Larken Rose Found Guilty by Jury

This case was simply about failing to file a return and not an income tax case.

As usual, the courts side with the IRS to spin the issues so they can continue to refuse to answer important questions. One question would be: How could the judge or jury find him "not guilty" of owing any tax but find him "guilty" for failing to file?

I guess they want you to file first and then ask questions.

[David Merrill]

I am confident in Weishaupt's informative posts:

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. (emphasis added)

But I do not remember Vernice Kuglin unless she is an airline pilot?

Dear PJT04; My friend who plead guilty was ordered to file all those years. It turns out the IRS owes him over $5000. So it is not about taxation; it is about control. He owes over half a million dollars for failing to file.


Regards,

David Merrill.

No Matter this is a very sad day for us all and we cannot for get this. This is a sample of how the courts will not give us justice. I am so sick over the court system in America it is such a back room and bar room law rulers only, what a disgrace.

[SKYGZR]

With all of the this and that regarding this topic, it seems evident that standing on simple fundamentals is perhaps the best line of defense. I've followed Larkens' position, have the mini 861 CD's, have his Tape, wished him well, and kinda knew in advance he'd be victimized by the court/jury. Gotta admit though, (through his efforts and sacrifice), he's shown us all that his/this position won't work against this kind of corruption.

"Willfull" Failure is a trumped up "charge" anyway...In all reality, there is no Failure if there is no Liability!!! Where is the Statute?? This is the real issue, and should be the KEY point in any and all cases!!!

Key points, as the following copy/paste points out

****
The discussion about the authority of the IRS to execute Levy by Distraint. It is quoted as saying that the IRS gets its Levy authority at IRC Section 6331 (a). It further quotes that there are many well intentioned people who believe 6331 has as a silver bullet effect. These people believe one sentence in 6331 kills all IRS levy.

The first sentence of 6331 (a ) does not imply that the levy can apply to the private sector, because within the same paragraph the point is made who these (any persons made liable) are subject to levy and that is federal employees. To further make that claim, I would refer Mr. Adams to the US Treasury website, where he can verify that the Levy used for tax delinquent debt is issued only against civilian and military employees. Nowhere in the Treasury Financial Manual is there policy and procedure for the Treasury Financial Management Service to execute authority to levy upon a citizen of the private sector. This information can be found in Volume 1, Part 3, Chapter 4000, Section 4080 of the Treasury Financial Manual. Therefore the TFM coincides with IRC 6331 (a). ITFC of Florida Alvis Jenkins

******************

The fundamental issue is LIABILITY, and the U.S.
Supreme Court has already ruled that tax LIABILITY
must arise from federal STATUTES, not from regulations:

<http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm> (see Commissioner v. Acker, in chief!)

Therefore, absent a LIABILITY STATUTE for taxes imposed
by subtitle A, not even federal "employees" can have a
specific liability for those taxes, unless they "volunteer"
e.g. by executing Form 1040.

See the overdue SUBPOENA to former Secretary
Paul H. O'Neill, discussed in the URL's below:

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
<http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm>


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
<http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm>

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

[Ice]

I think Larken made 2 mistakes:

1) Did not deny being a "U.S. citizen"

2) Did not have the case removed to the Federal Court of Claims where "aliens" can have their day in court.

Besides that... he admitted to makeing "income" -- what was that all about? That was a mistake in itself.

And then there is the fact that he could have made use of the "Admiralty" when he was "invited" to court. I don't think he did anything to prepare himself for appearing in court... I'm not even sure he did any research on the court aspect of dealing with the IRS.

Hey... each of us will do what we think best... even if it may be detrimental to others that just happen to be in a similar situation. I would suggest, as I have been doing from long ago, that research of the courts is of the utmost importance. Do it before you are "invited" to one of them and don't "learn as you go" like I have had to do.

Ice

Originally Posted by Ice

that research of the courts is of the utmost importance. Do it before you are "invited" to one of them and don't "learn as you go" like I have had to do.

Ice[/color][/b]

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PARTICULAR COURT WHERE THE CASE IS HELD? THE PARTICULAR JUDGE HANDLING THE CASE?

[Skeptic]

I think Larken made 2 mistakes:

1) Did not deny being a "U.S. citizen"

2) Did not have the case removed to the Federal Court of Claims where "aliens" can have their day in court.

Besides that... he admitted to makeing "income" -- what was that all about? That was a mistake in itself.

Well, that would be three mistakes, not two, but, to the point, they aren't really "mistakes" for a very simple reason: people have tried the "I'm not a US citizen" and "I don't have income" issues before--and, of course, lost 100% of the time. It goes without saying that you cannot show me a single case where your advice worked in court, while I can show you several where it was worthless and caused the person raising it to be hit with fines for making frivolous arguments.

What makes you think that your "strategy", which was laughed out of court every time it was tried in real life, would have helped Larken this time? If he had raised these issues, then, at most, he might have made the jury a bit more lenient towards himself out of suspicion that he is a few screws loose of a toolbox (to mix a metaphor).

[Chinese Panda]

Well, the powers that be are going to laugh at ANY defense.
So, let's look at the pro's and cons of saying you are a U.S. Citizen.

Pro:
----
1) The don't laugh at you in court.

Cons:
-----
OK, I admit to being a novice here, I only wnt to learn, so I admit my ignorance upfront. I don't know if these cites are 100%. I looked them up on FindLaw, but that's the only experience I have in looking up decisions. It's my understanding that I SHOULD be reading the Annotate Code/Decisions. Could someody set me straight on if that's correct and if so, how can I do it onlline? Also, how can I find out if these cases hav been overturned?, if they are indeed valid.

