Larken Rose Trial Coverage

[weishaupt1776]

Some friends & acquaintances of mine are covering the Larken Rose trial

Here's Day 1:


Larken Rose Trial Day 1, Monday August 8, 2005 This our first report, live, from the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in which the U.S. Government is prosecuting Larken Rose, a major proponent of the 861 issues about the Federal Income Tax. Since the courts do not allow audiotaping of court proceedings, our recollection of what takes place at the trial is the closest substitute that is immediately available. We will bring these e-mails to you every night, as long as the trial continues. Below is the cast of characters in this case: Judge is Michael Baylson who is a white man about 65 years old. Larken Rose, the defendant, is representing his own case, with the assistance of Attorney Larry BeCraft a 50-year-old freedom attorney with over 20 years of experience in Constitutional law practice and tax cases. Larken?s Technical assistant: Don Traub Prosecutor: Floyd Miller , DOJ Attorney Prosecutor: Sean Naud, DOJ Attorney IRS Special Agent: Donald Pearlman The jury was selected today and both sides were able to complete their opening statements as well. Here are the details: Trial started at 1:00 PM and we arrived at approx 1:45 PM. At that time the Judge (?J?, from now on) was questioning the jurors who knew someone in the criminal justice system or felt they could not be fair or impartial jurors. Juror #23 was a Pacifist. Pacifists do not file or pay income tax, since they are opposed to their money being used by the military (which is the biggest part of Federal Government spending) to kill and maim people. In the past 10 years, at times, she had not filed Income Tax Returns and at other times was fined by the IRS for filing allegedly ?frivolous? tax returns. She did not pay income tax for 4 years and the Government never went after her for it. The Prosecutors wanted to get her off the jury ?for cause? but the judge did not agree that this was a cause to get her off the jury. The prosecution, without cause, later dismissed her. Another juror was not trustful of the IRS and told the judge that he could not be fair to the IRS and the judge, dismissed him. Opening Arguments: Government?s Opening argument: Prosecution (P) said the charges were five counts of willful failure to file for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. That Larken Rose (Larken) knew the law and defied the law by failing to file tax returns. He had a duty to file. He paid off a 30-year mortgage in 10 years, but not his taxes. The Government will prove 3 things. That each year he failed to file. That he received the minimum amount of ?income? that required him to file. That he knowingly, willingly and intentionally did not file. The evidence will show that he earned about $100,000 per year, which was more than seven times the minimum amount requiring him to file. High point in the Prosecution?s (P?s) side was when the P said (in regards to what Larken would say in his defense) that: ?the defendant will put forth a story, a ridiculous story.? The J interrupted the P and said: Don?t comment on D?s story, don?t talk about what he is going to say, talk about what you are going to present.? The P literally was stunned; he did not say anything for 3-4 seconds (approximately). It was clear that he was in trouble. He was trying quickly to determine what to say next and not have the judge call him down again. He had lost his train of thought and had to regroup. In fact for the next 10 seconds, even though the P was talking, he was not very coherent and was clearly trying to regroup his thoughts and presentation. His notes may have proved useless at this point. We are sure the jury also picked this up. P stated that Larken filed a tax return for the year 1996. In addition the IRS sent Larken 3 notices that he was required to file, when Larken came up with the 861 argument and put the 861 argument to the Government. In 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2001 a total of 11 times, theirs told him in writing, that the 861 argument is wrong. Larken ?knew? and ?defied? the law. In the year 2000 Larken met with the IRS tax auditor that told him that his 861 argument did not apply and offered Larkin to file a tax return. Instead, Larkin filed a complained against her to have her fired. Then he started a war against the IRS to get millions of people to not pay their income taxes. Even 2 Federal judges in unrelated cases of other individuals had ruled that his 861 video and the judges ruled against