Sunday, August 21, 2005

Admissibility of Theft By Deception Video
(Trial audio included at end)

Arriving at the truth should always be the goal of the courts. Surely, anyone who has seen the "Theft By Deception" video would agree that it affectively conveys Larken's beliefs. Surely, it is a vital part of understanding whether or not Larken Rose acted willfully, one of the vital elements required to validate the government's "willful failure to file" charges.

The courts quest to arrive at the truth unfortunately takes a backseat to the government's objections to showing the jury this video. They claim it is hearsay and that it would "confuse" the jury.

The evidence would suggest our government along with thousands of others have been confused by the serious questions raised by Larken Rose through this video regarding the common interpretations of this nations income tax laws. It is apparent that the government wants to prevent this confusion regarding our nations income tax laws from spreading to the jury.

Judge Baylson's request for a table of authorities supporting Mr. Rose's desire to show the video shoulders Larken Rose with the burden of proving the video is admissible. Obviously, Larken Rose needs this video to prove his innocence and the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty becomes an aberration. This emphasizes the need for an effective legal research team as it is near impossible for one person to do it all.

Larken Rose is apparently unable to produce the table of authorities supporting his need to show the jury his video. His failure to overcome the governments objections leads him to settle for showing the jury five minutes of the video without audio. Thus, the government succeeds in neutralizing Larken Rose's defense and insulates the jury from the truth regarding Mr. Rose and his extensive research.

The government needs to win this case and they need to make an example of Mr. Rose. Their objection to showing the video makes it obvious that the last thing they need is for the truth regarding Mr. Rose's beliefs to overtake the courtroom.

You be the judge.

43 Old Comments:

Thank you David Jahn........good work............dk

By Blogger Doug, at 8/21/2005 1:23 PM  

Dave, are you going to post the entire trial this way or just selected excerpts? If the latter, what is the selection process? And what is the source for these recordings? This one seems to have been recorded via a single mic near the judge (Larken and Floyd both sound farther away).

Was the judge being directed by the prosecutor here? Twice he asked questions of the prosecutor and then, before the prosecutor had even finished speaking, the judge seemed to suddenly adopt as his own position the position the prosecutor was taking and make a statement or a question to Larken based on that position. It struck me as very strange.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/21/2005 1:44 PM  

The judge screwed up by letting any of the video in. Larken was there in the courtroom, and had the chance to tell the jury his story. The prosecutor could cross examine Larken, but he can't cross-examine a videotape.

But that is what Larken and his toadies want: To just tell Larken's side of it without any cross-examination, sort of like how cockroaches can't stand light.

Don't forget: Larken abandoned his 861 argument well before the trial started, and gambled (and lost) instead on a Cheek defense. While that gave him better odds of a jury acquittal, it means that he is dead meat on appeal.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/21/2005 2:28 PM  

What would the video show the jury that Larken himself couldn't say in open court? The video is immaterial IMHO.

By Blogger emj, at 8/21/2005 4:13 PM  

Jamie said:

Dave, are you going to post the entire trial this way or just selected excerpts?

Selected exerpts. The entire trial is huge in size and bandwidth.

If the latter, what is the selection process?

I'm concerned that our justice system seems to routinely convict innocent people. My goal is to bring attention to the faults in the process that allow that to happen.

It should be noted that anyone can order the transcripts and trial audio from:

David Hayes
Second Floor, Room 2609
U.S. District Court Clerks Office
601 Market St
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797
phone 267-299-7041

Moving on the the annonymous post made at 3:28 PM.

The judge screwed up by letting any of the video in. Larken was there in the courtroom, and had the chance to tell the jury his story. The prosecutor could cross examine Larken, but he can't cross-examine a videotape

What better way to testify than to show the jury your work via a video. Larken is right there for the prosecution to cross examine regarding the content of the video.

It makes sense to refuse Larken the opportunity to show the video if your only goal is to usher a man into jail. Is that what you advocate? Is that what our nation has become?

The annonymous poster at 3:28 PM went onto say.

Don't forget: Larken abandoned his 861 argument well before the trial started, and gambled (and lost) instead on a Cheek defense. While that gave him better odds of a jury acquittal, it means that he is dead meat on appeal.

