David Cay Johnston
President Richard M. Nixon "is not a crook". President William J. Clinton "did not have sex with that woman." President George "Dubya" Bush found those Weapons of Mass Destruction. And DAVID CAY JOHNSTON is the epitome of honesty.... NOT!
David Cay Johnston is the Pulitzer prize winning YELLOW Journalist who works for the N.Y. Times. On this page, Mr. Johnston's words will be bold red to signify my opinion of his communist leaning. Just like Red China, and Red Russia. And his words will be on a yellow background, to signify the YELLOW Journalism he practices.
For those of you who think I have an attitude towards and about D.C. Johnston, you are entirely correct. This page is to tell you WHY.
But first, some quotes about what "Yellow Journalism" is. This one I found hilarious and on the mark. Prior to researching the term for this specific page, I did not know that Pulitzer was connected to yellow journalism....
Defining "Yellow Journalism
Competition with Hearst
Competition with Hearst
The Pulitzer name remains popular
today because it is associated with
the most prestigious award in American journalism. Yet many historians
revile the award's benefactor with charges of irresponsible reporting
and
sensationalism. The Pulitzer name is most often linked in textbooks
with
that of William Randolph Hearst, a Californian who assumed control
of
the Journal in 1895.
http://www.onlineconcepts.com/pulitzer/yellow.htm
http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/yellow.html
Yellow journalism is a type
of journalism in which sensationalism
triumphs
over factual reporting.
This may take such forms as the
use of colorful adjectives, exaggeration,
a careless lack of fact-checking for the sake of a
quick "breaking news" story,
or even deliberate falsification of entire incidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Onward with the story as to why my opinion of a "Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist" is so low. The story actually starts with a fellow named Larken Rose. Larken Rose is a thorn in the side of the IRS because he found certain things out about the actual words of the tax laws that allege to make Larken, You, and I "liable" for the income tax. Larken has been asking the IRS and the government for several years now, to answer some questions. (I'll supply a link to THAT story at the bottom of this page.)
In the next section of this page, are the words of Larken Rose as posted to the "861" email list. I received this post on 7/26/2003. This post was reposted on the news:misc.taxes news group on the same day by another subscriber to the list.
| Dear List Subscriber, The search warrant that the IRS used to invade my house is finally posted on the site. But before checking it out, keep in mind what a search warrant is SUPPOSED to be for. Under the Fourth Amendment, no one is supposed to be the victim of an "unreasonable search and seizure." The founders of the country considered one's home and private papers to be their OWN business. The ONLY situation in which government is supposed to have the power to search someone's home is when there is "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been committed or is being committed, and when there is reason to believe that certain evidence of the crime will be found there. There are half a zillion cases saying that a search warrant must be based on "probable cause" to suspect that evidence of a crime exists somewhere, and that a warrant can only cover SPECIFIC things to be searched for and seized. The Fourth Amendment was specifically designed to AVOID the all-encompassing "fishing expeditions," based on nothing more than a stated suspicion, that the British government had so often performed. With that in mind, see if this search warrant looks like an attempt to find specific evidence for specific crimes which they have reason to think have occurred, or whether it is a ridiculously broad fishing expedition based on nothing (or based on the fact that they don't like me speaking my mind). http://www.taxableincome.net/extortion/LarkenWarrant.pdf After you've seen the warrant, my letter to Donald Pearlman might make a bit more sense. Here is the letter I sent to Mr. Pearlman, to which he never replied: http://www.taxableincome.net/pearlman.html The real reason for the raid is not exactly difficult to figure out: they wanted to PUNISH me for speaking my mind. See all those things about the VIDEO and the WEB SITES on the warrant? Now try to find even ONE alleged "crime" listed on the warrant (see page 2) that has anything to do with them. Good luck. The dead give-away is that they stole a couple HUNDRED brand new copies of the "Theft By Deception" video, as well as bumper-stickers, copies of the written "Taxable Income" report, etc. This is a modern day book-burning, and nothing else. (And those things were on the list of items sought on the request for search warrant that the U.S. Magistrate signed, making the Magistrate a party to the illegal censorship.) Again, look at the ALLEGED "violations," and see if you can find some way to make videos, bumper-stickers and the "Taxable Income" report have anything to do with them. To sum up the alleged offenses, they were: 1) Failing to file and pay
(26 USC §§ 7201,
7203).
