Larken Rose Found Guilty by Jury

[Libertarian]

Pennsylvania Tax Detractor Convicted for Not Reporting Back Taxes

A Philadelphia jury August 12 convicted section 861 proponent Larken Rose for not filing back taxes, bolstering the IRS's efforts to fight ongoing doubts about the validity of the code.

Former IRS agent turned anti-tax advocate Joseph R. Banister walked away from a similar tax fraud indictment earlier this summer (for coverage, see Doc 2005-13738 or 2005 TNT 121-1), a legal coup heralded by leaders of the so-called tax honesty movement as confirmation their controversial views are gaining ground.

Rose was charged with willfull failure to file after refusing to submit federal returns from 1998 through 2002. He has openly admitted to not filing federal or state taxes since 1997 and has actively invited goverment prosecution since at least 2001.

The conviction could land Rose in prison for up to five years (one year per count). He was placed under house arrest until his sentencing on November 15.

His wife and business partner, Tessa R. David, will face the same charges in a separate criminal proceeding tentatively set to begin as early as August 19.

Rose has for years raised questions as to whether specific foreign sourcing rules trump the broader income filing requirements. He maintains that the current system misconstrues gross and taxable income -- a distinction which he claims places domestic earnings outside the reach of the existing income tax structure -- and insists the Service has never adequately refuted his interpretation of 861 regulations.

The prosecution team split their time between establishing that Rose and David received enough income from their home-based medical transcription business during the years in question to warrant filing a return (IRS records project joint earnings of approximately $500, 000 across the five-year timeframe), and chronicling a half-dozen instances when IRS officials attempted to convince Rose about the limited scope of the 861 provision.

During the trial, various IRS agents testified that the 861 rules apply specifically to the calculation of foreign tax credits.

Assistant United States Attorney Floyd J. Miller introduced a string of IRS notices and other official correspondence amassed by Rose as proof he knew the 861 position was invalid, but noted that Rose chose not to file anyway. Miller also touted a number of adverse district and tax court rulings which Rose had been a party to as additonal justification that his 861 position was flawed.

"This is a case about a man who doesn't want to pay his fair share," Miller argued, and lampooned the one-time groundskeeper for holding himself out as the "supreme interpreter of the internal revenue code."

While acknowledging that the judiciary had considered aspects of his 861 position, Rose stressed that the recent decisions failed to counter his understanding of the underlying income statutes.

"I was told by the judges that domestic income is taxable. I was told by the law that it wasn't," he stated, adding, "I want to be convinced by evidence, not an assertion."

[iamfreeru2]

I hate to say this, but Larken Rose and I went round and round about this quite a few times. If you claim to be a US citizen then state you are not liable for the "income tax" will get you nowhere. His 861 argument is just that, an argument and a dishonor. The United States is a corporation and the UCC says the United States is located in the District of Columbia (criminals). Gee where do they have exclusive jurusdiction? Never claim you are a US citizen and then use the IRC as your defense. Big mistake!!

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

I hate to say this, but Larken Rose and I went round and round about this quite a few times. If you claim to be a US citizen then state you are not liable for the "income tax" will get you nowhere. His 861 argument is just that, an argument and a dishonor. The United States is a corporation and the UCC says the United States is located in the District of Columbia (criminals). Gee where do they have exclusive jurusdiction? Never claim you are a US citizen and then use the IRC as your defense. Big mistake!!

No one will hear the law, whatever it is!

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.

If you review this information you will see that everyone is expected to run their businesses, their whole lives, based on hearsay (What I was told the law is (by some so-called expert)), how foolish!

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/

http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread...4666#post34666

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

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!

Remember that most people have been dumbed down to believe the judge is the law giver in the court room and what he says goes. Also most of those people believe they are US citizens and liable for the "income tax." Here comes a guy that says he is a United States citizen and he is not liable. He tells everyone else they are wrong and he is right. Mind you I am only trying to put myself in their shoes. I do not necessarily agree with their thinking. Then he uses the IRC as his defense and claims the government is wrong. After all the "income tax" has been the law for almost 100 years. How could the govermnment be wrong? Hey I used to be one of those people. Larken has had an uphill battle the whole way. Again I will reiterate DO NOT CLAIM YOU ARE A US CITIZEN AND USE THE IRC FOR YOUR DEFENSE!!!!!! If you are a US citizen you are dead meat.

Look, it takes educating the American people. But they must be willing to be educated. You are not going to do it in a court of law that is stacked against you. Especially since all cases regarding 861 have been lost. I am afraid Larken Rose had a big ego and it got in his way. Sorry, but I am saying it as I saw it.