The transcripts of the trial would indicate otherwise. You'll have to take these falsities somewhere else where they do not have the facts.

I haven't reviewed the entire trial yet, but from what I have heard so far Larken testified that he relied upon section 861 and the government never truly refuted that. The government instead focused on statements Larken made in emails, using them to villify him.

While this may have served the government's interest in winning a conviction, it does nothing to dispell the believes of many who believe Larken Rose. Thus, the government squandered an opportunity to lay this entire argument to rest.

EMJ states:

What would the video show the jury that Larken himself couldn't say in open court? The video is immaterial IMHO.

The video explained Larkens postion with clearly defined graphics. Surely, that is more affective than professing from a witness stand the findings of years of research to a jury that is left struggling to comprehend.

It would depend on what the goal of the trial is. If the goal is to get at the truth before sentencing a man to jail, then you should allow whatever evidence is relevant.

I'm getting the imnpression that some of you would prefer to incarcerate the man without a trial.

My belief is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. We have to many innocent people occupying prisons now. Does that concern anyone?

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/21/2005 5:49 PM  

"While this may have served the government's interest in winning a conviction, it does nothing to dispell the believes of many who believe Larken Rose. Thus, the government squandered an opportunity to lay this entire argument to rest."

Indeed they did, opting to paper over the inconvenient facts within the law yet again. While, practically speaking, that *may* buy them some time, it will never resolve the fundamental problem. They still, as we can see in these comment threads, have the need to send out the anonymous cowardly silly people to post frivolous insults and logical fallacies here.

It's becoming clear that their "spin" includes the idea that "Larken abandoned his 861 argument well before the trial started". I must compliment them (or Satan, whichever) on that take, as it is probably the closest thing to any substantive criticism of Larken which they've managed to concoct so far. Objective observers, though, are probably going to see through that too -- especially if they listen to Larken's (excellent) opening statement.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/21/2005 6:36 PM  

An anonymous agent provocateur is amongst us.

By Blogger Salt, at 8/21/2005 6:39 PM  

annonymous post made at 3:28 PM.

The prosecutor could cross examine Larken, but he can't cross-examine a videotape.

That's absurd. The author of the tape is sitting right there. He could attest to its authenticity and be cross-examined, as well. It's an important piece of evidence regarding his frame of mind and the judge erred by effectively excluding it from evidence. (The permitted 5-minute silent excerpt was likely the judge's attempt at appearance of "due process" {snicker} and designed to make the conviction more difficult to overturn on appeal).

But even had the entire tape been shown, it may not have made any difference. Remember, we're dealing with a populace educated in the publik skoolz: don't really think, do what you are told, watch lots of tv, and be thankful for all the cheap stuff you can get at WalMart. Yup, a jury of one's peers, all right.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/22/2005 12:23 AM  

"An anonymous agent provocateur is amongst us."

Just one? He's been busy, then.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/22/2005 1:01 AM  

"Remember, we're dealing with a populace educated in the publik skoolz: don't really think, do what you are told, watch lots of tv, and be thankful for all the cheap stuff you can get at WalMart. Yup, a jury of one's peers, all right."

So that's why most of the tax protestors are working at Wal Mart, hauling firewood, changing mufflers, cleaning windows, etc.?

Few tax protestors are anything like "successful", and most could be quite accurately characterized as "born losers" who blame the government for their own failures.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/22/2005 10:47 AM  

Why discuss the issues when trolling is so much easier, eh lazy anonymous cowardly silly person?

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/22/2005 12:17 PM  

My position on 861: I am undecided at this time as I have not completed my research. However, none of the cases that I have studied thus far dismisses the 861 evidence on the merits. They dismiss it with no substantive explanation given. It certainly appears as though the government has something that it wants to hide.

In regards to the video, I agree that it is heresay. However, emj is incorrect in stating that it is "immaterial." Even the prosecutor agreed that it was material (i.e. applicable to the case). In the end, the judge ruled that the video was "material", but "relevant" only to the extent that it could demonstrate Larken's beliefs. In other words, the CONTENT of the video is heresay and irrelevant (i.e. non-probative), but the simple fact that Larken made the video IS relative in that the jury would have to question if a person would produce such a video if they didn't really believe what they were advocating. The judge only allowed Larken to show clips of the video in order to demonstrate the amount of effort that he put forth to produce it.