2) Filing false claims for
refund
(26 USC § 7206(1) and
18 USC § 287)
3) Attempted to "corruptly"
or forcibly interfere with the administration of the tax laws
(26 USC § 7212(a)).
4) Conspiring to commit
some offense
(18 USC § 371).
(We don't know WHAT supposed offense, because the affidavit of probable
cause is still sealed.) Now pretend, just for a minute, that having the video MIGHT be "evidence" of one of those. (It's a stretch, I know.) Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about such things: "The use by government of
the power of search and seizure as an
adjunct to a system for the suppression of objectionable publications is not new... The Bill of Rights was fashioned against the background of knowledge that unrestricted power of search and seizure could also be an instrument for stifling liberty of expression." [Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961)] Yeah, no kidding. The Supreme Court has also
said that "seizing films to
destroy them or to block their distribution or exhibition is a very different matter from seizing a single copy of a film for the bona fide purpose of preserving it as evidence in a criminal proceeding." [Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973)] Ya don't say. "While a SINGLE COPY of a
book or film may be seized
and retained for evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, books or films MAY NOT BE TAKEN OUT OF CIRCULATION completely until there has been a determination of [illegality] after an adversary hearing. The risk of prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protection accorded searches for, and seizures of, First Amendment materials renders invalid the pretrial seizure here... Probable cause to believe that there are valid grounds for seizure is INSUFFICIENCT to interrupt the sale of presumptively protected books and films... Mere probable cause to believe a violation has transpired is NOT ADEQUATE TO REMOVE BOOKS OR FILM FROM CIRCULATION." [Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989)] Well golly gee. It looks like the Supreme Court keeps condemning EXACTLY WHAT AGENT PEARLMAN DID, by stealing all the "Theft By Deception" videos he could find (from my home and from the home of my business partner, Tom Clayton, M.D.). In addition, Congress has also SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN using Fourth Amendment "searches and seizures" to try to squelch First Amendment rights via confiscation of such things (see 42 USC § 2000aa). I pointed that out to Agent Pearlman, but he confirmed again that they did not intend to EVER return the videos. (I was fully restocked the next day anyway.) I would also point out that there isn't even any ALLEGATION that the video MIGHT be in any way illegal. There is no injunction against anyone having, showing, selling, or distribution the video. They weren't even PRETENDING to confiscate something illegal. They were just STEALING something PERFECTLY LEGAL, because they didn't like what it contained. Welcome to the land of the free. (I'm still waiting to see if the "Institute For Justice" intends to take this case; the ACLU seems to be sitting on its hands.) Can anyone NOT see what the raid was really about? Does anyone think it was anything OTHER than a fishing expedition and a retaliation for me speaking my mind? Even those who think I'm wrong ought to be bothered by this. But I guess some peoples' loyalty to the status quo is more important to them than little things like freedom, justice, the rule of law, etc. Oh well. We'll just see who wins in the end. Sincerely, Larken Rose (P.S. On a final note, isn't it interesting that David Cay Johnston KNOWS about the illegal theft of the videos (I know, because I told him myself), but decided it wasn't worth MENTIONING in his articles? Overt censorship--a federal "book-burning" without a SHRED of legal justification--as expressly FORBIDDEN by federal statute and by the Supreme Court, apparently isn't considered newsworthy by the New York Times. I'm sure it WOULD be, if it was "speech" they liked. But they don't care whether WE have freedom of speech, because what we have to say doesn't fit well with their agenda. It seems the "fourth branch" is just as worthless as the other three.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to T-I-updates-on@mail-list.com |
After reading the above, I sent an email to Mr. Johnston.
