Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tough job . . .

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tough job . . .

    Dear Subscriber,

    Maybe I've been too hard on Floyd Miller, the AUSA on my case,
    and Shawn Noud, the "special" AUSA helping him. Now that I
    think about it, they have a really tough job. It's not easy
    trying to get twelve people to convict someone who hasn't
    committed any crime.

    And that's exactly what they're trying to do. In looking at
    their spin attempts, and how they're trying to mischaracterize
    the situation, it is clear, not just that they can't "prove"
    that I committed a crime, but that they themselves can't
    possibly even THINK I committed a crime. In other words,
    they're trying to prosecute someone they KNOW is innocent.
    That must be a tough job. (It also happens to be an evil
    thing to do.)

    The spin approaches I've seen them try already, are:

    1) Claiming that I just "disagree" with the law, rather
    than thinking I don't owe the tax.
    2) Claiming that I'm saying the law is unconstitutional.
    3) I couldn't really believe it, because I knew about a couple
    IRS form letters and a Tax Court ruling saying the issue was
    frivolous.
    4) I stopped filing for personal financial gain.

    Items 1 and 2 are just plain stupid... or "frivolous." They
    know both claims are bunk, and I think the judge in our case
    (Michael Baylson) already knows they're bunk as well. He's
    already had to explain to Mr. Miller in open court that we've
    stated very clearly that we're NOT challenging the
    constitutionality of the tax.

    Item 3 is interesting, since NONE of what they cite is legally
    binding, while what I cite (statutes and regulations) is binding.
    To claim that I can't possibly think something that is contrary
    to legally-worthless form letters is... well... frivolous. And
    again, I don't just mean it makes a wimpy case; I mean they KNOW
    it's bogus, and they KNOW I "believe" what I'm saying.

    Item 4 is also silly. Of course we did better financially when
    not getting robbed of $10,000 a year, and I seem to recall Judge
    Baylson saying that that's not going to be an issue at trial.
    They just want to play the envy card, and not only is it
    irrelevant, but of course it wouldn't make THEM think I don't
    believe what I'm saying.

    So what DO they have, not just to convince a jury, but to
    convince THEMSELVES that I'm "willfully" breaking the law?
    Nothing. Not a shred. They have boxes and boxes of things
    I've written. They have the whole web site, the "Taxable
    Income" report, my "Theft By Deception" video. They have
    hundreds of messages I've sent to this list (which are all
    posted publicly). And they have many HUNDREDS of personal
    e-mails and notes I've written. Guess how many show that
    I don't really believe what I'm saying. None, of course.

    That means they KNOW that I'm doing what I "believe" the
    law requires (whether or not they know yet that I'm actually
    correct). And they're trying to prosecute me anyway. In
    principle, that's exactly like prosecuting someone for
    robbery, or murder, when you KNOW they didn't do it. What
    kind of people would prosecute a case like that? I'll be
    nice, and not answer the question myself.

    Sincerely,


    Larken Rose
    [email protected]
    http://www.861.info
    http://www.theft-by-deception.com

    Past messages to this list can be found here:
    http://www.3rdear.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ul...ubb=forum;f=16

  • #2
    Tough job . . .



    The spin approaches I've seen them try already, are: 1) Claiming that I just "disagree" with the law, rather than thinking I don't owe the tax. 2) Claiming that I'm saying the law is unconstitutional. 3) I couldn't really believe it, because I knew about a couple IRS form letters and a Tax Court ruling saying the issue was frivolous. 4) I stopped filing for personal financial gain. Items 1 and 2 are just plain stupid... or "frivolous." They know both claims are bunk, and I think the judge in our case (Michael Baylson) already knows they're bunk as well. He's already had to explain to Mr. Miller in open court that we've stated very clearly that we're NOT challenging the constitutionality of the tax. Item 3 is interesting, since NONE of what they cite is legally binding, while what I cite (statutes and regulations) is binding. To claim that I can't possibly think something that is contrary to legally-worthless form letters is... well... frivolous. And again, I don't just mean it makes a wimpy case; I mean they KNOW it's bogus, and they KNOW I "believe" what I'm saying.
    larken is in for a rude awakening.
    The issue is not whether or not he "believes" the law says what it says
    as interpretted by him. If that were the case, then anyone can come up
    with any self-serving "belief" about the law and never be "willfull".

    'Willfull failure" is the failure to perform a known legal duty. A
    defense to this element is the accused had a GOOD FAITH belief, not
    merely a "belief". IOW, larken must show his interpretation of the law
    was a mistake and not a disagreement.

    All the evidence shows that larken disagrees with the law because he
    continually insists that his interpretation is the correct one.

    It will be a slam dunk for the govt.

    Comment


    • #3
      Tough job . . .



      The spin approaches I've seen them try already, are: 1) Claiming that I just "disagree" with the law, rather than thinking I don't owe the tax. 2) Claiming that I'm saying the law is unconstitutional. 3) I couldn't really believe it, because I knew about a couple IRS form letters and a Tax Court ruling saying the issue was frivolous. 4) I stopped filing for personal financial gain. Items 1 and 2 are just plain stupid... or "frivolous." They know both claims are bunk, and I think the judge in our case (Michael Baylson) already knows they're bunk as well. He's already had to explain to Mr. Miller in open court that we've stated very clearly that we're NOT challenging the constitutionality of the tax. Item 3 is interesting, since NONE of what they cite is legally binding, while what I cite (statutes and regulations) is binding. To claim that I can't possibly think something that is contrary to legally-worthless form letters is... well... frivolous. And again, I don't just mean it makes a wimpy case; I mean they KNOW it's bogus, and they KNOW I "believe" what I'm saying.
      larken is in for a rude awakening.
      The issue is not whether or not he "believes" the law says what it says
      as interpretted by him. If that were the case, then anyone can come up
      with any self-serving "belief" about the law and never be "willfull".

      'Willfull failure" is the failure to perform a known legal duty. A
      defense to this element is the accused had a GOOD FAITH belief, not
      merely a "belief". IOW, larken must show his interpretation of the law
      was a mistake and not a disagreement.

      All the evidence shows that larken disagrees with the law because he
      continually insists that his interpretation is the correct one.

      It will be a slam dunk for the govt.

      Comment

      The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
      Working...
      X