Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Larken Rose's Chronicle of his recent judicial experience

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    ... When I first started looking for ways to go up against the IRS, about 8 years ago, I ran across this guy s stance on sec 861. Knowing very little, I
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Coerper" <steve@...>
      > wrote:

      > >
      > > Larken Rose "kicked the dragon" with his assertions of
      > > the validity and applicability of Section 861 in
      > > determining one's income tax liability. As most of you
      > > probably know, he and his wife both were tried and both
      > > did a stretch in the Federal slammer.


      When I first started looking for ways to go up against
      the IRS, about 8 years ago, I ran across this guy's
      stance on sec 861. Knowing very little, I thought I
      had come across an incredible defense.

      The more I read about how to deal with theirs, the more
      apparent it became that arguing any section of the code
      was a sure fire way to lose. The better appraoch was
      to force the IRS to prove one was a taxpayer and demand
      a verfied, lawful assessment. It is analogus to FF's
      initial moment of confrontation, and it works.

      I can never understand why those who promote ways to
      go up against the IRS and then spend time in jail for
      the failure of their approach to work, still maintain
      a following.

      It is not for me to advise someone not to read his
      information, but I would certainly never use it.

      Just my point of view and direct experience,

      mn
    • wm@greenes.us
      As presented paragraphs #24 and #25 of the Qui Tam Action (Case #08-cv-0280_LEK/DHR) which was just unsealed a few weeks ago, questions and reasons for
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        As presented paragraphs #24 and #25 of the Qui Tam Action (Case #08-cv-0280_LEK/DHR) which was just unsealed a few weeks ago, questions and reasons for questions regard “Section 861” which are found in said “Statement of  [538] Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax” under the “Ninth Belief”, paragraphs 1-16. Nowhere in American history or jurisprudence have said questions been answered except by Larken Rose in his research report, “Taxable Income”, and Nowhere in American history or jurisprudence have said questions been answered, except by various tax professionals at the Citizens’ Truth in Taxation Hearing in Washington DC on February 27-28, 2002 by a panel of experts including constitutional attorney Lowell Becraft, former IRS Special Agent Joseph Banister and Bill Benson, and NOWHERE IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE have said facts been formally and specifically refuted. 
         
        Blessings,
        Bill

        --- On Wed, 6/4/08, mn_chicago <mn_chicago@...> wrote:

        From: mn_chicago <mn_chicago@...>
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Larken Rose's Chronicle of his recent judicial experience
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 1:01 PM






        --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve Coerper" <steve@...>
        > wrote:

        > >
        > > Larken Rose "kicked the dragon" with his assertions of
        > > the validity and applicability of Section 861 in
        > > determining one's income tax liability. As most of you
        > > probably know, he and his wife both were tried and both
        > > did a stretch in the Federal slammer.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.