the 861 issue in 2002. In another case, the judge told Larken that his 861 argument was flawed. All of this took place BEFORE Larken?s 2002 tax returns were due. Larken knew the law and intentionally violated it. At this point the judge explained to the jury that Larken has the right to present his case with the assistance of counsel and that is what Larken has chosen to do, with the assistance of attorney Larry BeCraft. Then Larken began his Opening statement: Larken?s opening statements were brilliant and it is unfortunate that it could not have been recorded for you to hear. We will be unable to do justice to it, but here are the highlights. He said he requested the IRS to prosecute him. ?This is not your average tax case, not anything deceptive, have been open and honest, we earned income that is no secret. We went out of our way for the government to know what we were doing. We freely admit we had income. I stopped filing in ?96.? ?The relevant question here is why years ago I assumed that the professionals knew the law and we followed them. Many people do not like taxes. I used to openly criticize the govt. Even when times were the toughest we always filed and paid. You will see what lead me here to you. My income was never taxable. 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. A number of times Larken said the judge would be the: ?one to tell you the law and you?re not here to determine what the law is. I will tell you what I believe the law is based on the research I?ve done. This is a question of law?. I am prohibited from talking to you about law?..the judge will tell you what the law is ?..I can show you what my understanding of what the law is.. Willfulness is some intent to break the law?I can tell you what I believe the law is ?My actions account with legal obligations?you have to figure out my beliefs?I am not a lawyer? The basic issue is, who does, or does not owe the Income Tax. Although you are required to follow the law as the judge instructs you, you can consider what I believe the law to be. If you could reach in my mind and pull out my brain and see what I believe, then this trial would be over in two minutes, but you can?t.? This is the pointed brilliance that Larken was able to present so masterfully yet simply. I actively sought other people and IRS? input on this issue! It used to be that everyone believed that the Earth is flat. The even jailed people who claimed that the earth is flat. Even former IRS agents and prosecutors agree with me. What I did was based on what I believed the law is. I agree that the people have to pay their taxes on their ?taxable income.? When I looked at the law itself and to my conclusions, the Government could have shown me the law that showed I was wrong, but they did not do so. I did look at other theories about the Income Tax and many of them sounded good, but with the 861 argument I found more complete answers. Many tax professionals do not understand the law and misapply it. I asked the IRS to meet with me. You will hear the audiotape of my two meetings with the IRS. This is about my efforts to end the largest fraud that has been imposed on the American People. So, I asked the Government to prosecute me so that I could expose the fraud. I won?t have all the time I want to explain all of this to you. I had a moral, legal and patriotic duty to do this. If you believe that I believed that I was required to file Income Tax returns, then by all means convict me. However, if you find that I believed that I was not required to file a tax return, then you must find me guilty. Then Larken made a beautiful and appropriate quote from Thomas Jefferson, the Second President of the United States, which paraphrased something like this: ?If there?s going to be trouble, let it be in my lifetime, so that I may do something about it, rather than in my children?s lifetime. After Larken ended his closing statement, the judge told the jury to expect the lunch period to be about 12:30 Noon and the trial days to finish about 4:30 PM. Then the jury was sent home and the Prosecutors told the judge that they would bring 5 employees of the Government, including 3 IRS agents and 2 DOJ lawyers (one of them is Eban Davis.) We expect the Government to use these employees to show that they ?warned? Larken about the error of his ways. After the Government?s case is presented (and expected to finish) on Tuesday, Larken will present his defense on Wednesday and maybe Thursday, followed by closing arguments and jury deliberations and verdict. This case might be over before the end of the week.

