Main menu

Radio Show

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/09/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

I will be on Ron Newman's radio show on 1280 WBIG in Chicago on Tuesday
morning, 10 to 11 a.m. Eastern time (9 - 10 Chicago time). I have no idea
what the show will be like, as I haven't talked to the host. Whatever it's
like, here is a way to listen to it online:

On that page, at the very upper right, there is a place to search for
stations by "call letters." Putting in "WBIG" will get you two stations;
choose the one in Chicago (and click on the button to listen). If you can't
get it to work, DON'T ASK ME how to fix it. I have no clue about such
things. (Sorry.)


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

Taking my own test

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/08/2003)

( Disclaimer #1: to those of you who are not very familiar with the 861
evidence yet, this particular message may give you a headache more than it
gives you information. For an overview of the issue, you can read this: )

( Disclaimer #2: if you have trouble falling asleep, this long-winded
legalese diatribe should fix that for you.)

Dear List Subscriber,

A while back I sent a two-question test to David Cay Johnston, writer for
the New York Times. In response, he didn't answer the questions, and
instead directly contradicted what he had been arguing for several weeks

In short, he had been arguing that the language of Section 861 of the
statutes means that almost ALL domestic income is taxable. So I pointed him
to a very curious regulation implementing the predecessor of 861. His
"answer" was to turn around and say that Section 861 is "irrelevant" to
almost all of us. (He then denied having contradicted himself.)

Some people have had a few questions about that test, and the citations
mentioned in it, so I decided it would be good for me to take my own test.
So here goes. Here is the "test" I sent Mr. Johnston:

> The predecessor to the current Section 861
> and following was Section 119 of the 1939
> Code, and both the House and the Senate
> (in their reports on the 1954 IRC) stated
> that "no substantive change [was] made"
> when 119 became 861 and following. Section
> 119(a) from 1939 was almost identical to
> the current 861(a). Here is part of what
> that STATUTE said:
> "Sec. 119. Income from sources within
> United States
> (a) Gross income from sources in United
> States.
> The following items of gross income shall
> be treated as income from sources within
> the United States:
> (1) Interest - Interest from the United
> States, any Territory, any political
> subdivision of a Territory, or the
> District of Columbia, and interest on
> bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing
> obligations of residents, corporate or
> otherwise, not including... [exceptions
> omitted]"
> [Section 119, Internal Revenue Code of 1939]
> I assume that you [meaning Mr. Johnston]
> would claim that that statute (just like
> the current 861(a)(1)) means that interest
> from domestic investments-—with a few rare
> exceptions-—is taxable for EVERYONE.
> Granted, based on that STATUTE alone, that
> is an easy impression to get. However,
> here are the REGULATIONS which were written
> to implement that part of the statutes
> (emphasis added):
> "29.119-2. Interest.
> There shall be included in the gross income
> from sources within the United States, of
> corporations, and citizens of the United
> States, or domestic corporations which are
  • ,
    > all interest received or accrued, as the
    > case may be, from the United States, any
    > Territory, any political subdivision of a
    > Territory, or the District of Columbia, and
    > interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-
    > bearing obligations of residents of the
    > United States, whether corporate or otherwise,
    > except... [exceptions omitted]"
    > [26 CFR § 29.119-2 (1945)]
    > (* One was only "entitled to the benefits of
    > section 251" if most of his income came from
    > federal possessions.)
    > I have two simple questions about this:
    > 1) What on earth made the regulation-writers
    > think that THAT is what the regulations
    > should say (i.e. why did they put in the part
    > about nonresident aliens and such, when the
    > statute did NOT say that)?
    > 2) Why on earth did Congress APPROVE those
    > regulations for twenty-some YEARS, thus
    > giving them the "effect of law"*?
    > [* "Treasury regulations and interpretations
    > long continued without substantial change,
    > applying to unamended or substantially
    > reenacted statutes, are deemed to have
    > received congressional approval and have the
    > effect of law." - U.S. Supreme Court, UNITED
    > STATES v. CORRELL, 389 U.S. 299 (1967)]

    (Again, Mr. Johnston never answered the questions, but instead did a
    180-degree turn-around, claiming that 861 is "irrelevant" to the vast
    majority of Americans.)

