Jury Instructions

by Larken Rose 

larken@taxableincome.net http://www.861.info http://www.theft-by-deception.com 

In starting to throw together proposed jury instructions for our case, it strikes me once again how absurd it is for this to be going to trial. In short, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we believe our income to be taxable. Aside from how impossible such a task is, given what we've been doing and saying for years, consider this from the prosecutor's perspective. 

Do you think ANYONE at the DOJ is convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that we BELIEVE we owe this tax? Not a chance. That means they have chosen to prosecute people whom they KNOW are innocent. How slimy is that? 

Again, I hate calling what I KNOW a "belief," as if its' a matter of faith, instead of a matter of understanding. But in a "willful" case, even BELIEF negates the crime. Anyway, here is a very early, rough version of possible jury instructions, which illustrates how silly it is for the government to be prosecuting this. 

Every defendant accused of a crime is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and the government always has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to sustain its burden of proof for the crime of willful failure to file tax returns as charged in Counts 1 through 5 of the indictment, the government must prove each of the following three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

1) The defendants were required by law to file tax returns for 1998, 1999, 
2000, 2001 and 2002 (with each year being a separate Count in the indictment); 

2) The defendants failed to file such returns at the times required by law; and 

3) In failing to file tax returns, the defendants acted "willfully," meaning they acted with specific intent to violate a known legal duty. 

Element #1: Requirement to File 

A person is required to file a federal income tax return for any calendar year in which he receives "gross income" in excess of the standard exemption amount (for married individuals filing jointly, the standard exemption was * for 1998, * for 1999, * for 2000, * for 2001, and * for 
2002). 

Not all income constitutes "gross income" under the law. Income which is exempt or excluded for federal income tax purposes does not constitute "gross income," and receipt of such exempt income, regardless of the amount, does not create a requirement to file an income tax return. 

Element #2: Returns not filed 

[ I don't know what to put here, because we acknowledge that we didn't file. ] 

Element #3: Willfulness 

To act "willfully" means to act with the specific intent to violate the law, or to fail to do what one knows the law requires to be done. The defendants' conduct is not willful, and you must acquit, if you find that the defendants failed to file tax returns because of a good faith misunderstanding of the requirement of the law that they file such returns, or a good faith belief that their actions were not contrary to the law. 

It is for you to decide whether the defendants acted in good faith -- that is, whether they sincerely believed that their actions were in compliance with the law. In determining the issue of willfulness, you are entitled to consider anything done or omitted to be done by the defendants and all facts and circumstances in evidence that may aid in the determination of their state of mind. It is obviously impossible to prove directly the operations of the defendants' minds; but a careful and intelligent consideration of the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence may enable one to infer what another's intentions were in doing or not doing things. With the knowledge of definite acts, we may draw definite logical conclusions. 

Because the receipt of tax-exempt income does not trigger a filing requirement (regardless of the amount received), to prove the element of "willfulness" the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants believed that their income was taxable for federal income tax purposes. If you conclude that the defendants had an honest belief that their income was exempt or excluded (not taxable), you must acquit, however unreasonable you (or anyone else, including the court) might deem such a belief. Furthermore, because the government has the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt, if you have even a "reasonable doubt" regarding whether the Defendants' believe their income to be taxable or not, you must acquit. 

Here's the funny part: MOST of what you see above comes from the GOVERNMENT'S suggested jury instructions for 26 USC 7203 cases. 

Obviously if they go by the rules, they will lose horribly. So I expect them to lie, cheat, steal, vilify, demonize, slander, etc., as they've done all along. If the judge keeps them on point, keeps out anything irrelevant, and correctly instructs the jury, the case will be a slam dunk. Can you imagine, after seeing even a fraction of what we've done, twelve people unanimously declaring, "yes, we have no doubt that the defendants believed their income was taxable." If they can't say that, they are required to acquit. Well... if the case goes by the rules, that is. 

Sincerely, 

Larken Rose

Copyright Issues?