First, all is going well. I'm busy enough that I'm pretty much ignoring this list (and everything else) for the next couple days. However, I thought I'd send a quick note about something that just appeared in a Hawaii newspaper. Here is the article: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/18/ln/ln09a.html

And below is the letter I wrote to the columnist. I'll let you know if I hear anything from him. Sincerely, Larken Rose larken@taxableincome.net http://www.theft-by-deception.com

In your recent story in the Honolulu Advertiser, you quote the Hawaii state attorney general as saying that Mr. Basuel, now convicted of tax crimes, is a "devotee" of mine. You also quote the attorney general as saying that I'm a tax protestor, and that I'm arguing that wages are not taxable. On the two latter points, the attorney general is either mistaken, or he's lying. I'm hoping that after seeing that the attorney general misspoke (or lied), at some point you'll have a chance to correct that. I don't know Mr. Basuel, what he did, or what he argued, so I'm not writing to defend him (or to criticize him). I am, however, hopeful that the Honolulu Advertiser would not knowing let false statements by government officials stand unchallenged. First of all, I do NOT say that wages can't be taxed. Wages are an "item" of income, which if derived from a taxable source or activity ARE TAXABLE. In fact, I REFUTE the "wages are not income" claim publicly, as shown here: http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/othertax/wages.html

But more important is the "tax protestor" label which government officials love to throw at anyone who disagrees with them about the law. Here is what a tax protestor sounds like: "I refuse to pay this tax, because ______________." There are lots of things the blank can be filled in with, like "it's immoral," "it's unconstitutional," "it funds things I don't like," etc. But whatever is put in the blank, by definition a "tax protestor" is someone who PROTESTS A TAX. And that IS NOT AT ALL WHAT I DO. The following is NOT what a tax protestor sounds like: "I do not believe that my income is subject to this tax, because ________________." Again, whatever you put in the blank, EVEN IF IT'S AN INCORRECT ARGUMENT, a person who says that is not a "tax protestor," and characterizing him as one (or parroting someone in government characterizing him as one) is misleading. With that in mind, are the following the words of a "tax protestor"? (Again, the answer to that question has nothing to do with whether you agree with the legal conclusions or not.) "I, Larken Rose, have not filed a federal income tax return for 1997 or any subsequent year. This is not because I am protesting any law, or because I do not want to pay my "fair share"; it is because I refuse to be a victim of the biggest financial fraud in history... As more and more Americans are discovering that the law itself shows that the income of most Americans is not taxable, DOJ and IRS officials are desperately trying to distract from the issue by dishonestly portraying it as a frivolous "tax protestor" argument, and by trying to silence (via court injunctions) those who publicize the issue." You may not be aware of the fact that those words appeared in a large paid advertisement in the Honolulu Advertiser-THE PAPER YOU WRITE FOR-on 8/27/02. Here is the entire ad: http://www.theft-by-deception.com/prosecute.html

The claim that most of us don't owe federal income taxes is of course contrary to "conventional wisdom," and I understand it when people don't bother looking into the issue, thinking it must be nonsense. Maybe a little incentive will make a second look worthwhile. I will donate $10,000 to the charity of your choice, if you can get an IRS attorney to agree to let me question him, on the air, for one hour, to ask him basic questions about how the LAW says one should determine his taxable income. He even gets the six main questions ahead of time, which can be seen here: http://www.taxableincome.net/questions.html

He doesn't have to "win" any "debate," or convince me or anyone else of anything; he only has to ANSWER QUESTIONS about what the law requires, which is something the IRS should be willing to do for FREE (but isn't). The rules for the offer are simple, and can be read here (but applying it only to a current IRS attorney, and with the reward being $10K instead of $2K): http://www.petermacshow.com/challenge

A chance for an IRS expert to publicly correct my (supposed) misconceptions, and at the same time get $10,000 for some worthwhile charity: wouldn't that do wonders to counter the IRS' (well-deserved) reputation as a bunch of unthinking Gestapo thugs? (I don't know about you, but I consider $10,000 to be a heck of a lot of money.) By the way, if the IRS guy wants to interrogate me afterwards, I'll do it for free, for as long as he wants, and post it on my own web site. Hopefully that offer will get your attention. And when the IRS declines the offer (and they will), hopefully you'll wonder why. Sincerely, Larken Rose larken@taxableincome.net http://www.theft-by-deception.com