| LEGAL
DISCLAIMER I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet. I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet. I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. Go look it up for yourself. |
Dialog with a juror
|
| Triallogs.blogspot is a blog dealing with the trial of Larken Rose. A Mr. Ryan Baptista posted a comment on the blog claiming to be one of the jurors. Here is Mr. Baptista's post, unedited and verbatim from that blog |
| You know, since the end of this trial
I've seen a great deal of
jury-bashing around various websites of Larken's supporters. I served
as one of the twelve in that trial, and I would like to say that I
certainly do not appreciate the kind of vicious slander that's been
thrown our way. Yes, it's true... We were only out for 90 minutes,
including lunch. But why? Was it because we just wanted to get home and
get our duty over with? Certainly not, as some of us, myself included,
had to wait several hours for transportation out of the city anyway. We
simply felt that there was not much to deliberate. The evidence spoke
very loudly and clearly that Larken Rose was guilty on all counts
presented. As press releases have stated, we found very quickly that
Mr. Rose did not possess a "good-faith" understanding of the law, as
was one of the elements require to be proven for a not-guilty verdict.
I don't intend to go into the nitty-gritty of our deliberations, but I
feel the need to get my voice out here and say that we have been
subjected to a great deal of unfair criticism and insults (weren't you
scolding the government about character assassination?) that are
entirely unfair. Why shouldn't we be upbeat after the trial? We did
what we felt was our civic duty, and we had every intent to continue on
with our lives -- I think it bears no indication on our deliberation
that we were jovial after the trial. |
| I do not know what others would want to do in dialog with Mr. Baptista. I do know that I want to show him what he was not shown as a juror in Mr. Rose's Heresy Inquisition... Er, Mr. Rose's willful failure to file trial. To that end, I am intent upon showing the law to Mr. Baptista and asking pointed questions about the law shown to him. The purpose being to let Mr. Baptista come to his own conclusions about what the law says. Those who have taken the time to study the issue know what the law says. Mr. Baptista has not taken the time, Nor does he know what the law says. And we all know that the judge was not going to allow the jurors to read the law. |
| Mr. Baptista, If you truly are one of
the jurists, Then I would request
that you please take the time now, to have a quaint little dialog with
me. As you said, I feel the need to get my voice out here and say that we have been subjected to a great deal of unfair criticism and insults... If it is easier, we could have the dialog by email, with the understanding that I will post the completed dialog on this blog, and on my website when complete. dalereastman at sprintmail dot com. I will ask simple questions... At first. 1. If there is NO LEGAL DUTY to perform some act, can a person "WILLFULLY" refuse to do the non-existent legal duty? YES or NO 2. Did you actually look at the law, or see presented in the trial, the actual WORDS of the LAW? YES or NO 3. Did you rely on the judge's hearsay evidence of what the words of the law actually are to understand the duty Mr. Rose was under? YES or NO 4. The charge was willfully failing to file income tax returns (and pay). Please post the statute and regulations that apply to Mr. Rose that created the legal duty to file and pay. Sincerely, Dale R. Eastman. |
| Much to my surprise and delight, Mr. Baptista took me up on my offer. |
| Mr. Eastman, I'd be more than happy to indulge your questions. It seems that all of them have a central theme, all of which relate to Mr. Rose's argument that he had no duty to pay his federal income taxes. However, I would like to point out that our charge was not to actually look at the substance of the law and decide whether Mr. Rose's arguments or the instructed law were correct. During the trial, we were shown highlighted excerpts from the law as shown by Mr. Rose, but the validity of his 861 argument was not the central concern of our deliberation. We were instructed as to the law by the judge, and we were left to deliberate on the specific points of the charges that were brought forth. Therefore, we as a jury did not have the authority to interpret the tax law and decide what the laws did or did not state. Our deliberation, and ultimately our verdict, was hinged on the concept of a "good-faith misunderstanding" of vs. a disagreement with the law, which was, according to our charge, one of the things we were to consider in determining the willfullness of Mr. Rose's actions. Largely through evidence presented in the government's cross-examination, we determined that, based on many of Mr. Rose's past comments, he did not in fact possess a good-natured misunderstanding of the law, which was described in the charge as being absent of ill will. As was presented to us, Mr. Rose had the opportunity to take his arguments for Section 861 through the proper steps in the court, and he chose not to. Rather, he opted to taunt the IRS for a prosecution, and racked up an impressive history of threatening statements regarded them. Thus, we concluded that Mr. Rose was not simply a man out to settle a legal dispute with the government, but rather that he had willfully defied the law as it was repeatedly given to him as an act of ill will toward the government. If you have any more questions for me, please feel free to contact me again. However, in regards to posting the dialog on your website, I would like a chance to review the finalized copy before you publish it. Sincerely, Ryan Baptista |
If you have any more questions for me,
please feel free to contact me again.