NOW, the reason the video is heresay is because there were only one or two spots in the video where Larken actually spoke or appeared, AND it contained the statements of many professionals that were not called as witnesses and who could not be cross-examined by the prosecution. The rules of the court require each side to produce their "best evidence," meaning that each side must produce live witnesses instead of videotaped statements whenever possible (i.e. when the witness is alive and can be found.) In this case, though Larken might have produced the video, most of the content is of OTHER people speaking. While this rule may seem unfair in this instance, I can assure you that overall it does facilitate the administration of justice.

Finally, in regard to the statement of Anonymous 11:47am, I think that you have the wrong website. I have been coming to this site since the beginning of Larken's trial and have yet to meet any "tax protestors" in here. In fact, your statement demonstrates a lack of knowledge and credibility on the subject altogether, as you just called the Founding Fathers of the United States "born losers" and suggested that most of them were not "successful." Next time, I would suggest that you make sure your brain is in gear before you engage your mouth.

By Anonymous Paralegal, at 8/22/2005 4:17 PM  

Paralegal said:
My position on 861: I am undecided at this time as I have not completed my research. However, none of the cases that I have studied thus far dismisses the 861 evidence on the merits. They dismiss it with no substantive explanation given. It certainly appears as though the government has something that it wants to hide.

I don't know when we have ever seen our government do such a tap dance. The way they squirm does not alleviate the concerns raised by Larken Rose. It only serves to raise further suspicions.

Paralegal said:
NOW, the reason the video is heresay is because there were only one or two spots in the video where Larken actually spoke or appeared, AND it contained the statements of many professionals that were not called as witnesses and who could not be cross-examined by the prosecution.

Actually, Larken has two videos. The one you are describing can be found at:

www.861.info

The other video titled "Theft by Deception" is produced and narrated by Larken alone. That is the one we are referring to. Would you still consider that hearsay? If so, do you believe any of the hearsay exceptions would apply such as the state of mind exception?

By the way, if you haven't seen this video, you ought to check it out. It is available for a reasonable fee at:

www.theftbydeception.com

I appreciate the research you are doing paralegal and look forward to your findings. I wish more folks would take the time to review the evidence.

Meanwhile, more trials are coming up soon, and I fear we may see more folks denied due process in our government's rush to convict them.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/22/2005 7:34 PM  

Looks like it is the JURY who are convicting them. The government is merely pointing out the obvious (to those not drunk on the Kool-Aid), which is that Larken and his sheeple followers are simply wrong.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/22/2005 11:25 PM  

Hey anonymous cowardly silly person, too bad for you the 861.info presentation is already freely available online and contains proof that you are a poopy-pants liar.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/23/2005 4:59 AM  

Anonymous at 12:25 said
Looks like it is the JURY who are convicting them. The government is merely pointing out the obvious (to those not drunk on the Kool-Aid), which is that Larken and his sheeple followers are simply wrong.

Unfortunately, the government skillfully avoided the question of whether Larken and his followers were right or wrong. Instead they shifted the focus by portraying Larken to the jury as an evil anarchist. The jury was unable to see through the charade, and the true issues of the case were never the focus of the trial.

Like it or not, even if Larken was dead wrong, he truly believed the findings of his years of research. That means, Larken is innocent and the government has succeeded in convicting an innoncent man without ever having to prove him wrong.

Trials in our nation should decide cases based upon the truth. Cases such as these wherein the jury is distracted from the truth are a disgrace to our system of justice.

It is a disturbing trend that I see in a number of trials, not just those involving income taxes.

Perhaps you are incapable of seeing the larger issue at hand.

Unfortunately, the trial was not decided on the true issues or facts, but instead was defelected away from those issues by government attorneys with numerous mischaracterizations which will be listed in our analysis of the trial which is forthcoming.

I expect the courts and lawyers representing our government to meet a standard of conduct. I am deeply distrurbed by the conduct of the courts and the governments attorneys in this case and the manner employed to achieve a victory.