    Before answering, I want to clarify something that a few of you noticed. (I
    am proud to have so many astute people on this list, who actually notice
    things like this.) The wording of 29.119-2 talks about "nonresident alien
    individuals, foreign corporations, and citizens of the United States, or
    domestic corporations which are entitled to the benefits of section 251."
    The way that was written, it can easily be read to mean:

    1) nonresident aliens
    2) foreign corporations
    3) all U.S. citizens
    4) domestic corporations entitled to the 251 thing

    In short, the regulation-writers screwed up in putting that comma in there
    before the "or." They REMOVED that comma in subsequent regulations (e.g. 26
    CFR § 39.119(a)-1). What it actually meant was:

    1) nonresident aliens
    2) foreign corporations
    3) U.S. citizens entitled to the 251 thing
    4) domestic corporations entitled to the 251 thing

    I've included a proof of this below my signature line below.


    Now back to the test. To review, the 1939 STATUTE (Section 119, predecessor
    of 861) sounded like it was talking about ALL interest from U.S.
    investments, but the REGULATION that went along with the statute said that
    interest on U.S. investments was to be "included in the gross income from
    sources within the United States, of NONRESIDENT ALIEN individuals, FOREIGN
    corporations, and citizens of the United States or domestic corporations
    which are ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 251" (26 CFR § 39.119(a)-1
    (1954)). (One was only "entitled to the benefits of section 251" if most of
    his income came from federal POSSESSIONS, such as Guam or Puerto Rico.)

    In other words, the REGULATION said that interest on U.S. investments was
    taxable for FOREIGNERS and for certain Americans who get most of their
    income from federal POSSESSIONS. The questions were: why the heck did the
    regulation-writers write THAT, and why did Congress APPROVE those
    regulations for years and years, if the statute really meant that ALL
    interest on domestic investments was taxable?

    One must understand the function and mechanics of what is now Subchapter N
    to be able to answer that. (Mr. Johnston obviously doesn't, so he ran away
    from it instead.)

    There are various sections throughout Subchapter N, sometimes called
    "operative sections," which describe "specific sources or activities,"
    income from which is taxable. For example, 871(b) is an "operative
    section," and it says that nonresident aliens doing business in the U.S.
    "SHALL BE TAXABLE" under Section 1. (Section 882 is another "operative
    section," which says the same thing about foreign corporations doing
    business here.)

    Parts 2 through 5 of Subchapter N describe all sort of activities or types
    of commerce, ALL of which relate to some type of INTERNATIONAL or FOREIGN
    commerce, including citizens receiving FOREIGN income (Part III), FOREIGNERS
    receiving domestic inome (Part II), and various rules about federal
    possessions, international and foreign sales corporations, etc. Those are
    ALL of the types of commerce, income from which is subject to the federal
    income tax.

    On the other hand, Part I (Sections 861 through 865) gives the rules about:
    1) which income counts as "within" and which counts as "without," and; 2)
    generally how to determine taxable income from within (861), and taxable
    income from without (862). (Basically they just say to subtract deductions
    from gross income.)

    However, 80 YEARS of regulations, as well as the statutory predecessor of
    861 (Section 217 from 1921) show that those GENERAL rules only show income
    to be taxable when it comes from the specific activities described in the
    OTHER sections mentioned above (a.k.a. "operative sections").

    That is WHY, despite the very general wording of Section 119 (1939), the
    related REGULATIONS said that the domestic income described in 119(a) was
    taxable for foreigners, and for Americans who receive most of their income
    from federal possessions. (See Sections 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, and
    29.119-10 of the 1945 regulations.) Those were the situations which the
    "operative sections" described as being taxable.

    A specific example might show how it all fits together.

    1) Section 861(a)(3) says that compensation for services performed in the
    U.S. is considered to be income from WITHIN the United States (regardless of
    where the payment actually comes from).

    2) Section 871(b) says that income which nonresident aliens receive from
    doing business in the U.S. is subject to the income tax.

    3) The GENERAL rules in 861 describe the kinds of domestic income which are
    taxable when derived from the SPECIFIC sources described in other sections.