Oh yes, I do have some questions. And I thank you for offering to answer them. However, in regards to posting the
dialog on your website, I would like a
chance to review the finalized copy before you publish it.
Mr. Baptista, I will be glad to have you review the finalized copy before posting publicly. I was thinking of offering such review to you in the blog. Even if you had not asked, I was going to post such a final review to you before posting it publicly anyway. If nothing else, I want to be fair and accurate. I get the sense from your post in the blog, that some of the comments you have read about the 12 of you cut pretty deep. You did what you perceived as your societal duty and you're getting dumped on. I see no reason to do that. Especially if you are being gracious enough to have this dialog. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you knew nothing about any of this until you were given such evidence as you saw at the trial? The reason I ask, is I feel like I will end up being like a mediator of a sort. Your dialog will perhaps show the human side of one of the twelve to the rest of the 861 people, and perhaps I will be able to present to you a sense of why they are so vicious. I do know that they are extremely frustrated. As we cover what I would like to expose you to, you will understand why they are all cranked up. [ Off topic personal info redacted ] In the mean time, I want to thank you for taking me up on my offer to have dialog. Sincerely, Dale R. Eastman. |
The questions as original stated are
pasted in here to keep them in sight, and as a review.
1. If there is NO LEGAL DUTY to perform some act, can a person "WILLFULLY" refuse to do the non-existent legal duty? YES or NO 2. Did you actually look at the law, or see presented in the trial, the actual WORDS of the LAW? YES or NO 3. Did you rely on the judge's hearsay evidence of what the words of the law actually are to understand the duty Mr. Rose was under? YES or NO 4. The charge was willfully failing to file income tax returns (and pay). Please post the statute and regulations that apply to Mr. Rose that created the legal duty to file and pay. rjb3@desales.edu wrote: It seems that all of them have a
central theme, all of which relate to Mr.
Rose's argument that he had no duty to pay his federal income taxes.
That is a correct synopsis of questions 2, 3, & 4. However, I
would like to point out that our charge was not to actually look at the
substance of the law and decide whether Mr. Rose's arguments or the
instructed law were correct.
You have stated plainly, the information my questions were intended to get to. During the trial, we were shown
highlighted excerpts from the
law as shown by Mr. Rose, but the validity of his 861 argument was not
the
central concern of our deliberation.
You have stated plainly, other information I was intending to 'dig' for. We were instructed as to the law by the
judge, and we were left to deliberate on the specific points of the
charges
that were brought forth.
And this plain statement was the central point I was looking to expose in my questions. Therefore, we as a jury did not have
the authority to interpret the tax law and
decide what the laws did or did not state.
I will return to this statement in a later post. Our deliberation, and ultimately our
verdict, was hinged on the concept of a "good-faith misunderstanding"
of vs. a
disagreement with the law, which was, according to our charge, one of
the
things we were to consider in determining the willfullness of Mr.
Rose's
actions.
This plain statement is another item of information I was expecting to reveal with my questions. Largely through evidence presented in
the government's
cross-examination, we determined that, based on many of Mr. Rose's past
comments, he did not in fact possess a good-natured misunderstanding of
the
law, which was described in the charge as being absent of ill will.
