Larken Rose Still Thinks Like A Statist

Larken Rose is one of the better anarchist writers. He’s gone from saying “The income tax is invalid due to a legal loophole!” to “All taxation is theft!”

I was really disappointed by this post. Larken Rose is still thinking like a Statist.

Larken Rose is considering filing a lawsuit against the State, regarding unfair treatment by the IRS. He’s learned nothing. Does he really expect a fair trial? A slave will never get a fair trial with State tax collectors in State court, especially when that slave questions the legitimacy of taxes and the State.

Larken Rose has comments disabled on his blog. That’s antisocial. He has a problem, where people say “You’re a thief who isn’t ‘paying his fair share’.” I would leave a comment saying “You’re an idiot if you expect a fair trial or a fair hearing.”

Larken Rose spent a year in jail as a political prisoner, after a dispute with the IRS. He was using the “861 argument”, which is a variation of “The income tax isn’t valid due to a legal loophole.” Based on convoluted language in the law and tax code, some people interpret the income tax as invalid, when applied to individuals. Unfortunately, judges and IRS agents say that the law is 100% valid, as enforced. They have a monopoly. Their opinion is the only one that counts.

Larken Rose was lucky, to only get a year in jail. Other people who challenged the IRS got tougher sentences. (Sometimes, I wonder if people spend time in jail to get their “street cred”, and then go deep undercover, infiltrating various anti-State movements. Just because someone spent time in jail, doesn’t mean they aren’t spying for the State!)

In exchange for a lighter sentence, Larken Rose filed amended tax returns. Larken Rose thought that was amusing. The judge ordered him to commit perjury, because Larken Rose really believed that wasn’t taxable income!

There’s an weird bit of State law, called “mens rea” . Basically, it says “In order for something to be a crime, you had to do it on purpose”, i.e. “criminal intent”.  This loophole applies to State insiders all the time. For example, Jon Corzine didn’t commit a crime. Jon Corzine is a swell guy who would never rob his customers. There’s no “mens rea” and therefore no crime. For another example, Timothy Geithner didn’t lie on his taxes; he made an honest mistake.

Most “tax protesters” claim they fail the “mens rea” test. They sincerely believed their actions weren’t taxable. Unfortunately, judges won’t allow such arguments. Via “jury selection”, prosecutors stack the jury with statists, leading to a conviction. (It isn’t too hard to stack a jury, because most people are cluless statists. Here’s another conspiracy theory. In a high-profile trial, undercover police go into the jury pool, and some of them get picked.)  Also, it’s awkward when the “tax protester”‘s lawyer is arguing about the “mens rea” of the defendant, rather than advocating for “jury nullification” or “WTF?  All taxation is theft!”  In that sense, the lawyer sells out his client for an easy conviction, by making a weaselly “mens rea” argument rather than the truth.

That is an amusing irony. “Mens rea” is a “get out of jail free” card for State insiders, because they’re obviously swell guys who would never steal. Applied to “tax protesters”, that argument is not accepted. There are two justice systems, one for insiders and one for everyone else.

“Mens rea” is a stupid legal loophole. It’s a variation of “The truth is relative!” What matters is outcomes and not intentions. The important point is that Jon Corzine’s customers were robbed of $1.6B. It makes no difference whether Jon Corzine did it on purpose, or if he’s so incompetent that he can’t obey the “segregated customer funds” law. Jon Corzine set up a system of sloppy accounting and yes-men subordinates, encouraging the loss. For example, Jon Corzine fired a risk manager who objected to his risky bets in European bonds.

Larken Rose’s wife owned a business. Larken Rose decided to stop filing tax returns for the business, based on “The income tax isn’t valid due to a legal loophole.”  Also, Larken Rose went around publicly saying that the income tax was an invalid law, making State thugs eager to silence him and “make an example”.

Larken Rose filed amended personal tax returns. However, the IRS now questions his business tax returns.

The IRS claims that Larken Rose had employees. The IRS claims that Larken Rose owes back W-2 withholding. Larken Rose claims that they were independent contractors, paid on 1099.

