Posted on 07/15/2007 7:25:50 AM PDT by badgerlandjim
Today a Louisiana Federal Jury found Attorney Tommy Cryer NOT GUILTY of 2 counts of willful failure to file an income tax return. Earlier on Monday July 9th the Government had on its own motion dismissed 2 counts of tax evasion charges that it had charged Tommy Cryer with.
(Excerpt) Read more at wingswatchman.org ...
That’s good for him, but it does not mean the next jury will do the same thing.
That’s true, but I’m encouraged that at least one guy beat ‘em.
When I read this article I was reminded of something my Grandfather told my Dad when teaching him about defensive driving. My Dad told the same to me and I’ve told the same to my kids: “ You can be dead right or dead wrong, but you’re dead either way.”
Tommy won. But how much did it cost him to win? Here’s another quote: “Don’t try this at home kids.”
I wasnt aware of the whole story, this enlightened me.
It opened up thought.
Yeah, it’s only for the brave, even though they be right.
The more one delves into the original basis for an income tax the one’s thoughts ARE opened.
LINK: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321
Wonder if the story will get picked up by the wire services and published in other papers?
Well, having the personal income tax declared unconstitutional would certainly be one way to motivate our congresscritters to work on tax reform, wouldn’t it?
Thanks for posting the link. I hesitated to because I was barred from posting from the Shreveport Times. And no, I don’t think the mainstream press will give this much play.
This is not the victory everyone thinks it is. He still owes the tax. The jury only aquitted him of the criminal charges of willful failure to file. That is, the jury believed that he believed he did not have to file.. therefore it is not a crimianl case. But he still owes the tax.
So what did he win? Years of legal expenses... plus the tax. He would have been better off paying the tax to begin with.
As evil as it may be, you are never going to convince any branch of the government that you do not have to pay it. Every angle has been tried, and it has been a failure.
God bless him for fighting and I sure hope he wins but does it matter?
Here’s my take on the income tax: I believe it is unconstitutional. I also believe the Supreme Court knows it is unconstitutional.
But does any rational man believe the Supreme Court will overturn this tax if the result is chaos for the Federal Government? No they will continue to look the other way in order to keep the Government running.
All great (meaning large and long lasting) organizations when faced with a choice of organization vs. constituent pick the organization.
We already ignore many parts of the Constitution when they are inconvenient to current desired purposes. This one is no different.
So you are saying the idea that there is no legal basis for citizens to pay income tax is a scam, and that theis lawyer, Cryer, foolishly bought into it and ruined his business?
This sets no precedent, since no issue was settled by court ruling.
In addition, the fact that the IRS offered literally no rebuttal or defense to his points means that there is something else here that is going on out of the public eye, but I do not have any idea what that would be.
The short answer is yes. But, I am open to the possibility that these tax protestors are techinically correct, but that it doesn't matter because all of their arguments have been struck down by the courts. In the US, courts essentially have lawmaking power by their rulings, and if the original IRS laws did not require certain taxes, the courts have interpreted that they do.
My thought on that is that the IRS is scared that they won't be able to criminally charge every tax protestor if there ever gets to be a ruling by a federal appeals court that goes against them in one of these cases... so when a guy fights enough they just let him slide in a manner that creates no precedent.
The idea that there is no legal basis for citizens to pay income tax is a scam. End of story.
Believing that you don’t have to pay income tax is up there with believing that the moon landings were done on a sound stage or that President Bush was behind 9/11 or believing that the Constitution has a right to abortion somewhere in the text.
The last one is the trick right? Because the asshats at NOW/PP got a fake anti-life amendment put in, the tax people think they can get teh 16th taken out.
I think if we go back far enough we’d find it was a bunch of LAWYERS turned politicians who came up with this whole Federal income tax\IRS concept in the first place. If somebody’s got to beat them at their own game I’d rather it WASN’T a lawyer !!!
Well ok. But when you say that you usually got barraged by people who insist that if only you would just read thier 1,000 page book, or, a few months ago someone here suggested that I had to watch a 2 hour youtube clip, then you would know the truth.
