Main menu

About Pam Olson... AGAIN

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/23/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

I know I just sent the thing about the follow-up letter to Pam Olson, but
I'm including it below again. First of all, the old document was a Word 95
document, which seemed to annoy a few peoples' computer systems (maybe due
to anti-virus software not recognizing it). Second, it had a minor typo in
it, which is now fixed. So the fixed, Word 2000 version is now here:

(Note: If you leave off the "2" you will get the FIRST letter we sent to

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

Anyway, on with the rerun...


Dear List Subscriber,

My previous message mentioned Pam Olson, and a bunch of you responded by
asking who Pam Olson is. Pam Olson is the current Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury for Tax Policy. While that title sounds fairly obscure, it's
actually the highest office at Treasury that has "hands-on" dealings with
the federal income tax regulations. Of all the government officials who
actually have a reason to understand the regulations, SHE is now at the top.

Here is the government page about the "Tax Policy" office:

And here is the page about Ms. Olson herself:

Shortly after she took office (after her predecessor unexpectedly and
inexplicably resigned... after someone pestered him about 861 for a year or
so), several HUNDRED people sent her letters asking her to answer a few
polite questions about how we should determine our taxable income. That
letter can be seen here:

Now, nearly three months later, as far as I can tell she didn't send anyone
any answers at all (not even bad ones). Keep in mind, she has immediate
access to ALL Treasury lawyers, and just about everyone else in the IRS or
the Treasury Department (she used to work for IRS Chief Counsel). If anyone
has the resources to answer the questions, it's her. So why the silence?
(You decide.)

Anyway, it's time to send the follow-up letter to Ms. Olson, to ask her YET
AGAIN to answer the questions. Here is the new letter:

Please note that this 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.

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.)

Also, if you do send the letter and 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"

The whole endeavor should cost you about a buck in postage, and maybe ten
minutes to print the thing out. Can you think of any reason NOT to do it?
If you read the letter, you'll find it to be very polite and reasonable, and
I don't think anyone should be too embarassed or afraid to send it. (It
doesn't even say you AGREE with the issue; just that you think the questions
should be answered.) If you can't think of a reason not to, please put
together the letters and send them out now, while you're still thinking
about it. This WILL be worth it in the long run, even if she never answers.


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

(P.S. This is the last time we nicely ask Ms. Olson to answer. If she does
not respond this time, it will be time to turn up the heat. If she thinks
that this will just blow over, and that no one will notice that she isn't
doing her job, she is sadly mistaken. As one possibility, maybe she would
like to see a full-page ad in the Washington Times containing the above
letter to her.)

(P.P.S. For those of you who for whatever reason can't print out the letter
yourself, I'll soon post a way you can have them printed for you. And for
any who want to volunteer to print out copies for other people, please send
me an e-mail saying so.)

Any Pam Olson responses?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/22/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

If any of you who sent the questions to Pam Olson got any response at all
(relevant or not), please let me know. As far as I can tell, no one
received any answers to the questions. (I think if some of you had received
responses, I probably would have heard about it by now.) The reason I ask
is because we're about to send the follow-up, and I want to make sure she
hasn't already answered (like there's any chance of that).


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

Updates regarding the 861 source issue and the web site

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/20/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

As some of you noticed (which is why I know about it), this morning on CNBC
on some money show they read part of my "please prosecute me" thing. You
can see the whole ad here:

The response (I'm told) was the "experts" complaining that the feds aren't
doing enough to go after these nasty people (meaning me). I concur... which
they didn't seem to notice. (I was, after all, INVITING them to prosecute

From what I have heard, they read the first and last paragraphs, and left
out the rest. That actually makes some sense, since most people wouldn't
understand the substance of it anyway just from hearing it read once. What
I DID find curious is that they omitted my name while reading it. That
strikes me as a strange way to do "reporting." It's sort of like them
reporting "a man dared police to arrest him today... but we won't tell you
who." Huh? What an odd thing to leave out. (Surely they didn't think I
would object to it being public, since I was publicizing it myself.)

I don't have any particular desire to hear my name used more often, but it
seems to happen rather often that the press leaves off the information that
would have allowed people to look up for themselves what the OTHER side (us)
has to say. The New York Times has reported on the 861 issue a bunch of
times, but as far as I recall, has never mentioned my web sites, or the
video, or the Thurston Bell or Taxgate web sites. (If someone knows
otherwise, let me know.) I must give credit to CNBC, however, for
mentioning "Theft By Deception" by name. (That should be enough for anyone
who knows how to use a search engine to find out more.)