You're eagerness to celebrate this government victory has blinded you to the breakdown in our system of justice that threatens all that is good in our nation.

I would welcome responsible and intelligent comments from dissenters, unfortunately we haven't seen that thus far.

Instead we get moronic and flawed comments from the mislead, uninformed and mentally deficient. Apparently, we are surrounded by them.

The goal of this site is to put our justice system under the magnifying glass to help form an understanding of how so many innocent people in this country are routinely convicted of crimes they haven't committed. I would hope that is of concern to everyone.

We have a lot of work ahead of us.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/23/2005 5:27 AM  

Would Chief Justice Rehnquists words be allowed in for evidence?

Found on the web:

Now I don't know whether to laugh or cry, come or go, get drunk or stay sober, or black from white. Well 50 years of law are down the drain, actually it is over 600 years of law but who's counting. I am going to take the day off and just cry over spilt milk. I think I still have the constitutional right to cry over spilt milk don't I? NO MORE TENANCY BY THE ENTIRITIES!??????

I myself think that I am going to move to New Guinea! All you guru's...Take the time to read this. As we all have said, they just keep on making it up as they go. Attached is the entire case and briefs, oral argument transcripts (US v Craft)...

It can all be found here:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supre...ry.html#00-1831

Read all of page 5 & 6, lines 9 thru 24 of the oral argument!!!!!. "They just let the word out!" It's no longer between themselves hasn't it been?
UNFRIGGIN BELIEVEABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_...pts/00-1831.pdf

Read the oral argument. Rhenquist must be on drugs or something....

Read the case here:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1831.ZS.html


In the transcript of the Oral Argument:
He (Chief Justice Rhenquist) and the United States attorney (Kent Jones) admit there is NO statute (LAW) that makes it a crime for "failure to file" an income tax return!

QUOTE: "I'm not familiar with a statute that makes that a crime by itself" ..."but the fact that you didn't file...frankly...it's my impression that that would not by itself be a crime".

..then it says on pg. 6 lines 20-25 of the transcript, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court William Rhenquist said: "We'd better not let the word get out" ..."We'll keep it just among ourselves"... and they have the nerve to laugh about it!

The attorney then defers all Title 18 (??) questions to Justice Kennedy.


UNITED STATES V. CRAFT (00-1831)
Web-accessible at:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1831.ZS.html


UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. SANDRA L. CRAFT
No. 00 1831

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.

"That the federal tax lien did not attach to the Grand Rapids property is further supported by the consensus among the lower courts. For more than 50 years, every federal court reviewing tenancies by the entirety in States with a similar understanding of tenancy by the entirety as Michigan has concluded that a federal tax lien cannot attach to such property to satisfy an individual spouse s tax liability.8 This consensus is supported by the IRS consistent recognition, arguably against its own interest, that a federal tax lien against one spouse cannot attach to property or rights to property held as a tenancy by the entirety.9"

Footnote 8:
See IRS v. Gaster, 42 F.3d 787, 791 (CA3 1994) (concluding that the IRS is not entitled to a lien on property owned as a tenancy by the entirety to satisfy the tax obligations of one spouse); Pitts v. United States, 946 F.2d 1569, 1571 1572 (CA4 1991) (same); United States v. American Nat. Bank of Jacksonville, 255 F.2d 504, 507 (CA5), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 835 (1958) (same); Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620, 622 623 (CA3 1952) (same); United States v. Hutcherson, 188 F.2d 326, 331 (CA8 1951) (explaining that the interest of one spouse in tenancy by the entirety property is not a right to property or property in any sense ); United States v. Nathanson, 60 F. Supp. 193, 194 (ED Mich. 1945) (finding no designation in the Federal Revenue Act for imposing tax upon property held by the entirety for taxes due from one person alone); Shaw v. United States, 94 F. Supp. 245, 246 (WD Mich. 1939) (recognizing that the nature of the estate under Michigan law precludes the tax lien from attaching to tenancy by the entirety property for the tax liability of one spouse). See also Benson v. United States, 442 F.2d 1221, 1223 (CADC 1971) (recognizing the Government s concession that property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety cannot be subjected to a tax lien for the debt of one tenant); Cole v. Cardoza, 441 F.2d 1337, 1343 (CA6 1971) (noting Government concession that, under Michigan law, it had no valid claim against real property held by tenancy by the entirety).