Yours in truth, freedom and justice, Peymon, Ross, Harry and Ken

[weishaupt1776]

Prosecution (P) starts its case at 9 AM, by calling Mary Sonna. May is an IRS custodian of records for 32 years. * She basically went through a bunch of exhibits with the prosecution to show that Larken and Tessa Rose had not filed and paid Federal Income taxes for 1997 through 2003, except that they had paid over $2,000 for 1997.



*



In addition, she showed that in 2000, Larken and Tessa had filed 3 amended returns for 1994, 1995 and 1996 with explanations, based on the 861 argument. * This was all unnecessary, since Larken was willing to stipulate (agree) that they had not filed or paid Federal Income Taxes for these years!



*



In addition 2 different letters were sent to Larken by the IRS that stated that ???Gross Income??? includes ??? Compensation for services.??? IRS sent many dumb computer generated letters to Larken, asking him to file Income Tax Confession (return) forms and to call or write the IRS if he believes that he is not required to file.



*



None of these letters refer to section 861 of the IRS Code. Instead they mention Sections 61 through 64, if any.



*



At 10:35 AM, this testimony ended and after a 10-minute break, the next witness, Barbara Thompson took the stand. She basically verified that the Medical group that she worked for paid Tessa for doing their medical transcriptions.



*



Then the prosecutor read the stipulation of the parties that ?? of the medical transcription services was allocated to Larken.



*



At 11:20 AM the next Government witness, a lady named Cathy Lee Spalding, who worked for IRS??? Small Business/Self Employed section of the IRS, was a revenue agent for 3 years and an auditor for 8 years. She got assigned to Larken???s case at the end of 1999 and met Larken after April 15, 2000.



*



IRS??? position was based on Section 61 of the IRS Code and Larkin???s based on Section 861 of the Code. Both parties recorded this meeting. She told Larkin that she will do some research on the issue. She made a referral for technical advise, from the National Office of the IRS in Washington, D.C, for the first time ever, based on the request of Larken.



*



The IRS National Office refused to take up Larkin???s case. On June 8, 2000 the IRS denied his 1040X return???s claim for refund. Cathy handled the 1994 and 1995 1040X tax returns of Larken and someone else handled the 1996-year 1040X. In September 2000, she met with Larken and in that meeting he accused of denying his Constitutional Rights. Cathy responded that she was only trying to do her job.



*



Under cross-examination Cathy said that he and the IRS recorded the April and September meetings. One IRS letter referred to an 11 th Circuit Federal Court of appeal decision named Coleman. Coleman disagreed with People who claim ???wages are not income???, that ???only gold money??? or that ???16th Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] was never ratified. Agent Cathy admitted that Larken never brought out any of these issues.



*



Agent Cathy felt so threatened by the tone of voice and body language of Larken that she called the Police! She admitted that nothing bad came of it, it was just a concern she had. The judge said that whatever part of the tape that would challenge her assertion about his tone of voice could be played to the jury.



*



She read the first part of a letter, which Larken had written to her. In His letter, Larken quoted the IRS regulations and had Agent Cathy read some of it on the stand that stated that Section 861 is to be used to determine the taxable income of a U.S Citizen from domestic source income.



*



Now it was 12:25 PM and the judge announced a lunch break till 1:30 PM.



*



I (Peymon) got back to court and the testimony of Agent Cathy was about to finish. Ross told me that she said nothing of significance in the afternoon. At 2:05 a new witness, Charles Judge, who is the supervisor/manager of Agent Cathy Spalding and has been an IRS agent for 32 years.



*



Larken???s 1040X refund tax return claims were assigned to his group in April of 2000. In September 2000 manager???s conference, Charles and Larken met to go over Larken???s case. Agent Charles told larken that per Section 61 of the IRS Code, all income is taxable, unless specifically excluded. Agent Charles had never dealt with the 861 issue before.



*



Charles stated that he had read IRS Code Section 861 and that his understanding of it is that it is about a person has income from within and without the United States. Larken sent a letter and a video to Agent Charles, marked ???personal??? on the outside of it, in which he invited Charles and possibly his wife to dinner to go over it.



*



Agent Charles, reported it to the IRS inspector general about this upcoming meeting, per the Rules of Conduct of IRS Agents. * Agent Charles then secretly tape recorded the meeting. Charles said that Larken said he was being clobbered by the income taxes and started studying the law. Then another agent, named Dianna referred his case to CID.



*



At the September 2000 meeting, Larkin acknowledged receipt of the income from the transcription business. Charles, once again told Larkin that based on IRS Code, Section 61, all income is taxable unless otherwise excluded. Larkin gave Agent Charles the 861 regulations.



*



At the meeting, Charles told Larken that they could not at that time address Larken???s points on the 861 issue. IRS never answered Larkin???s questions on the 861 issue. IRS did not tell Larken that the IRS was going to tape Agent Charles??? conversation with Larken.



*



Agent Charles stated that Larken said that at one point in the past, he was a tax protester. And had trouble paying his bills.



*



This was the end of testimony of IRS Agent Charles Judge. Now, at 2:43 PM, a new witness of the Government, named Stanley Escher took the witness stand. Agent Stanley is currently the Senior Program Analyst of Abusive Tax Transactions that, go after and shut down, these types of organizations and entities. Back in 2000, when he met Larken, he was a group manager.



