IRS is a Terrorism Organization by the Government's Own Definition

SOURCE:  Great IRS Hoax, section 7.1.7 version 3.12.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines terrorism as follows:

terrorism. "Act of terrorism" means an activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended--(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. 18 U.S.C.A. 3077.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1473]

And here is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) definition of “terrorism”, extracted from Dept. of the Navy training on terrorism:

terrorism:  the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

The definition of “violence” and “violent” used above from Black’s Law dictionary is as follows:

violence. Unjust or unwarranted exercise of force, usually with accompaniment of vehemence, outrage, or fury. People v. McIlvain, 55 Cal.App.2d 322, 130 P.2d 131, 134.  Physical force unlawfully exercised; abuse of force; that force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty. Anderson-Berney Bldg. Co. v. Lowry, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 401, 403. The exertion of any physical force so as to injure, damage or abuse. See e.g. Assault.

Violence in labor disputes is not limited to physical contact or injury, but may include picketing conducted with misleading signs, false statements, publicity, and veiled threats by words and acts. Esco Operating Corporation v. Kaplan, 144 Misc. 646, 258 N.Y.S. 303.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1570]


violent.Moving, acting, or characterized, by physical force, especially by extreme or sudden or by unjust or improper force.  Furious, vehement; as a violent storm or wind.  A violent attack marked by, or due to, strong mental excitement.  Vehement, passionate; as, violent speech.  Violent reproaches produced or effected by force, not spontaneous or natural; as, a violent death.  Displaying or proceeding from extreme or intense force; caused by unexpected unnatural causes.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1570]

Note that the object of terrorism can and often is the government.  Remember that in this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is their agent or servant.  They direct and manage their government using elections and jury service.  Therefore, terrorism directed at the people is effectively terrorism directed at the government.

So the essence of “terrorism” is any combination of the following:

  • Unlawful exercise of force either of a physical or of a financial or legal or political nature
  • Threats of force
  • Passionate or derogatory speech directed at a person who does not want to do something
  • Imposed danger to human life or to the living of a fulfilled or actualized life
  • Harassment or intimidation of any kind, including stalking, mailing threatening communications, and excessive and costly litigation as a punishment for those who don’t cooperate.
  • Any involuntary restraint against “public liberty”
  • Strong mental excitement
  • Intimidate or coercion against person or population intended to influence the policy of a government

That term “unlawful” is important.  Here is the definition for your benefit:

Unlawful.  That which is contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by law.  That which is not lawful.  The acting contrary to, or in defiance of the law; disobeying or disregarding the law.  Term is equivalent to “without excuse or justification.”  State v. Noble, 90 N.M. 360, 563 P.2d 1153, 1157.  While necessarily not implying the element of criminality, it is broad enough to include it.” 
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1536]

So if the government is using any kind of force against a member of society and cannot or will not cite a specific law either making the action they are opposing a crime within their jurisdiction or making you liable to do something that you aren’t doing within their jurisdiction, then they are involved in an act of “terrorism”, because they are applying force unlawfully.  There is no other way you can look at it.  Not only that, but if they evade or avoid justifying their behavior, then you can add to the charge that they are “obstructing justice” and covering up wrongdoing!  Hiding the unlawfulness of what they are doing by evading responsibility for justifying it or refusing to address the legal issues authorizing it is obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73: Obstructing Justice.

Do any of the above elements describing terrorism decribe the activities of the IRS?  They sure do!  Therefore, the IRS is a “terrorist organization” and the USA Patriot Act and 18 U.S.C. Part I, Chapt. 113B can and should be used to oppose unlawful IRS efforts at enforcement against either natural persons or any kind of business that is outside the federal zone.  Such unlawful enforcement actions include:

  • Notice of levies
  • Levies
  • Notice of liens
  • Liens
  • Malicious and unwarranted prosecutions, which abuses the legal system to harass, intimidate, and financially plunder innocent Americans.
  • Harassing automated notices
  • Falsification of tax electronic tax records (see our MF Decoder on how to recognize these)
  • Seizures of property
  • Destruction of people’s credit rating
  • Violation of due process of law
  • Denial of due process hearings which could be used to document the illegallity of their activities

All of the above are terrorist activities if the law does not specifically authorize them or if they are accomplished outside of the federal zone, and chapter 5 provides over 300 pages of proof showing why any efforts on the part of the IRS to enforce income taxes, and especially in the 50 states and outside of federal enclaves within those states, are unlawful activities in the context of Subtitle A income taxes of natural persons.