    Here is what good old Section 1.861-8 says:

    "Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state IN GENERAL TERMS how to determine taxable
    income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States after gross
    income from sources within the United States has been determined... The
    rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the
    taxpayer from SPECIFIC SOURCES AND ACTIVITIES under OTHER sections of the
    Code, referred to in this section as OPERATIVE SECTIONS... The operative
    sections include, among others, SECTIONS 871(b) and 882 (relating to taxable
    income of a NONRESIDENT ALIEN individual or a foreign corporation which is
    effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United

    Only a lawyer would write something like that. If you look at the older
    statute (Section 217 from 1921) none of that "operative section" or
    "specific source" garbage was in there. It just said in the case of
    NONRESIDENT ALIENS, and in the case of Americans getting most of their
    income from federal POSSESSIONS, certain types of income (after deductions)
    were to be included in full as taxable domestic income. But back to the
    current regulations, they do tell the truth, though in a "lawyeresque" sort
    of twisted, indirect way.

    Again, Sections 861 and 862 general describe how to determine taxable income
    from within and from without, respectively. However...

    "Sections 861, 862, 863(a), and 863(b) are the four provisions applicable in
    determining taxable income from SPECIFIC SOURCES." [26 CFR §

    If you aren't getting income from those "specific sources," then 861-863 are
    NOT saying that your income is taxable. The other three times the term
    "specific sources" is used (1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)),
    the reader is directed to 1.861-8(f)(1) for a "list and description" of the
    so-called "operative sections" describing the "specific sources and

    (Every time I try to explain this in an understandable way, it makes me want
    to strangle a lawyer.)

    The list in 1.861-8(f)(1) refers to certain foreign income of Americans
    (item "i"), international and foreign sales corporations (item "iii"),
    nonresident aliens and foreign corporations doing business here (items "iv"
    and "v"), those doing business in federal possessions and other foreign and
    international matters (item "vi"). (Notice that these are exactly the types
    of commerce which Parts II through V of Subchapter N are all about.)
    Conspicuously absent from the list is anything about Americans who just get
    income from inside the 50 states.

    Okay, I tried to avoid shameless self-promotion in this e-mail, but now I
    give up. If you don't want to buy a copy of "Theft By Deception" for
    yourself, borrow it from a friend, go to one of the free showings of it, or
    find some other way to see it (heck, illegally bootleg it if it's the only
    way you'll see it). If you have the general gist of what I said above, then
    when you watch Step Six of the video ("Intent to Deceive") you will want to
    strangle a lawyer too.

    The current mangled maze of legalese garbage ("specific sources," "operative
    sections," etc.) was DESIGNED to confuse you. If you see what it came from,
    you'll see exactly what the sections really MEAN, and you'll also see how
    they were trying to COVER UP what they really mean, without actually
    removing the literal truth from the regulations.

    Anyway, that's why 29.119-2 said what it said. The regulation-writers knew
    that the GENERAL terms of 119 only meant that those types of domestic income
    are taxable when they derive from the specific types of commerce described
    in the OTHER sections (i.e. "operative sections").

    If anyone actually made it this far through this message, you deserve a
    medal (or else you should be institutionalized... I'm not sure which).


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


    [Here is my explanation of the poor wording of 29.119-2:]

    The regulation-writrers put a comma in 29.119-2 (1945) where there shouldn't
    have been one. (It was removed for subsequent printings.) Luckily, half a
    zillion other citations show that it meant that interest on domestic
    investments was to be included in the gross income from sources
    within the United States

    (1) of nonresident alien individuals
    (2) of foreign corporations
    (3) of citizens of the United States who
    are entitled to the benefits of section 251
    (4) of domestic corporations that are
    entitled to the benefits of section 251

    If you look up the following citations, you will see that it did NOT mean
    foreigners plus all citizens plus domestic corporations entitled to the 251

    Section 29.119-9 from the same regulations (1945) talked about deductions
    being allowed "to nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations
    engaged in trade or business within the United States, and to citizens of
    the United States and domestic corporations entitled to the benefits of
    section 251..."

    Section 29.119-1 talked about "Nonresident alien individuals, foreign
    corporations, and citizens of the United States or domestic corporations
    entitled to the benefits of section 251."