Footnote 9:
See, e.g., Internal Revenue Manual §5.8.4.2.3 (RIA 2002), available at WESTLAW, RIA IRM database (Mar. 29, 2002) (listing property owned as tenants by the entirety as among the assets beyond the reach of the Government s tax lien); id., §5.6.1.2.3 (recognizing that a consensual lien may be appropriate when the federal tax lien does not attach to the property in question. For example, an assessment exists against only one spouse and the federal tax lien does not attach to real property held as tenants by the entirety. ); IRS Chief Counsel Advisory (Aug. 17, 2001) (noting that consensual liens, or mortgages, are to be used as a means of securing the Government s right to collect from property the assessment lien does not attach to, such as real property held as a tenancy by the entirety (emphasis added)); IRS Litigation Bulletin No. 407 (Aug. 1994) ( Traditionally, the government has taken the view that a federal tax lien against a single debtor-spouse does not attach to property or rights to property held by both spouses as tenants by the entirety. ); IRS Litigation Bulletin No. 388 (Jan. 1993) (explaining that neither the Department of Justice nor IRS chief counsel interpreted United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983), to mean that a federal tax lien against one spouse encumbers his or her interest in entireties property, and noting that it do[es] not believe the Department will again argue the broader interpretation of Rodgers, which would extend the reach of the federal tax lien to property held by the entireties); Benson, supra, at 1223; Cardoza, supra, at 1343.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/23/2005 9:51 AM  

>Looks like it is the JURY who are
> convicting them. The government
> is merely pointing out
> the obvious (to those not drunk
> on the Kool-Aid),
> which is that Larken and his
> sheeple followers are simply wrong.

You're eagerness to celebrate this government victory has blinded you to the breakdown in our system of justice that threatens all that is good in our nation.


That's correct. What anonymous at 12:25 am and other of his/her persuation fail to consider is that this type government railroading my very well someday be used against them.

Socialism is a double-edged sword. Lovers of the philosophy applaud when others are cut down, but fail to realize that the blade will inevitably come back to take a swing at them. Perhaps we should begin investigating what crimes anonymous at 12:25 am has commited. Given enough time and resources, we WILL find some.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/23/2005 12:37 PM  

"Perhaps we should begin investigating what crimes anonymous at 12:25 am has commited. Given enough time and resources, we WILL find some."

Or we could just use bogus court rules to gag him, then make some stuff up and lie to the jury....

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/23/2005 1:13 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/24/2005 10:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/24/2005 10:59 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/24/2005 11:27 PM  

This trial was reminisent of the type of tribunals that took place in Nazi Germany during WW2 and in Imperial Japan against American POWs. Nothing but a formality before execution. I don't know anything about the income tax and I pay and I file, but I do know injustice when I see it. I guess I'm going to have to look into this 861 thing.

By Blogger marty, at 8/25/2005 7:15 AM  

This trial was reminisent of the type of tribunals that took place in Nazi Germany during WW2 and in Imperial Japan against American POWs. Nothing but a formality before execution. I don't know anything about the income tax and I pay and I file, but I do know injustice when I see it. I guess I'm going to have to look into this 861 thing.

By Blogger marty, at 8/25/2005 7:16 AM  

Just an observation. The prosecutor thinks the video evidence
"will confuse the jury" Isn't the prosecuter being presumptuous in assumming the jury is too DUMB to discover the truth for itself?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/25/2005 8:51 AM  

I have been waiting for somebody to bring up "confusing the jury" for awhile. In fact, in the legal manual (cite-site not remembered) it even warns the prosecutor about the law "confusing the jury". What a load of non-fossilized coprolite.


* Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine -- This requires that legislatures use clear and precise language so that people of common intelligence do not have to guess at the meaning of a law or its application. If the language of a statute or ordinance is vague, it is unconstitutional, and the law must be struck down. Sometimes, the doctrine is applied just to the words, like "ill repute" or "lewd", and at other times, whether the law entraps citizens or is difficult for police to enforce is considered. A modern example would be the "racial profiling" controversy. (Discussion)

THE VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE

This doctrine, so eloquently put by Justice Holmes (in McBoyle v. U.S. 1931) in the opening quote at the start of this lecture, has ancient origins. The maxim of uncertain law, then no law comes down to us from the Romans, and there are numerous cases in American jurisprudence that lay claim to establishing the doctrine. Frequently cited formulations include:

"Any statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" (Connally v. General Construction Co. 1926)

"Any statute, on its face, which is repugnant to the due process clause, [where] specification of details of the offense would not serve to validate it...No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids" (Lanzetta v. New Jersey 1939)

"To have available, through a sufficiently precise statute, information regarding the standard of criminality before being charged with the alleged commission of a crime" (Watkins v. U.S. 1957)

"A state may not issue commands to its citizens in language so vague and undefined as to afford no fair warning of what conduct might transgress them" (Raley v. Ohio 1959)

It is not enough to challenge a law on the basis of imprecise words alone. A number of tests have been developed to tell when such attacks will be successful or not:

* Should a layman, or common person, know that the conduct in question is so wrong that it is likely to carry a criminal penalty? This is the most common test, and one in which judges must resort to an understanding of public opinion, culture, and customs.
* Is the statute capable of more precise language, without asking the legislature to do the impossible? This is sometimes known as the conjecture test, which looks at whether lawmakers seemed to leave things to the imagination.
* Is the statute more uncertain than other statutes, or is part of a whole group of related unclear statutes? This test gets at the bulk of criminal law in a certain area.



Source Cite

Additional information-1

Additional information-2

By Anonymous dale eastman, at 8/25/2005 1:37 PM  

Ahh, it's so nice to see that the sale and consumption of the tax protesting kool-aid proceeds apace.

Larken was attempting to portray himself as having a supreme knowledge of the tax code, more so than the agency charged with enforcing it, but at the same time saying that he wasn't willfully breaking it. You can't have it both ways. Now, if he had decided to take the Kuglin tack of portraying himself as too stupid to understand the requirements to file - well, let's just say after observing Rosie for quite some time, it wouldn't have been a stretch for the jury to believe the stupid defense.


www.taxprotesters.blogspot.com

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 8/25/2005 1:48 PM  

Now, if he had decided to take the Kuglin tack of portraying himself as too stupid to understand the requirements to file.

Mr. Buckner,

Having taken the time to actually read the Kuglin transcripts, I can and will personally attest to the fact that you haven't a clue.

You do not know WTF you are talking about.

Shouldn't you be over at quatloosers with the rest of your ilk that care not what the law actually says?

For those actually interested, here is a link to the Kuglin & Long trial transcripts.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/25/2005 3:00 PM  

what's up with the state worshipping moron jury member? i want to hear an hour long audio interview with that guy.....is he one of the sleepy boys?

Doug Kenline
Atlanta, Georgia
http://dougkenline.blogspot.com/

By Blogger Doug, at 8/25/2005 11:28 PM  

what's up with the state worshipping moron jury member?

Are you referring to Mr. Baptista?

Cut him some slack. He was only 10% culpable for the wrongful conviction of Mr. Rose. And that 10% is divided 12 ways.

However, having posted to this blog, he is 100% culpable for remaining ignorant. Forgive him for he knew not what he did.

Dialog abandoned by Mr. Baptista.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/26/2005 1:14 AM  

"he was only 19"

that's sleepy boy! what a brain dead idiot...........thanks for the good work dale eastman.............dk

By Blogger Doug, at 8/26/2005 12:19 PM  

thanks for the good work dale eastman

It ain't finished Mr. Kenline. Nor will it be unless Mr. Baptista decides to finish his education.

P.S. I have the jpg images of your August 15th Direct Challenge to Personal Authority sent to a Ms. Ellis.
Did you ever get a reply? If so, what was it.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman., at 8/26/2005 3:39 PM  

no response.......dk

By Blogger Doug, at 8/26/2005 6:29 PM  

{rhetorical}
Why am I not surprised?
{/rhetorical}

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/26/2005 10:06 PM  

Frank Buckner said:

"Larken was attempting to portray himself as having a supreme knowledge of the tax code, more so than the agency charged with enforcing it, but at the same time saying that he wasn't willfully breaking it. You can't have it both ways."

