Saturday, August 13, 2005

Don't forget folks, all of these people can use contributions.

Here is a link to a press release by Ken Evans:

This is a sad day for liberty minded individuals.

A friend sent me this:

Just a note to thank you for enlightening me to the "BEAST" that lives among us. I'm truly sorry for us all! Words can't express how heavy my heart feels as I'm sure yours does also.
I’m sure this pain is felt across the country.

This loss would be far easier to accept if they had proven Larken wrong, but that isn’t the case. Oh, I’m sure the government will proudly proclaim they have proven Larken’s 861 arguments wrong, but we all know that just isn’t the case and the transcripts will bear that out.

Most troubling is the governments ability to prevail without presenting any substance.

To win, they had prove 3 elements

1. That Larken had a requirement to file.
2. That Larken did not file.
3. That he did so willfully.

Due to the court imposed restrictions, convoluted rules of evidence and repeated objections from the government’s attorneys, Larken was never really able to address the requirement to file issue.

He wasn’t able to enter his taxable income report into evidence, nor his “Theft By Deception” video. He was also denied the opportunity to walk the jury through his research findings and his conclusions of law. Thus, Larken was never truly able to effectively present the 861 evidence. As a result, the government was able to avoid those six pesky questions once again.

This failure of the government to provide answers only serves to exacerbate the problem for those that understand the argument.

In the end, the judge explained the law according to HIS interpretation. As I recall, he told the Jury that Larken was mistaken and that his income was indeed taxable. And the jury was reminded that they are to accept the law without question as dictated by the judge.

When will we ever be rid of this erroneous notion that only judges can understand and explain the law? After all, if they were any good at it, we wouldn’t need appeals courts dedicated to fixing their mistakes.

The second element that he “did not file” was stipulated by Larken.

The third element involved willfulness. I believe the governments case toward this element was extremely weak, and I have no idea how this jury came up with their conclusions and verdict relating to willfulness. I only attended Friday’s hearing, so I can not comment to the entire week, but I can say it was clear from Larken’s closing arguments and supporting evidence that he was knowledgeable about the applicable laws and passionate in his beliefs. I watched the jury closely during the closing arguments and I held hopes that at least some of them would see through the trial’s façade and that they would raise questions during jury deliberations. That wasn’t the case.

Given the speed of this verdict, we can only conclude that these people didn’t review a single page of evidence. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that these folks wanted a quick verdict so that they could end their week long obligation to the court.

In the final analysis, this jury was pathetic. Some of them were far more concern about their preparations for tonight’s date, then they were for the freedom of this man they saw before them.

We all know hind sight is 20/20. In the final analysis, jury selection was a large factor in this loss. I think Larken was confident that he would win with any jury of twelve, and that may have been true if he was able to introduce the evidence he needed. However, that wasn’t the case. The limits imposed upon him required a thinking jury which he clearly did not have. As noted in Sherry Jackson audio message from 8/12/05 at 5:48 pm, some of these jurors apparently had more concern for their dating plans for Friday night then they had for the man they convicted minutes earlier. This jury had no idea as to the ramifications of their decisions. Some of them probably don’t even read newspapers.

More time spent screening jurors might have brought us to a different outcome, but it is too late now and we’ll never really know.

Most troubling is that the realization that government can win a conviction by simply insulting a defendant in front of twelve citizens. From what I gather, that was the governments tactic in this case. If you can portray him as an anarchist and point to any emails or letters wherein the defendant expressed dissatisfaction with the government, you can persuade a dumbed down American jury to convict him. There is no need for evidence.

I’m deeply disturbed by the assertions of the government’s attorneys and the judge that only the judge can interpret the law. That is complete hogwash, and we must somehow bring an end to this mentality. As citizens, we are all responsible for complying with the law. Yet, according to them, we can’t possibly comprehend it. Yet they will convict us for failing to comply with their cryptic law that only they can comprehend. What an insult to our intelligence. What has this nation come to?

The government has plenty of revenue streams it can tax to fund its constitutional operations. Apparently, they aren’t content with that. Instead, they contrive an income tax permitting them to probe into everybody’s business. How sad.

Now, the question is where do we go from here.

First, I would appeal to Larken to consider the judges advice. The judge suggested that if Larken submit returns for the years in question and negotiate payments for what is owed, he would take all of that into consideration at the sentencing hearing. Contrarily, he also stated he would take the absence of such an agreement into consideration as well.

I believe Larken can be of far more value to his family and the tax honesty movement on the outside. I for one won’t think any less of him if he took whatever steps were necessary to reduce his sentence. I hope he realizes that. Using his bat analogy, it may be time to give them five as an answer.

Whatever he and Tessa decide they deserve our support.

We need to find a peaceful solution to the problems confronting this nation. We need Larken on the outside working to help us achieve that solution.

I would also remind everyone that there are more trials ahead.

Tessa Rose is rescheduled.
Arthur Farnsworth 8/29/05 in Philadelphia

We need to remain vigilant.

We'll post more as time permits.

