Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: When Should You Shoot A Cop? (Another shit article from Decktard)
Source:
From The Trenches/Cop Block
URL Source: https://fromthetrenchesworldreport. ... -should-you-shoot-a-cop/250484
Published: Jun 28, 2011
Author: Larken Rose
Post Date: 2019-07-16 05:38:32 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3626
Comments: 8
That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.
Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”–the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that “the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist–that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally”–i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.
If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.
Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.
There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”
Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? “You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ‘plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a “right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.
To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.
Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called “law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called “government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.
The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.
UPDATE:
Larken Rose narrated the text he wrote, and the video below was edited by Pete Eyre, and published in November, 2012.
[Thread Locked] Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
A better question: How did you get into a situation where you are asking yourself this question?
No, that's not what it says. It says the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents shall not be violated. If the search and seizure is found in a court of law to be unreasonable, any evidence seized is suppressed.
Too bad the "evidence" can be indicted and stolen from you.
Not if the search was found unconstitutional.
Add another article to Liberty's Flame legal scam artist collection featuring the legal opinions of convicted felon and former guest of the Bureau of Prisons, Larken Rose. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59408 [Larken Rose] Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called “law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option. Actually, Rose if full of shit yet again, and is wrong on all counts. If his readers prefer to do 20 to life, or get to be executed, they are free to accept his ridiculous interpretation of legal rights. If a cop decides to perform a search and seizure in the mistaken belief that his action would be reasonable under the circumstances, while you believe it unresonable, you have the lawful right to subsequentl initiate legal action in court. You do not have the right to violently resist or kill the law enforcement officer. Even if the search or seizure turns out to have been unreasonable, that will not absolve you of your crime of resisting or using deadly force, or killing the officer. For those who choose to play cowboy, if the cops break down your door in the middle of the night, unannounced, you can roll the dice by shooting them dead, preferably with head shots as they tend to wear body armor. Te object is to have your story being the only one being told by a survivor. You were awakened from your sleep, you were disoriented, you did not know they were cops, and you feared for your life. Aned consult with your lawyer (a real one) before you say anything. There were no accompanying words which said you could violently resist a search and seizure carried out on the mistaken belief that it was reasonable. A court has jurisdiction and authority to decide whether it was reasonable, you do not.
The evidence is neither indicted, nor stolen. Evidence which is suspected contraband may be seized, and anyone claiming to own the suspected contraband may claim it. The burden of showing legal ownership is preponderance of the evidence, or more likely that not. Few people choose to claim their property when it is contraband, e.g., when it is the loot from a robbery; when it is the loot from his illegal drug sales business; or items purchased with the money which was the fruit of criminal activity.
Previous articles contributed to Liberty's Flame legal scam artist collection featuring the legal opinions of convicted felon and former guest of the Bureau of Prisons, Larken Rose. His wife, and fellow scammer, was also a guest of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Actor Wesley Snipes followed teaching of Larken Rose and also became a guest of the Bureau of Federal Prisons. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59408 https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55944 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56314 The embedded Youtube video features Larken Rose. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57350 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You have littered Liberty's Flame with your Larken Rose snake oil, knowing that he is lowlife scum whose very snake oil sent him and his wife to prison, and when he got out of prison he went back to peddling snake oil to the weak minded, such as yourself. Scamming the Section 861 argument was a cottage industry and took in good money from willing dupes, and led to numerous convictions, fines, and ordered payment of back taxes with penalties. Nobody should be the least bit surprised that you have repeatedly foisted this self-professed anarchist scam artist as a source, knowing that he is a scam artist. I certainly recalled telling you before about Barkin' Larken Rose and his wife. You can't say you did not know what sort of crap you were shilling. