Main menu

It Ain't Just the Money

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/14/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

The U.S. government should not be taking a trillion dollars from the people
every year. I have believed that for ages, long before I knew anything
about tax laws. But today, that is NOT the point. When people want to
argue with me about how much the government "needs" to save us all from the
horrible dangers of life (most of which are exagerrated or just plain made
up by the government spin doctors), they are missing the whole point. What
government should "tax" from us is one issue; what they should STEAL from us
without any legal basis is another.

Should the government STEAL a trillion dollars a year? Should our "public
servants" DEFRAUD us (not tax us) of a trillion dollars a year? I would
hope that whatever government goodies anyone may want, they don't think it's
okay for the government to ignore its own laws and just STEAL it from us.

The money is not the whole problem here. It is something far worse. If you
are willing to let your kids inherit a country where well over HALF of what
they produce is taken by politicians, without putting up a fight, that's
pretty bad. But if you're willing to let your kids inherit a country
controlled by completely lawless thieves, then you should be ashamed of

Either your income is taxable, or it isn't. The LAW is what determines
whether it is. If it IS taxable, there is still the moral question of
whether such a tax is morally, economically, and politically justified. But
if it is NOT taxable, then what? Then the first question is: should
government take from you (by force) money you do not owe? I hope no one on
this list would answer "yes."

But there is another question, the answer to which is even more disturbing
to me. If, after looking at the law itself, you find reason to believe that
you do NOT owe a certain tax, what should happen to you (in this supposedly
"free country") if you MENTION that conclusion? Even if your conclusions
are mistaken (but honest), should not the administrators of the law politely
discuss the issue? Should they not be able to point out where they think
you may be misreading something? Should they not ENCOURAGE such
discussions, and welcome a polite discourse to settle the matter?

"The Internal Revenue Service encourages the discussion of any Federal tax
matter affecting a taxpayer." [26 CFR § 601.501(c)]

Of course they should. Why write down the law if you cannot believe what it
says? Why have law-administrators if they aren't administering what the LAW
BOOKS actually say? And why even pretend to have "due process" if an honest
disagreement about what the law requires cannot be dealt with in an open,
civilized, non-threatening manner?

Let's suppose that you look at a few regulations (such as 26 CFR §§
1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c), etc.), and
based on their plain wording, you conclude that you should refer to Section
861(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the related regulations at 26 CFR §
1.861-8, to determine your taxable domestic income. Based on those sections
(which can all be found at the following link), is it not understandable
that many of us non-lawyer mere mortals would conclude such a thing?

Perhaps something else would indicate otherwise. Perhaps we are misreading
something. (Many of us know better, but just for the sake of discussion...)
Since there is obvious justification to SUSPECT that we should be looking at
861(b) and 1.861-8, what would the proper response of a legitimate
government be to such a claim? Well, here is what is very likely to happen
to you if you BELIEVE what their OWN LAW BOOKS say:

1) If you politely ASK the IRS or your congressman about it, your question
will probably be ignored entirely.

2) If you get any response, it will be a form letter which does NOT at all
answer the question, but which instead implies that you are a CRIMINAL, and
that you are arguing something "frivolous" (for asking a question). The
letter will also probably indirectly threaten you with fines and
imprisonment if you don't obey the law. (Again, in response to you asking
HOW to obey the law.)

Suppose you are radical enough to believe what the law books say, and file a
tax return, claim for refund, etc., mentioning it. (Keep in mind, it is a
CRIME to sign a return that you believe to be incorrect.)

3) Your return will probably get "lost," and they will act like you never
filed it. (This violates EVERY aspect of due process.) Either that, or
they will send you a letter, threatening to steal $500 from you if you do
RETRACT the return that you believe to be correct. (Amazingly enough,
sometimes they will pretend they never received the return AND try to
penalize you for sending it.) The penalty may soon be $5000.

But at least you have the right to due process, right?

4) If you ever MENTION that particular section of their OWN regulations,
they will openly (and illegally) try to deny you ANY due process hearings,
at Examinations or Appeals. If you mention THAT section, you have no right
to anything. You are a criminal. (This violates 26 CFR § 601.105, and
EVERYTHING they print in their "Publications" (e.g. 1, 5, 556, etc.) about
your rights.)