I will address this statement from an oblique angle a little later. It is NOT my purpose to castigate or excoriate you for doing what you believed was correct with the information at your disposal. As was
presented to us, Mr. Rose had the opportunity to take his arguments for
Section
861 through the proper steps in the court, and he chose not to.
I am presuming by this statement, you are referring to the procedure of paying first and suing for refund? I am presuming that the prosecution explained that procedure as evidence during the trial. Rather, he
opted to taunt the IRS for a prosecution, and racked up an impressive
history
of threatening statements regarded them.
I do believe that is what the prosecution presented to you guys. Thus, we concluded that Mr. Rose was
not simply a man out to settle a legal dispute with the government, but
rather
that he had willfully defied the law as it was repeatedly given to him
as an
act of ill will toward the government.
This statement contains much information. More so than I believe you are presently aware of. It makes a good segue back to my first question. You have given statements the answer questions 2, 3, & 4 quite concisely. So I am going to restate question #1. It is more about a point of logic, and it is a foundation upon which the statements you have given are to be set. 1. IF there is no legal duty to perform some act, THEN can a person "willfully" refuse to do the non-existent legal duty? Again, thank you for the time you are putting into this exchange. Sincerely, Dale R. Eastman. |
| IF there is no legal duty to perform
some act, THEN can a person "willfully" refuse to do the non-existent
legal duty?
I think that this is a very easy question to answer -- someone can not willfully refuse to do something that he is not obligated to do. However, his 861 argument notwithstanding, and according to the law as it was given to us, Mr. Rose DID have an obligation to pay taxes. Therein lies what I think is the essential problem that many of you have; because Mr. Rose did not take the proper steps to test his argument in court, we were not sent to deliberate on the full legality of his argument, but rather whether he had a willful intent to defy the standing law, which, as I explained previously, we found that he did. Sincerely, Ryan Baptista |
| IF there is no legal duty to perform
some act, THEN can a person "willfully"
refuse to do the non-existent legal duty?
I think that this is a very easy
question to answer -- someone can not willfully refuse to do something that he is not
obligated to do.
Thank you Mr. Baptista. It is one of those no-brainer type questions, yet it is very important to my purpose. I know that what I am writing probably makes me seem a little dense, and definitely obtuse appearing. However, his 861 argument notwithstanding, and according
to the law as it was given to us, Mr.
Rose DID have an obligation to pay taxes. The key words you have written here, sir, are "the law as it was given to us", "us" being yourself and the 11 others. Therein lies what I think is the essential problem that many of
you have; because Mr. Rose did not take the proper steps to test his argument in
court, we were not sent to deliberate on the full legality of his argument, but
rather whether he had a willful intent to defy the standing law, which, as I
explained previously, we found that he did.
And the key words here are, "... intent to defy the standing law..." I do not know if the prosecution submitted the following statutes as evidence or not. Statute 6001, Statute 6011, and Statute 6012(a). If they did submit those statutes as evidence of the law, what follows should just be a review of what you have already been shown in court. If not, then you will get to read the actual laws that require the filing of tax forms. The question that follows, then, is, Do these three statutes reasonably create a duty to file income taxes? Sec. 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns -STATUTE- Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a). Sec. 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list -STATUTE- (a) General rule When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations. Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income -STATUTE- (a) General rule Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual - (i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, (ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, (iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or (iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home. Clause (iv) shall not apply if for the taxable year such spouse makes a separate return or any other taxpayer is entitled to an exemption for such spouse under section 151(c). If I were to attempt to argue that they do not create a requirement to file taxes, you could consider me an idiot. I am going to presume that you will answer the prior question in the affirmative, that these three sections DO create a duty to file tax returns. And I do agree that these three sections impose a duty to file. A simple Yes you agree that these three create a duty, or No these three do not create a duty will suffice for now. Again, I really do appreciate the time you are taking with me. Sincerely, Dale R. Eastman. |
| I'll
be brief this time around, since there isn't too much to say in answer
to this part. Yes, it seems pretty clear that a duty is definitely
created by those statutes. And of course, as I said previously, I'm happy to talk to you like this -- I'm sure that if this trial were something that was of great concern to me, I would also appreciate hearing feedback on the verdict. Sincerely, Ryan Baptista |
| I'll be brief this time around, since
there isn't too much to say in answer to this part. Yes, it seems pretty clear
that a duty is definitely created by those statutes.