Along these lines, below is an interesting letter from Larken Rose which he sent to the U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, a few weeks after they illegally raided his home for publicizing the illegality of the IRS’ enforcement activities.  He wrote this letter on June 11, 2003 and we obtained it off his website at

June 11, 2003

Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20530-0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

I am writing to you to report terrorist activity happening on American soil.  The good news is that the perpetrators will be easy for you to find.  The bad news is this: they will be easy to find because many of them work for you.  You will probably want to ignore the rest of this letter, because it is not about the kind of terrorism you care about: the kind that endangers your power.  On the contrary, this terrorism increases your power, and only endangers the freedom of the American public, which is why you will do nothing about it (except condone it).  However, I feel compelled to report it to you anyway, because your unresponsiveness will show a lot of people that you do not care at all about their freedom or well-being.

On May 6th of this year, there was an armed invasion of my home carried out by the IRS under the guise of a “search warrant.”  In reality, my “crime” was that I spoke my mind, and the IRS did not like what I had to say.  So a dozen or so armed agents raided my house, confiscated my computers, and stole several cases of my “Theft By Deception” video.  Could it be that the IRS does not want a public discussion of this issue?

Both on my web site ( and in my video (“Theft By Deception”), I explain my findings and conclusions—based entirely on the law itself—concerning the proper application of the federal income tax.. The video does not tell anyone to do anything, and if the web site tells anyone to do anything, it is to ask perfectly reasonable questions about how they should determine what they legally owe.  (The web site does not give legal advice, or tell people what to do in their own disputes with the IRS.)

The government will not tolerate this public expression of my beliefs, despite the fact that it is unquestionably “non-commercial” speech protected by the First Amendment.  Nor is the government willing to have an open, rational discussion about what your own law books say.  So the IRS and your underlings at the DOJ have tried to silence me.  In 2001, the IRS made the asinine accusation that the expression of my conclusions constitutes an “abusive tax shelter” under 26 USC 6700, and that I should therefore be silenced via court order.  That allegation was utterly baseless, so they soon gave up on it.  The DOJ then attempted to subpoena everything I had ever written about taxes, privately or publicly, in a case that was not even about me.  (It was an injunction case against Thurston Bell, with whom I had no business dealings and very little personal contact.)  The U.S. Attorney in the case (Evan Davis) even admitted to me on the phone that the subpoena was overly broad.  So that attempt at intimidation and harassment also failed.

Then the government tried the most blatant thuggery against me so far: the armed invasion of my home last month.  By sending to your office (and to the IRS) letters swearing that I received income, and swearing that I did not file income tax returns or make payments to the IRS since 1997, and by making my situation and my actions completely public, I removed any need whatsoever for them to invade my home and steal my records and my computers.  I had given you all the factual evidence you could want (without being asked for it), and given you an explanation of why my actions were completely legal and proper (i.e. because I do not owe the tax).  The only things you would need to prove to convict me of tax evasion or failure to file a tax return is that my income is taxable and that I have no reason to suspect otherwise.  So why did the government choose thuggery?  Because in a “fair fight,” you would lose.

Very telling was the fact that while being deposed by Evan Davis (in the Thurston Bell case), and while being interviewed during the raid of my home, government agents kept asking me, in essence, what it would take to shut me up (though not in those words).  They asked whether a court ruling would make me change my mind and stop saying what I was saying; they asked if an injunction would do it; they asked if prosecuting me would do it.  They wanted to know what it would take to silence me.  I told them then what I will tell you now.  There is only one thing that will ever shut me up: showing me, using logic and legally-binding citations of law, that my conclusions are incorrect.  No amount of terrorism, insults, or threats will do it.  (I am happy to report that the IRS’ latest Gestapo-style stunt against me has back-fired dramatically, drawing the attention and anger of a lot of people who previously had paid no attention to the issue.)

Once again, I hereby request that you supply me with direct written answers to the enclosed six questions about how to determine one’s taxable income, and I am going to suggest that others also ask you to answer those questions as well.  However, once again you will not answer them because to do so would expose the largest financial fraud in history, which would endanger your power.  You will do what many other government officials have done when confronted with the evidence: you will show the world that you are willing to terrorize citizens who speak their minds, but you are either unable or unwilling to answer perfectly reasonable questions about what the law itself says.  The IRS and the “Department of Justice” care not at all about the “rule of law”; they care only about whatever will maintain or increase their own power.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: if you believe I am breaking the law, then prosecute me.  By being completely open about my situation and my actions, I have already done most of the work for you.  You do not need to invade my home, steal hundreds of copies of my video, censor my web site, or do any of the other fascist stunts that the government seems so fond of.  All you need to do is prove that my income is taxable, and prove that I have no reason to suspect otherwise.  I am even enclosing something you can give to any U.S. Attorney who wants to try me, describing exactly what he must prove to convict me.  If the only way to settle this is with you trying to imprison me, so be it.  If the government wants to shut me up, then stop the clandestine IRS/DOJ terrorism, and do it “by the book.”  Put me on trial, in view of the public, so they can see the evidence for themselves.  (Perhaps you know you would lose if you did.)

