Larken Rose Trial Coverage

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Judge ruled that tomorrow Larken can show at least 5 minutes of his video, without sound, but not at the same moment that he is talking about it.

That he can't show it when he talks about it makes sense, since the jury has the right to see it "for themselves" without commentary and then listen to Larken's commentary. But the "without sound" issue I don't get. Why?

I don't get it either. The not letting him speak when it is shown sounds good to me and fair, but to not let the video be plaid with the sound it was made with is beyond me. That part is certianly not fair and impartial. All in all what I am hearing is the judge has been fairer than most and Larken has done a good job with Larry Becraft's help. We will soon see if Larken prevails. It will go to the jury probably around 11 AM or so.

[Skeptic]

Does the video actually HAVE sound? Or maybe they don't know if the sound was not tampered with? I don't know.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Does the video actually HAVE sound? Or maybe they don't know if the sound was not tampered with? I don't know.

It most certainly has sound. I have a copy of it. Very well done. There are attorneys on it that back the info. I believe there is a former US Attorney that is on the video that backs the info presented, if I am not mistaken. Haven't watched it for awhile and may be wrong, but I do not think so.

[scottinalaska]

The way we see it, no sound is simply stupid placating. Hopefully AND prayerfully, the jury will see the silliness and unfairness of such a silent movie!
Maybe they will go out and get the video. The IRS grabbed up hundreds of them from THE SEIZURE. Funny, they only needed one for evidence, but took the whole stock and wouldn't return them for more than a year.
I prayed for Larken and Tess today. But I also prayed for the jury that their minds not be confounded by these vIpeRS.
May I exhort you all to do the same.
scottinalaska

any word today?

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by francis

any word today?

Larken Rose was found guilty on all of the govenments (5) charges.

Yes, this trial was very unfair, Rose could not even put the law into evidence, so that the jury could see it for themselves. as well as many other items that may have proved his case.

However, the jury must be in a coma not to see how there was no evidence against Rose Larken. The jury has a man's freedow under their power, yet, it seems that they don't need to see the "law" that he is accused of disobeying. I know that I would have a reasonable doubt in deciding any question regarding someone's freedom as it related to the "law", when the prosecution would not submit the "law" into evidence. What a disapointment!

http://triallogs.blogspot.com/

[David Merrill]

The judge's instructions were probably the equivalent of a coma.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The judge's instructions were probably the equivalent of a coma.

Yes, of course they were. Yet, the judge (or judge types) will say the jury could have disregarded the instructions if they thought them unfair. Or the judge will say that Larken Rose could have objected. However, the judge seem to routinely overrule Rose's objections in the latter part of the trial. However, it seems that the jury feel that they are only in the court room to rubber stamp what ever the judge and the government wants. The judge and the govenment (prosecutor) seem to work as a team, and many people feel comfortable with this situation.

I hope that Larken Rose will appeal this decision. Of course we see what happed to Richard Simkanin. I hope these issues are kept in the public arena, as much as possible anyway.

[suijuris]

Larken Rose was quoted as stating:

"Let?s start with the rules, I am charged with willful failure to file. This is true in ?98-?2002. ?.The judge, he and he alone can interpret the law. You have to abide by the judges instructions....

Although you are required to follow the law as the judge instructs you, you can consider what I believe the law to be. "

IMHO, he pretty much slit his throat in his opening arguements.

While I respect Rose for trying something most everyone said would fail, I am still shaking my head over his strategy. Wow!

i took time off work to sit in on the entire trial.

Rose turned out to be a cowardly piece of crap.

instead of trying to defend his 861 position, he ADMITTED it was wrong but argued he has a GOOD FAITH BELIEF that it was right at the time

He has no balls. he knew he was wrong and tried to convince the jury he was stupid enough to be able to ignore all the fasct that the IRS gave him.

i just hope he has made arrangements for some to take care of his daughter for the next 5 to 20 years.