Subject: Ray of Hope? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, As I've mentioned before, the appeal of my bogus conviction is scheduled to be heard on September 25th. (I don't know that anything will actually be happening worth being there for; they may just make their ruling based on the motions filed.) The appeal raises several issues, one of them relating to the absurdity of letting the government harp on how some IRS bureaucrats and lower court judges asserted that my conclusions were incorrect, while prohibiting the jury from seeing or hearing statements from other credentialed people (including former IRS and DOJ folk) who agree with me. In other words, the DOJ could say "This IRS agent told him he was wrong!" while I was NOT allowed to say, "Well this IRS agent told me I was RIGHT!" Sounds fair, doesn't it? In excluding any testimony or evidence about other people agreeing with me, the judge in my case said that what OTHER people believe is completely irrelevant to the issue of MY "willfulness." I found that rather odd, since EVERYTHING the government presented was the opinion of OTHER people; they cited nothing from ME hinting that I believe I owed the tax (because I don't). Anyway, I just learned that a federal Appeals court hearing a case stemming from the "Anderson Ark" group just THREW OUT convictions for "willful" federal tax crimes for very similar reasons (U.S. v. MORAN, 05-30215 and 05-30226 (9th Cir. 2007)). The Morans appealed their convictions on four grounds, three of which were ruled against by the court. The fourth, however, dealt with the fact that the trial judge prohibited the defendants from introducing testimony 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 such evidence (as well as claiming a Rule 403 exclusion, which I won't bother explaining at the moment). "On two occasions during the trial, the district court excluded testimony by Mrs. Moran about what she had learned from outside experts." In the second instance, the government was asking one defendant about a letter from an attorney who questioned the legality of the defendants' actions. When the defendant tried to talk about how OTHER experts had said their actions WERE legal, she was cut off, and not allowed to talk about that. (Wow, sounds familiar: if someone DISAGREE with a defendant, it's relevant proof of "willfulness"; but when someone AGREES with the defendant, it's irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay. Sounds fair.) The Appeals court bluntly stated: "The defendant is entitled to testify about the tax advice he received — subject, of course, to cross-examination — and exclusion of this testimony is error." The court also said something my appeal states: "Such testimony does not constitute hearsay when not offered for the truth of the matter stated." (Without getting into the technicalities, a "statement" isn't hearsay at all if it's not introduced to prove the matter asserted. So, for example, when I wanted to play excerpts of radio shows on which Sherry Jackson, former IRS agent, AGREED with my findings, it was NOT being introduced to prove the matter asserted--i.e., that most of us don't owe the tax--but as something impacting my beliefs (or "state of mind"). So it wasn't "hearsay" at all. (Incidentally, the same applies to the exclusion of my video, my report, my web sites, etc., which is a BIG part of my appeal. They aren't "hearsay" at all, because they were NOT being introduced to prove the matter asserted: that I don't owe the tax (which I wasn't even allowed to argue); they were going to be introduced as evidence of my beliefs, or "state of mind.") Perhaps my favorite sentence from the ruling--because it sounds so much 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 ever received, thus opening the door to redirect about what other legal opinions 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 rules against our appeal (after the Ninth Circuit ruled the other way on the same issue), there will be an obvious conflict between districts, which may be enough to get the case heard by the Supreme Court. That would be fun. Sincerely, Larken Rose www.larkenrose.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkbZq6YACgkQGmVFo/iGj32gjwP/dtFmm9Bk1AlkVSIEiwSIuNRNM+xP PNMK/INkmU9AlkIqwuEvnvHSXIZ10vE6LfxOSJ99TEJ4dp5vq/lTI6FBxa5CQxUDH8D5 /pVG5Z24Gaa2PNuty0qg1EtGZaMCXfSUL7qTbQ5gnOcZ7vhYRgJBqew5X3DqHJz+wrFo j7ZRwbk= =Wl4R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Click for free information on attaining an equity line of credit. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4d9KyBHbRz60XL1jmY6dte7RqvcqlN1N3yawmt2P59Vedxlt/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to 861-on@mail-list.com To contact the list owner, send your message to 861-list-owner@mail-list.com