This is not being done by legislation

Yep. Congress is once again being let off the hook so that they're not embarrassed by their inaction on this issue.

Could be that Trump is doing this in exchange for the wall or something else he wants. You never know.

No big deal. This simply means the next President can negate this.

Republicans govern by cutting taxes on the rich and cutting regulations on the corporate sectors that favor them.

They've controlled the Supreme Court for 49 continuous years, put Roe in place in the first place, put Casey in 13 years later, under Reagan, to extend Roe, and have put up sufficient liberal Republican judges to make sure that Roe has never been in danger. They want your VOTE, you pro-lifers, but they NEVER will overturn Roe. They put it in place, and they're going to defend it. They're just going to dupe you.

They've controlled all branches of government twice in the past several years, and they do right now. They have no intention of putting up a wall. And they're not going to. They rile up their base to get votes, but the rich who run the Republican Party PROFIT from cheap exploitable labor and they will never, ever cut off that flow.

And guns? Same thing. They talk, but they have power, and they don't roll back gun laws at all. The thing you're complaining about here: Republicans are putting this in place.

But the rank-and-file Republicans will be riled up by the Republican politicos to hate on the Democrats some more for what Republicans do.

Charlie Brown always lines up to kick the football that Lucy holds. Lucy always moves the football...every...single...time. And yet Charlie Brown earnestly hopes and believes that THIS TIME it will be different. Nope. Never is.

If you a pro-gun, pro-life or border-wall sort of Republican, you are Charlie Brown. The Republican Party is Lucy. It's not going to change.

"This is not being done by legislation. It is being unilaterally done, dictator-style, by just declaring bump-stocks to fit within the definition of what is already “illegal ...”

So the author is saying he'd prefer this be done via a law written by Congress or even a constitutional amendment rather than a temporary EO?

Be careful what you wish for, you idiot.

this is worse “gun control” than has passed in my lifetime, because it prohibits the possession of already-existing private property.

So let’s see how many proud Trumpites have excuses for this.

Now's your chance.....

All of you 2nd Amendment Republicans....

All of you who believe that the Bill of Rights is sacred......

All of you who know, in your heart, that this infringement is simply wrong....

You were uncomfortable when you heard this: "I like taking guns away early," "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Why did you let it go?

Now, this.

Now is your opportunity.

Stand up for yourselves, stand up for America, stand up for Americans.

It's time for 45 to go.

You know it.

What are you prepared to do?

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

It's time for 45 to go.

Contact your representatives - demand that they do their duty and remove this individual - before it's too late.

Change the law and it will be legal.

If you don't like it change the law. Do what the demoncrats do get a favorable judges to rewrite law in your favor.

Full auto's are illegal unless you go through the bs to get one.

It is BS, and this is further illegal infringement on We The People's right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Trump is worse than Obama, and Hillary! Those are the facts, spin away as you will.

Trump is a lying sack of shiite and the gun grabbing NRA is backing him to the hilt! Confirmed, again. The noise reduction/suppressor bill was killed by them too. 2nd illegal 2a infringement on MAGA's watch. He's a radical NYC hate America liberal. It's always America last with his type of bushbot/Hillary neocon.

Title: Heil Fuhrer Trump!
Source: FromThe Trenches
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/heil-fuhrer-trump/237124
Published: Nov 30, 2018
Author: Larken Rose

Poster coment: If your response to all of this is, “4D chess,” you’re an idiot. In fact, if you make excuses for it at all, you are a boot-licking pawn of a lawless, dictatorial megalomaniac, and just as bad as the twits who mindless cheered for Chairman Obama’s authoritarian crap.

Larken Rose is not playing 4-D chess. He isn't even playing 3-D checkers. Ex-con Larken Rose is out of federal prison and and has resumed his carreer of selling legal bullcrap. Rose and his wife went to federal prison when they tried to sell their legal bullcrap to a jury.

Larken Rose and his wife, Tessa David, are best known for selling and implementing their idea that Congress could only tax foreign income, and therefore they, and anyone who believed their nonsense, did not have to pay income taxes. Each earned a stretch in federal prison.

Wesley Snipes found the section 861 argument persuasive and stopped paying income tax. He earned a three year stretch in federal prison and his acting career kind of dried up.

Taking legal advice from douchebags can be harmful to oneself.

Such douchebags do not make a reliable source for telling others what the law says or means.

