Sunday, August 12, 2007

Bloody Knives

From : Larken Rose
Sent : Sunday, August 12, 2007 11:35 PM
Subject : Bloody Knives

Dear Subscriber,

One night you're walking through the city, when from an alley you
hear screams of agony. At first it's too dark to see, but then a
man comes running into view, a bloody butcher's knife clutched in
his hand. Seeing your expression, he hesitates, then says, "Oh,
don't worry, that was just my girlfriend; she stubbed her toe." So
you go on about your business, putting the incident out of your
mind, forgetting it ever happened. The end.


Just about anyone with a brain, after reading the above story,
would immediately think, "But what about the bloody knife??" A
stubbed toe doesn't explain the bloody knife. But hey, the guy TOLD
you that's all it was, so who are you to keep asking frivolous
questions about what happened?

And so it is with the "income tax" deception, and the 861 evidence.
There are piles of proverbial "bloody knives" lying around, which
the feds have never even TRIED to explain. But they TOLD you we all
owe the tax, and just for good measure, they persecuted, robbed,
imprisoned, and/or silenced the people who suggested otherwise.
Isn't that enough? You don't STILL want explanations for all those
bloody knives, do you? Just mind your own damn business, and forget
you ever saw them.

Here are some of the "bloody knives" which have been made public
for anyone who wants to see them, but which, as far as I know, the
feds have never even TRIED to explain:

1) Many decades of income tax regulations very specifically said
that, in addition to those types of income specifically exempted
from tax by the tax code, some OTHER income is also tax-free
because of the Constitution itself.

Like what? For a moment, never mind what I think the answer is, or
what you think the answer is. THOUSANDS of Americans have asked the
IRS the question, and I have yet to see ANY answer, or even any
MENTION of the question or the regulations which say that, coming
from anyone in government, in any of the three branches. SOMETHING
is Constitutionally excluded--their own law books say so in plain
English. And yet I have NEVER seen them say a word about that. They
just leave that "bloody knife" sitting there in plain view, with
nary a WORD about it, hoping you'll forget you ever saw it.

2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)), includes
four types of international trade. No mention is made of the
domestic income of the average American.

What's the purpose of that list? And why isn't OUR income on the
list, if we actually owe the tax? Once again, set aside any answer
you and I might suggest; why has no one in any of the three
branches of government ever given any answer or explanation of
that, or even MENTIONED that particular regulation? Another
unexplained "bloody knife," left right out in the open.

3) In the older version of the tax codes, there was a section which
very plainly stated that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the case
of Americans with POSSESSIONS income, compensation for services
performed inside the U.S. (as well as other kinds of domestic
income) is, after subtracting allowable deductions, to be included
in full as TAXABLE income.

Isn't such income taxable for ALL U.S. citizens? That's obviously
what the feds want us to think. So why would there be a section
saying it's taxable in the case of foreigners and CERTAIN
Americans? I have an answer, and you might too, but I have NEVER
seen anyone in any of the three branches of government answer that
question, or discuss that section of law at all.

There are many more proverbial "bloody knives," but that will do
for now. At least as far back as 1998, thousands of Americans have
been asking about these things. They get the usual insults
("frivolous!") and threats ("you'll get in trouble!"), and even an
occasional baseless assertion or two. But many of the
"inconvenient" pieces of evidence just get ignored entirely. The
feds say NOTHING about them, acting as if they're not there, in the
hopes that we'll all forget about the pile of bloody knives on
their front doorstep. (In case you're wondering, I brought up all
three of the above-mentioned "bloody knives" at my trial, in
addition to others, and neither the prosecutors nor the judge ever
said ONE WORD about them.)

The objective, thinking scientific mind seeks to explain evidence,
rather than looking for an excuse to IGNORE it. I put together my
"Taxable Income" report in 1998, revised and updated it repeatedly,
and then recently rewrote the entire thing from scratch (whilst in
prison for the crime I didn't commit), for the benefit of anyone
who actually WANTS to see how all the evidence fits together. You
won't ever see the feds doing anything of the kind. If you're
lucky, you'll get one or two baseless assertions (e.g., "You're not
supposed to use 861!"), but you'll NEVER see them lay out all the
evidence, explaining it piece by piece, showing how all the pieces
fit together into a complete and logical picture supporting their
position (because it doesn't). In short, for eight YEARS it's been
a one-sided "debate": while we give comprehensive explanations,
with numerous supporting citations, they say "Frivolous! Shut up!"
And they hope people don't notice all the bloody knives.

Well, for anyone who's interested in learning more about the
"bloody knives," you too can now have your very own copy of my
recent updated, much-improved "Taxable Income" report, for the low,
low price of... zero dollars and zero cents (just like it's always
been). Just look for the link at the bottom of the following web
page, and download the new and improved (but still free) version of
the report (in PDF format):


Larken Rose

P.S. For those of you who haven't yet, while you're on the web site, find the orange
"Click&Pledge" button near the bottom, and make a donation to the
family of Dr. Tom Clayton, a man who has risked, and lost, a LOT in
an effort to get the public to pay attention to all the feds'
"bloody knives." If you do it now, you have my permission to ignore
any future naggings about it I may send out. Wouldn't that alone
make it worthwhile?


Post a Comment

<< Home