"A good faith belief..."

[Florida]

"That's not something the government had to prove as an intent element" said Vermont Law School professor Michael Mello in the Concord Monitor regarding the Brown case, on the subject of "willfulness," and what can be allowed in. Some here have said Larken abandoned the 861 argument in favor of a "Cheek" defense. Seems to me he was simply cut off at the knees by the judge not allowing anything into evidence regarding state of mind. I recall that he (or the prosecutor) said since Larken (and presumable the Browns) at one time filed, that somehow "proves" he "knew " he had a "duty to file." As if new information never changed minds. I don't care if there is a case for not paying or not. What are the judges afraid of? Why can't the feds allow the 'willfulness' defense, deny the argument believed, and order back taxes paid plus interest? What's with the criminalizing? The Browns are psychos. They could be a threat to order, but Larken? HIS home was invaded, not theirs.

Criminalizing Shiminalizing. They should just slap them on the wrist just like anyone else who basically embezzles money. They should say, "ok andy, we caught ya, now be a good boy and give it back and don't let it happen again, k?"

That's certainly the deterrant effect we're looking for in society. Ever read some Benthem?

[Quixote]

Some here have said Larken abandoned the 861 argument in favor of a "Cheek" defense. Seems to me he was simply cut off at the knees by the judge not allowing anything into evidence regarding state of mind.

You seem to confusing two issues, arguing the law and arguing the facts. Larken did not use any if his three opportunities to argue the law. He was allowed to submit evidence on the factual issue of willfullness. Some evidence was excluded under the hearsay rules. For example, Larken wasn't allowed to submit the text of someting he had written, because he was right there in court to tell the jury about it.

[jg]

because he was right there in court to tell the jury about it.

So he didn't? Where is the transcript?

Rose doesn't have it posted?

[LPC]

Some here have said Larken abandoned the 861 argument in favor of a "Cheek" defense. Seems to me he was simply cut off at the knees by the judge not allowing anything into evidence regarding state of mind.

Bullshit.

I was there. Larken was allowed to introduce into evidence just about any statute or regulation that he said he relied on in forming his opinion. He was not allowed to introduce every Supreme Court opinion he requested because the judge ruled that some of them were clearly irrelevant to Larken's opinions.

More importantly, if the judge really did exclude relevant evidence, WHY DIDN'T LARKEN APPEAL?

I recall that he (or the prosecutor) said since Larken (and presumable the Browns) at one time filed, that somehow "proves" he "knew " he had a "duty to file." As if new information never changed minds.

Larken's previous returns were *ONE* piece of evidence that he knew he had an obligation to file. There were others.

There was testimony from IRS employees that they had met with Larken and told him that he needed to file.

There was also evidence that Larken had testified in other cases, and that those other cases had resulted in judgments against people who had filed to file.

Larken also admitted under oath that he was aware of cases in which judges had ruled against his position.

And there were also emails from Larken stating that he didn't care how judges ruled.

And so the jury (not the judge) decided, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Larken had failed to file tax returns even thought he *KNEW* that he was required to file.

I don't care if there is a case for not paying or not.

Neither did Larken. That's why he went to prison.

What are the judges afraid of?

What makes you think that judges are afraid of anything?

Why can't the feds allow the 'willfulness' defense,

They do. The government is required to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that the defendant voluntarily and consciously violated a legal duty that was known to the defendant. And the defendant is allowed to introduce evidence that he had a good faith belief that he was not required to file.

And when the government satisfies its burden of proof, and the defendant fails to refute that proof, then the jury convicts.

What's with the criminalizing?

Ask Congress.

[Joey Smith]

Why the criminalization? To prevent people from doing exactly what Larken did.

Don't like it? Think it is a bad policy decision? Don't complain here; contact your Congressperson.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Fuzzrabbit asks why the criminalization? Because no one likes cheaters and liars?

Been a long time since cheaters had their entire lives ruined... Guess the Old West still lives. Either that, or Rose's problem was that he wasn't on the "buddy list" for Ken Lay et al.

[wserra]

That is NOT the same as being able to show the letters, report,
video, web site, etc., that I wrote during the time period in
question, ALL of which was prohibited.

Rosie apparently whines that the judge used the Federal Rules of Evidence at his trial instead of the Rosie Rules of Evidence. That sort of stuff is called "hearsay" - an out of court statement introduced to prove the truth of what it asserts. No one gets to introduce it. If you want to get your story in front of the jury, you generally must testify, and be subject to cross-examination, not present yourself in letters, reports, videos, web sites or stained glass windows.

[Joey Smith]

How exactly can I demonstrate my state of mind at the time I didn't file, when I wasn't allowed to introduce ANYTHING I said, or wrote, at ANY time prior to the trial?

