Larken loses appeal

[Demosthenes]

-----Original Message-----
From: 861@mail-list.com [mailto:861@mail-list.com] On Behalf Of 861-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:46 PM
Subject: Par for the Course

Well, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has, at long last, ruled
on the appeal of my conviction. They have decided that the First,
Fourth and Sixth Amendments don't really mean what they say.
They've decided that it's perfectly okay for the feds to steal
every copy they can find of a perfectly legal video. They've
decided that it's perfectly okay for the feds to do a giant fishing
expedition, under the guise of a "search warrant," without
bothering to limit the search to evidence of supposed "crimes," and
without even alleging the existence of any evidence or information
not already in the government's possession. They've ruled that it's
perfectly okay, in a trial hinging entirely on a defendant's
beliefs, to prohibit the defendant from showing the jury anything
he ever said or wrote.

Am I surprised? No. The "referees" are all appointed and paid by
the other team. How fair and objective would anyone with a brain
expect them to be? It's nice timing, though. Since "Kicking the
Dragon" just came out, it makes a nice example of what a joke the
"justice" system is. Now people can read the whole ridiculous
story, and then say, "Wow, three appellate court judges thought all
of that was just fine." Like I've said before, control freaks
perform a very valuable service when they drop the facade of
fairness and justice, and expose themselves for the god-complex
crooks they are. That's all this ruling does.

It would have be nice to get my $10,000 fine back (especially right
now), but other than that, if I had won, all the government would
do is say, "Oops, you're not convicted after all; sorry we locked
you up for a year." I would get no compensation for that anyway. So
on a practical level, it doesn't make much difference for me. And
as a matter of exposing the fraud, it makes for another fine
addition to the already astounding array of examples of people in
power lying, cheating and stealing, ignoring the law, the truth,
and justice, in order to maintain their power. Par for the course.



Larken Rose
http://www.kickingthedragon.com

[Demosthenes]

The opinion:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/roseappeal.pdf

24 pages on whether evidence should have been supressed
0 pages about the tax laws

[Quixote]

Hey! Where's the real opinion? That one doesn't look anything like the decision Larkin described.

[Demosthenes]

if I had won, all the government would
do is say, "Oops, you're not convicted after all; sorry we locked
you up for a year." I would get no compensation for that anyway. So
on a practical level, it doesn't make much difference for me.

What a joke. If Larken had won his appeal, he'd be rich from all the marks looking to buy his program/book/videos about beating the big bad government.

Instead, his books aren't selling well.

[LPC]

Well, it's about f***ing time.

But the elitist, lah-ti-dah judges of the 3rd Circuit had to go off on a subtle procedural rule tangent that is totally lost on LR and his marks, while failing to give LR's substantive arguments the kiss of death that they deserve.

For example, consider footnote 3 on page 5:

Rose also argues that the District Court denied him a fair trial and that the prosecutor committed reversible error. We have considered these arguments, and conclude that they lack sufficient merit to require our addressing them in depth. As to the fair trial argument, we are satisfied that submission to the jury of allegedly inflammatory e-mail evidence was not plain error or an abuse of discretion, that the District Court did not err in excluding documentary, videotape, and testimonial evidence that Rose sought to introduce, and that the Court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury as to our decision in United States v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474 (3d Cir. 2005) (rejecting tax-evasive argument based on 26 U.S.C. § 861). As to prosecutorial misconduct, because Rose did not object before the District Court, we review for plain error, and the prosecutor’s comments fall well short of “egregious error or a manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Price, 76 F.3d 526, 530 (3d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Why didn't the Third Circuit just say, "Yeah, we know that Rose got railroaded, but have decided to look the other way, <wink> <wink>"?

Morons.

[Famspear]

A loony protester named Larken
To the genuine law would not harken.
Had he stayed on his toes,
He and sweet Tessa Rose
Could’ve spared themselves lives that were darkened.

[.]

Poor MulletBoy, he just can't get any respect.

The 3rd uses his lame appeal as an opportunity to clarify its position about procedure and devotes about 80% of its verbiage to that and dismisses him and his arguments along the way, as if he is some sort of afterthought.

Which he no doubt was, after they figured out what they really wanted to accomplish with this opinion. But, I agree with Dan. They should have taken the opportunity to rubbish MulletBoy's tax arguments. Probably could have been exquisitely well done in 50 words or less.

[Dezcad]

Although the opinion contains this:

instructing the jury as to our decision in United States v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474 (3d Cir. 2005) (rejecting tax-evasive argument based on 26 U.S.C. § 861).

I agree that the Court could have been stronger and more explicit in rebutting his 861 assertions. Couldn't they have thrown in "frivolous" or "patently meritless" as modifiers to the "861" assertions of Larken?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Awww, sorry Mullet Boy. Magic 8-ball already predicted this outcome.

You do not mess with the Magic 8-ball.

[notorial dissent]

I would have said barkin’ Larken had lost his appeal long before the courts got around to acknowledging it. Rather like three day old fish, you know?