"Rights claimed under Amends. 1 to 8, adopted as restrictions of the
powers of the national government, ARE NOT protected by this clause.
Maxwell v. Dow, Utah 1900, 20 S.Ct. 448, 176 U.S. 601, 44 L.Ed. 597."

"The exemption from disclosure as a witness of evidence against oneself
guaranteed by Amend. 5, IS NOT one of the privileges or immunities of a
citizen of the United States protected by this clause. Twining v. New
Jersey, N.J. 1908, 29 S.Ct. 14, 211 U.S. 78, 53 L.Ed. 97."

OK, let's assume the courts are following these rulings. I believe what is being said is that there is a class of citizens out there that...

1) Congress CAN make laws respecting establishment of religion. No free speech.
2) The people have no rights to keep and bear arms.
3) Soldiers may, in time of peace be quarteded in any house,
4) No rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, reasonable searched and seizures. No Oaths needed for searches.
5) No right to not witness against yourself.
6) No right to a speedy trail, no rights as to where the trail is, no right to know the nature and cause of the accusation, no right to be confronted y adverse witness, no right for having a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in your favor, no right to assistance of Counsel.
7) No Common law.
8) Excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment are OK.

I don't care what that class of citizen is called, I DO NOT want to be him in ANY situation! Seems to me that if I AM that class of citizen. I might as well plead guilty. Besides, you don't have to be a U.S. Citizen to be subject to taxes, so that's not the argument anyway. But you DO want your sustantive rights, don't you? And if YOU don't want them, can I have YOUR share?


I believe Roses BIGGEST problem was his argument. Yeah, I had his tape, I wanted to buy into it, but I couldn't. I tried to break it down on a sheet of paper in a flowchart style. I saw two problems, 1) "Sources" is a common word that "everyody knows" the definiton of, Larken was trying to convince people that it's his defintion they should believe. 2) He was trying to get people to understand the IRC in 3 days. Ronald Reagan said HE didn't understand the IRC. I tried to understand his arguments for 3 months and I WANTED to believe it and I couldn't convince myself that he was correct because I couldn't understand the code!! So how was he gonna get Joe Blow to believe him?

[Skeptic]

Well, the powers that be are going to laugh at ANY defense.

Not at all. The IRS loses in court all the time. People often defend quite succesfully against it. It is only that stupid "defenses" are laughed at.

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I think Larken made 2 mistakes:

1) Did not deny being a "U.S. citizen"

2) Did not have the case removed to the Federal Court of Claims where "aliens" can have their day in court.

Besides that... he admitted to makeing "income" -- what was that all about? That was a mistake in itself.

Well, that would be three mistakes, not two, but, to the point, they aren't really "mistakes" for a very simple reason: people have tried the "I'm not a US citizen" and "I don't have income" issues before--and, of course, lost 100% of the time. It goes without saying that you cannot show me a single case where your advice worked in court, while I can show you several where it was worthless and caused the person raising it to be hit with fines for making frivolous arguments.

What makes you think that your "strategy", which was laughed out of court every time it was tried in real life, would have helped Larken this time? If he had raised these issues, then, at most, he might have made the jury a bit more lenient towards himself out of suspicion that he is a few screws loose of a toolbox (to mix a metaphor).

I've followed Larken for a number of years. I've viewed his tape "Theft by Deception" at least a half dozen times. Larken was no dummy, but like Thurston Bell, whose court transcripts I've viewed at least twenty times, he made a very critical mistake.

1)He let the plaintiff assert that his income was gross income. You absolutly cannot let the IRS or their legal reps rest on the assertion that the income earned is gross income when in most cases it's not!!!,escpecially when the Secretary and the Supreme Court do not concure with such an assertion. Notice that the plaintiff asserts that Larken made enough income to meet the filing requirement. Notice they did'nt say gross income. They never do. Why not? because the next logical question many may ask is "What really is gross income?" The IRS does not base liability on income. They base liability soley on gross income using section 61 of the IRC which is only part of the law. Section 861 is only viable when gross income has yet to be determined. Since Larken aparantly did'nt challenge the plaintiff's assertion, therefore validating their assertion of his earning gross income, when more than likley he did'nt,this trial was over before it ever started.

One of the rules in the art of war is to know your enemy. We know that we'd
be no better off letting Al Quada run our tax system. What I mean in this case is, what are they using to make the citizenry liable when many honestly feel their not,? what are they using to destroy citizens like Larken Rose, Thurston Bell and countless others in the courts? What are they using to take homes and ruin the lives of citizens who do file and pay taxes making no one really safe? A simple assertion based on part of the law that my income,your income and everyone elses income is gross income.

To beat the IRS in court requires a pivitol first step.
Destroy their assertion that all income is gross income since the secretary and the supreme court do not concur with such an assesertion. Remember the
movies Independence Day and War of The Worlds. The aliens had an inpenetrable force field in which they could'nt be touched. Section 61 serves that purpose and has made the IRS untouchable when it comes to income tax liability. Most of us don't see it and they wan't it that way. This is why they always ask if you have any income rather than asking if you have any gross income eventhough gross income is what they base your liability on.
Every argument I've reviewed has failed to do or even address this. Larken is the latest victim. The most important factor is this assertion, to the best of my knowledge, has not been ruled against by the courts.