To Mr. Johnston, Bcc. Larken Rose:
Mr. Johnston,
Since I can not assume that you have been reading some of what has been posted in these groups, and the repost to this group from Mr. Rose's mail list, I can not take you to task for your error without insuring that you are aware of the issue. Therefore I must refer you to the post that documents why the seizure of more than one copy of the tape, theft by deception is illegal.
------------------------------------
Google Cite
" 'The use by government
of the power of search and seizure as an
adjunct to a system for the suppression of objectionable publications
is not new...
The Bill of Rights was fashioned against the background of knowledge
that unrestricted power of search and seizure could also be an instrument
for stifling liberty of expression.'
[Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961)]
adjunct to a system for the suppression of objectionable publications
is not new...
The Bill of Rights was fashioned against the background of knowledge
that unrestricted power of search and seizure could also be an instrument
for stifling liberty of expression.'
[Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961)]
"The Supreme Court has also said
that 'seizing films to destroy them or
to block their distribution or exhibition is a very different matter from
seizing a single copy of a film for the bona fide purpose of preserving
it as evidence in a criminal proceeding.'
[Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973)]
to block their distribution or exhibition is a very different matter from
seizing a single copy of a film for the bona fide purpose of preserving
it as evidence in a criminal proceeding.'
[Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973)]
" 'While a SINGLE COPY of
a book or film may be seized and retained for
evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, books or films
MAY NOT BE TAKEN OUT OF CIRCULATION completely until there
has been a determination of [illegality] after an adversary hearing. The risk of
prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment
protection accorded searches for, and seizures of, First Amendment materials
renders invalid the pretrial seizure here... Probable cause to believe that there
are valid grounds for seizure is INSUFFICIENT to interrupt the sale of
presumptively protected books and films... Mere probable cause to believe
a violation has transpired is NOT ADEQUATE TO REMOVE BOOKS OR
FILM FROM CIRCULATION.'
[Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989)]
evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, books or films
MAY NOT BE TAKEN OUT OF CIRCULATION completely until there
has been a determination of [illegality] after an adversary hearing. The risk of
prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment
protection accorded searches for, and seizures of, First Amendment materials
renders invalid the pretrial seizure here... Probable cause to believe that there
are valid grounds for seizure is INSUFFICIENT to interrupt the sale of
presumptively protected books and films... Mere probable cause to believe
a violation has transpired is NOT ADEQUATE TO REMOVE BOOKS OR
FILM FROM CIRCULATION.'
[Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989)]
------------------------------------
Regardless of your verbal sparring with Mr. Rose regarding the contentious 861 issue, And regardless to what the reality of the 861 issue is, These cites by Mr. Rose clearly indicate that the IRS is in the wrong as to the seizure of more than one copy of the 861 tape.
If, after re-reading the above cites, you still insist that the seizure of 299 of 300 copies of the tape is not theft then you should turn in your press ID, since your journalistic integrity is then no better than Jayson Blair's, and you truly care not about the First Amendment.
DRE
Mr. Johnston replied:
Mr. Rose has not even filed an application to the court for the return of his videos.
He would appear to have remedies, but he has not availed himself of them.
Reply by Eastman to Mr. Johnston cc'd to misc.taxes.
Sir, while your statement may (or may not) be correct, It totally ignores the issue in question that I have raised with you. Now I can see why there is so much vitriol directed at you by Mr. Rose. You fail to grasp that the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment is separate from the 861 issue. It is all I can do to remain civil at this point.
While I am new to the 861 issue, and realize that it is contentious, With your failure to grasp 1st & 4th amendment issues you have totally destroyed ANY credibility you may have had with me. ANYTHING you write will be considered by me in the same manner that I would consider quantum mechanics explained by a 5 year old.
Worse than that, you are now a potential mortal enemy. Brown shirts and a führer come to mind.
I am also going to forward this email to any and all.
Note to self, Never try to teach a pig to sing, It only wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
Good day Mr. Blair..... Er Mr. Johnston.