    Even farther back, Section 217 in 1925 (predecessor of 119 and 861) said
    this: "In the case of a nonresident alien individual or of a citizen
    entitled to the benefits of section 262, the following items of gross income
    shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:..."

    (Another section back then (232) also added foreign corporations and
    domestic corporations entitled to the 251 thing.)

    In fact, the current regulations at 1.861-8(f)(1)(vi)(E) talk about "The tax
    base for citizens entitled to the benefits of section 931 and the section
    936 tax credit of a domestic corporation which has an election in effect
    under section 936." (The citizen thing actually hasn't applied since 1986.)

    So they clearly screwed up by putting that comma in, realized it, and took
    it out in later printings.
  • Supreme Court on 861

    (originally launched into cyberspace on 02/07/2003)

    Dear List Subscribers,

    There is currently a case before the Supreme Court that mentions Section
    861. Before you get too excited, it's about the most boring issue you can
    imagine. The only question is about how to properly allocate research and
    development expenses for purposes of Domestic International Sales
    Corporations (DISC). Yippee. (Watching grass grow is more thrilling than
    reading the oral arguments in this case.) However, I thought I should look
    it over to see if anything interesting shows up. And at least one thing

    The lawyer for one side points to 1.861-8(f)(1), the list of "specific
    sources"--specifically to 1.861-8(f)(1)(iii), which deals with DISCs. He is
    pointing out the rules there for that. The lawyer said that Congress made
    it clear that they wanted the regulations under 861 to deal with this
    particular rule for DISCs. Then a Supreme Court justice (I think it was
    O'Connor) said this:

    "But 861 applies generally, doesn't it, not just to DISCs?"

    The lawyer said yes, it "applies generally" (but he was focusing on one part
    of it in particular).

    I wouldn't make too much of that, but it might make a few status quo
    proponents cringe who like to say "that's only for certain people in special
    situations." That doesn't sound like the same thing as saying the section
    "applies generally."

    Anyway, I expect the case, and the ruling, to be rather boring and not touch
    on anything of particular interest to us on this list. But we shall see.


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

    As I was saying...

    (originally launched into cyberspace on 02/06/2003)

    Dear List Subscriber,

    I was just saying how the IRS cheats. Here is a fine example that CONGRESS
    is once again trying to pass into law. Keep in mind, the Constitution
    (Fifth Amendment) says that no one can be deprived of property without "DUE
    PROCESS OF LAW." Here is what your "representatives" think of due process:

    Scroll down to page 100, and look where it talks about "frivolous"
    arguments. Here is how it works:

    If you file a tax return that cites what THE LAW ITSELF says about
    determining taxable income (i.e. Section 861 and its regulations), there
    would be a five THOUSAND dollar fine (instead of the current five hundred
    dollar fine).

    But wait, it gets better. The IRS can declare ANY issue to be "frivolous,"
    and FINE you thousands of dollars for bringing it up. But wait... there's

    It isn't just for tax returns any more. If you ask for a Collections Due
    Process Hearing... $5000 fine. If you request a "Taxpayer Assistance
    Order," $5000 fine. For these and a couple other administrative procedure
    steps, your request will be discarded and ignored, and then you will be
    robbed. (If you go to Tax Court, you then get fined up to $25,000.)

    It is now ILLEGAL to file a CORRECT tax return, and ILLEGAL to cite the LAW
    to argue it. Nice due process, huh? I hope you feel well served.


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

    (P.S. They call it the "Care Act of 2003." I kid you not.)


    (originally launched into cyberspace on 02/06/2003)

    Dear List Subscriber,

    In my last e-mail I discussed the downright surreal proposed new legislation
    that would punish you for CITING THE LAW (to the tune of $5000 a pop). I
    wanted to clarify something, since my last e-mail ended with this:

    "It is now ILLEGAL to file a CORRECT tax return, and ILLEGAL to cite the LAW
    to argue it. Nice due process, huh? I hope you feel well served."

    The IRS is ALREADY penalizing people for filing returns based on what the
    LAW says about what is taxable. The Tax Court ALREADY fines people for
    citing the law there.