5) If you request that their lawyers address the issue (via "technical
advice") they will say they get to ignore those procedures as well, by
declaring your position to be "frivolous" (Revenue Procedure 2001-40).

6) They will issue a Notice of Deficiency, and tell you you can petition Tax
Court (where an ex IRS agent will play the part of "judge," and no jury will
be present). If you do, the Tax Court will steal up to $25,000 from you for
mentioning that section, and dismiss the case without ever answering the

7) Luckily, you now have the right to a Collections Due Process Hearing.
Here is how it works: you will come ALONE, you cannot have ANY record of
what happens there, the Appeals officers will openly REFUSE to discuss
ANYTHING except your payment schedule. (This violates 26 USC §§ 6330 and

(Note: if a new law proposed by Congress is passed (part of the Care Act of
2003), you will be fined $5000 for REQUESTING such a hearing, and of course
will be denied such a hearing. Funny how in 1998 they granted a right to
these hearings, and now want to effectively undo them by PUNISHING you for
requesting one if you MENTION a section out of their OWN law books. I
suppose it would be a little too embarassing for Congress to come right out
and say "Ya know those rights we said you had in 1998? Well, we decided you
don't deserve them after all." But in effect, that is EXACTLY what they are
trying to accomplish now through other means.)

8) Then they will steal your money, having NEVER answered your question,
never presented ANYTHING in the actual law contradicting the citations you
were relying on, and never giving you anything resembling an open hearing
with an unbiased officer presiding. (This violates the "due process" clause
of the Fifth Amendment.)

9) Suppose you think that's bad. Suppose you try to tell other people about
it. Then they will try to SHUT YOU UP by force with a court injunction.
Don't believe me? Check this out:

You can forget about that outdated little thing called the First Amendment.
THIS issue deserves no due process. You should be crushed by any means
necessary, denied all due process, publicly ridiculed, insulted, slandered,
threatened, and robbed. (Welcome to America.)

According to the Supreme Court, the issue addressed by the First Amendment
"goes to the heart of the natural right of the members of an organized
society, united for their common good, to impart and acquire information
about their common interests" [Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233
(1936)]. But hey, if the government REALLY doesn't like what you are
saying, forget it.

Somewhere buried in the Constitution, though I can't seem to find it, must
be the "frivolous" clause. It must say something like this: "if any
government bureaucrat asserts that a citizen's beliefs are 'frivolous,' then
all First Amendment rights to publicly discuss it, and all Fifth Amendment
rights to be afforded due process, are null and void."

The Supreme Court also said (in the same case cited above) that the evils to
be prevented by the First Amendment "were not the censorship of the press
merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent
such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely
essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights
as citizens." Apparently they overlooked the "frivolous" clause.

That case concerned a "tax" on newspapers in particular, similar to English
taxes which people had been fighting tooth and nail for decades. Their
complaint was not just that they didn't want to pay a tax. "The aim of the
struggle was not to relieve taxpayers from a burden, but to establish and
preserve the right of the English people to full information in respect of
the doings or misdoings of their government." Imagine that: people being
free to TALK ABOUT government misconduct.

Oops, the dang court keeps forgetting the "frivolous" clause. Once some
bureaucrat declares something to be "frivolous," ALL Constitutional rights
are out the window. Forget having hearings, forget discussing the matter
rationally, forget due process, and forget even being able to DISCUSS it in
public without incurring the wrath of the federal extortion racket.

"[S]ince informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon
misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a
free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern."

Why do you think the feds are publicizing the injunctions, the Tax Court
decrees, and the IRS and DOJ "press releases" which vilify, insult, and
threaten people who mention 861? They can't afford for this to be
DISCUSSED. They can't win the issue in an honest discussion, so they have
to do everything possible to PREVENT an honest public discussion. Is that
okay with you?

This is not just about the money. This is about whether we have the spine
to resist overt tyranny. If not, then the wealth of this country has been
wasted on undeserving cowards. If the American people are content to avoid
making waves, and ride the wave of prosperity caused by the freedom that
others FOUGHT AND DIED to achieve, then I am ashamed to be an American.

