Ray of Hope?
From:
8...@mail-list.com on behalf of
861-list-ow...@mail-list.com
Sent: Sat 9/01/07 1:16 PM
To:
xxx...@hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, As
I've mentioned before, the appeal of my bogus conviction isscheduled
to be heard on September 25th. (I don't know thatanything will
actually be happening worth being there for; they mayjust make their
ruling based on the motions filed.) The appealraises several issues,
one of them relating to the absurdity ofletting the government harp on
how some IRS bureaucrats and lowercourt judges asserted that my
conclusions were incorrect, whileprohibiting the jury from seeing or
hearing statements from othercredentialed people (including former IRS
and DOJ folk) who agreewith me. In other words, the DOJ could say
"This IRS agent told himhe was wrong!" while I was NOT allowed to say,
"Well this IRS agenttold me I was RIGHT!" Sounds fair, doesn't it? In
excluding any testimony or evidence about other people agreeingwith
me, the judge in my case said that what OTHER people believeis
completely irrelevant to the issue of MY "willfulness." I foundthat
rather odd, since EVERYTHING the government presented was theopinion
of OTHER people; they cited nothing from ME hinting that Ibelieve I
owed the tax (because I don't). Anyway, I just learned that a federal
Appeals court hearing a casestemming from the "Anderson Ark" group
just THREW OUT convictionsfor "willful" federal tax crimes for very
similar reasons (U.S. v.MORAN, 05-30215 and 05-30226 (9th Cir. 2007)).
The Morans appealedtheir convictions on four grounds, three of which
were ruledagainst by the court. The fourth, however, dealt with the
fact thatthe trial judge prohibited the defendants from
introducingtestimony about how their beliefs were based "among other
things,on opinions from a CPA and outside experts." Just as in my
case,the judge claimed "hearsay" as the justification for excluding
suchevidence (as well as claiming a Rule 403 exclusion, which I
won'tbother explaining at the moment). "On two occasions during the
trial, the district court excludedtestimony by Mrs. Moran about what
she had learned from outsideexperts." In the second instance, the
government was asking one defendantabout a letter from an attorney who
questioned the legality of thedefendants' actions. When the defendant
tried to talk about howOTHER experts had said their actions WERE
legal, she was cut off,and not allowed to talk about that. (Wow,
sounds familiar: ifsomeone DISAGREE with a defendant, it's relevant
proof of"willfulness"; but when someone AGREES with the defendant,
it'sirrelevant, inadmissible hearsay. Sounds fair.) The Appeals court
bluntly stated: "The defendant is entitled totestify about the tax
advice he received — subject, of course, tocross-examination — and
exclusion of this testimony is error." The court also said something
my appeal states: "Such testimonydoes not constitute hearsay when not
offered for the truth of thematter stated." (Without getting into the
technicalities, a"statement" isn't hearsay at all if it's not
introduced to provethe matter asserted. So, for example, when I wanted
to playexcerpts of radio shows on which Sherry Jackson, former IRS
agent,AGREED with my findings, it was NOT being introduced to prove
thematter asserted--i.e., that most of us don't owe the tax--but
assomething impacting my beliefs (or "state of mind"). So it
wasn't"hearsay" at all. (Incidentally, the same applies to the
exclusion of my video, myreport, my web sites, etc., which is a BIG
part of my appeal. Theyaren't "hearsay" at all, because they were NOT
being introduced toprove the matter asserted: that I don't owe the tax
(which I wasn'teven allowed to argue); they were going to be
introduced asevidence of my beliefs, or "state of mind.") Perhaps my
favorite sentence from the ruling--because it sounds somuch like my
case--was this: "The government's questioning of Mrs.Moran raised the
implication, as her counsel explained at trial,that the Hayes letter
was the only opinion the Morans everreceived, thus opening the door to
redirect about what other legalopinions they had received." Of course,
one court doing the right thing doesn't mean another one(in a
different district) will, but if the Third Circuit rulesagainst our
appeal (after the Ninth Circuit ruled the other way onthe same issue),
there will be an obvious conflict betweendistricts, which may be
enough to get the case heard by the SupremeCourt. That would be fun.
Sincerely, Larken Rosewww.larkenrose.com
<end email from Rose