That is Larken Rose’s current dispute with the IRS. It’s based on “Were these people employees or independent contractors?” It has nothing to do with “The income tax is invalid due to a loophole.”

Unfortunately, the IRS has already marked Larken Rose as a “tax protester”. Larken Rose sends the IRS a letter saying “They were independent contractors and not employees.” The IRS responds “Your argument is frivolous.”

Larken Rose says that the IRS is denying him due process, regarding the “Employees or contractors?” issue.

The “Employees or contractors?” regulation is not uniformly enforced. Most large financial institutions in NYC abuse the contractor rule. For example, at my last wage slave job, the IRS could have ordered me reclassified as an employee, if they wanted to enforce the law. If the IRS wanted to enforce the law, most consultants at large financial institutions would actually be employees.

There is no Rule of Law in the USA. Large financial institutions can abuse the employee/contractor distinction. For the little guy and Larken Rose, there’s zero tolerance enforcement.

The IRS has already marked Larken Rose as a “subversive person”. Their files say “Ignore whatever Larken Rose says or writes, and rule against him.” As a practical matter, IRS agents should refuse to talk to Larken Rose. Larken Rose is good at explaining “All taxation is theft. You’re a criminal, working for the IRS.” If an IRS agent spent 2 hours talking to Larken Rose, Larken Rose might succeed in convincing them that the State is evil. It’s better to deny Larken Rose any hearing or due process. Besides, the courts and IRS are colluding to enslave everyone. The IRS agents know that, if they go to trial, they will probably win.

Larken Rose now wants to sue the IRS, for denying him due process regarding the “employees or contractors?” dispute. He wants to file a “Bivens” lawsuit against the IRS. He’s looking for a lawyer to represent him, on contingency or pro bono. Larken Rose is an idiot, if he expects a fair trial on that issue. The judge will say “Larken Rose was already convicted of tax evasion. I’m ruling against him, without reading the rest of his arguments.”

Any State-licensed lawyer would be an idiot to represent Larken Rose. Larken Rose has zero chance of winning, making a contingency arrangement stupid.

A lawyer would be an idiot to represent Larken Rose for free. The judge would say to the lawyer “You filed a frivolous lawsuit. I’m revoking your law license.” Even if that didn’t happen, it’s a bad career move for a lawyer to antagonize a judge. There are many other ways for State thugs to get even with a lawyer.

One lawyer cynically said “The merits of your legal arguments are irrelevant. The reputation of the lawyer and the person represented matter much more, than the legal merits of any argument.” There is no Rule Of Law in the USA. Any lawyer who represented Larken Rose would be intentionally trashing his reputation. In a Police State, it’s a bad idea to help out an Enemy Of The State.  It would be an bad career move, for a lawyer to represent Larken Rose.

Just because you file a lawsuit, doesn’t mean you’ll get a chance to argue your case in front of a jury.  Most lawsuits against State thugs who abuse their power are dismissed at the “summary judgement” stage, citing sovereign immunity.  Some criminal defense lawyers laugh at their clients, when their client tells a story of being beaten by police and he wants to sue the police.  The lawyer knows to not waste his time.

Quite frankly, IRS agents could show up at Larken Rose’s home, beat him up, and leave, and he still wouldn’t be able to have a successful lawsuit.  Police know to shout “Stop resisting!” when they beat you, Taser you, or shoot you.  All a policeman has to do is say “I thought he had a gun!”, and now it’s legal for him to summarily execute you.  During a no-knock raid, it’s very easy for police to get confused and think that the victim is armed.

If Larken Rose wants to go full hardcore anarchist, here is the proper response. Larken Rose should say “You IRS thugs think I owe you money? I’m broke. Go ahead and try to collect!”

There are drawbacks to the “hardcore anarchist” approach. I don’t know if Larken Rose has any assets. He claims to be broke. Larken Rose would be unable to own any real estate, because the IRS could seize it via a tax lien. (Remember that, due to property taxes, you don’t really own land. You have a perpetual transferable lease, where the State can arbitrarily and unilaterally raise the rent (property tax).)  If Larken Rose does “own” real estate, he probably should sell and cash out now, before the IRS seizes it via a tax lien.