In the next two months (prior National Extortion Day, April 15th) we will be
launching major campaigns to publicize the truth. If you are willing to
help out (with time, effort, money, or whatever), please do. I will shortly
unveil a lot of the specifics of the game plan for this tax season.

The 861 evidence is a "nonsensical," "stupid," "frivolous," bogus "scam."
That's what several high-ranking government officials have said. So either
slink into submission, or prepare to fight back. Down the road you may have
to explain to the next generation the choice you make today. Do what will
make them proud of you.


Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(P.S. If you want to help out financially, do NOT send money to me. Even if
I spent every dime wisely to help the cause, I don't like what it LOOKS like
to have a lot of money go through me. When we show the specific plan,
you'll see where you can send it, to directly help the different campaigns.)

Crash Course

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/13/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

Since this update list keeps growing, every now and then I'll do a sort of
overview of the 861 evidence. I'll try to approach it a slightly different
way each time, since different people "get it" more easily when it is
explained different ways. So here is an overview, along with reading
material backing up each point:


1) Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the USC) generally
defines "gross income" to mean "all income from whatever source derived,"
and it lists various "items" of income that can be taxable, such as
compensation (wages), interest, rents, dividends, business income, etc.
Section 63 generally defines "taxable income" to mean "gross income" minus

(Those broadly-worded GENERAL definitions are the reason why most tax
professionals and IRS employees falsely conclude that the income of most
Americans is taxable.)

2) Section 861 says which income counts as income from WITHIN the U.S., and
Section 862 says which income counts as income from "without" (outside of)
the U.S. These sections of the statutes do NOT by themselves show what is
actually taxable, or what is exempt. (People often get confused if they
look up Section 861 itself thinking it will say their income isn't taxable,
because the statute itself does NOT say that.)

3) Section 861(b) of the statutes, and Section 1.861-8 of the regulations,
say how to determine your "taxable income from sources within the United
States." And those sections do NOT show the domestic income of the average
American to be taxable.

Therefore, the domestic income of the average American is NOT taxable.

I hate doing these summaries, because there are always a few zillion
citations I want to include, but if I do the thing becomes huge. So that
was a super-short summary, but the complete explanation is here:

Or, if you don't mind coughing up $20 for an easier, more understandable
presentation of the evidence, you can get a copy of the video "Theft By
Deception" from here:

There is another, independent way to prove the limited nature of the tax,
which deals with the fact that the "items" of income (compensation,
interest, etc.) are NOT always taxable, but are sometimes EXEMPT for federal
income tax purposes. (See 26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(3), 1.861-8(b)(1).) The
regulations then give a list of what is NOT exempt (i.e. what IS taxable).
That list can be seen by going to the page below, clicking on 1.861-8T, and
looking about 2/3rds of the way down the page.

Is YOUR income listed as being non-exempt (taxable)? Curious, huh?


Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[ June 23, 2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: 3rdEar ]

Does 861 "Apply?"

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/11/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

I thought I'd write a note concerning clarity of thought. Lawyer-scribbles
(a.k.a. "legalese") are a paradox. On the one hand, they are designed to be
more specific and precise than common speech. On the other hand, when they
get complicated, they become considerably LESS specific and precise than the
average town drunk.

Logic, math and science usually deal in nice, clean SPECIFICS. "What does 2
plus 3 equal?" There isn't much open to misunderstanding in that question,
and the answer isn't debatable. That is how legalese is SUPPOSED to be. A
law should specifically and clearly describe what or who is subject to the
law, what is required, and what the consequences are of failure to comply.
And most laws do that. In fact, they are so precise that they often look
rather silly. For example, in ENGLISH we would say "drive on the right side
of the road." In legalese, they say this (this is from the Texas statutes,
in case you care):