*



Agent Stanley, met Larkin as a witness in the audit of John Hoffman. Hoffman had filed a 1997 tax confession form (return) and later on, filed an amended return and thereby sought the refund of the money that he had given to the IRS. Hoffman and Larken, wanted Agent Stanley, to answer 12 questions that they had on the 861 issue.



*



At this meeting, Larken stated that per Section 861 of the IRS Code, the domestic income of Mr. Hoffman is not taxable. They wanted Stanley to answer the 12 questions that eventually he answered for them.



*



Stanley tried to make it clear to them that Section 861 did not apply and that section 61 is the applicable code section. In addition, he sad that the 861 Section is about when someone or corporation, has income from within the united states, as well as income from outside the United States, like China, the person or corporation could get a tax credit for the taxes that they had paid to the foreign government.



*



Throughout his testimony, Stanley had his hands tightly clenched together, as if to hide his nervousness. Larken asked Stanley if the word ???tax credit??? was used in section 861? Stanley said ???yes.??? Then Larken showed a copy of Section 861 to Stanley and now Stanley was not so sure about his last statement.



*



Then the Judge, let there be a word search on the computer, found the word ???tax credit??? mentioned in the text of Section 861 under ???dividends??? only. IRS procedures say that frivolous issues do not go to National Office of the IRS.



*



We all had a break for about 10 to 15 minutes and at 4:15 PM, Prosecutor Miller read the stipulation (agreement) of Larken and IRS, which stated that Larken and his wife Tess, operated a medical transcription service and that at least 50% of its income would be attributable to Larken.



*



Last witness of the IRS today, was their best witness, Department of Justice lawyer Evan John Davis, who is a senior civil trial attorney of the tax division of the DOJ. Evan met Larkin as a result of his work on the Thurston Bell abusive Tax Shelter Injunction case.. For the last 4-5 years, Evan has been shutting down people who did wholesale tax scams.



*



Evan was working the case of Thurston Bell and had heard Larkin???s name thrown around when Larkin was around. Evan wanted to know what was the relation between Bell and Thurston and what might Larken testify to about the Bell case, if they go that far.



*



This is as far as we could go on today???s report. * We will finish it tomorrow and send this plus the rest of it, so you can discard this part because it will be included in what we send tomorrow as Day 2.* Day 3 will be sent separately.



*



Yours in truth, freedom and justice,



Peymon ,and Ross, Harry and Ken

[weishaupt1776]

0, 2005



*



9:10 AM we started with a nearly full court room, with 38 supporters of Larkin, 9 IRS agents or court clerk and staff and 2 reporters present. First thing was the testimony of Witness Donald Pearlman the Special Agent of the IRS who investigated who in middle (September) of 2000 had Larken case, which was previously under civil investigation and then another agent was looking at, to see if there were any tax violations by Larken.



*



He felt that a search warrant was needed due to the fact that key evidence might be destroyed, if not done so; as, items of income and expense and ,??? 2 search warrants were issued, for his home and Dr. Clayton in Texas.



*



At Larken???s place many items were seized, such as: large number of financial documents, issues related to tax law and documents, e-mails, hard copy documents, audio and video recordings. The vast majorities of computer evidence were copied off of his computers, rather than physically taking them away.



*



As a result, he contacted a number of banks and that of the payers of income to Larken, so that they could establish his income, by original documents. He requested checks and other documents from Chase Bank. One of the checks is an over $2300 check issued to the IRS which on the memo says ???abolish the IRS.???



*



With the Raid, they found a letter from a U.S. Senator to another individual that states that the 861 argument is false. Another document was from another U.S. Senator, to another individual that essentially states that, the 861 argument, is incorrect. Another document was from a U.S. Senator of Larken, which has an answer of the Congressional Research Service, which states that 861 of the code does not exempt the income of U.S. Citizens.



*



Another letter is from anther U.S. Senator that stated that the 861 argument is false. A constituent of Senator Tom Daschle, says the same thing. A letter from IRS to another individual states the proper application of the 861 document and another example that notice was given to Larken about the error of his argument.