If this letter seems a bit harsh, it is because I do not like it when the organization whose sole purpose—according to the Declaration of Independence—is to protect the inalienable rights of the people, spends so much time and effort trying to shut me up, even going to such lengths as executing an armed invasion of my home!  (You may be interested to know that I have had more than one person who grew up in Nazi Germany telling me that they know how I feel, and that they sympathize.)

I (and thousands of others) know that the entire government, top to bottom, is utterly incapable of refuting my conclusions, because my conclusions agree with what the law itself says.  Every tyrannical stunt that the government tries will only make the public angrier when the truth becomes widely known.  But tyrants never learn from history; they always resort to any amount of violence to hang on to power, even though that tactic almost always backfires.  The IRS and your “Department of Justice” apparently are doomed to learn the same lesson, since you are utterly incapable of rational and open discussion, as you will now demonstrate by failing to answer the enclosed questions.


Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA  19006

cc:  Eileen J. O’Connor
      U.S. D.O.J. / Tax Division
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC  20530-0001

Enc:  “Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income”
         “Things You Need to Prove to Convict Me”

Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC 861(b), and the related regulations beginning at 26 CFR 1.861-8, to determine my taxable domestic income?

2) If some individuals—including myself—should not use those sections for determining their taxable domestic income, please show me where the regulations say who should or should not use those sections for that.

Reason for first two questions: The regulations under 26 USC 861(b) (26 CFR 1.861-8 and following) begin by stating that Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms “how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States” after gross income from the U.S. has been determined.  (The regulations then say that Sections 862(b) and 863(a) describe how to determine taxable income from outside of the U.S.)  Section 1.861-1(a)(1) of the regulations confirms that “taxable income from sources within the United States” is to be determined in accordance with the rules of 26 USC 861(b) and 26 CFR 1.861-8.  (See also 26 CFR 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c).)

3) If a U.S. citizen lives and works exclusively within the 50 states, and receives all of his income from within the 50 states, do 26 USC 861(b) and 26 CFR 1.861-8 show such income to be taxable?

Reason for question: Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921, statutory predecessor of 26 USC 861 and following, stated that income from within the U.S. was taxable for foreigners and for U.S. citizens and corporations deriving most of their income from federal possessions (but did not say the same about the domestic income of most Americans).  The regulations under the equivalent section of the 1939 Code (e.g. 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, 29.119-10 (1945)) showed the same thing.  The current regulations at 1.861-8 still show income to be taxable only when derived from certain “specific sources and activities,” which, concerning domestic income, still relate only to foreigners and certain Americans receiving income from federal possessions (26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)).

4) Should one refer to 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether the “items” of income he receives (such as compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?

Reason for question: The regulations (26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(3)) state that a “class of gross income” consists of the “items” of income listed in 26 USC 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, etc.).  The regulations (26 CFR 1.861-8(b)(1)) then direct the reader to “paragraph (d)(2)” of the section, which provides that such “classes of gross income” may include some income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes.

5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the average American not on that list?

Reason for question: After defining “exempt income” to mean income which is exempt, eliminated, or excluded for federal income tax purposes (26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)), the regulations give a list of types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which are subject to tax), which includes the domestic income of foreigners, certain foreign income of Americans, income of certain possessions corporations, and income of international and foreign sales corporations, but which does not include the domestic income of the average American (26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).

6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?

Reason for question: Older income tax regulations defining “gross income” and “net income” said that neither income exempted by statute “or fundamental law” were subject to the tax ( 39.21-1 (1956)), and said that in addition to those types of income exempted by statute, other types of income were exempt because they were, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government” ( 39.22(b)-1 (1956)).