Larken Rose could not use the State banking system at all, because the IRS would seize his balance. Larken Rose could not solicit donations via PayPal, because the IRS would seize them. Larken Rose could not sell books on Amazon.com, because the IRS would seize the proceeds. Larken Rose could not take any on-the-books job (1099 or W-2), because the IRS would seize/garnish his salary.

Without access to the State banking system, Larken Rose would be forced to invest his savings in gold/silver/platinum.  If it’s stored in a safe place, the only way the IRS could seize it is if they physically seize the metal.

There is a huge drawback to the “hardcore anarchist” approach. You’d be totally shut out of the State economy and State financial system. There is a loophole. Larken Rose could find someone else to sell his books for him and solicit donations.

I couldn’t go “hardcore anarchist”. I have State paper investments that I would lose. (I’m considering cashing them out and converting to physical gold/silver/platinum. I’ll probably keep my State paper investments, but all new investments will go to gold/silver/platinum.) Also, I make decent income as a wage slave programmer. I probably could not make an equivalent salary in the underground economy.

There’s another amusing bit. The “statutory interest rate” for an unpaid tax bill is approximately 8%. That’s less than true inflation. If you’re taking the “hardcore anarchist” approach, you can refuse to pay the IRS and invest the difference in gold and silver (hidden someplace safe). Taking into account inflation, that’s profitable.

I read an amusing story. A man had a “common law” marriage and not a State-recognized marriage. He put all his property in his wife’s name. The IRS went after him. He had no assets. There was nothing for the IRS to seize! He wasn’t legally married, so the IRS couldn’t seize his wife’s assets!

Larken Rose, Richard Simkanin, Robert Kahre, Ed Brown, and Irwin Schiff all made huge mistakes. Here are lessons to learn from their example, if you’re serious about tax resistance and freedom.

First, DON’T INCORPORATE YOUR BUSINESS! When you incorporate your business, you’re voluntarily registering it in the State taxation system.

Second, DON’T USE THE STATE BANKING SYSTEM. Tax collectors can seize bank records. They will use bank records against you. Under the ironically-named “Bank Secrecy Act”, a bank has an obligation to report transactions to the IRS. Cash deposits count as “suspicious”. DON’T DO IT.

Third, declare some income, but not all of it. This makes it look less suspicious. If some customers pay by cash and some by check, declare all the by-check income, and maybe some of the cash income. Also, if you need to pay a mortgage or buy a car, you will need some on-the-books assets. Ed Brown got caught because he used money orders to pay his mortgage. It would have been smarter for him to declare enough income so he could pay his mortgage.

Suppose you don’t declare some of your income, but not all of it.  Then, if the IRS goes after you, you’re saying “Prove I didn’t declare all my income!” rather than “The income tax is invalid!”

Of course, your surplus savings shouldn’t be kept in FRNs, because you’ll get robbed by inflation.  You should buy gold/silver/platinum.  For this reason, an agorist gold/silver/FRN barter network is desirable.

Also, if you’re promoting tax resistance, you’re a bigger target. Larken Rose, Simkanin, Schiff, and Kahre were all promting tax evasion. They had acquired a decent audience. That made them an attractive target. If you don’t spend any effort promoting freedom, it’s easier to fly under the radar.

The IRS and State aren’t omniscient. They go after the people who publicly taunt the IRS, and then claim to have gotten everyone.

Larken Rose is an idiot, if he expects to get a fair hearing, regarding his “Employees or contractors?” dispute with the IRS. He’s an even bigger idiot if he expects to sue the State and win, for denying him due process. Any State-licensed lawyer would be an idiot to represent Larken Rose, either on contingency or pro bono. (Contingency would be pro bono, because Larken Rose has zero chance of winning.)

Larken Rose is a good advocate for freedom. On this issue, he’s still thinking like a Statist. Only a Statist would expect to sue the State and win, especially on the issue of taxes. I’d be impressed if he went full “hardcore anarchist”, daring the IRS to try and collect. He’d have to work 100% off-the-books, have no State assets, and not use the State banking system. If the IRS claims a large debt, that may be the right approach.

