Persuasive Argument?

Larken Rose

How much evidence should the jury see?

May 21, 2008 - When I was tried for "willful failure to file," the ONLY thing the jury needed to decide was whether I BELIEVED that my income was taxable (and therefore believed I that was required to file tax returns).  If I believed I wasn't required to file, there was no crime, whether I was right or not, because of the "willfulness" issue.  So the government had the burden of proving that I BELIEVED that I owed the tax.

Well, the government's entire case consisted of saying that federal paper-pushers had TOLD me that I owed the tax.  But how can their words possibly prove what I believe?  They can't, obviously, but that wasn't the half of it.  At the trial, two of the government's main witnesses testified about administrative meetings they had with me, at which I explained my position and asked them to tell me on which points they disagreed.  The government wanted the jury to hear that these people had "told" me that my position was incorrect, and that my income was taxable.  However, on cross- examination, the government's witnesses admitted that:

1. They never quoted anything from the law supporting their position.
2. I quoted lots of statutes and regulations supporting mine.
3. They were not familiar with the sections of law I showed them.
4. They could not answer my questions about the proper application of the law.
5. They could not decide the specifics of their OWN position regarding 861.
6. They said they would get back to me (and never did).

(At Tessa's trial, one of the IRS agents even admitted that she found MY position "somewhat persuasive."  I can't return the compliment.)

So should that have convinced me that my conclusions were wrong?  At the meeting, after carefully explaining my position, providing numerous supporting citations at every step, should I have been persuaded by such a display of ignorance, uncertainty, and evasion?  Well, as it happens, at the meeting I asked the IRS agents exactly that, and here is what happened (from the transcript of the meeting):

Me: “You personally have had my [Taxable Income] report for weeks.  The Service has had my report for more than a year.  This argument has been around for several years.  And, as I understand it, there are special sections of the IRS devoted to trying to come up with a response to this.  Now, you’re implying that I owe you something and that I have some requirement to file, and in your letter you even mentioned that you were gonna ask me to file later returns.  Is this really what’s supposed to persuade me here?”

Cathy Spaulding (IRS): “No.”

Me: “Am I supposed to be persuaded by this?”

Cathy Spaulding (IRS): “No, we’re not saying you’re supposed to be persuaded.”

How nice of them to admit that they didn't expect their bungling incompetence to persuade me.  And what do you think the jury at my trial thought when they saw that?

Well, the jury never saw that quote, nor did they hear the audio-recording of it.  You see, while the IRS employees were allowed to inaccurately testify about what happened at the meetings, I was NOT allowed to show the jury the actual transcripts, or play the actual recordings of those meetings.  (This was despite the fact that no one was disputing the authenticity of either.)  So the jury never saw or heard the IRS employees admitting that even THEY didn't think that their uncertain, evasive yammerings should have convinced me that I was wrong.  And yet the government's entire "proof" of my crime was that such clueless bureaucrats had ASSERTED that I was wrong, so how could I possibly believe otherwise?

STUMBLE IT!

More Good Stuff:

Articles by Larken Rose — Political philosophy of a man passionately interested in the freedom of his fellow man, moving intellectually from conservatism through libertarianism to anarchism.  Read the latest indictments against our tyrannical ruling elites.

How To Be A Successful Tyrant — Eradicate the self-determination and self-ownership of others and replace their free will with your will.  If you have an innate “love of dominion” and believe you can run other's lives better than they can, this book will show you how.

Kicking The Dragon — A chronicle of a modern-day witch-hunt.  The disturbing facts of the case pull back the façade of “due process” and the “rule of law” to reveal the United States government for what it has become:  a gang of lawless criminals interested only in preserving their own power.

ONLINE STORE — Interesting stuff you can download.  No need to sniff all over the web  -  the best stuff is right here.

Theft By Deception — This is a startling revelation for income tax professionals, income tax enforcers and administrators, and the average American who expects nothing less than truthfulness in taxation.

Would You Have Signed the Declaration of Independence? — Provide your causes that impel you to a repudiation of 'business as usual' and clearly state your demand that we reinstate and enforce government of law and liberty under the Constitution.