Larken Rose and Double Standards

[Demosthenes]

-----Original Message-----
From: 861@mail-list.com [mailto:861@mail-list.com] On Behalf Of 861-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 8:08 AM
Subject: Double Standard

Double Standard

Sometimes prosecutors mistakenly prosecute innocent people. And
sometimes they INTENTIONALLY prosecute those they KNOW aren't
guilty. One indication of whether the latter is the case is how
many ways the prosecution lies and cheats in order to get a
conviction. Well, in my case, the number of ways they did it could
fill a book--and, in fact, DID fill a book, and a rather
substantial book at that.

In addition to lying, mischaracterizing facts, demonizing the
accused, and other dishonest tricks, unscrupulous prosecutors (like
the ones handling my case, Floyd Miller and Shawn Noud) also work
hard to make sure that no one is allowed to say the TRUTH in court,
as it may interfere with their lies.

At my trial, the government's entire case was that people OTHER
than me (federal bureaucrats and some lower court judges) had
asserted that my conclusions, or similar conclusions, were
incorrect. Therefore, the jury was supposed to assume that it was
literally IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe my conclusions, because some
people had "told" me that I was wrong. The first thing the
prosecutors said to the jury about me sums it up nicely:

“This is a case about a man who knew the law, who defied the law.
The defendant, Larken Rose, failed to file tax returns for five
years, even after receiving, time and time again, notice from the
IRS that he had a duty to file his return and pay taxes.”

So, according to them, it was impossible for me to believe in the
861 evidence, because other people had ASSERTED that I owed the
tax. Aside from the fundamental lunacy of that argument, there is
another problem with it: What about all the people who told me that
my conclusions were CORRECT? When several former IRS employees and
a former federal prosecutor, not to mention dozens of attorneys and
CPAs, "told" me I was RIGHT, didn't that count for anything?

Apparently not. At trial I was forbidden from talking about other
people, including people who had been feds, AGREEING with my
conclusions, and forbidden from playing recordings of radio shows
on which I appeared with such people. Why? Because, accordingly to
Judge Michael Baylson, “what other people believe is not relevant
as to the defendant’s willfulness.” I guess what he meant was that
it's irrelevant when other people AGREE with me, but perfectly
relevant when people DISAGREE with me--which was the government's
ENTIRE case. So, you see, when someone from the IRS says "You're
wrong," that is somehow proof of my guilt, but when someone from
the IRS says "Holy smokes, you're RIGHT!," that's utterly
irrelevant and the jury shouldn't be allowed to hear about it.

And then, as if that double standard wasn't patently absurd enough,
the prosecution used the opportunity to deceive the jury even more.
For example, the lead prosecutor in my case, Floyd Miller, whined
to the jury that I thought I was the “only person in the
continental [huh?] United States who has ever made an accurate
determination of what is in the Internal Revenue Code.” So, after
making sure I wasn't ALLOWED to talk about all the people who had
agreed with my conclusions, he implied that NO ONE agreed with
them, and that I was the only one who held those beliefs. (He also
ignored the fact that I had already repeatedly testified that I'm
not even the one who "discovered" the 861 evidence.)

This pattern of suppressing evidence, and then using the lack of
evidence as proof of something, continued throughout the trial. For
example, I was also forbidden from talking about the campaign we
did targeting around 600 H&R Block offices with questions about the
861 evidence. I called Peter McCandless as a witness to talk about
that, since he had organized the campaign, but he wasn't allowed to
discuss what we had asked, or what the response (or lack of
response) was.

And then Floyd Miller, that paragon of dishonesty, made it a point
to stress to the jury how, though they heard me talking about
reading the law and stuff, they never heard me say “that I went to
an accountant, or a tax lawyer, or H&R Block for that matter, here
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to test the validity of my
beliefs. Not once.” Yeah, they never heard me say that, because,
with the help of the judge, Mr. Miller had made sure that I wasn't
ALLOWED to say that. So the DOJ suppressed exculpatory evidence,
and then cited the LACK of that evidence as proof of my guilt.
Sound fair?