Friday, August 12, 2005

Larken - Day Five

Larken - Day Five

Larken - Day Five

Larken - Day Five

Larken - Day Five

Larken - Day Five

Larken - Day Five

Larken - Day Five

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Larken - Day Four Conference Call (3 of 3) (James Babb, Ken Evans, Mike Badnarik, Quince Eddens, David Jahn)

Larken - Day Four Conference Call (2 of 3) (James Babb, Ken Evans, Mike Badnarik, Quince Eddens, David Jahn)

Larken - Day Four Conference Call (1 of 3) (James Babb, Ken Evans, Mike Badnarik, Quince Eddens, David Jahn)

Larken - Day Four Guest Post by Arthur Farnsworth - please Contribute to Arthur's Legal Defense Fund

Larken - Day Four Guest Post by Peter MacCandless of Peter MacCandless Show

Larken - Day Four Guest Post by Peter MacCandless of Peter MacCandless Show

Larken - Day Four

Larken - Day Four

Larken - Day Four

Larken - Day Four

Larken - Day Four

Larken - Day Four

Larken - Day Four

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Larken - Day Three Conference Call (3 of 3) (James Babb, Ken Evans, Mike Badnarik, Quince Eddens, David Jahn)

Larken - Day Three Conference Call (2 of 3) (James Babb, Ken Evans, Mike Badnarik, Quince Eddens, David Jahn)

Larken - Day Three Conference Call (1 of 3) (James Babb, Ken Evans, Mike Badnarik, Quince Eddens, David Jahn)

Larken - Day Three

Larken - Day Three

Larken - Day Three

Hey everyone,

I wanted to explain some aspects of the current trial.

I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me if you believe I'm wrong.

Presently, the government is presenting its case against Larken. The government is calling witnesses and asking them specific questions. These questions and the witnesses responses become the subject matter for cross examination. Larken can only ask questions on cross examination that relate to a question posed to the witness by the government or relate to an answer provided by the witness in response to one of the government's questions. Larken cannot wonder into new topics that were not part of the subject matter as defined above.

After the government rest its case, Larken will get his opportunity to call his witnesses and he can then introduce new topics and ask his witnesses any questions he wants. He may even be able to call the governments witnesses back to the stand to explore new subject matter that wasn't included in the government's presentation. If he did, the court would probably grant permission to treat them as hostile witnesses which would allow him to ask leading questions.

There are a whole bunch of other procedural rules, but I thought these basics might benefit some of you following this trial.

On another note, I would like to address the concern I've heard by some regarding the juries apparent lack of enthusiasm. Thus far, this jury has endured opening statements, wherein the government's attorney appeared weak and boring, and now a day of the government calling witnesses to confirm the obvious. Yes, Larken works. Yes, Larken had income. Yes, Larken used to file. These things Larken has already admitted via legal stipulations.

No wonder the jury is bored. I doubt intravenous injections of expresso could keep them awake through the government's side of this trial, so I wouldn't judge them on that.

Let's see how they respond after the government rest its case, and Larken takes control of the court room to present his defense.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Larken - Day Two

Larken - Day Two

Larken - Day Two

Larken - Day Two

Larken - Day Two

Larken - Day Two

Monday, August 08, 2005

Larken - Day One Recap

Larken - Day One

Larken Trial - Day One

The following is according to a message from Larken Rose.

Here is the schedule of events for my trial. It will all happen in
Courtroom 9A (ninth floor) of the federal courthouse in downtown Philadelphia (601 Market Street):

Jury selection, which is open to the public, starts at 1:00 p.m. on Monday afternoon (August 8). Opening statements might also happen Monday afternoon. Tuesday the government starts its case. Given how much we're stipulating to, I can't imagine how it would take more than two days. So the defense case should start Wednesday or Thursday, and may be about a day and a half. After closing arguments (which should be interesting), the jury gets the case, and it's anyone's guess how long deliberations will take (somewhere between 10 minutes and 10 days).

Tessa's trial is scheduled to start almost immediately after mine is finished, maybe not even waiting for the verdict in mine (since it will be a different jury). When exactly it will start, and how long it will take, is up in the air at the moment. When we know any more, we'll let you know.

So, to recap, today (8/8) will be primarily for jury selection. It doesn't start until 1pm. If there is still time, opening statements MAY be made, but that's not guaranteed. So today's blog may be short with little substance.

1 - My hope is that this blog provides a service


My hope is that this blog provides a service to those across the nation who want to know what is happening, but can not be here for the August income tax trials.

This month, starting August 8th, the government begins its prosecution of Larken Rose. Larken's trial will be followed by the trial of his wife, Tessa. (For some reason the government was not content with prosecuting Larken and his wife together, and many are outraged and appalled by the governments underhanded tactic of singling out Tessa Rose.) Then, starting August 29th, Arthur Farnsworth is scheduled for trial.

Ghandi once proclaimed that "we must expose the injustice". I'm hopeful that we can do just that. The goal will be frequent post to this blog throughout the day updating us all of events and concerns.

Current team members are:

Ken Evans
Jim Babb
Mike Badnarik
Sherry Peel Jackson
Quince Eddens

Others members are pending

The watchful eyes of a nation are sometimes needed in order to assure a proper trial. If history provides a prelude of things to come, the governments attempts to interfere with these defendents' rights to due process will soon become very apparent.

It is my sincere hope that these trials will be conducted with the dignity necesary to restore our faith in our nation, our justice system, and our fellow man.

David Jahn