want them, order
quickly, because there are only about 20,000 (a couple dozen cases)

For those who don't remember, this is the little Flash presentation
which plays on computers, on the little miniature CD's (not to be
confused with my "Theft By Deception" DVD). It's the presentation
that talks about the 861 issue, as well as the letter-writing
campaigns and the government's censorship thuggery, and has
interview clips from various credentialed folk.

If you want some to spread around, order them NOW, or you might
miss out. At $30 a case, I don't expect them to be available for
very long. You can only order by mail, via check or money order (or
cash, if you dare), and whichever orders are received first will be
filled first.


Larken Rose

More on Goebbels

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/04/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Normally I wouldn't care much what some extortion apologist has to
say, but since David Cay Johnston pretends to be a "reporter," and
since his propaganda appears in the New York Times, it's worth
pointing out, not only how biased he is, but also how dishonest he

Regarding calling Wesley Snipes a "coward," in an effort to goad
him into answering the questions of a government propaganda hack,
David Cay Johnston said: "I said it and I make no apologies for my
reporting techniques, which I lecture on widely and always draw a
large audience." Well, it's nice to know that lots of other people
apparently also want to know how to be obnoxious buttheads. So I
guess that makes it okay.

But, to be fair, being an obnoxious butthead isn't as bad as being
dishonest. So is Mr. Johnston at least an honest butthead? I'll
report; you decide. Mr. Johnston just sent the following summary of
his stated position (or should I say, "frivolous section 61 tax
fraud scheme"?) in an e-mail to someone, who forwarded it to me:

"Just what do you believe given that Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution ("The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes...) and Internal Revenue Codes sections 63 (all income is
gross income) 61 (gross income less deductions and exemptions is
taxable income) and Section 1 (a tax is hereby imposed on the
taxable income...followed by charts of incomes and taxes due) have
been upheld by the courts without exception since 1913?" [David Cay

So Section 61 means that "all income is gross income," and Congress
can tax anything it pleases? Does he actually believe that? Aside
from pointing out that Mr. Johnston got Section 61 and 63 reversed,
at the moment I won't give any comments of my own regarding Mr.
Johnston's stated position. I would, however, like to pass on some
comments from various U.S. Supreme Court justices and regulation-
writers at the IRS and Treasury:

1) “It is elementary law that EVERY statute is to be read in the
it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it
was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”
[McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)]

2) "It should be noted, too, that the court, speaking of the extent
of the TAXING power, used these cautionary words (p. 541): There
are, indeed, certain VIRTUAL LIMITATIONS, arising from the
principles of the Constitution itself." [Bailey v. Drexel
Furniture, 259 U.S. 20]

3) "And while [the federal income tax] cannot be applied to any
income which Congress HAS NO POWER TO TAX [citations omitted], it
is both nominally and actually a general tax." [William E. Peck &
Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)]

4) “‘From whatever source derived,’ as it is written in the
Sixteenth Amendment, DOES NOT MEAN from whatever source derived.”
[Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938) (dissenting opinion)]

5) "The tax imposed by chapter 1 is upon income. Neither income
exempted by statute OR FUNDAMENTAL LAW, nor expenses incurred in
connection therewith, other than interest, ENTER INTO THE
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME as defined in section 21." [26 CFR 39.21-
1, Meaning of net income (1956)]

6) "Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt
from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items,
however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified.
No OTHER items may be EXCLUDED from gross income EXCEPT (a) those
items of income which are, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, NOT TAXABLE BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT;..." [26 CFR 39.22(b)-1, Exemptions;
exclusions from gross income (1956)]

7) "Among the items entering into the computation of corporate
earnings and profits for a particular period are all income
exempted by statute, income NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, as well as all items includible in gross
income under SECTION 61 or corresponding provisions of prior
revenue acts." [26 CFR 1.312-6(b)]

8) "To the extent that another section of the Code or of the
regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of
income, such OTHER provision shall apply NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 61
and the regulations thereunder." [26 CFR 1.61-1]

9) "For purposes of this section, the gross income to which a
specific deduction is definitely related is referred to as a 'CLASS
OF GROSS INCOME' and may consist of one or more items (or
subdivisions of these items) of gross income ENUMERATED IN SECTION
61, namely: (i) Compensation for services, including fees,
commissions, and similar items; (ii) Gross income derived from
business; (iii) Gains derived from dealings in property; (iv)
Interest; (v) Rents; (vi) Royalties; (vii) Dividends;... [more
items listed]." [26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(3)]