You get to testify live on the subject at trial. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, at the time that I filed I did not believe that I had an obligation to pay federal income taxes."

Of course, the jury is free to disbelieve you just like it is free to disbelieve any other witness. That is one of the things that really irks TPs -- juries only very rarely believe them.

[Demosthenes]

Poor Larken. He spent years writing stuff for the purpose of introducing it later in his defense at his own criminal trial, and never bothered to look up hearsay evidence rules.

[Duke2Earl]

Since when does a cheater ASK to be prosecuted?

Nobody said he was real smart. He was seemingly fool enough to think that the government would just go away when exposed to the full wonder of his bullcrap. He also predicted the end of the IRS. So What?

[Demosthenes]

If he wanted to test his theory in court, Larken could have sued in District Court. Instead, he took the cheater's way out.

[Nikki]

Duke:

So What?

So he was trying to right something he believes to be wrong. He wasn't "cheating." I'm not defending what he believes or even what he did. I just think people should characterize fairly.

No, he was trying (unsuccessfully) to evade taxes.

He had paid taxes for years and all of a sudden discovered the "861 theory" which others had propounded and followed with absolutely no success.

For some reason, Rose thought his twisting of the words would work. He even said "Please prosecute me."

When push came to shove, he was unable to convince a jury -- not even a single member of a jury -- that he really believed what he was saying.

[LPC]

> More importantly, if the judge really did exclude
> relevant evidence, WHY DIDN'T LARKEN APPEAL?

I did. We're waiting for the third circuit to get around to ruling
on it.

My mistake. I had forgotten that Larken had decided to serve his time while waiting for the appeal.

But now a new question has arisen. Why is "fuzzrabbit" writing about Larken Rose in the first person?

[Florida]

> More importantly, if the judge really did exclude
> relevant evidence, WHY DIDN'T LARKEN APPEAL?

I did. We're waiting for the third circuit to get around to ruling
on it.

My mistake. I had forgotten that Larken had decided to serve his time while waiting for the appeal.

But now a new question has arisen. Why is "fuzzrabbit" writing about Larken Rose in the first person?

because larken is fishing for help by posing as an innocent third party. that also explains why the postings from fuzz stopped while larken was locked up.

[Demosthenes]

None of which proves HE doesn't believe it, making him a "cheater." If all he wanted was to save cash, he would have flown under the radar.

No one said that was all he wanted. He wanted to save cash, and he wanted to bring down the US government, and he wanted to get rich doing so. That's why his letter to the Militia to Montana and comments about how much money he'd make off of people like you were so powerful to the jury. It exposed his true, and ugly, motives.

[LPC]

He doesn't believe there IS a tax.

That's what he *says* he believes, but there's good reason to believe he's lying.

One of the most damning pieces of evidence at trial was an email he sent to Clayton (his partner in selling the 861 video) in which he described *practicing* his speech to the jury. My recollection is that the email was sent *before* he was indicted, which demonstrates several different things:

1. He knew he was breaking the law and would be prosecuted;

2. He knew that the judge would rule against him on his legal theories, and that the case would go to a jury;

3. He knew that whether or not he would be convicted would depend on whether he could convince a jury of his sincerity.

Which is why he started learning to fake sincerity.

All of the stuff he wrote that he thinks he should have been allowed to introduce into evidence was just self-serving BS that he created in order to make it look like he believed something that he *knew* was a losing argument. He thought that, if he consistently told the same lie, the jury would ignore reality and believe that he believed the lie, but the jury had more sense than that.

[Demosthenes]

Why don't you and Demo think he believes them, and is simply wrong?

Because both LPC and I attended the trial. We heard what the jury heard and it was ugly.

[Duke2Earl]

I admit it.... criminals are not my favorite people. What seems to be missing here is these people broke the law and were convicted of crimes. They are criminals by definition.

[Imalawman]

Do you really think they would leave their families for jail if they didn't?

He really didn't have a choice in the matter once he was convicted. I think he's relatively unintelligent and supposed he would win. This was the only way to really start the big bucks from coming in. Plus his request to be prosecuted garnered him some degree of fame within the TP community. At some point, if you're going to be a TP guru, you've got to face trial. Larkin knew that and so he proceeded with his story that he believed his taxation theory. And maybe he did, partially, but the primary motivation was greed. As it is for 90% of the TPs out there.

[Demosthenes]

Demo,

Because both LPC and I attended the trial. We heard what the jury heard and it was ugly.

Ugly doesn't mean he's faking.

Twelve jurors disagree. The prosecution did a good job pointing out Larken's arrogance and greed.