§ 545.051. Driving on Right Side of Roadway
(a) An operator on a roadway of sufficient width shall drive on the right
half of the roadway, unless:
(1) the operator is passing another vehicle;
(2) an obstruction necessitates moving the vehicle left of the center of the
roadway and the operator yields the right-of-way to a vehicle that:
(A) is moving in the proper direction on the unobstructed portion of the
roadway; and
(B) is an immediate hazard;
(3) the operator is on a roadway divided into three marked lanes for
traffic; or
(4) the operator is on a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal
speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions
shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the
operator is:
(1) passing another vehicle; or
(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
(c) An operator on a roadway having four or more lanes for moving vehicles
and providing for two-way movement of vehicles may not drive left of the
center line of the roadway except:
(1) as authorized by an official traffic-control device designating a
specified lane to the left side of the center of the roadway for use by a
vehicle not otherwise permitted to use the lane;
(2) under the conditions described by Subsection (a)(2); or
(3) in crossing the center line to make a left turn into or out of an alley,
private road, or driveway.


Was that really all necessary? Well, sort of. The law must be SPECIFIC.
If the law just said "drive on the right side of the road," that would make
it illegal to EVER pass anyone, or drive around a broken-down car, etc. Of
course, common sense says that the general rule wouldn't apply in those
cases, but the law can't rely on "ya know" or "somethin' like that." (If it
did, the law would be unknowable.)

Legalese then becomes more like mathematics than informal chatting. While
there are invariably cases when courts have to look back on "congressional
intent," because the feds DIDN'T make it specific enough, ideally the law
would cover every possible scenario and detail.

To understand the law, we must have precision of thought. Like science and
math, the law is supposed to precisely express what it means. (Again, when
lawyers overly complicate things, or even INTENTIONALLY make things
confusing, that falls apart.)

For example, there is a portion of Title 26 that makes requirements
regarding machine guns, short-barrelled shotguns, bombs, and a few other
things. The requirements speak of what must be done with every "firearm,"
but ANOTHER section (5845) gives a very restrictive definition of what
"firearm" means for purposes of that part of the law. (The definitions, as
gun manufacturers and ATF agents know, does NOT include common revolvers,
rifles, handguns, etc.) With that in mind, let's try this question:

"I have .38 snub-nosed revolver. Does Section 5845 apply to my revolver?"

Yes. Um... no. Well, sort of.
The QUESTION is not precise enough.

If you didn't look at 5845, you'd assume your revolver is a "firearm" (since
it obviously fits within the common usage of that term). If you answer "NO,
that section doesn't apply to your firearm," it would seem logical to IGNORE
that section altogether. If you did, you'd probably assume that your
revolver is a "firearm" for purposes of that law (when it is not). But if
you argue "YES, that section applies to your firearm," that could mean that
you are saying that the definition INCLUDES your revolver, when it actually

This is the type of thing that requires clarity of thought. If the wrong
question is asked, the answer is useless (because it could mean two
diametrically opposed things). Here is the CORRECT way to find out what
that law requires:

Q: "Is 5845 the section I should use to determine what counts as a firearm
for purposes of that law?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "Is my revolver shown to be a firearm by that section?"
A: "No."

Therefore, the revolver is not a "firearm" for purposes of that law.

That is why I ask the questions the way I do about 861. The question "does
861 apply to me" can mean two things, making any answer to that question
worthless. Here is the trap:

"Yes, 861 applies to me."
"Ah ha! So you ADMIT that it applies to your income!"


"No, 861 doesn't apply to me."
"Ah ha! So you ADMIT that you shouldn't be looking there!"

The question is a trap, just like "did you stop beating your wife yet?" I
don't think everyone who asks it actually MEANS it to be a trap, but it is a
question based on unclear thought, which only muddles things, whether
intentionally or not. But often I DO think the status quo proponents use
the muddled-thought trickery on purpose. How often have you seen this?:

"Section 861 and following are only about people engaged in certain kinds of
international commerce [which in one sense is entirely true]... and
therefore YOU shouldn't be looking there."

See the nifty little bait-and-switch? It's subtle, and it comes from
imprecise thinking. That is why THIS is how the question must be asked:

Q: "Does 861 and its regs describe when domestic income is taxable?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "Do those sections show MY domestic income to be taxable?"
A: "No."

Therefore, my domestic income is not taxable.

This type of clarity of thought is helpful to the "thinker" in ANY subject.
Make sure you are clear about what YOU are saying, and say it with words
that express what you mean, and cannot have alternate meanings. This is a
good idea even when the listener is TRYING to understand what you mean, but
it is especially true when you are up against dishonest lawyers who are
TRYING to make you trip over imprecise thought.