And thus we agree. I'm going to drop those statutes back in this post again, only this time I am going to highlight certain words and phrases by making the words into ALLCAPS. I will then post commentary on the highlighted words. And of course, as I said previously,
I'm happy to talk to you like this -- I'm sure that if this trial were something
that was of great concern to me, I would also appreciate hearing feedback on the
verdict.
Mr. Baptista, You are a considerate person. I think by now you have figured out that I don't agree with the verdict, however, in view of this dialog, I do believe you considered exactly what was presented for you to consider. And I also think you DID take the matter seriously. You put forth an appearance of an honorable person in your comments so far. I think only an honorable person would attempt to set the record straight regarding what you have a problem with regarding the "vicious slander". On to the topic. Sec. 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns -STATUTE- EVERY PERSON LIABLE FOR ANY TAX IMPOSED by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. [Remaining sentences abridged for now] I think I am on question #5 now. Q5. If a person is NOT liable for any tax imposed, does this sentence require filing? Sec. 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list -STATUTE- (a) General rule WHEN REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS prescribed by the Secretary ANY PERSON MADE LIABLE FOR ANY TAX IMPOSED by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. [Remaining sentence abridged for now] Q6. If a person is not "required by regulations", does the duty exist to make a return or statement? O7. If a person is not "MADE liable for any tax imposed", does the duty exist to make a return or statement? Q8. Do you agree that both conditions MUST exist TOGETHER in order for this statute to create a duty to make a return or statement? In other words, To have a duty to make a return or statement, a person MUST be MADE liable AND that person MUST ALSO be required by Regulations. Yes or no? Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income -STATUTE- (a) General rule Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year GROSS INCOME which equals or EXCEEDS THE EXEMPTION AMOUNT, In other words, Subtitle A income tax returns are required if a person has gross income over a certain threshold. Q9. Yes or no? Because of the way this statute is worded, I can not truncate the rest of it, because I need to leave the evidence of the thresholds to validate the question. except that a return shall not be required of an individual - (i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, (ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, (iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or (iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home. Clause (iv) shall not apply if for the taxable year such spouse makes a separate return or any other taxpayer is entitled to an exemption for such spouse under section 151(c). Thanks, Dale R. Eastman. |
| Wow,
that was a lot to stomach all at once... But I'll wrap it up as
best I can. Yes, as you mentioned in the first of your questions, both conditions must exist together in order to create a tax duty. And to the final question, yes, I can also see that having a gross income over the threshold also requires a return. I apologize for the relative briefness of some of the responses, but I'm far from knowledgeable of tax codes, so I'm just calling things as I see them. Sincerely, Ryan Baptista |
| Wow, that was a lot to stomach all at
once... But I'll wrap it up as best I can.