Therefore I just skip to saying that even if the tax protestors have some sort of technical point, it doesn't matter.
Bump to a not-guilty verdict!
“But he still owes the tax.”
The jury did not rule that in any way, did it?
Right, that was not a question before the jury at all.
I agree with that, as long as they know what they are getting themselves into. What worries me is decent folk of limited means buying an Irwin Schiff book and getting themselves into a world of trouble.
Not true, not true at all. Many cases have been won or withdrawn at the last minute by the IRS because the IRS knew they would lose. They just haven't been publicized just as this one will not be discussed in national media.
“It is dangerous to be right when the state is wrong.”
Voltaire
Training Apes
A number of years ago, animal psychologists performed an experiment that goes a long way toward understanding some of the more perverse and illogical aspects of human behavior. And while I’m NOT putting humans down there with the monkeys, recent political events certainly make it increasingly difficult to maintain that separation.
Here’s what they did:
They began with a cage containing 5 apes. In the cage, they dangled a banana on a string near the roof and placed a set of stairs beneath it. One of the psychologists stationed himself above the cage with a high-pressure water hose. When the first ape attempted to climb the stairs toward the banana, the man on the hose opened up and thoroughly sprayed ALL the apes with ice cold water. The moment another of the apes attempted to touch the stairs, they ALL got another ice water shower. When yet another ape attempted the climb, another freezing deluge ensued.
At some point in the process, when one of the apes touched the stairs, the other apes frantically PULLED HIM BACK - even though NO water was sprayed on them.
They then removed one of the original apes and replaced it with a new one not involved in the first part of the exercise. The new ape spied the banana and headed for the stairs. He was IMMEDIATELY attacked by the other 4. After a few more attempts - and attacks - the new ape soon understood that any further attempts would result in another assault.
They then removed ANOTHER of the original apes, again replacing it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was promptly attacked by the other 4, INCLUDING the first replacement ape who had NEVER received the cold water shower.
They then removed the third of the original apes and inserted a new one. The new ape made it to the stairs and, as with the others, was promptly attacked. Two of the 4 apes that assaulted this new member had no idea WHY climbing the stairs was a forbidden activity or WHY they were participating in the assaults on the transgressors.
The experimenters then replaced the 4th and 5th apes leaving none of the original apes. No apes subjected to the cold showers remained in the cage.
Nevertheless, NO APES AGAIN EVER APPROACHED THE STAIRS.
If you don’t get the point of this story, go sit in the back of a courtroom during one of the thousands of “victimless crime” trials each year and watch the jurors refuse to touch the stairs.
No case has been won. There have been cases like this one where people have one on the criminal charge, but not on the underlying issue of whether they owe income taxes.
It is a tax on any income, not profit, besides the exceptions that they allow you to claim.
And it, like any other fuel pump, sucks and blows.
The scam that is the Income tax and the Federal Reserve is presented in the following high quality film, free on the internet with a high speed connection:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
I get your point. :-)
Thanks for the link.
The fact is, the feds DON’T NEED THE INCOME TAX FOR REVENUE. It is needed to vacuum the billions of new currency and credit they are inflating into the system to keep most of us from getting wise to the game.
And because they have the virtually unlimited power to create “money” from thin air, except for the periodic election beauty contests, the politicians and bureaucrats DON’T NEED US EITHER! That explains why, except for the runup to those elections, they no longer much listen to us. (The recent temporary defeat of the immigration bill was a brief anomoly.)
Some “stuff” to think about:
(I wrote this a number of years ago when things were NOT going well with the economy. Trust me: They WILL get ugly once again as man — or certain men — cannot resist playing God. We continue to violate the universal, immutable laws of economics at our great peril.)