"See... paragraph (d)(2) of this section which provides that a
CLASS OF GROSS INCOME may include EXCLUDED income." [26 CFR 1.861-

I and many other having been quoting all of the above for years. So
did Mr. Johnston never NOTICE these citations, or did he simply
choose to ignore evidence which destroys his neat little
misinterpretation of the law? I don't think he's unobservant enough
for it to be the former. I do, however, believe he's intellectually
dishonest enough for it to be the latter.


Larken Rose

Not So Invincible After All

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/02/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Overshadowed by the verdict in the persecution of Wesley Snipes was
another verdict, this one in Hawaii. The tax evasion trial of Lucky
Bennett, defended by Larry Becraft, ended with a hung jury. I don't
know anything else about Mr. Bennett, or about the case. I don't
know if it had anything to do with the 861 evidence or not, and I
don't know if the feds will try to retry him. But once again, the
supposedly invincible IRS/DOJ bully failed to do the damage it
tried to inflict. Poor them. It must be tough trying to illegally
extort 100,000,000 people all at once.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Incidentally, I got the facts slightly messed up in a prior
message. The 17-defendant acquittal I was thinking of was not in
California. It was the case involving Franklin Saunders, also
defended by Larry Becraft, which happened in Memphis, Tennessee.)

(P.P.S. I never got any response to my e-mail to "TaxMama,"
pointing out half a dozen blatant untruths in her "story" about
Wesley Snipes.)

Slimeballism Confirmed

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/02/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Yes, it has been confirmed with certainty, the one calling Wesley
Snipes a "coward" at his press conference, just after the jury
verdict, was indeed David Cay "Goebbels" Johnston, propagandist and
blatant liar for the IRS, posing as a "reporter" for the New York
Times. For those who didn't see the video (which I don't see on the web site any more), here is the direct quote:

"Is he gonna talk? Is he a coward, or is he gonna talk? Wesley, you
gonna be a brave guy and step forward. You a coward? Hey, Wesley,
you a coward, or are you gonna talk?"

Hey, Mr. Johnston, when's the last time YOU stood up to a
superpower? And you call Mr. Snipes a coward? Nice neutral
"reporting" job there.

At my own trial, for which "Goebbels" Johnston only attended the
day of the verdict (which was obviously all that mattered to him),
as soon as the baseless verdict of "guilty" was read, Mr. Johnston
was trying to barge his way through our supporters, with a huge,
openly gleeful grin on his face, to ask me for a "comment." (He
didn't get one.) Now compare that to the obvious anger and hatred
he exhibited towards Mr. Snipes after he was acquitted of the most
serious charges against him. Come on, folks. How can anyone even
PRETEND that Mr. Johnston is a "reporter," rather than an outspoken
proponent of the federal extortion racket?

Heck, even people who LIKE him admit it. One tax law professor
called Mr. Johnston "the de facto chief tax enforcement officer of
the United States," and he didn't mean it as an insult. Here's the

Let's see: he constantly lies about the nature of the 861 evidence,
constantly insults and demonizes those who understand it, NEVER
tells his readers where to learn more about the issue (but mentions
the Quatloos slander-fest as an authority), rejoices with glee when
people are silenced or imprisoned for believing it, and shows
obvious anger and frustration when those who believe it DON'T

Yep, sounds like your basic New York Times reporter.

Hey, Mr. Johnston, the fascists whose butts you kiss have been
dodging questions about the 861 evidence for a DECADE, even when
THOUSANDS of hard-working Americans asked them. So why aren't you
calling those elitist bastards "cowards"? Does someone like Mr.
Snipes, a guy with actual guts--a "real man," as Mr. Bernhoft
accurately described him--have more of an obligation to answer the
questions of a dishonest hack like you, than our "public servants"
have to answer questions from those whom they are supposed to

You are a liar and a joke, Mr. Johnston, and despite your bogus
"Bulshitzer" prize for your pro-extortion spin and propaganda, the
world will one day know it.


Larken Rose

(P.S. For those who don't know, Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of
Propaganda for Adolf Hitler.)