This is totally on hindsight but one error seems to be he represented himself unlike his friend the former IRS man, second , they got into his former hate statements(dishonor) about the IRS, and as good as a groundwork he did of meeting with the IRS and recording it, I wasn't sure if that transcript got into evidence. I got the sense that either he was a little overconfident because of his 861 tape and his meeting with the IRS that maybe he did not do as good a job with the IRS witnesses at trial, thinking he would be able to enter the tape and the transcript. Also, him going after the IRS so vehemently, made it seem like a war, with his prior statements, him representing himself and the IRS did a good job of tying in little slimy things like his income of 100,000 with statements he made about his buget got tight. This worked on the jury's inherent jealousy. Unlike Bannister who was seen as a true protester and should have been able to know the code, Larken was made to seem like a man who didn't want to pay his fair share and was on a vendetta. Truly one of those crazy tax protesters. This I believe proves a point I have been thinking is that the system can only be beaten one person at a time until so many are free that the system topples. A wholesale attack can only be motivated in part by some superiority compex. The old I'm gonna teach them a lesson will get you a lesson because the enemy sees the weakness in you. Bannister was charged more with just himself and was able to show it was his honest belief that the system did not apply to him. Larken overstepped by trying to show that the whole system was corrupt, not that it just did not apply to him and was brought down by his own grandiose ideas that he could change the world.
Now the question is will he continue in this mode to prove he is right or will he take steps to do what ever is necessary to get free, like use the 1040 defense like the guy who was convicted then charged with violating parole until he unleashed the argument that the 1040 was not even an approved governmental form.
Myself, I'm just taking steps to have my freedom acknowledged and have no desire to take on the world except to tell whoever wants to hear. Sadly, not many want to hear.

[futop]

Is this the same as a U.S. citizen. The reason I ask is this website seems to give good info that even citizens of the United States of America are not liable. I will need to look into this further.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/taxes/UBDAJUDGE.htm

I do not want to claim to be a U.S. citizen but I had to in the past before I learned that I shouldn't (passport, DL etc...)

[futop]

with this website. U.S. citizens or maybe citizens of the United States of America if they are the same, are not even liable for the income tax in most circumstances.

http://tax-freedom.com/

[Skeptic]

This trial was very unfair, Rose could not even put the law into evidence, so that the jury could see it for themselves.

Actually, he did: he gave the jury a lot of information from the stand about why he thinks the 861 argument is correct. The judge was rather lenient in this regard.

It is true that the judge told the jury that the 861 argument was nonsense, but if they had disagreed with that and agreed with Larken, they could have acquitted him.

In THEORY, they were not supposed to consider the possibility that Larken was correct. In PRACTICE, however, if Larken's testimony about why he thought the "861" argument was correct had sounded convincing to them, they could have simply voted "not guilty". That is, engage in jury nullification.

But they didn't. Apparently, they were not convinced by Larken's argument about the 861 argument.

[Libertarian]

Any word on Tessa? Will she try to cop a plea?
It will be hard on their kids if both parents are in the graybar hotel.

[squirrel]

When you "Voluntarily" choose to participate in the socialiast security program and receive a number, you just chose to "participate" in the bankruptcy and you must pay your fayah shayah..


From strategic withdrawel page 61 & 62.

At one point in my research, I had the opportunity to discuss the IRS (in a friendly fashion) with a very high-ranking Secret Service (treasury) agent. One of the things he told me was "Where they (the IRS) really get thier hooks into you is when you sign your first 1040 form. " This is straight from a Treasury Agent's mouth, folks, so listen up! THEY know that what you have signed is of ultimate importance, and part of thier job is to make you think it is not important.

If you have a copy of the last voluntary self-assessment form 1040 that you signed, dig it out of the file cabinet and take a look at the area around your signature. The first thing to look at is the perjury statement that is written immediately above your signature. Read the perjury statement carefully and then turn to 28 USC 1746 and you will see that you have declared, under penalty of perjury, that you are signing this document from within Washington, DC or a territory of washington, DC.
Next, look immediately to the left of your signature and you will see the word "LABEL" in all capital letters. You will also see instructions to affix the mailing label that the IRS was thoughtful enough to provide for you. The word "label" is used twice. Why? Now,look in Black's LawDictionary for the definition of the word "label" . You will find that the adhesive-backed paper with your address is only one type of label. You will also find that a label is an attachment or codicil on your God-given rights. Do you understand now why the word "label" was used twice?

When you sign a Form 1040, you are declaring, under penalty of perjury, that you are knowingly signing a codicil on your rights and doing so within the jurisdiction of Washington, DC. Any sane person is presumed to know, understand, and concur with the content of any instrument bearing his voluntary signature. The only way to make those 1040 forms of no legal effect is to revoke your signature from the 1040's and to void your Social Security Contract. Fortunately, because of mistakes and fraud, these are not difficult to do.