Despite the apparent economic strength of the American economy, history proves that EVERY house of cards eventually comes down. And the higher the card house, the harder the fall when it finally comes. And when it does, the more freedoms we will voluntarily surrender to “restore order.” It was the Founders’ concern about this historically valid problem which prompted their attempt — now ignored — to keep American “money” sound and honest.) Dick Bachert 1998
* * * * * * * *
The Forgotten History of Money
This is the fascinating story of the efforts by certain of the Founding Fathers to prevent the economic distress we find all about us today. It is also a sad story on the basis that modern, “sophisticated” Americans have abandoned the corrective institutional mechanism that remains in place to this day. As you read it, think about a world with many fewer S&L, banking and political scandals and economic problems now considered the norm.
“Blood running in the streets. Mobs of rioters and demonstrators threatening banks and legislatures. Looting of shop and home. Strikes and unemployment. Trade and distribution paralyzed. Shortages of food. Bankruptcies everywhere. Court dockets overloaded. Kidnappings for heavy ransom. Sexual perversion, drunkenness, lawlessness rampant. The wheels of government are clogged, and we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness. No day was ever more clouded than the present. We are fast verging on anarchy and confusion. (George Washington in a 1786 letter to James Madison, describing the effects of fiat paper money inflation then ravaging America in the pre Constitutional period.)
“The annihilation (of the paper money) was so complete that barber shops were papered in jest with the bills; and sailors, on returning from cruises, being paid off in bundles of this worthless money, had suits made of it, and with characteristic lightheartedness, turned their loss into frolic by parading through the streets in decayed finery which in its better days had passed for thousands of dollars.” (Contemporary writer, Breck, 1786)
“Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade and husbandry, and the manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of out people.” (Peletiah Webster, 1786)
At the drafting of the U.S.Constitution, there were many “Friends of Paper Money” present. On August 16, 1787, when the discussion arose on Article 1, Section 8, the proposed wording was this: “The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to...coin money...and emit bills of credit of the United States.”
A hot argument ensued on the power to emit bills of credit, which is another way of saying “printing paper money”.
Here are the actual words James Madison wrote describing the debate in his diary: “Mr.G.Morris moved to strike out *and emit bills of credit.* If the United States had credit, such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and useless.
MADISON: Will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.
MORRIS: Striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do the good without the mischief. The monied interest will oppose the plan of the Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.
COL.MASON: Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergencies, we was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature [Legislature = Congress].
MR.MERCER:(A friend to paper money) It was impolitic...to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money.
MR. ELSEWORTH thought this was a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new Government, more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost anything else...Give the Government credit, and other will offer. The power may do harm, never good.
MR.WILSON: It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.
MR.READ thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation.
MR.LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words *and emit bills*”.
The motion for striking out carried.
Historian George Bancroft later wrote: “James Madison left his testimony that *the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, was cut
off.* This is the interpretation of the clause, made at the time of its adoption by all the statesmen of that age, not open to dispute because too clear for argument, and never disputed so long as any one man who took part in framing the constitution remained alive.”
ROGER SHERMAN(1721 1793)should be a name familiar to every American. As familiar as Washington, Madison, Jefferson and Adams. He is the only man to have signed all 4 documents surrounding the formation of the United States of America: The Continental Association of 1774, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation and The United States Constitution. He was a Judge of the Superior Court in New Haven, Connecticut, serving that office with distinction from 1766 until 1788. He served as Treasurer of Yale University from 1765 to 1776. He was renouned for his high intelligence and unswerving honesty and was described by John Adams “as honest as an angel and as
firm in the cause of American independence as Mount Atlas.” He served in the U.S.Senate from 1791 until his death in 1793.
Why is Roger Sherman*s name unfamiliar? HE WAS AN ENEMY OF PAPER MONEY!! In 1751, Roger Sherman and his brother William sued James Battle for paying a debt to their shop in New Milford, Connecticut, in depreciating paper currency. Over a period of 15 months, Battle had charged “divers wares and merchandizes” amounting to 129 pounds of what
Sherman assumed were pounds of Connecticut “Old Tenor”, a stable currency whose value were well preserved by taxation taking it out of circulation. But Battle assumed the debt was denominated in pounds of ever depreciating Rhode Island currency, tendered in same, and the Shermans took a beating in the payment and sued for recovery of loss by depreciation. The Shermans lost when Battle argued that he was merely following the accepted custom of the day. In 1752, Sherman wrote his book “A Caveat Against Injustice or An Inquiry into the Evils of a Fluctuating Medium of Exchange” indicting UNBACKED PAPER MONEY.