Yes, as you mentioned in the first of your questions, both conditions must exist together in order to create a tax duty. And to the final question, yes, I can also see that having a gross income over the threshold also requires a return. I apologize for the relative briefness of some of the responses, but I'm far from knowledgeable of tax codes, so I'm just calling things as I see them. Good afternoon Mr. Baptista. No need to apologize. I know that was a lot... And I am pacing myself so as to not overload you. The Eyes Glazed Over Look from TOO MANY words, which all run together and look like a black and white blur is something I am trying to avoid. Before I continue, I must point out something that came to mind. As you can read, I am taking you on a tour, so to speak. You have no proof that the statutes, (and the regulations when they come up) actually say what I claim. The reality then, is that my quoting such words proves nothing as evidence. I think I should post the links to the government websites where you can verify the words as I quote them. The government websites that contain these files are actually on different servers. I will just post the URL's of the sequence of pages from the top page to the file of law so you can verify that the servers are indeed the ones serving the law files. In the case of section 6001, the links and pages are in this order: http://uscode.house.gov/lawrevisioncounsel.shtml http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml Entering into the data field boxes, 26; 6001 then click search or hit carriage return. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?search NOTE: The above link does not return anything since it is probably a javascript reply from the previous link. You can click the criteria.html link and enter the data. <http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-%20> If you bracket long URL links with the less than (<) and greater than (>) symbols, netscape and MSIE do not break the line. With that long line, I'm going to send this and continue in a second reply. |
| Wow, that was a lot to stomach all at
once... But I'll wrap it up as best I can.
Yes, as you mentioned in the first of your questions, both conditions must exist together in order to create a tax duty. And to the final question, yes, I can also see that having a gross income over the threshold also requires a return. I apologize for the relative briefness of some of the responses, but I'm far from knowledgeable of tax codes, so I'm just calling things as I see them. I will give you the steps to any regulations as they come up also, for the same reasons of the statutes in my last post. Now back to the chase. The three sections that create a duty to file are all predicated upon different things. I will drop the three sections back in with comment upon what the predicated condition is that must exist to activate the filing requirements. They are different for the three sections. Sec. 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns -STATUTE- EVERY PERSON LIABLE FOR ANY TAX IMPOSED by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. If a person is not liable, this section does not activate. Sec. 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list -STATUTE- (a) General rule WHEN REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS prescribed by the Secretary ANY PERSON MADE LIABLE FOR ANY TAX IMPOSED by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. [Remaining sentence abridged for now] If a person is not liable, this section does not activate, and even if a person was liable, The regulations must require the return. In the case of both 6001 and 6011, if there is no liability, there is no requirement to file. The next section DOES require a filing even if there is no liability. Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income -STATUTE- (a) General rule Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year GROSS INCOME which equals or EXCEEDS THE EXEMPTION AMOUNT, If the exemption amount is $750, and an individual makes $752, even though the exemption amount cancels most of the gross income leaving just $2.00, there is a requirement to file. Q10. Do you agree that having $752 of gross income triggers the requirement to file? Q11. Do you agree that having $748 of gross income DOES NOT trigger the requirement to file? Moving to the "liability" for taxes addressed in 6001 and 6011... Q12. If a person owes a tax, would this be a "liability"? Q13. If there is NO tax imposed, would a person have a "tax liability"? After you reply to this post, I will be done with 6001, 6011, & 6012 for the time being. Thanks again, Dale R. Eastman |
| I
am disappointed that Mr. Baptista chose to not respond to me any
more. As he said, "I'm far from knowledgeable of tax codes".
I was and am still willing to share with him, what the last two years
of intensive study of the IRC has presented to myself. Somebody posted to the blog that he was only 19. The desales.edu is a college or university in Pennsylvania, so the post came from the right place. The naiveté I sensed from his posts made me think I was dealing with a younger person. I wonder if he feels like that fan that screwed up the playoffs for his baseball team and that's why he quit posting. I fully intended to educate him on the law... By allowing him to read it for himself. Standing questions for Mr. Baptista since he abandoned our dialog.... How do you know the judge didn't flat out lie to you? Did you see the law with your very own two eyes in the United States Code book? Did you see the law with your very own two eyes in the Code of Federal Regulations? Did you see the dialogs Mr. Rose has had with the IRS over the last 6 years? Did you see the bullshit answers the IRS sent to 1,200 people asking six simple questions? Did you see the six simple questions asked of the Commissioner of the IRS and the Secretary of Treasury? Questions and NON answers here on the old site that will be removed eventually Questions and NON answers here on the new site, with a different direction available for your study. |