Saturday, August 13, 2005

A Funny Thing Happened...

...during the week of the Larken Rose trial. The statists and the Tax Honesty Movement held their breath. Really! I usually get 100-120 messages a day from various tax forums. It went down to about 20 a day for the entire week. And when the week was through and the verdict announced, the tax fraudsters, like those over at Quatloos, were the same miserable miscreants that they were before the trial started and the Tax Honesty Movement gained strength and resolve from the experience.

Larken Rose is a hero, albeit an unlikely one. But aren't those the best kind? The stuff of legend? Don't take my word for it. Go to Doug Kenline's blog and see some of the comments people have made. Then go to the Trial Logs blog and read the comments there. What you will find are sentiments of undying support for Larken and Tessa.

Mixed in you will find snide little reminders of the lowlifes of humanity. Most of them are from tax industry specialists (yes, people who make money off of taxes; go figure) over at Quatloos ( I won't provide link, go look it up). These people have nothing better to say than personal attacks on Larken and people they disagree with in general. No comment on how professional or expert the prosecutor was (he wasn't). No word of the great fairness provided by the judge (he didn't). Just sick jokes about prison sex and incredible cries for us to just go along to get along. Pitiful.

But all of their taunts ring hollow, like a schoolyard bully trying to recover from getting popped in the mouth by one of his victims. He hadn't expected it and now he is not so sure of himself. You will find no intellectual debate on the merits of the case or the arguments made in court, from these people. You will only find the repeating mantra of "Do it because we say to do it." They say Tax Protestors are nuts, forgetting the fact that all of the founding fathers were Tax Protestors. If the choice is to be compared with people like those on Quatloos or the people who brought forth a grand experiment in freedom, I'll take the later, thank your very much.

Larken is home now. He sent the following email out...

As I'm sure most of you have heard by now, I was convicted on Friday of
five misdemeanor counts of "willful failure to file." I'm at home, with a
new federally-funded piece of fashionable jewelry (ankle bracelet).
Sentencing happens November 15.

I'm obviously not happy about being convicted, but I am more upset at the
missed opportunity. As I've said all along, my goal was not to avoid
trouble (obviously), but to expose what I believe is a monumental fraud.
Becaue of that, I had to do things the way I did (pro se, not looking for
procedural solutions, etc.), which put me at an even greater disadvantage.
An acquittal would have gotten public attention which would have helped a
lot. But it wasn't to be.

I'm sure a bunch of people who were there (and we packed the room) will be
giving their accounts of what occurred at the trial. Right now, as you
can probably imagine, I have a lot of things to take care of, so I'll cut
this message short. For now I'll just add this: I'm proud that I told the
truth, and stood up against a fraud. And of course, I'm upset that this
time around, doing the right thing didn't seem to accomplish much. But
hey, no one said resisting tyranny was easy.

Eventually I believe the audio recording of the entire trial will be
available. In my closing I explained how this trial was simply a really
big "baseball bat" designed to intimidate me into LYING about my beliefs
(i.e. "confessing" I owe the tax, when I know that I don't). I find it
sad that our "public servants" seem to think "government-via-baseball-bat"
is perfectly legitimate. Apparently the jury thought so too.


Larken Rose

What a guy!!! What a hero!!! And don't you believe this is over either...

Ken Evans, who attended the trial and provided comment at Trial Logs, sent out the following press release today...


For more information contact:

Ken Evans
873 East Baltimore Pike #464

Kennett Square, Pennsylvania



For release: August 13, 2005

The Truth About The Trial of Larken Rose


The trial of Larken Rose concluded on August 12, 2005 and its resulting guilty verdict prove one thing very clearly … the depths to which some individuals in our own government have sunk and the lengths to which those individuals will go to keep Americans from learning the truth about the misapplication of the federal income tax code.

Consider the following:

During a pre-trial hearing dealing with what evidence could be admitted at trial, presiding Judge Michael Baylson made clear that Mr. Rose’s political views are irrelevant and not to be discussed. Yet, what did lead prosecuting attorney, Floyd Miller, repeat throughout the trial and focus on during his final statement? He emphasized nothing greater than Mr. Rose’s political views.