It was this experience that Sherman brought to the Constitutional Convention and prompted him to rise on August 28,1787 and propose new, more restrictive wording to Article 1,Section 10. The standing version under consideration was worded this way: “No state shall coin money; nor grant letters of marque and reprisal; nor enter into any Treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of Nobility.” (From Madison’s Notes of the Convention) “Judge Sherman and Mr. Wilson moved to insert the words *coin money* the words *nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts* making these prohibitions absolute, instead of making the measures allowable with the consent of the Legislature of the U.S. Mr. Sherman thought this a FAVORABLE CRISIS FOR CRUSHING PAPER MONEY. If the consent of the Legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the Legislature in order to license it.” Mr. Sherman*s and Mr. Wilson*s motion was quickly agreed to and became the supreme law of the land.
Some additional quotations to ponder:
“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation” (John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787)
“I deny the power of the general government to making paper money, or anything else, a legal tender.” (Thomas Jefferson)
“You have been doubtless been informed, from time to time, of the happy progress of our affairs. The principal difficulties seem in great measure to have been surmounted. Our revenues have been considerably
more productive than it was imagined they would be. I mention this to show the spirit of enterprise that prevails.” (George Washington in a letter to the Marquis de LaFayette, June 3, 1790 AFTER the United States Constitution prohibited unbacked paper money at Article 1, Section 10)
“Since the federal constitution has removed all danger of our having a paper tender, our trade is advanced fifty percent. Our monied people can trust their cash abroad, and have brought their coin into circulation.” (December 16, 1789 edition of The Pennsylvania
Gazette)
“Our country, my dear sir, is fast progressing in its political importance and social happiness.” (George Washington in a letter to the Marquis de LaFayette, March 19, 1791)
“The United States enjoys a sense of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” (George Washington in a letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, July 19,1791)
“Tranquility reigns among the people with that disposition towards the general government which is likely to preserve it. Our public credit stands on that high ground which three years ago would have been
considered as a species of madness to have foretold.” (George Washington in a letter to David Humphreys, July 20, 1791)
“It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution as well as the times which gave birth to it, that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals.
These were adopted by a permanent rule excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange, such as certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of PAPER CURRENCY.” (Andrew Jackson, 8th Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1836)
DESPITE WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL, THE HISTORICAL RECORD IS CRYSTAL CLEAR: AMERICA WAS TO HAVE BEEN SPARED THE DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS OF AN UNBACKED PAPER MONEY SYSTEM. MOST OF THE PROBLEMS WE FACE TODAY CAN BE TRACED TO WHAT ANDREW JACKSON CALLED “THE PERNICIOUS EXPEDIENT OF PAPER MONEY”.
HISTORY TEACHES THAT AN “ARTIFICIAL” MONEY CREATES AN “ARTIFICIAL” WORLD WHERE THE PRICE FOR SOME ITEM...EVEN OUR MOST POPULAR WELFARE “PROGRAM”...CAN BE DEFERRED TO FUTURE GENERATIONS (OUR $11 TRILLION
NATIONAL DEBT) OR PAID WITH A “MONEY” CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR WHICH ROBS THE VALUE FROM THE MONEY WE MIGHT BE UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE IN OUR POCKETS AT THAT MOMENT (INFLATION). AND ONE THING YOU MUST REMEMBER ABOUT INFLATION IS THAT IT IS NOT AN “EQUAL OPPORTUNITY” DESTROYER: THOSE FIRST IN LINE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON THE NEW MONEY ROLLING OFF THE PRESSES (THE MODERN FRIENDS OF PAPER MONEY) HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEND IT BEFORE IT LOSES ITS VALUE. THE LITTLE PEOPLE (THAT’S US, FOLKS!) FARTHEST DOWN THE LINE ARE THE ONES WHO FEEL THE FULLEST EFFECTS OF THIS DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS.