    However, the increase of the penalty from $500 to $5000, and the other
    things I mentioned in my prior e-mail have NOT been passed into law yet.
    This is at least the second time they tried to get this passed. If you know
    a way to stop them, go for it. If not, the fraud is still doomed.


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

    Playing Against Cheaters (Part II)

    (originally launched into cyberspace on 02/05/2003)

    Dear List Subscriber,

    In my prior message about "Playing Against Cheaters," I used the analogy of
    playing against a football team that has a reputation for cheating. That
    analogy has to be drastically exaggerated to make it match what we are
    really up against with the IRS. Not only does the other team cheat (late
    hits, knee to the crotch, etc.), but the referee LETS them. On fourth down
    and five, they go for it. They get two yards. The ref says "hey, that’s
    close enough… FIRST DOWN!" Eventually they make it to the 50 yard line, and
    the ref says "touchdown!" Your team captain complains… and the ref kicks
    him out of the game. Then you get ready to get the ball. But the ref gives
    the other team the ball again, and they start again at the 50. "Ref,
    they’re supposed to kick off to us after a touchdown!" "Shut up. You
    wouldn’t have scored anyway. If you complain again you’re out of the game."

    Sounds a bit extreme? That is exactly how it is in real life when dealing
    with the IRS. The IRS can’t find an actual "assessment," but they have a
    computer printout that has a code that means one was made. The court says
    "that’s close enough." (Never mind that the IRM says that the actual signed
    assessment certificate is the document that allows collection actions.)
    Someone is denied his administrative hearing with the IRS, and the court
    says "That’s okay, they would have disagreed with you anyway." (I kid you
    not. See the Madge case.) If you cite their OWN RULES, you will probably
    be threatened with a FINE. If you cite their own rules in Tax Court, you
    will get a BIGGER fine. If you cite their rules too often, they will
    silence you permanently with a court injunction.

    That sounds pretty much like the football game, doesn’t it? How on earth
    could anyone win such a game? In short, you CAN’T win… not the conventional
    way. We cannot sway the ref. We cannot reason with the team of cheaters.
    And we’re not even allowed to play by the rules. What are we to do? There
    is a solution.

    Convince the spectators to storm the field.

    I have watched a whole lot of people try to reason with the other "team"
    (the IRS), or with the ref (judge), to try to play it by their rules (which
    they make up as they go), only to find that the other side doesn’t play by
    the rules. For years now all sorts of people have been telling me that we
    just have to present it just right, or file the right lawsuit, and then
    we’ll get justice. If we can say the magic words, they’ll finally say
    "shucks, NOW I get it… so sorry… you don’t owe this… have a nice day." Wake
    up. Authoritarian power doesn’t work that way. Never has, and never will.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.
    Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact
    amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
    will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with
    both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom
    they suppress." - Frederick Douglas

    (Incidentally, the guy who said that was once a slave in this country, back
    when the politicians and judges all said that was okay. He knew what he was
    talking about.)

    Just like in the hypothetical football game, we can really really wish the
    other side would play fair, and we can be shocked and outraged at the
    referee. And then what? Slink into silent servitude, and surrender money
    you know you don’t owe (and leave the fraud in place so the next generation
    of cheaters can rob your children)? No thanks.


    Don’t waste another minute begging cheaters for justice. They have a lot of
    reason to keep robbing you, to call what we do "frivolous", to penalize us
    for citing the law, to vilify, slander, insult, threaten and rob us. Us
    saying "please" very politely is NOT going to counteract that. In short, we
    have to give them an incentive to stop robbing people; something big enough
    to outweigh what is driving them now.

