Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Larken - Day Two

6 Old Comments:

Why are the same audio blogs being posted multiple times?

Past messages to Larken's email update list can be found on my web site. Click here.

By Anonymous Kurt Tischer, at 8/09/2005 3:48 PM  

Thanks Arthur,

For the update and the link to your webpage. We will be looking on with anticipation.

By Blogger David, at 8/09/2005 3:56 PM  

If Larken's fantasy is the law, why has he abandoned it in favor of pretending he didn't understand the law? If his position were the law, he could have won the case on a pre-trial motion. He didn't try. Instead, he brought on Larry Becraft, the inventor of the "I'm too stupid to know I had to pay taxes" defense.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/09/2005 11:04 PM  

If "anonymous had a brain, he would more than likely take it out and play with it.
Harley in Riverside, California

By Blogger Harley, at 8/10/2005 12:14 AM  

Well Steve from Houston posting as anonymous. You obviously, don't know as much about this trial or our legal system as you would lead us to believe.

At the moment, the government is presenting its case against Larken, and Larken's cross examination is limited to matters brought forward by the government.

The court has also imposed limits on what Larken can present to the jury when he gets the opportunity to present his defense.

In case you didn't know, Larken informed us of the following:

--------------------


Well, it was a whole hour between me posting a message about something that the government did right, and me getting something in the mail from them showing them doing their old tricks again.

It was a Motion in Limine, which I was waiting for, in which the government asks the court to decide what should and should not be allowed to be brought up at trial. I won't give the details, because in a few days I'll be posting their motion and my response, but here is the funny/sad part:

They acknowledge that we have a right to show that we did what we believe the law requires... they just don't want us to be allowed to show the jury ANY section of the statutes or regulations... or QUOTE from any section... or show them my "Taxable Income" report... or the "Theft By Deception" video.

Feel free to be amazed, but don't be scared. This isn't a surprise at all, and about 80% of my rebuttal has been sitting here for weeks, waiting to be completed once I got their looney motion (which I knew was coming).
"Sure, you can show what you believed... as long as you don't say anything about the law." Interesting view of "justice" they have.

There will be a hearing (in court) about these motions, about what will and won't be allowed to be addressed at trial, on June 30th.

--------------------

Larken later informed us that:

--------------------

5) We will be allowed to show the jury the law. There are some limits, and we're going to submit to the judge before hand what sections we will be looking at, etc. But the judge agreed that we have a right to testify about our beliefs AND to show what we relied on, including sections of the law. (We agreed, however, that the way the rules work, we can only testify about what we BELIEVE the law is, but we can't "instruct" the jury on what the law actually is. I could rant about all the things wrong with that, but since that's what the rules will be, I won't bother now.)

6) It sounds likely that the government will prevent the jury from seeing "Theft By Deception." I find this logically ridiculous, aside from the rules of evidence (that a statement made BY me about my state of mind should be excluded), but there are still some issues with the rules to be argued in the coming days. All our correspondence and meetings, however, will be included.

7) It sounds like several irrelevant issues the government wanted to bring up are now dead. They can't bring up our political beliefs, or our improved finances per se (it would be sort of hard to NOT benefit financial from not filing and paying, no matter what we believe about our legal responsibilities). Many issues of what will and won't be included at trial won't be decided until during the trial.


---------------------

Steve,

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but your post conveys a distasteful character deficiency devoid of decency, and I have no desire to exchange emails or comments with you.

I posted this response for the benefit of those following the trial who share a concern for a man and his wife and family as they face the beast in their efforts to preserve some semblance of freedom in this naton.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/10/2005 6:08 AM  

This is about Steve from Houston's comment. OK, so what was the point? Larken can show the sections of the law and what he believes it means. Larken just can't use the nifty video and report to do it. From all the recordings I have heard of Larken discussing the issue, he is much better in person. Larken probably can use the video for another purpose, such as a showing of prior statements consistant with his stated belief.

Steve from PA

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/10/2005 9:50 AM