*



Another letter was by Congress Porter Goss [now the head of the CIA, Ed.] stating that the 861 argument is false. Another one is from Carl Levin of Michigan to another one, stating the same. Another was from Senator Kate Hutchinson to Dr. Tom Clayton, stating that section 61 makes all income taxable.



*



Another document is a letter from Congressman Jeff Blame of Arizona to anther individual that contains a brochure called ???The truth about frivolous tax arguments???. This documents specifically states that section 861 of the code is a frivolous argument and is only to make sure that no one is double taxed in U.S. and a foreign country.



*



Now the Government went over the E-mails that they got from his computer:



An E-mail between Dr. Clayton and Larken. * Larken in this e-mail states that he is ???obsessed??? with the IRS, since they take such a large amount of his taxes from him. In another e-mail he states that he started his battle after his living budget became very tight.



*



In another e-mail of Larken to Dr. Clayton states that for many people it is hard to believe that their own government has become a bunch of extortionists??? fraud. In another e-mail between these 2, Larken states that ???nothing can give anyone the power to rule me,?????? In some e-mails Larken used profanities to describe the IRS or Government.



*



In another e-mail he calls the IRS an extortionist organization and ??? the only check against the IRS is a million people with guns, standing up to the IRS??? next e-mail stated that he will not stop until the IRS is buried in the history books. In next e-mail Larken says: ???It is time for trial by fire ??? IRS agents??? I will use any dirty trick, scheme or lie that I could make up.???



*



At the raid Larken said many things to him at the time of the raid. Larken said that he was able to pay off his home mortgage early by ???good budgeting and not getting robbed.??? To this agent, that meant not paying income taxes. **



*



Larken said that he got letters from the IRS that his 861 argument is wrong and he did not feel that they are binding. He said that he would not change his mind if a jury or judge said that he was wrong. The judge did not allow the tape of this agent and Larken to be played to the jury



*



Cross examination by Larken started at 10:15 AM




*



Agent found nothing deceptive by Larken besides not reporting his income and admitted receipt of compensation for services. Larken interfered with the administration of the tax laws by operating his web sites. Larken called IRS agent criminals and providing guidance for people to not file income taxes.



*



Larken had asked his web site followers to ask their Congressmen and Senators about the 861 issue and to send those responses to him.



*



At 10:55 AM we took a break and resumed at 11:12 AM. IRS seized over 10,000 e-mails on the raid. Agent Pearlman reviewed hundreds of the e-mails. Various IRS agents for content reviewed over 1,000 of these e-mails.



*



Larken had Agent Pearlman go over and/or read the other parts of these e-mails, to put the quotation from these e-mail in context by reading additional parts of these mails. Of course, Pearlman was evasive in his answers and would not easily answer the simple yes or no answers that Larken asked him.



*



At 12 noon Special Agent Pearlman???s testimony is over. A former IRS agent told us Agent Pearlman was only testifying in a way they were trained to do and that he came across as though he learned his training good. * When it was to his advantage he expressed himself with good memory and completeness.* When it was to his disadvantage he would hedge and ask questions and be evasive. * It was annoying to hear his testimony.



*



At 12:22 PM, the next witness, Maureen MacDormett, who is an IRS revenue agent took the stand. She examined some of the documents that were seized in the raid of Larken Rose???s home. She was a summary witness. A summary Witness???s job is to add up all the evidence that the government has produced (Pay stubs, 1099, checks, bank records, witness testimony) to add it all up and figure out how much income the person (in this case, Larken) made, in during the years in question.



*



It is difficult to listen to this because it is all evidence that Larken has admitted to and this witness???s testimony is so repetitive of admitted evidence that just drags on and on unnecessarily. * An example is asking her for a definition of the medical transcription business when this was done with a prior witness, Art Thompson. Also asking for the methodology of arriving at the income was repeated. * This tends to make slow go even slower!



*



At 2:15 PM we returned from lunch and Judge Baylson gave a discourse to the jury about the Bell case letting them know this case was not directly relevant to Larken???s willfulness to file case.



*



Larken???s defense begins with his standby counsel Larry Becraft, questioning the first witness Larken Rose. * Starting with general background questions. More supporters of Larken have come since this morning. The number of his present supporters is now up to 56 people, with 9 IRS agents present and two reporters. The courtroom is almost full now.