(For the whole story in all its gruesome detail, pre-order your
copy of "Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic)" by
sending $22 to the address below, or by ordering online at
<http://www.kickingthedragon.com>. Once the books are available,
probably in the first week of June, orders will be filled in the
order they were received.)

Sincerely,


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

[Demosthenes]

Now let's take a look at what Larken filed in court just prior to his sentencing.

Since his conviction, heeding this Court’s admonition, Mr. Rose has taken irreversible steps to change his conduct in relation to the income tax -- both his personal behavior and his interactions with others. He and his wife have prepared and submitted joint tax returns not only for the five years of conviction but also for the one prior and two subsequent years
of "relevant conduct." They have made a very substantial payment (the full amount of the PSI's estimate of "tax loss") and expect to pay at least the principal balance very shortly. While Mr. Rose is not convinced he was "wrong" in his amateur legal analysis of the tax code, he is convinced he was wrong in his tactics and conduct. Having come to this realization only
after trial, it is of course too late to avoid entirely the consequences of his past choices. As a result, he faces sentencing on five misdemeanor counts.

[Imalawman]

At least Larkin is moving on with his life and isn't bitter at all.

[Joey Smith]

Larken was never anything more or less than a loser who jumped on a chance to "be somebody" even if a snake-oil peddling scam artist. Now that he has gone back to being a nobody that even the militia kooks quit listening to, it is no wonder that he is bitter.

[Dr. Caligari]

Did Larken ever pursue an appeal of his conviction?
If what he says is true-- and given Larken's track record, I am not inclined to believe him-- he has good grounds for an appeal.

[LPC]

Did Larken ever pursue an appeal of his conviction?
If what he says is true-- and given Larken's track record, I am not inclined to believe him-- he has good grounds for an appeal.

Larken's appeal is still pending in the 3rd Circuit.

I don't know the grounds for the appeal.

[Dr. Caligari]

Did he appeal pro se or use a lawyer?

[Demosthenes]

He's using a real lawyer.

LARKEN ROSE
Defendant - Appellant

Peter Goldberger, Esq.
Direct: 610-649-8200
Fax: 610-649-8362
[COR NTC Retained]
Law Office of Peter Goldberger
50 Rittenhouse Place
Ardmore, PA 19003-2276

[Demosthenes]

The appellate docket.