Here is another example, and this is probably the IRS lawyers' favorite
logical tap-dance: "Section 861 does not exclude the domestic income of U.S.
citizens from taxation." Guess what... that is TRUE, at least in one sense.
In fact, it could even be said of Section 861 AND its regulations (though
the IRS form letters just say it about the statutes). Show me where the
words of those sections say that your income is exempt. You can't, because
it's not there. Many of you can show me where it is logically IMPLIED, and
where the legal meaning shows that it is excluded, but it does NOT
specifically say that it is excluded.

Before any status quo proponents yell "AH HA!" let me give another analogy
to spoil your fun. Show me which words in Section 5845 EXCLUDE a .38
revolver from the definition of "firearm." You can't, because they aren't
there. For the most part, the section doesn't say what is NOT considered a
"firearm"; they only say what IS considered a firearm. In doing so, they
prove that a .38 is NOT a "firearm" for purposes of that law, without
specifically SAYING that in those words.

Likewise, by describing which domestic income IS taxable, the regulations
under 861 legally prove that most of our income is NOT taxable, but nowhere
does it come out and say "the domestic income of most Americans is exempt
from tax."

This may seem like nothing more than semantic games, and it pretty much IS
just that. But those are the games that the Treasury lawyers have been
playing for 80+ YEARS, and they get $1,000,000,000,000 a year for their
efforts. So don't downplay the importance of being PRECISE. It takes more
effort than the "ya know" sort of talk, but it is worth it. Many of you
have seen the status quo proponents do a half-decent spin routine monologue,
but then when faced with clearly-defined SPECIFICS, their stories fall apart
entirely. (David Cay Johnston and Dan Evans come to mind.)

The question is this: Do you intend to let the government lawyers tap-dance,
spin and obfuscate their way into stealing a trillion dollars a year from
your fellow Americans? Or do you want to be able to out-spin them?


Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Random Stuff

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/11/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

First, to those who missed my interview on the radio this morning but wanted
to hear it, it's now available here:

(Don't ask me how to make an MP3 play, but I think there are free players
available for download somewhere, if you don't already have one.)

Second, I want to thank all the trouble-makers who sent the second letter to
Pam Olson. (In this day and age, politely asking your public servants
reasonable questions about the law qualifies you as a "trouble-maker.")
Apparently salesfolk know what they're doing when they say "last chance!" I
said it was the last time I would nag you folk about that letter, and in one
day 100 more people added their names to the list. The total is now over
300, which I'm pleased about.

(I heard from someone that Pam Olson looked a little tired or stressed out
on TV today. Hmmm.)

Third, I wanted to make a quick comment about what happened to Irwin
Schiff's offices today. For those who have not heard, they were raided by
about 20 IRS agents, who proceeded to swipe his computers and other records,
related to Mr. Schiff advising people to not pay income taxes.

I make no secret about the fact that I think Mr. Schiff is dead wrong in his
main conclusions (that wages are not "income," for example). I'm not here
to gloat, and the IRS no doubt violated at least a few laws in their raid.
(For one thing, if you think ANY IRS agent is authorized to carry a firearm
while on duty, look up 26 USC § 7608.) But hey, what's a few laws broken
between friends?

No, my point today is about followers, leaders, and neither-of-the-above.
We need more of that last category. Some people LIKE to have followers. I
don't. I love to have lots of people who share my beliefs and convictions,
but I don't want people handing off their judgment to me any more than I
want them handing it off to anyone else. KEEP your judgment. You have it
for a reason. Use it or lose it.

The feds have openly been targetting so-called "leaders" in the "movement,"
both those who understand the law and those who don't. Why? Because it is
easier to put a bunch of followers in their place by squashing their leader
than it is to squash all the followers individually. Whether the "leader"
was going in the right direction or not, when a leader is hit, the followers
often wander aimlessly, run for shelter, etc.

Uh oh... I feel an analogy coming on.