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56537 EXCERPT: Eric July at the article: - - - - - Barkin' Larken Rose is a well known dingbat sent to prison for being a tax cheat. Jackass and his wife did time in Federal prison. Tessa David Rose was inmate number 59518-066, and was released on February 9, 2007. - - - - - - - - - - Larken Rose, 37, was the joint owner of a medical transcription business operated outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As set forth in the Indictment and according to the evidence introduced at trial, Rose willfully failed to file personal federal income tax returns for calendar years 1998 through 2002, despite earning $500,000 during those years. Rose also filed false and frivolous amended income tax returns for 1994, 1995, and 1996. On those amended returns, he reported no tax due and requested a refund for all income taxes paid in those years. At trial, Rose claimed that he failed to file returns and sought refund claims based on his determination that his income received inside the United States was not taxable under Internal Revenue Code Section 861 and regulations. The judge instructed the jury that this Section 861 argument is incorrect as a matter of law. "People who intentionally fail to file returns or pay taxes as required by law can expect to face criminal prosecution and conviction," said Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division. "And they will still be required to pay the taxes they tried to avoid, plus interest and penalties." "The conduct of Larken Rose," said Patrick L. Meehan, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "is an affront to all taxpayers who voluntarily pay the taxes required by law." Nancy Jardini, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation, said, "Today's conviction reminds us that fulfilling individual tax obligations is a legal requirement and those who willfully evade that responsibility will be prosecuted." Courts have consistently held that Section 861 does not provide authority for United States citizens to fail to file income tax returns on income earned in the United States, as was highlighted by evidence at trial. The trial evidence also showed that Rose received more than a dozen notices from the IRS that rejected his 861 argument. Further, there were more than ten letters from members of Congress, found at Rose's residence during execution of a search warrant, that provided notice to him that his 861 argument was invalid. In addition, Rose was aware of two district court cases that had rejected the 861 argument. In one case, the district judge informed Rose directly that Rose's view of the law was incorrect. There was also considerable evidence presented at trial, through email correspondence, that Rose intended to create a mass movement of non-compliance to obstruct the enforcement of the tax laws. In convicting Rose, the jury rejected his claim that he held a good faith belief that the federal income tax laws do not apply to him. District Judge Michael M. Baylson ordered Rose to remain under home detention and set sentencing for November 15, 2005. Rose faces a possible sentence of 12 months on each of the five Counts of which he was found guilty. Assistant Attorney General O'Connor and U.S. Attorney Meehan thanked Assistant United States Attorney, Floyd J. Miller, and United States Department of Justice Tax Division Attorney, Shawn T. Noud, who prosecuted the case. They also thanked the special agents of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, whose efforts were essential to the successful investigation and prosecution of the case. http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/larken-rose [...] Rose is the best-known advocate of the "section 861 argument", claiming that the regulations promulgated under Subchapter N of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code show that only income from foreign source is taxable. Rose supports that argument by claiming that, under the Constitution, Congress can tax only foreign income. [...] Larken Rose stopped filing federal income tax returns in 1998 and began publicly asking the government to prosecute him in 2001. He was unable to convince a jury that he believed in good faith that his income was not “taxable” because of section 861, and was convicted on five counts of willfully failing to file tax returns, which earned him 15 months in federal prison. United State v. Rose, No. 2:05-CR-01101 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 8/12/2005), aff'd No. 05-5199 (3rd Cir. 8/5/2008). He served 13 months in prison and was released on 12/29/2006. Since being released from prison, he has resumed his promotion of the section 861 argument and the materials he created explaining the argument. The sentence awarded to Larken Rose was 15 months' imprisonment, one year's supervised release, and a $10,000 fine. - - - - - - - - - - Amdt 14: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...." There is no negative component to the 14th Amdt right to citizenship. - - - - - - - - - - https://www.scribd.com/document/384092725/United-States-v-Larken-Rose-05-5199-3rd-Cir-5-Aug-2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_861_argument The 861 argument is a statutory argument used by tax protesters in the United States, which interprets a portion of the Internal Revenue Code as invalidating certain applications of income tax. The argument has uniformly been held by courts to be incorrect, and persons who have cited the argument as a basis for refusing to pay income taxes have been penalized, and in some cases jailed. Description of the argument Internal Revenue Code