There's no contradiction there, Frank. If Larken (and a growing number of others) is correct, then he isn't liable for income taxes, and thus is not willfully (or other-than-willfully, for that matter) failing to do anything he has a lawful duty to do. "Frank"ly, your logical skills appear to be poor. Maybe you were just having a bad day?

Anyway, thanks for linking to my blog. Your description of me seems a tad less than encouraging, but there's no such thing as bad publicity, right? ;-)

I found this on your blog too:

"I'm reminded of that little adage about being careful what you wish for. The trial is currently in day 3 with Rosie still on the stand. I predict a guility verdict by Tuesday next week at the latest. Friday at the earliest."

That begs the question: Might you be responsible for some of the frivolous anonymous posts here referring to Larken as "Rosie"? They evidence the exact same shillish Quatloos nonsense which much of your blog does.

Question: Is it your intention to attack the tax honesty movement by only lobbing ad hominem attacks toward the easiest targets, or do you have aspirations of confronting the facts and the law at some point? If the latter, lotsa luck! You'll need it, if you think Quatloos and the IRS are straight shooters. (ROFL)

If the former, I'll tell you this even though you probably won't listen: we don't care. There are, at a MINIMUM, tens of thousands of people in this movement already; it's impossible to know exactly how many more may be waking up at any time. What you are doing, at "best", is demonstrating that a select few of those people are, to use your term, "whack-jobs" (or substitute whatever other term you like). What relevance does that statistically-unsurprising demonstration have for the law? Obviously, none. So, you're wasting your time if you think you're proving anything meaningful.

My guess is you're simply shooting up flak hoping to scare away interested people by pretending all "tax protesters" are insane or otherwise not to be associated with. If so, isn't it interesting that you have to misrepresent so many things (me, for one!) in order to do that? Doesn't that bother you?

P.S. You may want to check the last paragraph of this page; it looks like you accidentally pasted an alternate version of part of the text into the middle of it.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/27/2005 9:07 AM  

Mr. Buckner's Blog is labeled: Freedom_From_Censorship

cen·sor n. 3. One that condemns or censures.

con·demn tr.v. 1. To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food.
2. To pronounce judgment against; sentence. 3. To judge or declare to be unfit for use or consumption, usually by official order: condemn an old building.

cen·sure n. 1. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.

--cen·sure tr.v. 1. To criticize severely; blame. See Synonyms at criticize.

Mr. Buckner... Can I call you BuckyBoy... Mr. BuckyBoy, You are attempting censorship via ridicule.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/27/2005 10:34 AM  

Anonymous etymologist, please don't call him Buckyboy. That's so them-ish. You make a good point about the censorship though. (Is irony a byproduct of tyranny?)

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/29/2005 7:44 AM  

"That's so them-ish."

What can I say... You're correct, it was so "them-ish."

Of course he was figuratively leading with his chin... I just could not resist popping that chin with some sarcastic parody.

par·o·dy n. 1.a. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery.

sar·casm n. 1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

By Anonymous Anonymous etymologist, at 8/29/2005 1:41 PM  

Insults and inane comments should be ignored by those who are serious about the content of this blog. If your intention is to appear intelligent and honorable, resist the temptation to roll in the mud with swine, no matter how much fun you think it might be. Such behavior serves only the swine.

It should be emphasized that Larken was not charged with five counts of believing the law as it is written, namely Section 861. On the contrary, he was charged with five counts of not believing it.

Larken's defense to those five charges was to convince the jury that he did believe the law as written, to wit: "Listen to what I said in the video, on the CD, on the radio, and here in court. Read what I wrote in my reports, in my e-mails, and in my letters. Read what I read in the law itself. See how the government responded to my questions. I had every reason to believe what I read in the law, and no reason to believe otherwise, especially since the government refused to do their duty to assist the taxpayer and instead resorted to armed invasions, illegal confiscations, stonewalling, and threats."