Things You Need to Prove to Convict Me

This enclosure describes exactly what a U.S. Attorney must prove in order to have me convicted of willful failure to file (26 USC 7203) or willful tax evasion (26 USC 7201).  Since I have consistently made it publicly known that 1996 was the last year for which I filed a federal income tax return or made payments to the IRS, and since I have consistently admitted that I received enough income in each of those years that if my income was taxable, both returns and payments would have been legally required—and I would not hesitate to admit both of those facts to any jury—all you must prove is that: 1) the income I received is taxable, and; 2) I had no reason to suspect otherwise.

In fact, since judges often say that they alone will declare to a jury what the law is (and forbid any debate on it), and since the judge will most likely (incorrectly) assert that my income is taxable, probably the only thing left for you to prove will be that I believe my income is taxable according to the law itself.  So here is what you must prove:


First issue: Determining taxable domestic income

You must prove at least one of the following two things:

1) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that I should use the rules found in 26 USC 861(b) and 26 CFR 1.861-8 to determine my taxable domestic income (i.e. my “taxable income from sources within the United States”).

(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since numerous legally-binding citations specifically state in plain English that I should use 26 USC 861(b) and 26 CFR 1.861-8 to determine my “taxable income from sources within the United States.”  See 26 CFR 1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c), and Treasury Decision 6258.)

2) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that the rules found in 26 USC 861(b) and 26 CFR 1.861-8 do not show my income to be taxable.

(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the current regulations, as well as 80 years of predecessor statutes and regulations, plainly show that income is taxable under those sections only when it derives from certain specific sources or activities (which I do not engage in), which all relate to international or foreign commerce.  See Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921; Sections 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9 and 29.119-10 of the 1945 regulations; and the current 26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4) and 1.861-8(f)(1).)


Second issue: Exempt income

You must also prove at least one of the following two things:

1) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that the “items” of income listed in 26 USC 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, etc.) are not always taxable, but are in some cases exempt or excluded for federal income tax purposes.

(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the income tax regulations show that those “items” are sometimes exempt (even if that income is not specifically exempted by any Title 26 statute).  See 26 CFR 1.61-1, 1.265-1, 1.861-8(a)(3), 1.861-8(b)(1).  The regulations for decades have shown that the Constitution itself excludes some types of income from taxation.  See Article 71 of Regulations 62 (1922), Sections 39.21-1 and 39.22(b)-1 of the 1956 regulations, as well as 26 CFR 1.312-6.)

2) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that where the regulations list types of commerce, income from which is not exempt (i.e. income from which is taxable), the type of income I receive is not included.

(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the income tax regulations have long included a specific list of the types of income that are not exempt, which has always been limited to certain international or foreign commerce (such as U.S. citizens receiving foreign income, and foreigners receiving U.S. income), but does not include my income.  See Article 31 of Regulations 62 (1922), Section 39.22(a)-1 of the 1956 regulations, and the current 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii).)


Because the two issues above each lead to the same conclusion using independent citations and reasoning, you must prove at least one of the first two, and at least one of the second two.  In doing so, you can rely on only those citations that I have already seen (due to the “willfulness” factor), and that are the legal equivalent or superior to Treasury regulations.  In other words, you can rely only on statutes, regulations, or Supreme Court rulings.  According to the Internal Revenue Manual, any court rulings other than those of the Supreme Court, as well as any IRS letters, notices, letter rulings, revenue rulings, procedures, publications, or forms are insufficient and irrelevant, as they do not carry the legal weight of the regulations relied upon above.


Instead of the above, you may wish to argue that even though 26 USC 861(b) and 26 CFR 1.861-8 do determine taxable domestic income, and even though those sections do not show my income to be taxable, I should nonetheless blindly assume that my income is taxable anyway.  In addition, you would have to argue that even though the “items” listed in 26 USC 61 are not always taxable, and even though my income is not on the list of non-exempt types of income, I should nonetheless blindly assume that my income is taxable (non-exempt) anyway.  But the Supreme Court has had a few things to say about assuming that a tax applies to matters not specifically pointed out:

“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.” (Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917))

“On behalf of the government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer… [If the government] seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be [quoting Lord Cairns].” [U.S. v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179 (1923)]

(See also Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303 (1938); White v. Aronson, 302 U.S. 16 (1937); and Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, 284 U.S. 552 (1932).)

In addition, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition) says that the doctrine of “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of others) means that “where law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.”

Can you recognize the government’s terrorism against this man?  We sure can!  All he wants is an accountable government that is a servant and protector of its people.  What he gets in response is harassment, legal terrorism, evasion, and propaganda.  This is unconscionable in a free society and every bit as reprehensible as the acts of the Stalin in Russia or Hitler in Germany.