Larken Rose Q

[AFTP]

From his latest:

“You see, while the IRS employees were allowed to
inaccurately testify about what happened at the meetings, I was NOT
allowed to show the jury the actual transcripts, or play the actual
recordings of those meetings.”

I’m curious as to why someone who has a transcript/ recording cannot enter it as evidence. Wouldn’t the IRS be able to do that?

[LPC]

Two possible evidentiary objections to a transcript/recording might be relevance and hearsay.

[webhick]

Perhaps it was a dual-party state and the recordings were done without the consent of both parties and the transcripts were of the recordings. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that would make both the recordings and the transcripts inadmissible.

[The Observer]

Perhaps it was a dual-party state and the recordings were done without the consent of both parties and the transcripts were of the recordings. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that would make both the recordings and the transcripts inadmissible.

I don't know what "meetings" to which Larken is referring ; if they happen to be meetings with IRS employees to discuss Larken's tax issues, any tape recordings or transcripts conducted in those meetings have to have the knowledge and approval of both parties.

[LPC]

I pulled up Larken's complete missive to get the context, and I think that the judge didn't allow Larken to play the tape or read the transcript into the record for the simple reason that it wasn't relevant to any issue in the case.

(KTD) Persuasive Argument?

Time for another tidbit from my newly-released book, "Kicking the Dragon."

When I was tried for "willful failure to file," the ONLY thing the jury needed to decide was whether I BELIEVED that my income was taxable (and therefore believed I that was required to file tax returns). If I believed I wasn't required to file, there was no crime, whether I was right or not, because of the "willfulness" issue. So the government had the burden of proving that I BELIEVED that I owed the tax.

Well, the government's entire case consisted of saying that federal paper-pushers had TOLD me that I owed the tax. But how can their words possibly prove what I believe? They can't, obviously, but that wasn't the half of it. At the trial, two of the government's main witnesses testified about administrative meetings they had with me, at which I explained my position and asked them to tell me on which points they disagreed. The government wanted the jury to
hear that these people had "told" me that my position was incorrect, and that my income was taxable. However, on cross-examination, the government's witnesses admitted that:

1) They never quoted anything from the law supporting their position.
2) I quoted lots of statutes and regulations supporting mine.
3) They were not familiar with the sections of law I showed them.
4) They could not answer my questions about the proper application of the law.
5) They could not decide the specifics of their OWN position regarding 861.
6) They said they would get back to me (and never did).

(At Tessa's trial, one of the IRS agents even admitted that she found MY position "somewhat persuasive." I can't return the compliment.)

So should that have convinced me that my conclusions were wrong? At the meeting, after carefully explaining my position, providing numerous supporting citations at every step, should I have been persuaded by such a display of ignorance, uncertainty, and evasion? Well, as it happens, at the meeting I asked the IRS agents exactly that, and here is what happened (from the transcript of the meeting):

Me: “You personally have had my [Taxable Income] report for weeks. The Service has had my report for more than a year. This argument has been around for several years. And, as I understand it, there are special sections of the IRS devoted to trying to come up with a
response to this. Now, you’re implying that I owe you something and that I have some requirement to file, and in your letter you even mentioned that you were gonna ask me to file later returns. Is this really what’s supposed to persuade me here?”
Cathy Spaulding (IRS): “No.”
Me: “Am I supposed to be persuaded by this?”
Cathy Spaulding (IRS): “No, we’re not saying you’re supposed to be persuaded.”

How nice of them to admit that they didn't expect their bungling incompetence to persuade me. And what do you think the jury at my trial thought when they saw that?

Well, the jury never saw that quote, nor did they hear the audio-recording of it. You see, while the IRS employees were allowed to inaccurately testify about what happened at the meetings, I was NOT allowed to show the jury the actual transcripts, or play the actual
recordings of those meetings. (This was despite the fact that no one was disputing the authenticity of either.) So the jury never saw or heard the IRS employees admitting that even THEY didn't think that their uncertain, evasive yammerings should have convinced me that I was wrong. And yet the government's entire "proof" of my crime was that such clueless bureaucrats had ASSERTED that I was wrong, so how could I possibly believe otherwise?