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/larken-rose

Tax Protester Dossiers

Gurus and Other Big Fish

Larken Rose

Background

Larken D. Rose attended a two-year college, then worked as a gardener until he married Tessa David, who had her own business transcribing medical records. Rose was helping her with her business when he began developing his "section 861 argument" and materials explaining and promoting that argument.

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.

Theories Advocated/Promoted

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.

Books, Web Sites, Videos, and Organizations

Rose maintains, or has collaborated in maintaining, a number of different web sites, including http://www.theft-by-deception.com, http://www.section861.info, and (more recently) http://www.larkenrose.com.

Rose explains his theories in a book/pamphlet "Taxable Income," which he makes freely available through his web sites.

Rose has also created a video, "Theft by Deception," which he has sold as both a VHS tape and a digital CD.

While in prison, Rose wrote another book, "How to be a Successful Tyrant," which he himself subtitles as "The Megalomaniac Manifesto," and which is basically nothing but a long rant about what he views as the amorality and illegitimacy of the legal system that put him in prison. Since being released from prison, Rose has written two more books, Kicking the Dragon and The Iron Web, the latter of which he admits is fiction.

Court Actions

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.

Students/Disciples/Associates

The section 861 argument was actually created by Thurston Bell, but there is no known collaboration between Rose and Bell.

Rose was in a partnership of sorts with Dr. Thomas Clayton to promote the section 861 argument, and at his trial Rose was assisted by Larry Becraft as his stand-by defense counsel.

During Rose's trial on charges of willful failure to file tax returns, the prosecution introduce a copy of a letter that Rose had written to the Militia of Montana, a group associated with both violence and racism, proposing a collaboration towards a "bloodless coup" of the federal government.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/txdv05626.htm

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2005
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

NOTORIOUS TAX PROTESTOR SENTENCED TO 15 MONTHS IN PRISON

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Notorious tax protestor Larken Rose of Hollywood, Pennsylvania was sentenced in federal district court to 15 months imprisonment for failing to file tax returns for the years 1998 -2002, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. In compliance with Judge Michael M. Baylson’s admonition following Rose’s conviction in August, Rose submitted delinquent tax returns for the years 1997-2004 and paid a substantial deposit to the IRS toward his outstanding tax liability. The court sentenced Rose to one year of supervised release following his prison term and ordered Rose to pay a fine of $10,000 and all taxes, interest, and penalties he owes to the IRS.

“People who intentionally fail to file returns or pay taxes as required by law can expect to face criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment,” 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.”

Rose, a former co-owner of a medical transcription business, was convicted by a jury in August 2005 of five counts of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns. The evidence at trial established that Rose did not file returns for 1998-2002 despite earning $500,000 in income during those years. Rose claimed that he did not file returns for those five years because he believed that income he earned in the U.S. was not taxable according to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 861. The evidence, however, showed that Rose received more than a dozen notices from the IRS rejecting his Section 861 argument and that he received more than ten letters from members of Congress notifying him that his Section 861 argument was invalid. In addition, Rose admitted that he was aware of two court cases rejecting his Section 861 argument.

Courts have consistently held that IRC Section 861 does not excuse U.S. citizens from filing tax returns and reporting income they earn in the U.S. At trial, Judge Baylson instructed the jury that Rose’s Section 861 argument was incorrect as a matter of law. In convicting Rose, the jury rejected Rose’s claim that he held a good faith belief that he was not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income tax.

“The conviction of individuals who intentionally conceal income and evade taxes is a vital element in maintaining public confidence in our tax system,” stated Nancy Jardini, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation. “Mr. Rose’s sentencing today reminds us that fulfilling individual tax obligations is a legal requirement and those who willfully evade that responsibility will be prosecuted.”

“It’s simply not fair to honest taxpayers if we don’t hold those who refuse to pay their fair share accountable,” said Pat Meehan, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. “This sentence is a reminder that every citizen must pay what he or she owes. Honest, hard-working people who pay their taxes have no time for those who scheme to evade their responsibilities and neither does the law.”

On November 9, 2005, in a separate trial, a jury found Rose’s wife and business partner, Tessa David, guilty of willfully failing to file tax returns for 1998-2002. David’s sentencing is scheduled for February 15, 2006.

Assistant Attorney General O’Connor and U.S. Attorney Meehan thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Floyd J. Miller, and Tax Division Trial Attorney, Shawn T. Noud, who prosecuted the case. They also thanked the special agents of the IRS, whose assistance was essential to the successful investigation and prosecution of the case.

Additional information about the Justice Department’s Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax.