section 861, entitled "Income from sources within the United States", is a provision of the Internal Revenue Code which delineates that some kinds of income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States, namely income of nonresident alien individuals, and certain foreign corporations, but it is not an exhaustive list of taxable income—the definitions in the section apply only to that section. The language of Section 861 is occasionally cited by tax protesters who claim that the statute excludes some portion of the income of U.S. citizens and resident aliens from taxation. Under the tax protesters' section 861 argument, only income derived from "taxable activities" listed in that section becomes "taxable income" (taxable "gross income" minus allowable deductions - 26 U.S.C. § 63). The list of taxable activities is located in Subchapter N and in Section 861 regulations. Proponents of this argument state that individuals with domestic income must go to the Section 861 regulations to determine if the activities that generate their income are taxable or not. Protesters state that regulation section 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) defines the taxable activities. The argument is that since the domestic activities of residents of the United States (Americans and resident aliens) are not shown to be taxable in that section, the domestic income derived from such activities does not become taxable "gross income" through the rest of the tax code. Tax protesters argue that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is misapplying section 861 to them, citing the case of Gould v. Gould. The text of that case reads in part: Tax protesters argue that Gould v. Gould nullifies what tax protesters view as an attempt by the IRS to tax beyond the explicit provisions of the law. Section 861 did not exist in the year 1917, when the Gould case was decided, and the Court was neither presented with nor decided the issue of whether domestic or foreign income is not taxable. The terms "domestic income" and "foreign income" do not appear in the case, and the court's main ruling in Gould v. Gould—that alimony was not taxable to the recipient under the Revenue Act of 1913—was overturned by a subsequent Act of Congress, the current version of which is found in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 at 26 U.S.C. § 71. [...] More recent attempts to avoid payment of taxes using the 861 argument have not contended that the protesters were non-citizens, but that the provision should be read as extending to all taxes. These efforts have resulted in a number of high-profile convictions of its proponents. Larken Rose, a noted advocate of the 861 argument, used the argument to challenge the IRS, and lost: In August 2006, Charles Thomas (Tom) Clayton, M.D., was found guilty by a jury in Federal court in Texas of two counts of willfully making false statements on tax returns and six counts of willfully failing to file tax returns. According to The Courier of Montgomery County, "Clayton's defense at the trial centered on the '861 argument' -- a defense used numerous times in previous years, but never successfully…" According to a Justice Department news release, Clayton failed to file income tax returns for years 1999 through 2004 while receiving over $1.5 million in gross income. The government also charged that for years 1997 and 1998 Clayton filed false amended returns, claiming refunds of over $160,000. Criminal investigators of the Internal Revenue Service had gathered information on Clayton during the IRS investigation of Larken Rose (see above). According to the prosecutor's office, Clayton "disregarded multiple written notices from the Internal Revenue Service informing him that his 861 argument was without merit", and Clayton "had also been told the same thing by two Certified Public Accountants". On December 15, 2006, Clayton was sentenced to five years in prison and a fine of $50,000, plus a requirement that he pay over $7,400 in prosecution costs. He appealed, but his conviction was upheld on appeal. In 2006, the government alleged that actor Wesley Snipes fraudulently attempted to obtain tax refunds using the 861 argument. On February 1, 2008, Snipes was found guilty on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file Federal income tax returns. He was acquitted on one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the government and one felony count of filing a false claim with the government. Following the acquittal, Snipes faced up to three years in prison, rather than the 16 years the felony charges could have brought. On April 24, 2008, Snipes was sentenced to three years in prison. Wesley Snipes' appeal of the three-year sentence was denied by a federal appeals court on Friday, July 16, 2010. He was released to home confinement on April 2, 2013. Co-defendant Eddie Ray Kahn was sentenced to ten years in prison, and another defendant, Douglas Rosile, was sentenced to four and half years in prison. In another, less widely reported 2008 case, Clifford B. Marston was convicted of tax evasion and related claims despite his argument that his non-filing was based on a good faith belief that his income was not taxable. Marston's conviction was upheld in part because he failed to file even after he became aware that Larken Rose (a proponent of the 861 argument) had been convicted of tax-related offenses. Dr. Tom Clayton was an associate of Larken Rose. In its Opinion on the appeal of Clifford B. Marston, upholding his conviction, the 8th Circuit noted, United States v. Clifford B Marston, 06-4191 (8th Cir, 10 Mar 2008),l at 7-8, Believing the natterings of Larken Rose does not seem to end well for those who act on those beliefs.