11/29/2005 Criminal Case Docketed. Notice filed by Larken Rose.
11/30/2005 MOTION by Appellant for release pending appeal, with emergency request for one-judge stay if no decision before 12/5/05, is feasible, filed. Answer due . Certificate of Service dated 11/30/05.
12/01/2005 RESPONSE by USA to motion by Appellant for bail pending appeal, filed. Certificate of Service dated 12/1/05.
12/02/2005 ORDER (Fuentes, Authoring Judge and Greenberg, Circuit Judges) denying motion for release pending appeal by Appellant Larken Rose, filed. E-11-E
12/02/2005 Certified copy of order to Lower Court.
12/02/2005 Reply by Appellant to Appellee's response to motion for release pending appeal filed by Appellant, filed. Certificate of service dated 12/1/05.
12/02/2005 MOTION by Appellant to reconsider Court's Order dated 12/2/05, filed. Answer due 12/16/05. Certificate of Service dated 12/1/05.
12/06/2005 RESPONSE filed by USA to Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Release pending Appeal. Certificate of Service dated 12/6/05.
12/06/2005 Notice received from district court that the docketing and filing fees have been paid by the appellant on 11/30/05.
12/07/2005 RESPONSE by Appellant to Government's reponse to motion for reconsideration of court's order of 12/2/05, filed. Certificate of service dated 12/6/05 .
12/07/2005 ORDER (Fuentes, Authoring Judge and Greenberg, Circuit Judges) denying motion by appellant for reconsideration of this Court's order of 12/5/05, filed. E-11-E
12/13/2005 APPEARANCE from Attorney Peter Goldberger on behalf of Appellant Larken Rose, filed.
12/13/2005 INFORMATION STATEMENT on behalf of Appellant Larken Rose, received.
12/13/2005 TRANSCRIPT PURCHASE ORDER (Part I), ordering a transcript of the proceedings, filed.
12/15/2005 APPEARANCE from Attorneys Floyd J. Miller and Robert A. Zauzmer on behalf of Appellee USA, filed.
12/16/2005 ORDER to David Hayes directing transcript, ordered on 12/12/05, to be filed by 1/17/06, filed.
12/30/2005 TRANSCRIPT PURCHASE ORDER (Part II) filed by David Hayes, filed.
02/22/2006 TRANSCRIPT PURCHASE ORDER (Part III) notifying transcript by David Hayes filed in D.C., filed.
03/08/2006 CERTIFIED LIST filed.
03/08/2006 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Appellant brief and appendix due 4/7/06. VACATED PER CLERK"S ORDER OF 5/1/06
04/10/2006 MOTION by Appellant to Suspend the Briefing Schedule pending Production of Additional Transcript, filed. Answer due 4/21/06. Certificate of Service dated 4/6/06.
04/19/2006 TRANSCRIPT PURCHASE ORDER (Part I), ordering a transcript of the proceedings, filed.
04/20/2006 TRANSCRIPT PURCHASE ORDER (Part II) filed by Diana Doman Trans, filed.
05/01/2006 Letter dated 4/18/06 construed as supplement to motion by appellant to suspend the breifing schedule pending production of additional transcript, filed.
05/01/2006 ORDER to Diana Doman Trans directing transcript, ordered on 4/18/06, to be filed by 5/22/06, filed.
05/01/2006 ORDER (Clerk) granting appellant's requests with supplement to suspend briefing schedule construed as a motion to vacate the briefing schedule. The Clerk will issue a new briefing schedule when all of the requested transcripts have been filed in the District Court, filed.
05/24/2006 TRANSCRIPT PURCHASE ORDER (Part III) notifying transcript by Diana Doman Trans filed in D.C., filed.
06/05/2006 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Appellant brief and appendix due 7/5/06.
07/05/2006 MOTION by Appellant for extension of time to file brief and appendix until 8/16/06, filed. Answer due 8/20/06. Certificate of Service dated 7/5/06.
07/12/2006 ORDER (Clerk) granting motion to extend time to file brief and appendix by Appellant Larken Rose. Appellant's brief and appendix shallbe filed and served on or before 8/16/06, filed.
08/21/2006 Second Motion by Appellant for extension of time to file brief and joint appendix until 9/15/06, filed. Answer due 8/28/06. Certificate of Service dated 8/15/06.
08/23/2006 ORDER (Clerk) granting second motion to extend time to file brief and appendix by Appellant Larken Rose. Appellant's brief and appendix shall be filed and served on or before 9/15/06. No further extensions will be granted, filed.
09/25/2006 PRESENTENCE REPORT and STATEMENT OF REASONS (4 ccs), received. [UNDER SEAL] SEND TO MERITS PANEL
09/26/2006 HARD COPY RECEIVED from Appellant Larken Rose submitting 10ccs of brief with volume 1 of the appendix attached.
09/26/2006 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Appellant Larken Rose to file brief and appendix out of time and overlength brief (contains 18,051 words), filed. Answer due 10/10/06. Certificate of Service dated 9/26/06.
10/03/2006 ORDER (Clerk) referring to a motions panel unopposed motion by Appellant for Leave to File Brief and Appendix Out of Time and for Leave to File Overlength Brief Containing 18,051 Words, filed.