12 Responses to Larken Rose Still Thinks Like A Statist

  1. Have you considered putting up a PayPal donation button so you can try to make a living off of writing? Not saying that it would work, but it might be worth a try.

    • I considered it, and decided it wasn’t worth it (yet).

      I have approximately 200 regular readers. If they each gave me $5, that’s only $1000.

      If I put ads back on the site, I may offer an option for people to donate to hide the ads. Of course, you could use adblock Firefox extensions.

      If you pay me via PayPal, you’re using the State financial system. I’d be obligated to report the income and pay tax on it. It would be evil for me to solicit donations, if a huge chunk of it wound up going to the State.

      I considered asking for people to mail me silver rounds. Is that legal? I looked it up, and it wasn’t clear. I’d much rather have someone give me silver rounds, than pay me via the State banking system. I’d be concerned that, if someone mailed me silver, the post office would scan the envelope, and either seize it or treat me as a criminal.

      Also, I’m not sure about how PayPal works. Would I have to give out my real name, in order to accept donations?

      I wanted to create a PayPal account so that I could buy some games and stuff. My parents said no. Technically, I’m an adult, but I’m forced to do what they say as long as I’m living with them.

      Remember the #1 rule of PayPal. USE A SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR IT, IN A BANK YOU DON’T USE FOR ANYTHING ELSE! This way, if PayPal freezes and seizes your account, you only lose your PayPal account, and not your entire savings. Only leave the minimum balance in your PayPal account.

      The most likely way to profit from my blog, is using it to start some agorist businesses. That is risky. Some of my regular commenters may be undercover State spies! There’s spying software that creates multiple online identities. If you’re a full time propagandist, it’s easy to troll many blogs and spread lies, and pretend to befriend bloggers.

        • Unless it’s going to be a substantial amount of donations, it isn’t worth the hassle of setting it up.

          I’m now leaning towards “Write an e-book!” as a way to make money from my blog.

          • I still say that Bitcoin is stupid. In retrospect, it would have been a good investment to buy a couple years ago and sell now (If I could find an exchange that wouldn’t MtGox me!).

            My first Bitcoin post was in March 2011, when the price USD/BTC was less than $6/BTC!

  2. Yes, the state controls the internet. The state created the internet. The internet is a creation designed to keep tabs on a couple billion people. It also happens to be a powerful learning tool.

    Who cares about state spies? The state spies on everyone who turns on a computer or picks up a telephone. The NSA is jacked into the telephone companies. Privacy in modern society is a myth, and they don’t need human beings to do the spying – machines do that for them. (not saying that there are not plenty of pro-state trolls spread out across the internet – there obviously are, especially in the comment sections of articles about Dr. Ron Paul).

    Machines have given the state the power to do pretty much whatever it wants. Personally I think the state has existed in various forms a very long time, at least thousands of years. What we’re seeing is just another incarnation of Babylon The Great Mystery, in my opinion.

    Not that there’s anything overtly wrong with that – I appreciate some aspects of the state. I also appreciate the free market theory – I call it a theory because I’m not sure we’ve ever truly seen one.

    For me, the concept is relatively simple. People should be given the freedom to do exactly as they please, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. That means all drugs would be legal and the prisons would be half emptied. I think all censorship laws should be removed permanently so that citizens are forced to think critically about their decisions instead of having them spoon-fed by their “betters”.

    And most importantly, I think that privacy should be restored to all citizens. Whatever your take on 9/11, it’s safe to say that it was either an inside job or blowback, perhaps a bit of both. Either way, U.S. citizens are 100 percent innocent and should not be made to suffer from draconian collective punishment at the hands of a borderline-sociopathic power structure that revels in the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of brown people in the middle east (racism never went away, obviously).

    Yes, you probably have to use your real name to open a Pay Pay account, but I think only Pay Pal would see it, not your readers (but don’t quote me on that). I appreciate your dedication concerning the silver. I admit that I wouldn’t really care – silver, paper, whatever pays my rent. I’m not very idealistic when it comes to that stuff. If the S. hits the fan, what are we supposed to do, drag around wheelbarrels of yellow metal?

