Our government's ability to incarcerate innocent people is evidenced by the number of those being exonerated, most often through DNA evidence. These wrongful convictions evidence our judicial system's failure. Trial Logs is currently covering the government's prosecution of those who question the application of the income tax laws. It is our hope that this coverage will help us understand the failings of our justice system and help those struggling to comprehend this nation's income tax laws.
Folks,
posted by David Jahn @ 8/18/2005 09:58:00 PM
The last post I received from Mr. Baptisa was dated 8/17/2005 12:18 PM.
I am awaiting his reply.
I also have an email stating and requesting as follows:
"I don't recall any "Ryan Baptista" on the jury list, though I could be mistaken. If you ask him where he sat in the jury box, his approximate age, and what he looks like, I can tell you if he's a fake or not."
By 
, at
8/19/2005 12:25 PM
Thanks for the trial logs blog david jahn.....good work....and thanks to dale eastman for the research and commentary........
doug kenline
atlanta, georgia
http://dougkenline.blogspot.com/
By 
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, at
8/19/2005 1:58 PM
Looks like Larken and Tessa are going to cut a deal with the IRS.
# # # # # # # # # # #
Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:48:51 -0700 (PDT) [04:48:51 PM EDT]
From: Larken Rose larken@taxableincome.net
Subject: From Tessa
Dear Friends:
Larken knew how much all of you wanted him to be acquitted, and I know he feels the weight of all those crushed hopes. As he said, he never wanted
this to be about us; he always wanted it to be about getting the truth out. He is reluctant to ask for help because he sees this as just saving his family - which was HIS job, not yours. While I see his point and share his reluctance, I think you all deserve to know what the situation is, so you can make up your own minds about helping or not. The fact is, we will certainly be financially crushed by legal fees
###
and complying with IRS demands
###
if we do not get lots of help. We will survive, of course - and worse things have happened to people who have stood up against injustice. So there it is.
If you decide to help out, donations can be sent to the following:
Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
(Larken said that PayPal donations can be sent to larken@taxableincome.net)
Larken has hired Peter Goldberger
to handle his sentencing and appeals, and I have also retained a lawyer, but whether it will go to trial remains to be seen. I was given a trial date of October 17, but that could change, as you all well know.
Tessa
P.S. PLEASE include email addresses in your messages for me - I want to
reply to them, but I can't because I don't get the top of the email.
By , at
8/19/2005 6:24 PM
Jamie appears to be mistaken. Tom Clayton wrote several months ago that Larken knew the answers to every question he asked the government, including the ones about how to calculate his taxable income. Larken has effectively acquiesced on that issue by failing to file a motion to have the indictment set aside and, I have heard, failure to propose jury instructions that were consistent with his 861 position. One must assume he acquiesced because he understands that his position is wrong and the government's is right. So Larken shouldn't have any trouble calculating his taxable income and his tax.
Steve in Houston
By , at
8/20/2005 9:18 PM
Steve from Houston wrote:
Tom Clayton wrote several months ago that Larken knew the answers to every question he asked the government, including the ones about how to calculate his taxable income.
I'm sure Larken alway knew the answers to the questions. What is interesting is that the government apparently did not. What is even more intereesting is the lengths the governemnt went to to avoid answering the questions.
Steve from Houston wrote:
Larken has effectively acquiesced on that issue by failing to file a motion to have the indictment set aside and, I have heard, failure to propose jury instructions that were consistent with his 861 position.
Where do you people come up with this stuff? Throughout the trial, Larken was not permitted to discuss the law beyond what he believed the law required of him. There is no way the judge would have allowed him to insert comments relating to 861 into the jury instructions. Steve, moronic comments are stripping you of any credibility. You should consider reviewing the transcripts before making a complete fool of yourself.
Steve from Houston wrote:
One must assume he acquiesced because he understands that his position is wrong and the government's is right. So Larken shouldn't have any trouble calculating his taxable income and his tax.
This is also untrue. The fact is the government did nothing to dispell Larkens beliefs which leaves Larken and his followers even more convinced that something is amuck.
Steve, perhaps you enjoy spreading these lies. What I can't understand is why.
It would be interesting if one of the desenters would bring a little truth and credibility to their comments. So far that hasn't happened.
By David Jahn, at
8/21/2005 9:21 PM
Has there been any further communication from the juror??? Do you think they may have gotten spooked
By , at
8/22/2005 6:44 PM
Ryan is the only juror to contact us. At 19 years old, he probably has a lot of distractions. I can only hope he will take time to understand the man they condemned.
A few folks have contacted him with polite messages and are awaiting replies.
Time will tell.
By David Jahn, at
8/22/2005 7:39 PM
Last Contact I had with Mr. Baptista was on the 17th. I promised him I would run the information I intend to post by him before I post it to the net. I hope he returns the answer to the last questions I sent him.
I'm not sure how long I will wait before I paste the dialog into a web page and put it up on the web.
Politician says to another politician, when I take a cab, I give the driver a big tip and ask him to vote for me.
The other politician says when I take a cab, I don't leave any tip and rudely tell the driver to vote for the other guy.
I hope Mr. Baptista wasn't scared away by some annonymous collaborator pretending to be a tax honesty researcher.
By , at
8/22/2005 9:07 PM
Hee, hee, hee.
I had a CPA/EA in misc.taxes attempt to tell me that when regulation 1.861-8 refers to itself in 1.861-8(a)(1) in the (?)4th(?) sentence, that it wasn't actually referring to itself.
I'm not going to look it up, so from memory: Section 861(b) and section 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income from sources within the United States.
Section 862(b) and section 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income from sources without the United States.
This section provides specific guidance on how to determine taxable income...
The rules in this section... determine taxable income from specific sources & activities...
Okay, its the third and fourth sentence.
The novice to this issue can find the link to the regulation by clicking through my name in this blog header. Be sure to check out 1.863-1(c) and 1.862-1(b) while you're there.
By , at
8/23/2005 12:27 PM
<< Home