The judge also made an interesting ‘about face’ from the beginning to the end of the trial. On the first day of proceedings, while explaining to the jury that they should not read anything about the case outside the courtroom, Judge Baylson stated, “It’s unlikely that you’ll hear anything about this trial on the TV or in the news.” However, during his concluding statement while thanking the jury he stated, with emphasis, “This was a very important case for the government.” He then paused and almost as an afterthought added, “and also for Mr. Rose.”

If the Judge knew that this case was of massive importance to the government, why would he assume at the outset that it wouldn’t be widely reported by the TV or news? And interesting contradiction, don't you think?

Even more disturbing was the fact that prior to the defendant and the public being informed of the verdict, a New York Times reporter, David Cay Johnson, long known to misrepresent the underlying facts of this issue, was personally escorted by the Courtroom Deputy to do a private interview with the two alternate jurors behind the locked doors of the courtroom.

How was this special treatment obtained by Mr. Johnson, who was not observed at the trial prior to its final day? What was discussed during this restricted rendezvous? No mention of this meeting occurs in Mr. Johnson’s article which was published in today’s New York Times.

Why also, after permitting the New York Times reporter to do a private interview, did the judge attempt to prohibit anyone else from speaking with the jurors by sealing the courtroom for several minutes after the verdict, effectively holding the entire remaining gallery captive while the jury was allowed to scurry out of the building?

Those that attended the trial know that several IRS agents attempted to portray the proper application of Section 861 on the witness stand as nothing more than a section of law by which ‘wealthy individuals’ who have both foreign and domestic income avoid double taxation. In spite of the fact that the title of Section 861 is "Income from Sources Within the United States." In contrast, the New York Times article published today by Mr. Johnson claims the exact opposite. Mr. Johnson claims that Section 861 itself shows the wages of the average American to be taxable. It is impossible for both of these claims to be correct and further demonstrates the deliberate obfuscation surrounding the proper application of this section of law.

The prosecution's witnesses made other deliberate misrepresentations during the trial. The worst of which was the claim that every court that has examined the issue of the proper application of Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code has found claims related to its application to be frivolous. This was repeated by the judge himself. The opposing reality is that there has not yet been one single federal court ruling to correctly characterize the position taken by Mr. Rose. In previous cases, either the legal argument was incorrectly presented, deliberately mischaracterized by the government, or utterly ignored by the courts.

The most blatant case of court's refusing to address the issue when properly presented is the refund lawsuit brought by the author of this article. In 2003, a refund lawsuit was brought wherein the proper application of Section 861 was the primary issue of contention. Not only did the court refuse to address it, but the Department of Justice, representing the government, disobeyed a direct instruction from the court to answer Interrogatories that would have gotten to the very heart of the matter. Even more unsettling is that a Motion to Compel answers to those Interrogatories was filed but never showed up on the court docket. It mysteriously disappeared from existence!

If ever there were an opportunity for the federal judiciary or the Department of Justice to demonstrate any alleged fallacy of The 861 Evidence, this was it. But attorneys for the Department of Justice along with a federal judge himself simply could not do so.

True Americans recognize the tribute due Mr. Rose, who, like John Hancock before him pledged his life, his fortune and his sacred honor in defiance of tyranny and deliberately drew the ire of the ‘powers that be’ so that all could be free. While the document to which John Hancock boldly signed his name is revered throughout America, Mr. Rose's "Declaration," namely his "Please Prosecute Me" challenge, was disallowed into evidence as hearsay. It is a bitter irony, that Mr. Rose has been persecuted and unjustly convicted for trying to defend the rights of the very jurors who decided his case.

The unfortunate and incorrect verdict in this case, while devastating to the personal life of Mr. Rose, will do nothing to change the underlying truth that the Internal Revenue Code and its Regulations hold the disturbing truth of the greatest financial fraud in history. These are discussed in detail at and .

So a Funny thing happend on the way to tyranny,... it seems that there are a few more stones in the road than the tyrants had thought. And some of them are mighty big stones, indeed.

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."
-- James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788


Post a Comment

<< Home