What is a "militia"? A group of fringe, paranoid trigger-happy nutcases, as
the media would have you believe? Actually, "militia" means an armed
populace. (In fact, federal law even defines the term that way: 10 USC §
311.) The Founders greatly preferred a well-trained militia to a "standing
army," and I believe one reason is this: an armed populace, on its own land,
CANNOT surrender. I don't just mean they don't want to. I mean they CAN'T.
If someone nasty comes to YOUR house, then YOU can surrender. But you can't
surrender on behalf of everyone ELSE.

In short, an invading army would have to get ONE surrender for our
government "protectors" to give up. Then they would have to get about
100,000,000 INDIVIDUAL surrenders to have the populace give up. (I don't
know about you, but I wouldn't want to be somewhere where about a hundred
million angry people with guns really, really didn't want me to be.)

No, I'm not preaching about gun rights here (though I could). The point is
that an army of INDIVIDUALS, who each independently have the knowledge,
courage, and determination to RESIST some nasty oppression, is far more
powerful than ANY power hierarchy (i.e. a few leaders and a bunch of

This note isn't a way of saying that I expect to be raided next, so fend for
yourselves. The feds would have to be out of their minds to raid my house,
mainly because I intentionally don't DO case work, I have no clients, and I
don't tell people what to do (much to the annoyance of some of you). So
they wouldn't even have their usual lame excuse for playing Gestapo Thugs in
my livingroom. (And since I SEND the feds just about everything I write,
all they'd get would be copies of what I already sent them myself anyway.)

But let's pretend they do that. Or, to go one step further (just for fun),
let's pretend I die in a mysterious plane crash in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Then what? How many of you will run to the hills, never to utter the term
"861" again? Very few, I hope. (Actually, NONE, I hope, but that may be
asking too much.)

The truth about the income tax is out, and that cat will never go back in
the bag. Ever. If I die in a freak salad-tossing accident tomorrow, I KNOW
that many hundreds of you will continue the battle exactly as you are doing
now. THAT is our strength. We are incapable of surrender, and incapable of

Again, if you are an UNDERSTANDER instead of just a BELIEVER, your knowledge
cannot be shaken. Yes, many may still choose to file the "normal"
(incorrect) way, and cough up lots of money to the IRS. Self-preservation
is no sin, and martyrdom doesn't usually accomplish much. But whatever
battle you choose, in whatever way, what you KNOW will remain, and will
grow, and will spread to other people. If you are content to follow, it is
quite likely that eventually your "leader" will have a heart atack, get
imprisoned, turn out to be a fraud, etc. But if you UNDERSTAND for
yourself, then you become your own leader. Put your trust in YOUR OWN
JUDGMENT, not in any guru, or activist, or warrior.

Again, there's a REASON you are capable of individual judgment. Use it.


Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Pam Olson, Last Call

(originally lainched into cyberspace on 02/10/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

This is my last whiny, begging message, trying to get you to send the second
letter to Pam Olson. (A couple hundred have already sent it, but we can
always use a few more.)

The letter is written so that ANYONE can send it. It doesn't matter whether
you sent the first one; it doesn't matter if you know anything about 861, or
if you agree with it or not. Basically, there is only ONE thing that
matters: do you think the government should answer polite, reasonable
questions about what its own laws require? If so, then by all means please
send her the letter. Here it is:

(Note: Don't leave off the "2" or you'll get the FIRST letter we sent her.)

In case you can't get the ".doc" version to work, someone was kind enough to
post it in html format here:

(You should be able to "cut and paste" that into any word processor

All you need to do is put in the date at the top of the letter, your name
and address at the bottom, and then print out three copies (or four if you
want to keep a hard copy for yourself). The main letter goes to Ms. Olson,
whose address is shown at the top of the letter, and copies should also be
sent to the two addresses shown at the bottom of the letter. (Note: Be sure
to include the third page--the six questions--with the letters.)