On a final note (which I may have said before), expect the mainstream media
and the feds to gear up their propaganda machine like you've never seen it
before, until April 15th. Whatever you do, do NOT judge what is going on by
what the media reports. (Mostly they just parrot whatever their favorite
government source gives them, and like any propagandist, their message will
be "resistance is futile.") If you believe the media over the next few
months, it will be easy to conclude that all is lost and the fraud will live
forever. It isn't so.


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

A few random things...

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/19/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

First, for those who don't know, my Erols account is now dead. If you want
to send me something, send it to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Second, we will soon be sending follow-up letters to Pam Olson and Jim
South. (If you don't know what that's about, you'll find out soon enough.)

Third, since I lost all my old e-mails, I'd like to request that anyone on
this list who understands the 861 evidence--or even just thinks it's at
least debatable--AND has relevant credentials (CPA, EA, attorney, etc.) send
me an e-mail. We have an upcoming project where a nice collection of
"expert" comments will come in handy. I know there are a bunch on this
list, but I don't even have the e-mail address of the ones I know about

Fourth, a lot of people have asked me what I think about the gag order on
Thurston Bell, and I'll be posting my comments here in the next day or two.


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

What the public will learn from Lynne...

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/17/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

As some of you no doubt guessed, the timing of my last message (about "If I
were them...") was not coincidence. The media is now paying attention to
Lynne Meredith, who not only doesn't give the IRS money or tax returns, but
sells materials telling other people how to do the same. Various
newspapers, and now 20/20, are running stories about her.

"Great, we're finally getting some attention!"

Before you put on your party hats, look again. Don't just think about how
you WISH the public would respond; think about how they actually WILL. What
will they learn from this?

1) Over the years Ms. Meredith has made a LOT of money selling her
materials. While making money isn't immoral, the feds will use this to
vilify here. (They are already talking about her many cars and other

Lesson #1: "She's just selling a scam to make money."

2) Ms. Meredith does not understand the law. She argues that the tax is
"voluntary," when the law itself says no such thing (regardless of the
Orwellian rhetoric in legally-irrelevant IRS publications). She also argues
that no law makes her liable. Actually, that is probably correct, since she
probably has no taxable income, but that's not what she's arguing. (She
does NOT rely on the 861 evidence at all. I even seem to recall her bashing
it, but I might be thinking of someone else.) She claims there is no income
tax liability clause. But if she DID receive taxable income, the law WOULD
make her liable for filing and paying (26 USC §§ 6012 and 6151).

Lesson #2: "Her theory about why she doesn't have to pay is silly."

3) Ms. Meredith is now being prosecuted.

Lesson #3: "People who resist the IRS go to jail."

4) The media is paying attention to her case, and touting her as one of the
most vocal "tax protestors."

Lesson #4: "If anyone can argue against the tax laws, it must be her."

So in summary, what will the public learn? They will "learn" that the tax
protestor movement is headed by scam artists who argue silly things, make
lots of money off of selling scams, and then go to prison.

Is that really the "attention" we need? Is that going to help end the
fraud? Certainly not. Ms. Meredith is a pawn, and one that will be played
quite well by the other side. Again, THINK, do not just FEEL. MOST of what
the "movement" does HELPS the fraud survive, and good motives and hard work
do not change that. As I've said before, I see this fraud ending IN SPITE
OF the "tax honesty movement," not because of it. You can get mad at me for
saying that if you want, but that is how the game works.


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

Now the good news...

(originally launched into cyberspace 01/17/2003)

Dear List Subscriber,

My previous two messages dealt with the feds' tactics, and specifically with
the recent media attention on Lynne Meredith. I explained (to the annoyance
of some) how the "tax honesty movement" is doing excellent propaganda... for
the OTHER SIDE. As is to be expected, this angers a lot of well-meaning
people, since I basically told them that all their hard work and
perseverance is helping the other side more than it's helping the truth.

Actually, I was somewhat surprised how FEW "nasty-grams" I got, and how many
"right ons" I got in response to my "If I were them..." message. And that
brings me to the point of this message.

Most people in this country know nothing about tax law. That's not supposed
to be an insult, and I doubt many would disagree with the statement. The
point is that their beliefs about the law are NOT a result of looking at the
law itself, but rather are the result of deciding which ASSERTIONS to
believe. Of course, the main thing they hear is the status quo "of course
you owe this" line that the government, the mainstream media, and the tax
professionals spout, but they occasionally are also exposed to various
claims by those in the "tax honesty movement," such as "the tax is
voluntary," or "the tax is unconstitutional," the 861 evidece, etc.

