A little history of Harpole's trial is probably in order here concerning me, before I state my opinions on the briefs, etc.

I went to John's trial on the second day late in the afternoon. I went into the court room and of course I had a US marshal in tow. They hate me and if and when I ever get arrested for something in that venue, I will probably be beaten or worse.

Soon after entering the Court, Singleton [federal chief justice of Alaska] had a side bar which I found out later was to determine if I was to be a witness. They had the exclusionary rule in effect and it was posted on the door. [????] All witnesses are to be excluded from a trial under this rule, and as far as I know, this is standard procedure unless stipulated otherwise - go figure. Of course the CID guy is up at the table with Bradley [IRS prosecutor] and in reality you will always see a agent or cop in the courts at the table. This is the "private prosecutor" in reality and an attorney representing him - another ruse.

Later in the process the jury had to leave for some ruling by Singleton. I stood for the jury, even though I have little respect for their abilities - as the good ones have already been excluded by Singleton and the few good ones left are excluded by the Prosecutor. Of the federal jury selection, I have seen usually 2 or so out of the 30+ first batch presented that have some sense of the law. I proceeded to sit down and later Singleton left and I didn't stand.

A US marshal came over to me and stated that I needed to stand. I politely stated that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that I do not have to stand as long as I don't do any jesters or whatever - I can remain seated. The Marshall stated that I sure do like the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that are in my favor. I responded that I like every decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and did he have a favorite. Blank stare as his pea brain couldn't process the information to formulate a response, as I had turned it around on him as a question.

I asked, "by the way, what is your name?" [Randy I think may be his name, but I don't know]. He stated that he didn't have to give me his G.. D... F...ing name. "Whoa" I stated, "is that some of the homeland security training or standard us marshal training." No comment from him. Larry, and rightly so, came out of the bar and stated that he didn't want any issues here. I told him I would make no issues with the jury in the room or with the judge present.

I proceeded to the first floor and filed a a verbal complaint with a woman [ the Marshall's supervisor purportedly] after ringing the buzzer at the US Marshall's office. She proceeded to determine who he was, and left me there. Every minute or so, I rang the buzzer until I got someone there. Been there and done that on them leaving you there for long periods of time. Finally she came back out and stated that she had talked to him and that his name would not be disclosed. I demanded to know how and why his name would not be disclosed. She proceeded to close the door and I stopped her by grabbing the door from her [that could have been a problem for me and it gave her pause when I grabbed the door from her - you have to be very careful in that federal arena when you are pushing the envelope], I demanded her name and she gave it quickly and slammed the door.

I proceeded up to the trial in progress and watched. I saw one older woman agent testifying and documents being entered without objection. Words such "taxpayer", "income", and "wages" were accepted with no objection by Becraft. They always made sure to point out John's signature, address and to keep using the "terms" to get the jury to accept them. Then later in the trial, a different woman from Ogdan, Utah was brought in. I saw no attempts to impeach her or her standing, but I did not return to the trial the next day for cross.

I was asked not to be present for the trial by the defense as Singleton was supposedly not happy to have me there, so I complied - I did not return to the trial for the rest of the week. I have an appeal on Singleton filed in the 9th and I have a trooper suit stuck in his court that they have been trying to get dismissed and haven't accomplished yet. Singleton and me go back quite a few years and I don't pull any punches on him in my briefs.

Singleton asked Becraft off of the record in open court what was the expected length of the defense and Becraft stated that less that 4 hours would be required probably.

After seeing all of the documents being entered as evidence with no objections and all of the words being given validity and without any objections from Becraft, I determined that John was going to be found guilty. There was no foundation of what the documents were evidence of - willfulness, tax evasion, fraudlent - why? Why was not every "term" that is being used by the prosecution, and being taken in by jury as a "word" challenged? There is no way in this world that a brain dead jury can be swayed in three hours of testimony of information that is over their head to understand being proffered by John can in any way be considered a proper defense.

The government used power point computer visual presentation [highlighted and blown up on the screen as required] and Larry did not use this approach. Visual is powerful in todays world of video, etc. and it was not used.

None of the witnesses of the IRS were subpoenaed as John's witnesses to open areas that were not opened by the Prosecution and issued demands for their authority, the law that makes John liable, etc. I think this is another fatal error.

I liked Larry as person as I had only a few minutes with him, but this is not about who I like or don't like. This is about how to beat the IRS in court, or before court, and expose the IRS for what they really are - tyrants, despots, and criminals.

I saw this agent on the stand have her LETTER read into the record that she had told John his rights and that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States had consistently ruled against John's stance.

I would have built her up that she was a very qualified agent, had written the letter of her own personal knowledge, had the proper "office" and standing to write said letter, was she acting as an agent[representing the IRS] of the IRS, and then I would have had her explain to me the rights of John, her basis for this, is she an attorney, her authority to "represent" the IRS, and with specificity describe each and every right and decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Then she would have been impeached and had her testimony stricken from the record, and any documents that may have been attached to her.

I have watched a number of trials and it isn't only the facts and law, it is about "impeaching" the witnesses to raise questions in the jury's mind that this person can't be trusted and/or what they state can't be trusted as true.

John was a rare item in the tax area to be charged, in that he is smart, well spoken, knows the IRS code forwards and backwards, can think on his feet, etc. John's very unique knowledge was not used by Becraft in my opinion and all of the IRS documents came in without protest as true along with the "terms" attached or used therein.

Every "term" should have had an objection to it and the jury would be leaving on probably ever other sentence or two. The government in my opinion was not made in any manner to prove their law, regulations, terms, what taxable activity made John liable etc - they skated in and out the door unchallenged. Direct tax, indirect tax, excise tax, etc was given by John, but unless this is pounded into the jury over a period of many, many days with visuals to show the jury how John was visualizing all that he was relying upon, it was a total waste of time.

Singleton was happy supposedly the whole time and why not?

John's conviction up to this point has probably generated hundreds of thousands of dollars for the IRS, sent shock waves through the slope, and caused doubts in researchers that if John can't do it, can I?

Below you will find links to some of the documents associated with this case.

Later,

Ralph

PS. The complete CD has been ordered and supposedly funds from the lower 48 folks will pay for it being transcribed. When that is accomplished, it will be posted for all to see the trial, comment upon, and learn.