###

05-626

Tessa David Rose was convicted seperately.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/business/a-tax-resister-is-convicted-on-5-counts.html

A Tax Resister Is Convicted on 5 Counts

NOV. 10, 2005

Tessa David, the wife of a leading promoter of a contention that most Americans are tricked into paying income taxes, was convicted yesterday by a federal jury in Philadelphia on five counts of willful failure to file tax returns, her lawyers said.

Ms. David, 45, was convicted three months after her husband, Larken Rose, 37, was convicted on the same charges in another trial in Federal District Court in Philadelphia. Her lawyers, Ellen C. Brotman and Anna M. Durbin, said there would be no comment.

The couple, who run a medical transcription business in Jenkintown, Pa., made a video, "Theft by Deception," in 2002, which asserted that a section of the federal tax code was written in a way that the wages paid to most Americans are not taxable.

Mr. Rose wrote to John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, announcing that he and his wife had not paid taxes in years and daring the government to seek his indictment.

Wesley Snipes found the section 861 argument persuasive and stopped paying income tax. He earned a three year stretch in federal prison and his acting career kind of dried up.

To bad for Wesley Snipes. He had some good movies.

All of you who believe that the Bill of Rights is sacred......

Your voice should be terminated on this site. It’s bad enough I’ve gotta be shoveled your shit all over Hollyweird and MSM... but here, your filthy opinions should be shunned.

Just keep pretending that the R's are the good guys, if that makes you feel better.

https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55944

Title: 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 Deckard

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56314

Title: 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 Deckard

The embedded Youtube video features Larken Rose.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57350

Title: 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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

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

EXCERPT:

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.”

Eric July at the article:

- - - - -

#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.”

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.

Larken Rose was inmate number 58421-066, and was released on December 29, 2006.

Tessa David Rose was inmate number 59518-066, and was released on February 9, 2007.

- - - - - - - - - -

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.

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 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.

[...]

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

The only rights are negative rights because those do not require the violation of someone else’s rights to exist.

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

nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-18   0:29:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

---

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_861_argument

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:

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.

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:

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.

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,

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.

Believing the natterings of Larken Rose does not seem to end well for those who act on those beliefs.

post a stupid picture

It's a real shame that you don't see chan's response for what it was.

Guess you never heard the term "shooting the messenger" before, have you?

I'd suggest getting a refund on that money you paid to get your GED.

Chan kicks your ass and all you can do is post a stupid picture

That's more than he did the last time I kicked his ass about Larken Rose.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56537&Disp=3#C3

There was no response at all.

It's a real shame that you don't see chan's response for what it was.

It was the rejection of the ridiculous legal arguments of a known snake oil scam artist and self-professed anarchist who was sent to prison when his bullshit went to court. Associates and believers also went to prison. His wife went to prison.

That is the source you keep shitting all over this site.

Trump should have the common sense to offer fair compensation

LOL!!! hahahahahahah!!!

Fuck off randy!

Now's your chance.....

All of you 2nd Amendment Republicans....

All of you who believe that the Bill of Rights is sacred......

All of you who know, in your heart, that this infringement is simply wrong....

You were uncomfortable when you heard this: "I like taking guns away early," "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Why did you let it go?

Now, this.

Now is your opportunity.

Stand up for yourselves, stand up for America, stand up for Americans.

It's time for 45 to go.

You know it.

What are you prepared to do?

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

It's time for 45 to go.

I'm unwilling to let this attack on our constitutional rights to go unchecked...

So what's it going to be, smokey?

I'm unwilling to let this attack on our constitutional rights to go unchecked..

Bump stocks aren’t constitutionally protected, cunt.

Bump stocks aren’t constitutionally protected

All arms are constitutionally protected, dumbass. Pre-existing God given natural rights.

Read the dang 2nd amendment!

What if they make a gun with a built in bump stock?

Firearms manufacturers don’t make and install them for a reason... then the weapon would not qualify as semi-automatic.

Definition ~ weapons which fire one shot per single pull of the trigger.

A single trigger pull is defined by rear pressure on the trigger and forward motion on your trigger finger to re-set the trigger. When a shooter uses a bump stock... he essentially pulls the trigger back and holds his finger in that position as the weapon continually fires. Sounds kinda like auto fire?

Look, trying to defend this shit will cause our constitutional rights to erode FASTER. If we don’t pick and choose our battles smart, the snowflakes will eventually win.