If you STILL can't get the letter to print for whatever reason, the
following people have volunteered to print it FOR you, and send it to you
for you to sign and mail. (You just have to give them your name and address
to put on the letter, and so they can send it to you.)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. John Sabo
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Sylvester Henry Cain
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Cheston Moore
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Robert Ingle
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Paul Broussard

Also, if you want to be included on the list of those who have sent it,
please let me know your initials, the state you're in, and the date the
letter was sent, in this format:

"L.R. (PA) 1/22/03"

It's a pretty dang easy thing to do, and the more who do it, the more Ms.
Olson (and others in the system) will stop feeling comfortable ignoring the
issue, vilifying and threatening those who raise it, and otherwise acting
like thieves. If you choose to remain silent in the face of injustice, it's
a safe bet that "your" government will keep finding new ways to rob you,
step on you, insult you, and otherwise make your life miserable. The people
who started this country put their lives on the line, and many lost their
lives, resisting injustice. I'm asking you to put a 37-cent stamp on an
envelope. All things considered, I don't think it's too much to ask.


Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Pam Olson II List

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/10/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

Just for fun, here is the list of those who have sent the second letter to
Pam Olson (AND who gave me their info to post). If you're not on the list,
but want to be, just e-mail me your info (initials, state, and date the
letter was sent).

