Saturday, August 20, 2005

Larken Rose's opening statements.

You be the judge.

10 Old Comments:

wow that was're good........thank you very

By Blogger Doug, at 8/20/2005 4:02 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/20/2005 4:17 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/20/2005 4:21 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Prayer Power, at 8/20/2005 4:50 PM  

i wish we could get more information on the bill benson case in chicago.....dave champion mentioned on his how this week that attorney jeff dickstein is working the bill benson case in chicago and bill just had a heart attack or something.....anybody know more details on that case? is it a jury trial? when did it start? is it in chicago? where in chicago? how long has it been going on? when is it expected to end? can we get audio from that trial? thanks for this trial logs blog........good idea.......good work......thank

By Blogger Doug, at 8/20/2005 8:08 PM  

I liked the opening.

I feel that some additional things should have been said.

For example: Where should a person look first when thinking about whether ot not they are liable to pay any taxes?

When it comes to Alcohol, Tobacco, etc. it is clear. See chapter and verse.

When it comes to IT where does one start?

When and if you sit down with the IRS isn't this a reasonable question to ask as a starter?

You just don't go to a 1040 form do you?

I hope that you win on appeal.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/20/2005 8:45 PM  

Very interesting. I now understand why we've been hearing that Larken conceded the government's position on the law; he made it plain (more than once) that he felt constrained by the court's rules from trying to directly educate the jury on the law itself, so he was going to focus on the 3rd element of willful failure to file, namely, his beliefs *about* the law. I think we're likely to be discussing this aspect of the trial, and of the justice system in general, quite a bit in the days ahead....

I agree with FIJA.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/20/2005 10:54 PM  

I don't understand why Larken didn't bring up the "PRIVACY ACT PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE" at the bottom of the 1040. That notice is the govvernments disclosure to to public found at 26 CFR part 601-102. The Introduction for that section is found at the begining of the volume of parts 600 to end and says that returns required by law are I.D.ed with OMB control numbers and are place as close as posible to the reporting or record keeping requirements. The "DISLOSURE" itself is on page 77 of the 1040 instruction booklet and says the the IRSs' authority for asking the public for tax info is sec. 6001, 6011 and 6012. The primary return documents for those section of the regulations DO NOT show the 1040 to be the required return. 1.6012-1 shows the OMB control number 1545-0067 to be the legaly required return and that number is for form 2555 foreing earned income and says at the top of that form "FOR USE BY US CITIZENS AND RESIDENT ALIENS ONLY" It dose not say for "USE BY US INDIVIDGUALS!! The 1040 is called a " US INDIGIDUAL TAX RETURN" meaning "ONE INDIVIDGUAL" tax return, like One individually wraped package of ketchup. It is amazing how many people think that the word individgual always means a person.

By Blogger marty, at 8/25/2005 8:04 AM  

Please parden the type Os

By Blogger marty, at 8/25/2005 8:05 AM  

I find it atrocious that the power of jurors to nullify unjust laws has been abridged in this case. Anyone familiar with the concept of "jury nullification" knows that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. Our second president, John Adams, said; "It is not only his right, but his find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Further information on this aspect of American jurisprudence can be found by searching the web and especially by consulting the site for the FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION

By Anonymous John, at 9/07/2005 10:08 PM