10/05/2006 ORDER (Fisher, Authoring Judge) granting unopposed motions by Appellant for Leave to File Brief and Appendix Out of Time and to File Overlength Brief containing 18,051 words, filed. ACO-2
10/05/2006 ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Appellant Larken Rose, Copies: 1, Pages: 68, Word Count: 18,051, delivered by mail, filed. Certificate of service date 9/26/06.
10/05/2006 APPENDIX on behalf of Appellant Larken Rose, Copies: 4, Volumes: 3 (volume 1 of the appendix attached to brief), Delivered by mail, filed. Certificate of service date 9/26/06.
10/17/2006 Unopposed motion by Appellee for 60 day extension of time to file brief, filed. Answer due 10/30/06. Certificate of Service dated 10/16/06.
10/19/2006 ORDER (Clerk) granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief by Appellee USA. Appellee's Brief shall be filed and served on or before 12/26/06. No further extensions will be granted, filed.
12/27/2006 HARD COPY RECEIVED of brief from Appellee USA, Copies: 10.
12/27/2006 MOTION by Appellee USA for leave to file brief in excess of word limit of 20,363 words, filed. Answer due 1/11/07. Certificate of Service dated 12/26/06.
01/18/2007 ORDER (Clerk) referring to a motions panel motion by Appellee for leave to file overlength brief containing 20,363 words, filed.
01/19/2007 ORDER (Jordan, Authoring Judge) granting motion by Appellee USA for leave to file overlength brief containing 20,363 words, filed. CCO-52
01/19/2007 ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Appellee USA, Copies: 1, Pages: 108, Word Count: 20,363, delivered by mail, filed. Certificate of service date 12/26/06.
02/14/2007 HARD COPY RECEIVED of reply brief from Appellant, Copies: 10.
02/14/2007 MOTION by Appellant for leave to file reply brief out of time and for leave to file overlength reply brief containing 7,854 words, filed. Answer due 3/1/07. Certificate of Service dated 2/13/07.
02/27/2007 ORDER (Clerk) granting motion by Appellant for leave to file reply brief out of time and containing 7,854 words with filing as of the date of this Order, filed.
02/27/2007 ELECTRONIC REPLY BRIEF on behalf of Appellant, Copies: 1. Delivered by mail, filed. Certificate of service date 2/13/07.
05/31/2007 CALENDARED for Thursday, September 27, 2007 in Wilmington, DE. (Rescheduled from Tuesday, September 25, 2007 in Wilmington, DE.)
09/06/2007 LETTER dated 9/4/07 filed pursuant to Rule 28(j) from counsel for Appellant. SEND TO MERITS PANEL
09/13/2007 MOTION by Appellant for reconsideration of panel determination to take case on submission, filed. Answer due 9/27/07. Certificate of Service dated 9/12/07.
09/13/2007 ORDER (Ambro, Authoring Judge, Jordan and Roth, Circuit Judges) motion by appellant for reconsideration of panel determination to take case on submission is granted in part and denied in part. Oral argument will be scheduled for Thursday, September 27, 2007. Argument shall be limited to issues regarding the motion to suppress. In all other respects the motion is denied, filed.
09/17/2007 APPEARANCE from Attorney Peter D. Hardy on behalf of Appellee USA, filed.
09/24/2007 CLERK'S LETTER to counsel written at the direction of the Court, counsel is advised to be prepared at oral argument to discuss whether the Court is to apply waiver or plain error review when a criminal defendant raises an argument for suppression of evidence for the first time on appeal. The parties should include a discussion of the effect, if any, of our Court's decision in United States v. Yeager, 448 F.2D 74, 84 & n.7 (3rd Cir. 1971), filed.
09/25/2007 Letter dated 9/24/07, received from Peter Goldberger, Esq., counsel for Appellant submitting a letter in response to he Court's letter of 9/24/07, requesting counsel to be prepared at oral argument to discuss various issues, filed. (Please see letter for further information.)
09/25/2007 Letter dated 9/25/07 from Appellee USA of Exhibit 1A that was not in its brief, filed. Certificate of Service 9/25/07.
09/27/2007 ARGUED Thursday, September 27, 2007 Panel: Ambro, Jordan and Roth, Circuit Judges. Counsel for Appellant: Peter Goldberger and Counsel for Appellee: Peter D. Hardy
10/01/2007 COURT RESPONSE REQUEST AT ORAL ARGUMENT. Court directs counsel to file a transcript of oral argument. Government should cover the costs. Response due by 10/15/07.
10/10/2007 Letter dated 10/8/07 from Counsel for Appellant concerning statement made at oral argument, filed. Certificate of Service 10/8/07.
10/10/2007 Copy of transcript of tape of oral argument on Thursday, September 27, 2007 received from Peter D. Hardy, Esq., counsel for Appellee on behalf of all parties prepared at the direction of the Court.