You get the final say.
When Should You Shoot A Cop?
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents.
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
#4. To: randge (#3)
Too bad the "evidence" can be indicted and stolen from you.
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.
There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents.
#6. To: randge (#3)
[randge #3] Too bad the "evidence" can be indicted and stolen from you.
#7. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#0)
Title: When Should You Shoot A Cop?
Source: From The Trenches/Cop Block
URL Source: https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/250484 Published: Jun 28, 2011
Author: Larken Rose
Post Date: 2019-07-16 05:38:32 by DeckardTitle: They Will Not Leave You Alone
Source: Everything Voluntary
URL Source: http://everything-voluntary.com/they-will-not-leave-you-alone
Published: May 31, 2018
Author: Larken Rose
Post Date: 2018-06-01 20:20:31 by DeckardTitle: A Mexican Town OVERTHREW Their Local Government And Things Are Going Great
Source: SHTF Plan
URL Source: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/a-mexican-town-overthrew-their-local-government-and-things-are-going-great_07022018
Published: Jul 3, 2018
Author: Mac Slavo
Post Date: 2018-07-03 12:40:53 by DeckardTitle: For Me, For Thee
Source: Everything Voluntary
URL Source: http://everything-voluntary.com/for-me-for-thee
Published: Sep 25, 2018
Author: Larken Rose
Post Date: 2018-09-26 11:26:40 by Deckard Title: Eric July On Why The Only Rights Are ‘Negative Rights’
Source: The Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/eric-july-on-why-the-only-rights-are-negative-rights_072018
Published: Jul 16, 2018
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2018-07-17 10:46:37 by Deckard July explains that all rights stem from the principle of self-ownership, and if you’ve never heard of that concept before, consider Googling “Larken Rose.”
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
July explains that all rights stem from the principle of self-ownership, and if you’ve never heard of that concept before, consider Googling “Larken Rose.”
Larken Rose was inmate number 58421-066, and was released on December 29, 2006.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service announced today that a federal jury in Philadelphia convicted Larken Rose, of Hollywood, Pennsylvania of five counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns.
Rose is a self-described anarchist, who has written in private correspondence (introduced into evidence as a criminal trial) that "I don't actually like the Constitution" because it gives too much power to politicians," and that "I feel no obligation to obey" the law.
The only rights are negative rights because those do not require the violation of someone else’s rights to exist.
Tax protester 861 argument
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
On November 22, 2005, in Philadelphia, PA, Larken Rose was sentenced to 15 months in prison, followed by one year supervised release and fined $10,000. Rose was convicted by jury in August 2005 to five counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns. According to the evidence introduced at trial, Rose willfully failed to file personal federal income tax returns for calendar years 1998 through 2002, despite earning $500,000 during those years. On those amended returns, he reported no tax due and requested a refund for all income taxes paid in those years. At trial, Rose claimed that he failed to file returns and sought refund claims based on his determination that his income received inside the United States was not taxable under Internal Revenue Code Section 861 and regulations. The judge instructed the jury that this Section 861 argument is incorrect as a matter of law.
According to his testimony, Marston formed the opinion that his income was non-taxable from several sources, including the statements of Thurston Bell and Larkin Rose, individuals who once maintained separate Internet websites advancing the so-called 861 defense, an argument that contends section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code permits taxation of only income derived from foreign sources. Over Marston’s objection the government was permitted to ask Marston if he knew that Rose had been convicted of willful failure to file a tax return and that Bell had been enjoined from operating his website.
#8. To: nolu chan (#7)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]