The bad news is that most people, INCLUDING most "patriot" types, base their
beliefs mainly on assertions, and on very little EVIDENCE. I see IDENTICAL
mental processes in the comments of those who say "of course your income is
taxable" and in the comments of those who say "only corporate profit is
income" (as one example). They get emotional easily, and always have to
defer to someone ELSE as the support for their claim (whether a status quo
"expert" or some "untax guru"). They quote things they do not understand,
and have no explanation for evidence which contradicts their belief.
(Incidentally, I have also seen people do this who BELIEVE the 861 evidence,
rather than UNDERSTANDING it, and I think it's a shame.)

Unfortunately, MOST people are easily manipulated and swayed, because they
do not base their conclusions and actions on EVIDENCE and LOGIC. They can
be dragged around by their feelings, and trained to think whatever good
propaganda artists want them to think.

Consider, for example, political campaigns. If some politician gives a good
speech, his "approval rating" can jump by big percentage points,
representing MILLION of Americans changing their minds about him. Is it
presenting new evidence and laying out logic that suddenly transforms a
slimy politician into the nation's darling? Certainly not. It's because of
what he LOOKED like, whether he sounded sincere, whether it FELT good
listening to him, etc. What does that have to do with the truth? Not a
thing. But it sure has the power to sway people all over the place.

People are eager to follow a charismatic leader, whether he has any sense or
whether he is suggesting that they drink poisoned Kool-Aid. The enthusiasm,
confidence, and persuasiveness is what counts, not whether what the guy is
saying is true or rational. And that's true in the "patriot" movement as
much as anywhere else.

HOWEVER... (and now I'm finally getting to the good news)... not EVERYONE is
an emotional butterfly, able to be flung around where ever the wind may
blow. There are those who have a different view of reality; a view that
requires that they UNDERSTAND something for themselves before they shout it
from the rooftops. They are not easily swayed in ANY direction by emotion
or assertions. They do not immediate throw their faith at something that
sounds nice (even if it's correct), nor do they give up their loyalty to an
issue simply because someone declares with an air of authority that the
issue is "frivolous," evil, or otherwise distasteful.

These are the THINKERS. While they may be greatly outnumbered by the
easily-manipulated "feelers," they are far more worthwhile allies to have.
The good news is that we have a LOT of these on board with the 861 evidence,
and NOTHING will budge them but actual EVIDENCE and LOGIC--something very
lacking in the arguments of the 861-bashers, whether in the government, the
status quo tax profession, or the patriot movement.

There are a whole lot of people who are not content to believe; they want to
UNDERSTAND. It often takes them weeks or months to really get on board,
because they are intellectually careful. They don't WANT to rely on wishful
thinking; if there is a problem with some claim, they WANT to understand it.
They play "Devil's Advocate" to an almost obsessive degree, because they can
only achieve intellectual comfort through first hand knowledge and
understanding, not from following some guru.

If you want an ally in a cause, THESE are the people to get. Those who will
sway where ever the wind blows are unreliable, temporary, "fair weather
friends." They do not UNDERSTAND, so they can easily be verbally bullied
into doubt, or even surrender.

Mind you, I'm not saying these are BAD people. MOST people fit the
description, including most of the people I know and love. Most people
don't have TIME to obsessively research an issue like this for themselves,
and I can't fault anyone for that. As an analogy, most good people don't
know how to use an AR-15 (if they know what one is). That doesn't mean they
are bad people, but it DOES mean they are not the people to have next to you
if we get invaded by marauding hordes.

Likewise, the people we want on our side in the fight against the income tax
deception are these "thinkers"; these rational, obsessive, principled,
determined blocks of concrete. Not only do we have them; we have HUNDREDS
of them.

I don't just mean we have hundreds of people who agree with the 861 evidence
(we have tens of thousands of them); I mean we have hundreds who have a
grasp on the truth that NOTHING will shake. No matter how much the
"experts" and the government officials huff and puff, these people will
still know the truth. No matter how many mistakes those in the "tax honesty
movement" make, these people will understand what the LAW says. Short of
them dying, these people are "truth anchors" that won't be budged. (While
they WOULD be open to new, contradictory evidence, they obsessed long enough
to understand that there IS no contradictory evidence.)

Why does this matter? Because it means we CANNOT lose. The number of these
"truth anchors" continues to grow, while the number of "casual believers"
continues to grow as well. Once the thinkers understand, they cannot be
made to "unlearn" it. To use a military analogy, they are a bit of ground
the enemy will NEVER recapture, and a place from which the truth will
continue to spread as long as they breath.

So WHATEVER happens, whatever the news reports, whatever "patriot" crashes
and burns, whatever happens to anyone (including me), rest assured that this
fraud WILL fall. The only question is when. My answer is "soon."


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