It was unreasonable to keep the length of the trial as short as it was considering the complexity of the material.

Also, since the government charged that Larken had a legal duty to file, the government should have been made to prove that. Instead, the judge decided that part for the jury--without discussion or argument. That is unacceptable. It was the first of the three key elements that the government had to prove--and it remains unproven and merely asserted. The government's complaint put the administration of the law on trial, but the judge bypassed that requirement, without authority. He might just as well have bypassed the third requirement by telling the jury, "The defendant was indicted, therefore he doesn't believe what he says, and that's that."

So the judge bypassed the first requirement for a guilty verdict (that he had a legal duty to file), Larken stipulated to the second requirement (that he didn't file), and the government and the judge concentrated on restricting Larken's ability to defend against the third requirement (that he willfully broke the law by not filing). The restrictions were effective.

By Blogger Mark Yannone, at 8/30/2005 12:28 AM  

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.

We are here because I have been charged with willfully failing to file an income tax return.

Any willfulness crime has three elements. Remove any element and there is no willfulness crime.

As best as I can recollect, right out of the prosecutor's manual, the three elements of a willfulness crime are:

1. There must be a lawful duty.
2. The accused must know that the accused is required to do the duty.
3. The accused, knowing of that duty, must willfully, with intent, choose to ignore that duty.

The government will tell you that the issue is that I didn't do a duty they assert I was required to do.

I didn't do the duty, because the duty DOES NOT EXIST.

I will not be allowed to tell you about the law. I am only allowed to testify about my "beliefs".

If I attempt to tell you about the law, that person over there (indicates the judge) will interrupt to admonish me that He/She will advise you, the jury, on the law.

It's kind of hard to testify to you about my beliefs in regard to the law, if I am not allowed to show you the law that I relied upon to come to my beliefs.

As we proceed through the course of the trial, I want you to keep one thought in your mind... Why won't the judge allow you to see the actual words of the law?

When the testimony portion of this trial is over, you will be charged with determining my state of mind, and my beliefs in order to determine if I willfully ignored a legal duty.

The Judge will then inform you that I had a legal duty, exactly as judges have done in a cases exactly like this one.

The law that is alleged to create a duty for myself is a written law as are ALL laws in this country.

You won't be allowed to read the law with your own two eyes.

You will be forced to rely on the judge's version of the law instead of the written law. WHY?

Isn't this "hearsay evidence"?

When you get to that point, I want you to ask yourself one other question. How do I know the Judge is not lying through his teeth?

I have four words that are the only defense to this charge I will raise to defend myself: "SHOW ME THE LAW!"

(Turning to judge)
Judge, we can save a whole bunch of time here. Since you are going to advise the jury on the law, I wish to prove to myself that you actually know the law. I will plead guilty right here, right now IF you SHOW ME THE LAW!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/30/2005 8:33 PM  

I am no lawyer & dont know that much about the law

but can't larken appeal his case all the way to
the supreme court ?

I know...., after reading the U.S vs Craft case
in the above posts
it may be difficult to get even THEM to look at
the LAW.

its just sad

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/31/2005 11:39 AM  

The reason that many tax protestors work menial jobs, Wal Mart, pumping gas, fast food resturants, etc; is that they would rather take a low paying job than sit on their fat gluteus maxami and collect welfare. They have the character to EARN A LIVING. So; rather than your cheap insults and ad hominem attacks, perhaps you would care to debate the actual merits of the arguments being advanced regarding the current system of taxation. Or do you realize that you are wrong and just want to destroy those who are right?

By Anonymous John, at 9/07/2005 9:06 PM  

Looks like the government pulled it's ussual 2 step and didn't allow the jury to judge the law and the facts. It is pretty clear that like others trying to fight through the courts, that they get railroaded. The government owns the stadium, player playing field and the umpires. Why do we think that larkin or anyone else will get a far hearing? as to so called TPs all working at walmart or some other low paying job that is not true. I make more than most and I do pay tons in taxes. I realize however that trying to fight the IRS on thier terms opn their playing feild is futile. All avenues of redress have been close so it is pretty clear that in order to change things America needs to do what it did to King George

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/08/2005 1:51 PM