*



Why did he not file.* He had never seen the law before. * Starting sometime in 1997 he began looking at and researching the law and became convinced it was a mistake and would be wrong to sign and file a return.



*



During the years through 96 they filed and paid income taxes.



*



In 1997 he first began hearing different views about the income tax. * He looked into many and found out they were not valid.* How did he look into them?* On the internet he was able to look up the law and found the flaws in them. * In 1997 they were both working long hours and made about $40,000 and taking $10,000 of that for taxes.* This motivated him to look into this.



*



In middle of 1997 he looked at the IRS Code and regulations and the 861 issue on Federal Government???s web site, after he read an article by Thurston Bell. After reading the current IRS codes and regulations, eventually he got interested in the roots of the law and its history. Larken felt that by understanding the seed, hopefully he would better understand the tree.



*



Then he went to the actual law libraries (not online) so that he could find the old tax laws. He wanted to confirm or refute the accuracy of Thurston Bell???s Article. The indexes of the Code lead him to section 861 about the sources of income.



*

[iamfreeru2]

If you would like audio updates daily, go to the link I have posted. I can tell you from the updates Larken is doing very well. He is doing much better than I expected. I do believe, at least so far, he has real chance at winning this. I pray his wife is able to do as well as he. Larry Becraft is the stand by counsel and has been very helpful from what I am hearing.

http://triallogs.blogspot.com/

[weishaupt1776]

#1 The first regulations he read was that of 1939 about the ???Meaning of Income.??? #2 Then he looked at the regulation on ???exclusions to income???. These 2 regulations helped him develop the belief that there is income that is excluded because of the Constitutional limitations on government power.



Exhibit #3 Next he read the 1924 income tax regulation (article 71) which also stated that there is some income that is excluded from taxation due to the fundamental law. Then he looked at the Black???s law dictionary for a term that says:



???when law apply to a specific issue, it necessarily excludes others not mentioned.




Then in the 1917 Gould decision, he understood that government can not tax you beyond what the law allows and if there is any doubt, it must be ruled in favor of the citizen.



*



#7 Exhibit says that not only Congress has the power to tax, but the power to regulate commerce which means Congress can tax foreign commerce.



*



#11 an IRS regulation came across it in Bell???s article in 1997.



#12 ???*** ??? *********** ???********** ???******** ???***** ???** ??? **** ???******* ???**** ???**** ???



*



Section 1 and 61 regulations and index tell you to go to section 861 for a determination of what is taxable or not.



*



#17 1040 Income Tax form says that we must report our foreign source income, but does not mention domestic source income.



*



The first report on his research, written in 1998 was only 12 pages long and by 2000 had grown to 60 pages. * He met Dr. Thomas Calyton in 2000 and Thomas Clayton told him that they should have their own web site www.taxableincome.net .



*



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. We finished today at 4:30 PM. ******




Yours in truth, freedom and justice,
Peymon, Ross, Harry and Ken

[Libertarian]

Any news from today?

[iamfreeru2]

Prosecution gave closing arguments today and Larken will close tomorrow with the prosecution giving rebuttal and then it goes to jury. Looks pretty good for Larken though you never know what the jury will do. If you have audio on your computer go to the link I posted above and get the audio updates.

[theghost]

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. We finished today at 4:30 PM. ******

What the hell good is the video without sound?! What a joke. Sounds like suppressing evidence to me. If the video is in evidence, then the jury can review it in deliberations.......but we know that aint gonna happen.

[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?

[Skeptic]

The evidence will show that he earned about $100,000 per year, which was more than seven times the minimum amount requiring him to file. High point in the Prosecution?s (P?s) side was when the P said (in regards to what Larken would say in his defense) that: ?the defendant will put forth a story, a ridiculous story.? The J interrupted the P and said: Don?t comment on D?s story, don?t talk about what he is going to say, talk about what you are going to present.

Indeed so. I'm no fan of Larken Rose, but it's a good thing the judge is sticking to the idea of a fair trial. While it shouldn't be impossible to convict people of willful failure to file or any other crime, it should be difficult to do it: just because the prosecutor says so doesn't make it so. That's what juries are for.

What is true is that after Larken will present his case the prosecution will have the right to talk about what he did present in their summation. But not before.