Sunday, January 01, 2006

Larken Rose Trial Objections

This is all of the objections the government, prosecutor/judicial team raised during Larken Rose's defense. I believe they objected to nearly all of evidence Larken attempted to introduce. Many of these objections appear to be raised by the prosecutor simply because they can raise them and it helps interrupt the defense. The bottom line here is that the pursuit of truth is never a priority in one of these trials. In fact, in this case, the prosecutor and judge seem preoccupied with shielding the jury from the truth in most instances.

After listening to this string of objections, it seems like Larken's defense was ineffectual. That is the effect and motivation behind the government's persistent objections many of which are trivial, or should I say frivolous. They disrupt the defense and make them appear inept before the jury.

Anyone who has expended even a little bit of time reviewing Larken's research, would quickly conclude, right or wrong, that he was sincere in his beliefs, and therefore, could not be guilty of willful failure to file. The government knew that and they knew the only way they could defeat Larken was by preventing Larken from exposing the jury to his well researched and documented beliefs. The government needed to prevent the jury from seeing Larken's report and video's which would have presented his position very clearly in a manner the jury could have understood. They also needed to assure they interfered with any attempt by Larken to present his research findings. They needed to assure Larken never found the traction he needed to present his findings in a manner the jury could comprehend.

And, so it is that the sole purpose for many of the government’s objections was to disrupt Larken's defense. The disruptive nature and intent of these objections is evidenced by the number of objections that were overruled by a prosecutorial friendly judge, a judge who raised more than one objection on behalf of the prosecution while never raising one for the defense. The transcript reveals this judge was working as part of the prosecutorial team with the judge himself raising objections on behalf of the prosecution. At the same time, he elected not to raise one objection on behalf of the defense.

We should also mention that Peter McCandless was going to testify about the responses they received from queries to H&R Block regarding section 861. The judge deemed that irrelevant. Yet, the prosecutor stated in his closing arguments to the jury that Larken’s questions regarding section 861 could have been answered if he had simply walked into any H&R Block. They included that assertion in their closing argument knowing full well that they had just succeeded in preventing Peter McCandless from testifying that he and Larken had done exactly that. Now, how despicable is that.

In the end, it is clear that the prosecutors with the help of the judge were successful at denying an inexperienced pro se litigant from presenting his case to the jury, and our government celebrates the wrongful conviction of yet another innocent man. This scenario plays out every day in our justice system, and it will continue to play out repeatedly as long as the citizens of this nation are content to sit back and watch without taking action.

Our judicial system has numerous victims, particularly among this nation's poor, who are never truly afforded the opportunity to present their case. Maybe it’s time we at least acknowledge what is happening in these courts. I’m sure the list of victims is enormous. The wrongful denial of freedom and the imprisonment of an innocent man for even one day is unacceptable.