Surreal, Part 2

larken@taxableincome.net

http://www.861.info 

http://www.theft-by-deception.com 

We finally received the grand jury transcripts from the ONE day that the government has released. And even the part they WANTED the judge to see is quite eye--opening. 

First of all, even on that last day, they FAILED to properly inform the grand jurors about what "willfulness" means. When describing the elements, Floyd Miller (the Assistant U.S. Attorney on the case) talks about a return being required, and whether one was filed. (Of course, there is no mention of some income being exempt, and therefore not triggering a filing requirement.) He goes on to say that the only other issue "is whether or not your failure to file a tax return was as a result of an accident or mistake or did you know that you had a duty to file but yet still knowing that you had the duty to file failed to do so." 

"Accident or mistake"? How about a belief that the law doesn't require your income to be reported? He didn't mention that possibility. Later on, he again said that the question is whether our not filing "was an accident or a mistake" as opposed to us "know[ing] that [we] had a duty to file." Uh, there's another option. 

"[A] good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable." [Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)] 

He left off that little tidbit. I wonder why. (No I don't.) In that case, the Supreme Court went on to say that if the defendant "truly believed" that he wasn't required to file or pay, "the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief." I'm guessing Mr. Miller didn't mention that... though the DOJ Criminal Tax Manual DOES. 

So, as we suspected, the government did NOT properly instruct the grand jurors on the law. But that's not the most interesting part of the transcripts. This is: 

The government had been "investigating" (trying to fabricate) a bunch of different charges in our case, including conspiracy, attempt to corruptly interfere with the administration of the tax laws, etc. Keep in mind, much of the other stuff was based on us having web sites, a video, and other ways in which we SPEAK OUR MINDS. They were trying to criminalize that, to justify CENSORSHIP under the guise of a criminal prosecution. 

But the government only asked for (and got) an indictment on "willful failure to file." As a result, one grand juror asked whether they had "investigated" and looked into all that other stuff for nothing. Here is the amazing reply by AUSA Floyd Miller, followed by my comments: 

"No. You did, it is... it is because this is, I don't want to sound like a patriot[1], but because this is the United States we have to make sure that before you, essentially, you know, fire the starting point that there is clearly evidence there beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury could find that somebody committed a crime[2]. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the problems that we're trying to solve are these[3], the Constitution, the First Amendment to the Constitution allows certain individuals[4] to have freedom of expression, I mean, to say some pretty horrible things[5] even if you don't like it." 

Let's consider a few points, marked by the numbers in brackets: 

[1] He doesn't want to sound like a "patriot"? (Don't worry, Mr. Miller, you don't.) After all, only a total extremist wacko would talk about Constitutional rights. Right? 

[2] This is a thinly disguised admission that they don't have a real case for some of the crimes alleged. (Actually, they don't have a case for ANY of them.) 

[3] To our "Department of Justice," the First Amendment is a "PROBLEM," to be "SOLVED." That about says it all. He might as well have just said, "there are these damn rights that we have to find a way around..." 

[4] Hmmm, I wonder which individuals are allowed to speak their mind. 

[5] Wow, discussing tax laws is a pretty horrible thing to do. I feel so ashamed. 

What does that paragraph add up to? It is a veiled admission that what we do on the web site, in the video, and elsewhere, is PERFECTLY LEGAL, and is protected speech. Interesting admission to make, AFTER swiping videos, trying to shut down our web site, stealing written reports, swiping bumper-stickers, etc. 

He went on to say that they're "still trying to figure out what statements did they make that were protected under the First Amendment and what statements did they make that constitute criminal conduct." In his words, they "aren't finished with that yet." Hmmm... shouldn't they have thought about that BEFORE raiding my home, swiping my videos, etc.? 

I wonder if at some point, some more experienced government attorney sat down with Mr. Miller, and explained to him: "ya know, this may come as a shock to you, but in this country, people are ALLOWED to publicly disagree with government agents." 

Sincerely, 

Larken Rose larken@taxableincome.net

Copyright Issues?