I'll be sharing more tidbits of the surreal tale in the coming days. For the whole story, order your own copy of "Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic)," via mail at the address
below (cost is $22, including shipping and handling), or online at http://www.kickingthedragon.com

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

The quoted language, which is apparently what Larken wanted the jury to know about, is simply irrelevant.

And Larken claims that the testimony of the IRS was "inaccurate" but fails to provide a single example.

What's really going on here is that Larken wanted to debate the law with the IRS, and the IRS didn't want to play that game with him. Then, at his trial, Larken wanted to replay the debate to the jury, and the judge wouldn't let him do that either.

And the jury reached the correct verdict, which is that Larken is an obstinate jerk.

[LPC]

Larken's blurb about his book, "Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic)":

Kicking the Dragon
(Confessions of a Tax Heretic)

Conventional wisdom said he was wrong.
The evidence said he was right.
The government’s reaction to him said a whole lot more.

If you think there’s no such thing as a political prisoner in the United States, think again. Larken Rose spent a year in prison, not for hurting anyone, not for lying about anything, not for hiding anything, not for cheating or stealing, but simply for voicing an opinion which those in positions of power didn’t approve of.


The book which chronicles the eight year saga of this “tax heretic” lays out in detail the sometimes amusing, sometimes infuriating tale of a modern-day witch-hunt, a corrupt and dishonest government bent on harassing, demonizing, persecuting, silencing and imprisoning those who publicly question the gospel according to the powers that be. The disturbing facts of the case pull back the facade of “due process” and the “rule of law” to reveal the United States government for what it has devolved into: a gang of lawless criminals interested only in preserving their own power by any means necessary.

Written almost entirely in prison, Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic) exposes truths about the United States federal government which will disturb every decent American, from the most devoted, patriotic flag-waver, to the most apathetic, jaded cynic.

The government has gone to great lengths to keep you from hearing the truth about this story, for reasons which the tale itself makes obvious. Get your copy now before the powers that be come up with some new legal excuse for suppressing the truth.

[darling]

And Larken claims that the testimony of the IRS was "inaccurate" but fails to provide a single example.

Probably because there isn't one.
If the IRS testimony was inaccurate, then transcripts/recording excerpts would be admissible for the purposes of impeachment.

[webhick]

Get your copy now before the powers that be come up with some new legal excuse for suppressing the truth.

I suppose this means that the government is going to have to find some legal excuse to suppress the "Larken Rose spent a year in prison" and possibly "If you think there’s no such thing as a political prisoner in the United States, think again." since those appear to be the only facts in the entire blurb. Okay, maybe the part about the book being written almost entirely in prison, too.

[Dezcad]

And the jury reached the correct verdict......

They most definitely did.

So is Larken not arguing that his 861 position is right, just that he was dumb enough to believe it .

And Larken is wrong when he says:

the ONLY thing the jury needed to decide was whether I BELIEVED that my income was taxable

NO, the jury had to find that Mulletboy, had a "genuine, good faith belief" (as stated in Cheek) but the jury saw through MB's BS about his beliefs. And that is what he fails to comprehend.

[Demosthenes]

the jury saw through MB's BS about his beliefs.

All the jury needed to see and hear was the letter Larken wrote to the Montana Militia, offering to join forces to destroy the US government.

[Cpt Banjo]

NO, the jury had to find that Mulletboy, had a "genuine, good faith belief" (as stated in Cheek) but the jury saw through MB's BS about his beliefs. And that is what he fails to comprehend.

Rose is a anarchic con artist who is looking for some new marks whom he can separate from their money by selling his book. I think he comprehends full well that the jury didn't buy his BS, but he's not about to tell that to the potential suckers.

[Dezcad]

NO, the jury had to find that Mulletboy, had a "genuine, good faith belief" (as stated in Cheek) but the jury saw through MB's BS about his beliefs. And that is what he fails to comprehend.

Rose is a anarchic con artist who is looking for some new marks whom he can separate from their money by selling his book. I think he comprehends full well that the jury didn't buy his BS, but he's not about to tell that to the potential suckers.

Point well taken.