J.H. (MI) 1/23/03
J.G. (FL) 1/23/03
L.D.G. (GA) 1/23/03
A.M. (FL) 1/23/03
J.S. (MI) 1/23/03
M.D.S. (NY) 1/23/03
P.M. (WA) 1/23/03
J.R. (MS) 1/23/03
D.F. (MO) 1/23/03
R.U. (CA) 1/23/03
R.D. (MI) 1/23/03
T.F. Sr. (IL) 1/23/03
M.C. (CA) 1/23/03
S.S. (CA) 1/23/03
T.M.J. (TX) 1/23/03
J.H. (PA) 1/23/03
W.H. (CA) 1/23/03
W.H.J. (TX) 1/23/03
G.K.M. (CA) 1/23/03
J.W. (CO) 1/23/03
P.J.W. (CO) 1/23/03
L.G.E. (CA) 1/23/03
J.T. (MO) 1/23/03
R.C. (TX) 1/23/03
M.L. (CA) 1/23/03
F.A. (CO) 1/23/03
L.D. (AZ) 1/23/03
L.S. (HI) 1/23/03
P.H. (WA) 1/23/03
D.H. (CA) 1/23/03
D.S. (OR) 1/23/03
M.B. (PA) 1/23/03
R.B. (PA) 1/23/03
T.O. (LA) 1/24/03
T.O.G. (NY) 1/24/03
K.E. (PA) 1/24/03
J.H. (AZ) 1/24/03
D.W. (FL) 1/24/03
P.H.M. (MO) 1/24/03
S.A. (WA) 1/24/03
D.H. (MI) 1/24/03
R.C.W. (OH) 1/24/03
B.P. (GA) 1/24/03
R.T. (IL) 1/24/03
G.B.G. (SC) 1/24/03
C.R.S. (NM) 1/24/03
B.B. (MI) 1/24/03
J.C. (MA) 1/24/03
E.A.W. (NM) 1/24/03
R.J.H. (CO) 1/24/03
G.K. (WA) 1/24/03
B.M. (AL) 1/24/03
C.B. (LA) 1/24/03
S.K.P. (MI) 1/24/03
G. & B.G. (IN) 1/24/03
L.B. (IA) 1/24/03
W.V. (TX) 1/24/03
R.J. (KS) 1/24/03
R.L. (CO) 1/24/03
G.J. (WA) 1/24/03
E.P. (FL) 1/24/03
H.L.L. (AZ) 1/24/03
T.S. (SD) 1/24/03
B.S. (WA) 1/24/03
S.C. (TX) 1/24/03
A.H. (WA) 1/24/03
M.L.C. (TX) 1/24/03
A.C. (AZ) 1/24/03
T.R. (OK) 1/24/03
K.W. (WI) 1/24/03
B.B. (WI) 1/24/03
R.L.A. (WA) 1/24/03
R.B. (CA) 1/24/03
J.H. (CA) 1/24/03
R.R. (NY) 1/24/03
T.M.H. (GA) 1/24/03
H.A. (TX) 1/24/03
R.I. (GA) 1/25/03
A.A. (SC) 1/25/03
M.P. (CA) 1/25/03
J.T. (MN) 1/25/03
W.M. (CA) 1/25/03
T.L. (MS) 1/25/03
R.J. (UT) 1/25/03
A.H. (VA) 1/25/03
L.S. (HI) 1/25/03
C.M. (AL) 1/25/03
E.S. (MD) 1/25/03
D.L.T. (AZ) 1/25/03
P.K.H. (NC) 1/25/03
P.G. (AZ) 1/25/03
N.P. (CA) 1/25/03
T.S. (CA) 1/25/03
D.M. (CO) 1/26/03
J.T. (NV) 1/26/03
F.L. (GA) 1/26/03
R.P. (CA) 1/26/03
M.J. (WY) 1/27/03
T.R. (CA) 1/27/03
A.S. (NE) 1/27/03
D.C. (NJ) 1/27/03
C.D. (SC) 1/27/03
R.B. (PA) 1/27/03
M.R. (CA) 1/27/03
L.M. (AL) 1/27/03
R.K. (TX) 1/27/03
D.F. (IL) 1/27/03
J.S. (VA) 1/27/03
G.N. (AL) 1/27/03
D.C. (MN) 1/28/03
R.C. (WA) 1/28/03
J.H. (OR) 1/28/03
T.L. (NC) 1/28/03
P.I. (NC) 1/28/03
R.G. (FL) 1/28/03
P.B. (TX) 1/28/03
D.G. (MA) 1/28/03
A.C. (MT) 1/28/03
F.L. (NV) 1/28/03
M.A. (PA) 1/29/03
C.O. (PA) 1/29/03
R.M. (FL) 1/29/03
D.L. (NJ) 1/29/03
E.A. (TX) 1/29/03
B.B. (FL) 1/29/03
F.S. (FL) 1/29/03
J.S. (FL) 1/29/03
L.G. (FL) 1/29/03
H.D. (FL) 1/29/03
M.H. (FL) 1/29/03
J.B. (FL) 1/29/03
J.B. (FL) 1/29/03
R.B. (NC) 1/30/03
S.C.(NC) 1/30/03
M.W. (CO) 1/30/03
R.H. (CO) 1/30/03
C.D. (CO) 1/30/03
R.L. (OR) 1/30/03
J.G. (CA) 1/30/03
J.C. (CA) 1/31/03
T.M. (MA) 1/31/03
R.H. (OR) 1/31/03
B.M. (OH) 1/31/03
R.W.H. (GA) 2/1/03
R.S. (CA) 2/1/03
J.D.H. (TX) 2/1/03
E.W. (PA) 2/2/03
A.M. (RI) 2/2/03
R.S. (WA) 2/2/03
W.B. (CO) 2/2/03
T.L.P. (CA) 2/3/03
D.G. (FL) 2/3/03
R.P.D. (AZ) 2/3/03
R.A.O. (OH) 2/3/03
M.G. (FL) 2/3/03
L.D. (MA) 2/3/03
A.B. (NV) 2/3/03
J.T. (PA) 2/3/03
R.J. (TX) 2/3/03
J.D. (IA) 2/3/03
D.J. (OR) 2/3/03
T.E.D. (MA) 2/4/03
R.P.S. (MO) 2/4/03
P.F. (GA) 2/4/03
W.K. (PA) 2/4/03
R.J.R. (ID) 2/4/03
J.P. (MD) 2/4/03
D.R. (OR) 2/4/03
L.R.D. (ID) 2/4/03
J.C.B. (FL) 2/4/03
J.B. (FL) 2/4/03
M.J.R. (CA) 2/4/03
J.P. (NM) 2/4/03
B.B. (AR) 2/4/03
E.C. (KY) 2/4/03
S.D. (IN) 2/4/03
C.R.N. (PA) 2/5/03
L.S. (NE) 2/5/03
G.T.G. (TX) 2/5/03
D.T.H. (IL) 2/5/03
C.S. (AZ) 2/5/03
C.W. (IN) 2/5/03
W.J.S. (TX) 2/6/03
G.G. (TX) 2/6/03
W.T. (FL) 2/6/03
P.M.Y. (IL) 2/7/03
D.B. (PA) 2/9/03
K.& P.R. (PA) 2/10/03

I think Ms. Olson will notice that. Wouldn't you?


Larken Rose
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.