And in the end, posters like Jameson (like the asshole snowflake populace) have gun owners like you and I, DIVIDING over stupid shit like a bump stock law. He’s dangerous to even allow on this site.

Look, trying to defend this shit will cause our constitutional rights to erode FASTER. If we don’t pick and choose our battles smart, the snowflakes will eventually win.

Sumtymes you create excellent posts. This is one of those "sumtymes."

Molon Labe, Snowflake!

A gunman, identified as 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, fires from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on a crowd of 30,000 gathered on the Las Vegas Strip for the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival. At least 58 people were killed and more than 515 injured. Police believe the gunman killed himself.

My wife's boss and his wife attended that concert. They were fortunate as there was no direct issue other than the mass mayhem and confusion of the evening.

"bump stocks" are designed to mimic fully automatic firearms. If you want a full automatic machine gun, go out and purchase one. There is no credible evidence that "bump stocks" add safety, protection or any other social value.

There is no credible evidence that "bump stocks" add safety, protection or any other social value.

Irrelevant. The God given natural right to keep and bear arms (security of a free state/self determination) is constitutionally protected.

You don't get to decide which arms a person may choose to accomplish that task, and neither does government. Not in the enumerated privileges permitted to government.

Read the contract, aka The US Constitution.

The God given natural right to keep and bear arms (security of a free state/self determination) is constitutionally protected.

True. But bump stocks serve no purpose. Go get a full automatic machine gun as opposed to modifying semi-automatic firearms.

You don't get to decide which arms a person may choose to accomplish that task, and neither does government. Not in the enumerated privileges permitted to government.

A "bump stock" is not a firearm. It is a method to alter or change the class of firearm capability. Who needs a Paddock on the block?

Who needs a Paddock on the block?

When Trump invades Belize you may wish that Paddock lived next door.

A "bump stock" is not a firearm.

Correct. Arguing with Hondope is like voting for Ron Paultard... a waste of tyme.

There is no credible evidence that "bump stocks" add safety, protection or any other social value.

Where is the "social value" clause in the 2nd Amendment?

Irrelevant. The God given natural right to keep and bear arms (security of a free state/self determination) is constitutionally protected.

These anti-gun clowns will cheer when Trump bans magazines that hold more than ten bullets.

you are a boot-licking pawn of a lawless, dictatorial megalomaniac

And you Deckhead are a slobbering moron of a Hitlery worshipper.

And you Deckhead are a slobbering moron of a Hitlery worshipper.

I don't recall Hitlery banning bump-stocks.

That being said, she is evil incarnate.

To say Clinton and Trump are the same or Clinton is better in any way is just insane!

Bumpstock was a way to get around the auto ban. It was just a matter of time and that crazy liberal nut that shot up las vegas gave the government all the attention on the bumpstock.

W with the help of congress killed the 1994 assault weapon ban

W and the Republican and Democrat party did exactly NOTHING. The AW ban expired on it's own after 10 years.

W with the help of congress killed the 1994 assault weapon ban W and the Republican and Democrat party did exactly NOTHING. The AW ban expired on it's own after 10 years.

I stand corrected. W wanted the ban but congress did not.

I kept remembering W wanted the ban to expire. Funny thing about memory. It doesn't always work!

Bumpstock was a way to get around the auto ban.

Exactly.

Arguing with Hondope is like voting for Ron Paultard... a waste of tyme.

Often, you are a foul player in commentary, GI. As a principled politician, Ron Paul was near ideal as a US Presidential candidate. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012.

Of course, the GOP lost both elections with John McCain and Sarah Palin (2008) and then Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (2012). The two sequential, poor choices by the überGOP election committee boosted those two elections into failure mode for the GOP and won 0bama as your POTUS. Congratulations!

The GOP is more often a waste of "tyme" than the Libertarian Party candidates. I vote LP at every opportunity as I have a conscience focused on truth not POWER.

The GOP is more often a waste of "tyme" than the Libertarian Party candidates

And that’s based on what, the how many LIBERALterians that won a presidential seat?

lol

And that’s based on what, the how many LIBERALterians that won a presidential seat?

Phrase your opinion anyway you want, but the GOP has dragged down the US until Trump was elected.

I didn't vote for Trump. I thought his promises were continued BS akin to all politicians attempting to become POTUS. I admit failure on this singular perspective. Normally, choosing a Libertarian candidate will get gold for the economy.

Normally, choosing a Libertarian candidate will get gold for the economy.

And that little bit of wisdom is based on what? Name ONE LIBERALterian that caused an improvement upon our economy.