[Imalawman]

He's using a real lawyer.

LARKEN ROSE
Defendant - Appellant

Peter Goldberger, Esq.
Direct: 610-649-8200
Fax: 610-649-8362
[COR NTC Retained]
Law Office of Peter Goldberger
50 Rittenhouse Place
Ardmore, PA 19003-2276

How can he afford a real lawyer to do a tax appeal?

[grixit]

Doesn't he know that you can't get justice with someone who's got "esq." in their name?

Also, since when are briefs measured in cubic centimeters.

[Quixote]

Also, since when are briefs measured in cubic centimeters.

Even Ken's briefs are larger than 4cc's and he has no genitalia.

[webhick]

Also, since when are briefs measured in cubic centimeters.

Even Ken's briefs are larger than 4cc's and he has no genitalia.

I just got this weird image of a grown man stripping a Ken doll down to his undies and abusing the little plastic man with a tape measure.

[LPC]

I don't think I've seen so much spinning since I saw "The Exorcist."

At my trial, the government's entire case was that people OTHER than me (federal bureaucrats and some lower court judges) had asserted that my conclusions, or similar conclusions, were incorrect.

That's not accurate.

What the government showed was that "federal bureaucrats and some lower court judges" had "asserted" to LARKEN ROSE that he was wrong. They didn't just "assert" into the air, or into the abstract, but they told him.

The government showed that LR was told he was wrong by knowledgeable people, and so he had reason to know that he was wrong.

What about all the people who told me that my conclusions were CORRECT? When several former IRS employees and a former federal prosecutor, not to mention dozens of attorneys and CPAs, "told" me I was RIGHT, didn't that count for anything?

What's with the quotation marks around "told"? Either they told him, or they didn't tell him. What does it mean that they "told" him?

Answer: He's lying. If he had evidence that "dozens of attorneys and CPAs had told him he was right, he could have introduced that into evidence. If he had published articles that he relied on to form his beliefs, he could have introduced those into evidence.

The judge was (in my opinion) quite liberal in allowing him to introduce into evidence a copy of every statute, regulation, or court decision that was both relevant to his beliefs and which he said he relied on.

So who "told" [sic] him he was right?

The only witnesses Rose called at trial (other than himself) were Peter McCandless and Thomas Clayton, neither of whom is a lawyer or CPA, and they were there to testify to what Rose told them, and not they told Rose (which was not allowed).

At trial I was forbidden from talking about other people, including people who had been feds, AGREEING with my conclusions, and forbidden from playing recordings of radio shows on which I appeared with such people. Why? Because, accordingly to Judge Michael Baylson, “what other people believe is not relevant as to the defendant’s willfulness.”

The opinions of other people are irrelevant unless Rose lays a foundation by saying that he knew about their opinions *before* he decided not to file tax returns, and that he relied on their opinions in deciding not to file tax returns.

Otherwise, Rose is playing his usual game of wanting to argue the law to the jury.

And then Floyd Miller, that paragon of dishonesty, made it a point to stress to the jury how, though they heard me talking about reading the law and stuff, they never heard me say “that I went to an accountant, or a tax lawyer, or H&R Block for that matter, here in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to test the validity of my beliefs. Not once.” Yeah, they never heard me say that, because, with the help of the judge, Mr. Miller had made sure that I wasn't ALLOWED to say that.

I'm quite sure that, if Rose ever went to a lawyer or accountant, they told him he was wrong. If Rose ever offered any such testimony, it was only so that he could present to the jury his conversations with the lawyer or accountant so that he can tell the jury why the lawyer/accountant was wrong.

If Rose had exculpatory evidence, he could have presented it. But all he really wanted to do was find some way to present his arguments about the law to the jury, and the judge wouldn't allow that.

(For the whole story in all its gruesome detail, pre-order your copy of "Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic)" by sending $22 to the address below,

And now all he wants to do is sell his book.

[Paul]

(For the whole story in all its gruesome detail, pre-order your copy of "Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic)" by sending $22 to the address below,

Pre-order?!?!? You mean it isn't even published yet? I haven't even pre-ordered Demo's [alleged] book yet. Why would I pre-order something from a con artist like Rosie?

Come to think of it, if I pre-order, I might actually learn something valuable -- but only if I never get the book. In that case, I will have learned an object lesson about fronting money on the word of a con-man. If I get the book, I won't learn anything because I'll read it only for the unintended humor.