Larkin Rose went to jail on the 861 argument saying that income is dealing with what we get in from abroad, and that is covered by 861 clause.

Larkin Rose appears to have been right. The problem is by FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT we have been compelled into transacting in a foreign owned commodity.....known today as the FRNs, for which there could be, constitutionally, an excise tax. An unapportioned tax. If you read the case law on the 16th Amendment they say that the 16th Amendment did not give congress any new taxing powers.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a tax statute called the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166 (Oct. 3, 1913), enacted pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 1 of, and the Sixteenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, imposing a federal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified earlier in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed income taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to each state's population.

Above summary from Wikipedia.

The Brushaber case states that the court made a determination and they called it the Tariff Act. A tariff is something that you pay for the importation or exportation of whatever it is you are importing or exporting. The court named this tax precisely what it was a Tariff Tax on imports. And those imports appear to be the foreign product known today as FRNs and owned by the Federal Reserve a foreign corporation. This case settled the constitutionality of the Income Tax. It is still used today.

Larkin Rose was right on point in his argument on the foreign source income and that it was the only requirement to have to pay an income tax, be audited, keep records and all those things. However what he did not know is that the very thing he thought was domestic product the FRN currency with the United States on it was actually foreign product. He assumed like we all do that this currency was domestic, owned outright by the United States.

The court knows that it is not domestic currency, not owned outright by the United States. The courts and most attorneys know it is in Title 12 Section 411, that the FRNs are OBLIGATIONS of the United States. If they are OBLIGATIONS of the United States they are NOT owned by the United States. You don't own your own obligations. That would be totally unreasonable.

Larkin Rose was tried and convicted on a fact that he alleged and he was never given notice of by the court. All the court had to say is, these FRNs are foreign product.

Let's call the courts behavior what it is FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT against Larkin Rose. Was it not?

Does the court and should not the courts in America have to give you acknowledgment that you are in International Law in an Admiralty Court?

Under Mercantile Law, the law of merchants every citizen in the entire world has to understand and to know that he is in International Law in an Admiralty Court.

Larkin Rose was right on point. We, like Larkin, and many other tax truthers have been suffering what one would call delusion. In our courts today you can not claim the constitution. There are obvious reasons why you can not. It is called the legitimacy of a compact or a trust. In this case the Federal Constitution is a compact. It was created when there was a lawful treasury, when there was actual gold in the treasury.

Continued........................