PS. <rhetorical> Were you referring to availing himself of the finest justice money can buy, just like O.J. Simpson did? </rhetorical>
Mr. Johnston's final reply, forwarded to Larken Rose:
opinions vary
Mr. Rose's response in the list serve posting, (excerpted)
Dear List Subscriber,
Every once in a while I use the term "state-worshiper," referring to those who think that what is morally right, and sometimes even what is factually right, must be determined by "government" alone.
....
Sometimes people think I'm exaggerating when I speak of "state worshipers."
Today I had a fine example, and thought I'd share it with you. Earlier today I posted a message about the search warrant that the IRS used to invade my home, and made some comments about the fact that the IRS stole several HUNDRED brand-new copies of "Theft By Deception" from my house and from my business partners house during the "raids" on May 6th.
I also pointed out how David Cay Johnston (writer for the New York Times) KNEW about those clearly illegal acts, but didn't bother to MENTION them in his article (though he did mention that the IRS raided my home).
....
Mr. Johnston disagreed with the characterization of the taking of the videos as "theft," because they were mentioned on the warrant.
So if a magistrate signs a piece of paper saying that a law-enforcement officer can take your car, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, Mr. Johnston apparently would NOT view that as theft.
This is a prime example of "state worship."
They did the magic procedure, signed the magic paper, and thereby made theft NOT theft.
Never mind that both federal statutory law (42 USC § 2000aa) AND the Supreme Court specifically condemn efforts to use Fourth Amendment seizures to take First Amendment materials out of circulation, as being ILLEGAL.
But now comes the kicker. Someone took Mr. Johnston to task for not reporting the illegal theft of the videos (a.k.a. BLATANT CENSORSHIP), and his response was to say that "Mr. Rose has not even filed a motion with the court to return his videos so why don't you ask Mr. Rose why he is not pursuing his own case in the proper forum, through a motion to compel?"
There you have it. You and I can't just LOOK at the situation, and conclude the BLEEDING OBVIOUS. No, the only "proper forum" is to ask a "judge" to decide if it was improper. Never mind what the law itself says; in fact, never mind what the highest court in the land says. No, you and I aren't fit to make up our minds--and neither is Mr. Johnston, based on his own comments--until a "judge" has decided whether the action was proper.
....
Stealing a bunch of videos to keep them out of circulation is censorship, particular when there isn't even any SUGGESTION that the videos themselves are at all illegal. Anyone who can't see that, or who won't believe it until a "judge" says it, has no grip on reality, and doesn't deserve a shred of credibility. Neither does any publication that would continue to employ such a person.
Sincerely, Larken Rose
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: The IRS thugs also took items not on the warrant such as bumper stickers like this one.
Thus the reason why this was posted.
NEW YORK -- Disgraced ex-New
York Times reporter Jayson Blair is being
investigated in connection with allegations "his reporting conduct
violated the law," the newspaper acknowledged Tuesday......
... The Times has reported problems in several dozen of Blair's
articles, and publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. called it "a huge
black eye" for the publication...
...The inquiry also raised questions about the standard of Blair's supervision...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
investigated in connection with allegations "his reporting conduct
violated the law," the newspaper acknowledged Tuesday......
... The Times has reported problems in several dozen of Blair's
articles, and publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. called it "a huge
black eye" for the publication...
...The inquiry also raised questions about the standard of Blair's supervision...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
<satire>
NEW YORK --The New York Times
will soon be available at your supermarket checkout line. An anonymous
source inside the New York Times is quoted as saying, "We wanted to
position ourselves more directly in the public's awareness to increase
our sales, so we have moved to position ourselves on the front line,
directly competing with The National Inquirer and the Star. We feel
this is a perfect market for us to explore since we have already been
competing by using the same fine reporting criteria these other
publisher's use. We know we are being successful in our attempts to
match the quality of these other news sources, since The New York Times
is already the type of newspaper no self-respecting fish would allow
itself to be wrapped in."
</satire>The great thing about the internet, is that Mr. Johnston's seat at the apex of information reporting is meaningless. Here's my information regarding Larken Rose.