    The Founders of this country used a rather effective "incentive" on the
    tyrants of their day: shooting them. However, I wouldn’t suggest that in
    this situation (I know that might disappoint some of you). But we
    should—and must—do the "legal" equivalent. No, I don’t mean suing anyone,
    since all such court actions will be presided over by the referee who kicks
    you out of the game for mentioning the rules. We have to make it
    uncomfortable to be a cheater, and there are a lot of "legal" ways to do

    First, we have to stop thinking in terms of the way the game is USUALLY
    played. Forget law suits, and petitions*, and complaining to the nearest
    politician. Those of you who have tried that by now know it doesn’t work.
    (Why would those who BENEFIT from the fraud help you end it?) Don’t think
    in terms of convincing someone in "authority" to punish the meanies. PUNISH

    (* Petitions can be useful, not in and of themselves, but to educate the
    public and to put public pressure on the extortionist du jour. More on this

    No, I don’t mean take a tire iron to the kneecaps of the nearest IRS agent.
    (Even if it might be justifiable in some cases, they have more guns than
    you.) If you "punish" them illegally, you will get punished worse. To put
    it another way, don’t hang the referee from the goal posts, or the cops will
    show up and arrest you. Unfortunately, that’s often how people respond to
    government injustice: beg and plead with the system for ages (to no avail),
    and then totally lose it and kill either yourself or the nearest bureaucrat.
    Not a good plan.

    I won’t get into all the specific ideas I think we SHOULD do right now (the
    plan is still evolving), but I’ll give one hypothetical example of how to
    "legally" punish a federal extortionist:

    The new Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Pam Olson, sounded reasonable
    for a while. Then a few hundred people asked her six perfectly reasonable
    questions about how we’re supposed to determine what we owe. She didn’t
    answer. Now she’s talking about how the IRS needs to focus more on cracking
    down on tax cheats--a category she would no doubt put many of us in, despite
    what the LAW says. (Meanwhile, the Prez just approved tens of millions of
    extra dollars for the IRS to harass more people.)

    So far Ms. Olson has only gotten letters. I bet a few hundred letters got
    her attention. It probably caused her some stress when she realized she
    can’t answer the questions. She may not know the truth yet, but she at
    least knows something is fishy. How much do the letters bother her? Maybe
    none, maybe pretty much. How much would a full-page ad in the Washington
    Times bother her, that said…


    (…and then briefly explained the situation.)

    How about if that appeared in newspapers across the country? How about if
    500 people showed up at her office in DC one day, asking her to answer the
    questions. How about if eight people a day (one an hour) took turns
    visiting her office, every day for the next few months? How about at her
    house? How about if 500 people called her office every DAY, asking when she
    was going to answer the questions? How about if people could ask their
    "representatives" to please tell Pam Olson to answer the questions? What if
    it was 5000 people, instead of 500? What if a few thousand people called
    every talk show they could find, and mention the insanity of the feds being
    unable to answer basic questions about how we are supposed to determine what
    we owe (and have a handy-dandy web page about it to point to)? A few
    hundred letters to the editor, all mentioning Pam Olson in particular?

    If you don’t think things like that can have an impact, take a lesson from
    the people of Tennessee, and their efforts to stop the state legislature
    there from sneaking in a state income tax. (As far as I know, there is
    STILL no state income tax there, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)

    More than 10,000 people have seen "Theft By Deception," and probably well
    over 100,000 have at least a basic understanding of what the 861 evidence is
    about. If HALF the people who have seen the video would invest a little
    time in a well-orchestrated endeavor, we could squash ANY official anywhere.
    We could put them on the spot, and give them nowhere to hide. One by one we
    set them up, knock them down, and move to the next one. (By the way, this
    only works because they CAN’T answer the questions without either directly
    contradicting the law or ending the fraud. Any suffering they go through
    for evading and obfuscating is their own fault.)

    A lot of people send me e-mails saying they just got some letter from the
    IRS, and they don’t know what to do. (By the way, I can’t tell you what to
    do.) How many of you are willing to take to the field BEFORE the IRS is on
    your doorstep? If there aren’t any, you can bet that they will get around
    to your doorstep eventually. When they do, no one will help you.

    There are a LOT of people behind the effort to end this fraud, with quite a
    collection of resources, credentials, etc. (It’s probably a lot more than
    most of you suspect.) There are a lot of people who have been waiting
    around for something to DO about it, something that will actually show some
    results. I confess that I haven’t given a real overall "game plan" yet,
    because it keeps changing. But the time for ending this fraud is about
    here. Consider this: when the fraud is finally demolished, which of these
    do you want to be able to say?:

    1) "I didn’t do squat. I sat around hoping someone else would do it."
    2) "Yeah, I was there. I helped end the fraud."

    Pick one, and then act accordingly.


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