To Whine or Resist?

Well, today is April 15th, though I suspect that there aren't many of you who haven't already noticed that. Both the federal extortion racket and its opponents try pretty hard to make sure that everyone is well aware of National Enslavement Day. And I'm quite pleased that there has been a lot of coverage of the protests and demonstrations, "tea parties" and others, planned across the country for this day of national shame. (Land of the free? Nice joke.)

I'm also pleased that today I finally have a web site up which has the 2007 version of my "Taxable Income" report (a free download): http://www.larkenrose.com/pdf/TaxableIncome2007.pdf

And I'm pleased that the old "861 Evidence" presentation is now alive and well on that new site: http://www.larkenrose.com/the-861-evidence.html

(But don't be surprised if lots of people try to view the presentation all at once today, and slow down the servers.)

But today I have a question--a question which the American people will answer, though we probably won't know the answer for a long time. The question is, are the American people content to merely COMPLAIN about what is being done to them, or are they about ready to finally RESIST?

For example, how many people at today's protests will be sending the message, "Please, master, stop taking so much of our money!"? And how many will be sending the message, "You won't be getting my money anymore!"? In other words, who will be BEGGING for freedom, and who will be TAKING freedom for themselves?

As I've said before, I expect a tax revolt in this country, starting today but growing as the economy continues to crumble and the socialist federal leviathan continues to grow. But it won't be the way I wished it would happen. It would be fun if a few million Americans found out that they don't even OWE federal "income taxes," based on the extortionists' own laws (see the links above).

On the other hand, it would be good if people resisted on philosophical grounds, realizing that we each own ourselves, and that no one has the moral right ("law" or no "law") to forcibly take a percentage of the fruits of our labor without our consent.

Instead, the tax revolt will most likely be the result of what usually causes such things: desperation. Rather than a legal or moral motivation, the average "taxpayer" (or "fraud victim," to be more accurate) may simply find that he doesn't have any money*. And given the choice between feeding the IRS beast and feeding his own family, he will choose the latter.

I guess if we can't have a principled revolt, a revolt out of necessity will have to do. But it remains to be seen at what point Americans will grow a spine and actually start resisting a perceived "authority." Will they wait until they're starving and living in tent cities, or will they do it a little earlier? The fact that they haven't done it already--like, in 1913, for example-- is pretty discouraging, but judging by the current grumblings across the country, there may be some spine left in the American people yet. Time will tell. Today will be a good first hint. What will the IRS "compliance" numbers look like when they've counted all the forced confessions this year? We shall see.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(* For the sake of brevity, at the moment I won't get into the fact that what passes for "money" these days is a giant fraud in itself.)

FLORIDA JUDGE RULES ATTORNEY REFUSING TO FILE SINCE '99 COMMITED NO CRIME!!

That's right!  After a trial of a hearing on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles 'Chuck' Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act by refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999 Judge Tyree Boyer ruled that Behm committed no criminal act.

The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP.  From opening statement to close the DOJ's fingerprints were all over the case.  The only new twist was DOJ's latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like 'tax protesters', 'tax defiers' and, now 'Constitutionalists'!!  (Behm's defense attorney, TA's Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response.)

In his cross examination of the Bar's 'expert witness', Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of 'frivolous arguments'.  The witness also admitted on cross that he did not really have a clear definition of 'income', that he knew of no lawful authority for the IRS's 'zero basis' policy applied only to working Americans' gross receipts and that the zero basis for 'zero basis' is not on the IRS's list of 'frivolous arguments.'

Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns; that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment and that he is engaging in no activity that is within the federal government's power to tax. 

Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject.

In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws.  Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights and to stand up to the government when it abuses either.

Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over.  He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. 

Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling and in that process the Court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes.

http://www.truthattack.org/