    In my opinion, the only thing worthwhile these days is original, critical thought, because it is being actively obliterated by the state. They seem to prefer a bunch of mind washed drones to actual human beings. I think they are mistaken. Any society, utopian or otherwise, requires criticism.

    Sociopaths need “regular” people to peacefully counterbalance their reckless behavior with peaceful political dissent. Without that, the sociopaths will eventually turn on each other and level the entire planet (which according to some historians has happened before).

    Each time they convince themselves that they don’t need us around. They build it up and knock it down, over and over again. What they fail to realize is that us “regular” folks have consciences that may help halt their cycle of destruction.

    And, conversely, sometimes we need them around. Not everything they do is totally despicable.

    I think our country would be better if Dr. Paul was president. Could he really change that much? Probably not. But it would at least show that we have taken a step in the right direction (for a change).

    • I don’t need evil people to tell me what to do. I can figure it out on my own.

      That is one of the problems. Under “normal” circumstances, evil people are restrained by the honest people around them. In the present, evil people have managed to pretty nearly completely remove themselves from any accountability.

  3. In your post you talk about not expecting much from lawyers and trials.

    In previous posts you have spoken about representing yourself if you ever find yourself in court and not using a lawyer, because they will sell you down the river and the lawyer won’t make the arguments that you want to make.

    Interesting I saw film Woody Harrleson film called “Rampart” yesterday. In the film his character is talking to the District Attorney and he says that if she files charges against him, he will represent himself, not use a lawyer and use the court case to talk about his time in Vietnam and go through all the disorders he has. He said afterward he will get his own talk show and invite her on as his first guest.

    My point is that he is using as a threat the fact that he will defend himself in open court and so may say some embarrassing things and drag the case out, therefore costing the county more money.

    He also said that juries only consist of the mentally deficient and so he would be found guilty!

    • Even if you represent yourself, you may not be allowed to tell the truth. The prosecutor and judge can bar you from mentioning certain things. If you disobey, that’s “contempt of court”.

      Judges and prosecutors do get uncomfortable, when a defendant is saying “WTF? This isn’t fair!” for the whole trial. No matter how pro-State brainwashed you are, it’s uncomfortable when an honest person questions your lies. If you use a lawyer, he’ll be arguing legal technicalities, rather than “WTF? This is wrong!”

      Trials are expensive. That does prevent prosecutors from going after everyone. They go after the big fish, and then claim to get everyone who disobeys.

      If it’s $20k in tax evasion, it isn’t really worth an expensive trial, unless you’re a high-profile activist.

  4. I’m way late on this, but just a few things. First, your earnings as a worker in the private sector are not income for taxation and 16th Amendment purposes. See Merchant’s Loan & Trust vs. Smietanka. Second, a judge can’t revoke anybody’s law license, although they can revoke an attorney’s privilege of practicing in their private corporation. That’s right: all courts are corporations, and operate under commercial code (contracts) and admiralty law. Third, if you check 26 USC 3401, you will find that the definitions of “employee,” “employer,” and “wages” only apply to somebody who works for the so-called US government, which is also a corporation. This means that 26 USC 3402 has nothing to do with any worker or company in the private sector, UNLESS they are dumb enough to fill out and sign a W-4. Fourth, the IRS is a private corporation, and has no lawful authority to enforce any part of the IRC. The mistake most people make is filing in the first place, since filling out a 1040 amounts to assessing a direct, non-apportioned tax against your earnings. The feds can’t do this to anybody, per the CONstitution, so everybody has been conditioned to think that they have to do it TO THEMSELVES, which is pure bullshit. 30 seconds of intelligent thought should convince any non-idiot that NOBODY can be lawfully required to assess taxes against their own earnings or property.

    Of course, the main problem is that people are dumb enough to believe that the insidious CONstitution, which was the result of a conspiracy and a coup against the Articles of Confederation, is lawfully binding on anybody, when it isn’t. It’s absolutely mind-boggling to me that practically everyone has been convinced that four pieces of parchment, cobbled together in a back room by white, slave-owning merchants, acting completely outside their delegated authority, are somehow binding on everybody within a given geographic area until the end of time, simply because those same merchants wrote that they are. Talk about mind control.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>