Double Standard

Larken Rose

"Don't worry. You can raise the issue on appeal."

May 23, 2008 - Sometimes prosecutors mistakenly prosecute innocent people.  And sometimes they INTENTIONALLY prosecute those they KNOW aren't guilty.  One indication of whether the latter is the case is how many ways the prosecution lies and cheats in order to get a conviction.  Well, in my case, the number of ways they did it could fill a book  --  and, in fact, DID fill a book, and a rather substantial book at that.

In addition to lying, mischaracterizing facts, demonizing the accused, and other dishonest tricks, unscrupulous prosecutors (like the ones handling my case, Floyd Miller and Shawn Noud) also work hard to make sure that no one is allowed to say the TRUTH in court, as it may interfere with their lies.

At my trial, the government's entire case was that people OTHER than me (federal bureaucrats and some lower court judges) had asserted that my conclusions, or similar conclusions, were incorrect.  Therefore, the jury was supposed to assume that it was literally IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe my conclusions, because some people had "told" me that I was wrong.  The first thing the prosecutors said to the jury about me sums it up nicely:

“This is a case about a man who knew the law, who defied the law. The defendant, Larken Rose, failed to file tax returns for five years, even after receiving, time and time again, notice from the IRS that he had a duty to file his return and pay taxes.”

So, according to them, it was impossible for me to believe in the 861 evidence, because other people had ASSERTED that I owed the tax.  Aside from the fundamental lunacy of that argument, there is another problem with it:  What about all the people who told me that my conclusions were CORRECT?  When several former IRS employees and a former federal prosecutor, not to mention dozens of attorneys and CPAs, "told" me I was RIGHT, didn't that count for anything?

Apparently not.  At trial I was forbidden from talking about other people, including people who had been feds, AGREEING with my conclusions, and forbidden from playing recordings of radio shows on which I appeared with such people.  Why?  Because, accordingly to Judge Michael Baylson, “what other people believe is not relevant as to the defendant’s willfulness.”  I guess what he meant was that it's irrelevant when other people AGREE with me, but perfectly relevant when people DISAGREE with me  --  which was the government's ENTIRE case.  So, you see, when someone from the IRS says "You're wrong," that is somehow proof of my guilt, but when someone from the IRS says "Holy smokes, you're RIGHT!," that's utterly irrelevant and the jury shouldn't be allowed to hear about it.

And then, as if that double standard wasn't patently absurd enough, the prosecution used the opportunity to deceive the jury even more.  For example, the lead prosecutor in my case, Floyd Miller, whined to the jury that I thought I was the “only person in the continental [huh?] United States who has ever made an accurate determination of what is in the Internal Revenue Code.”  So, after making sure I wasn't ALLOWED to talk about all the people who had agreed with my conclusions, he implied that NO ONE agreed with them, and that I was the only one who held those beliefs.  (He also ignored the fact that I had already repeatedly testified that I'm not even the one who "discovered" the 861 evidence.)

This pattern of suppressing evidence, and then using the lack of evidence as proof of something, continued throughout the trial.  For example, I was also forbidden from talking about the campaign we did targeting around 600 H&R Block offices with questions about the 861 evidence.  I called Peter McCandless as a witness to talk about that, since he had organized the campaign, but he wasn't allowed to discuss what we had asked, or what the response (or lack of response) was.

And then Floyd Miller, that paragon of dishonesty, made it a point to stress to the jury how, though they heard me talking about reading the law and stuff, they never heard me say “that I went to an accountant, or a tax lawyer, or H&R Block for that matter, here in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to test the validity of my beliefs.  Not once.”  Yeah, they never heard me say that, because, with the help of the judge, Mr. Miller had made sure that I wasn't ALLOWED to say that.  So the DOJ suppressed exculpatory evidence, and then cited the LACK of that evidence as proof of my guilt.  Sound fair?

STUMBLE IT!         Theft By Deception         Kicking The Dragon         How To Be A Successful Tyrant

(return to Articles)