You have it right here. The IRS withdraws often at the last minute because they know they will lose. There are many many cases which would have been wins if the IRS had not run away.
In this case, Cryer is a gold medal trial attorney. The IRS brought in their big guns, tried to taint the jury pool, tried to bar evidence and statements, tried changing the argument attack and throwing in distraction after distraction.
Cryer beat them because he is experienced but he said that others without his trial experience would have been beat.
And yes, the Income tax as applied is unconstitutional.
If you have a high speed internet connection, study this film (easy to watch):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
Yep. EVERY ruling body that has, in effect, counterfeited their way to a false prosperity has driven the ruled into hyper-inflationary times. Our time is coming.
You seem to be confusing cases like this case, where Cryer beat the criminal conviction, with the underlying issue of the unconstitutionality of the income tax. Nobody has won on that. Nobody.
No, it does matter. The Constitutional replacement for unconstitutional application of the Income tax is the FairTax. The FairTax movement is growing faster and faster every year.
A tax revolt is coming. The Income tax lovers know it and they are in a panic.
The Income tax is going down.
We still have to pay taxes though, but in a Constitutional way.
He would have been better off paying the tax to begin with.
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Now I understand your "reasoning".
I take it then that you are going to go ahead and stop paying taxes?
The 16th Amendment allows for an income tax without apportionment. Early Supreme Court cases ruled that the 16th Amendment conferred no new tax authority. But the IRS has twisted and tweaked the language to get whatever authority they want. They are America's KGB and that is no exaggeration.
Cryer's case sets precedent in how the income tax is applied and what means are constitutional.
Now it may be futile because the definition of the word 'income' is never defined by the IRS even though it applies to gains or corporate profits. So Income tax lovers have played word games over decades with the word 'income' and that is where the problem is.
If you have enough money you can bribe a member of Congress into a tax loophole easily by changing the word 'income' to 'gain' (or even better 'exempt').
That's why billionaires like Warren Buffett pay 17% and his secretary pays more than 25% (he admitted to that). And because the definition of the word 'income' is easy to manipulate, closing loopholes becomes like a game of wack-a-mole. Close one loophole and another rises up.
The FairTax gets rid of all the nonsense games played with the concept of 'income'.
You have supplied some excellent material for our homeschool lesson on economics! Thank you Dick!
Avoiding paying a criminal penalty doesn’t mean he wins.
There have been many many cases won. You are allowing yourself to be ignorant. Why?
Cryer does not owe the tax. Visit his website, his case is spelled out there. His evasion charges were dropped because there were no taxes due. The criminal evasion charges were trumped up and advertised in the local press to smear him and create fear.
He owes no tax.
Why are you hoping otherwise?
I agree with the court system is turning there head.This is “TREASON” against the american people which conviently poloticians and judges are exempt from!!!??? We will only keep our country free if we pay attention and stand up! Do not ignore the bravery this man has.Learn from it because its very possible you will need this information someday to save yourself from the very thing this man went thru!
No, it didn't. He was charged with willfully failing to file, which requires as proof that he knew he was supposed to file, but didn't. He argued that he didn't know he was supposed to file, because he doesn't think he has to.
the jury agreed that he did not willfully fail to file. That does not mean that he was not required to.
That is simple fact.
No, there has not been a single case won where the defeandant claimed that the income tax was unconstitutional. There have been cases like this one. You are allowing yourself to be ignorant. Why?
I'm not. There are no cases. If there are, then cite one.
Cryer does not owe the tax. Visit his website, his case is spelled out there. His evasion charges were dropped because there were no taxes due. The criminal evasion charges were trumped up and advertised in the local press to smear him and create fear.
He may or may not owe a tax.. sometimes people who don't file wouldn't have owed anything anyway, but this case did not rule on whether or not the income tax is constitutional.
He owes no tax.
Remains to be seen.
Why are you hoping otherwise?
I'm not. I just don't believe in telling people that they don't have to pay taxes when they do.
To be clear in my last post: I meant to say that there has not been a single case where the jury has ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. Please cite one.
As has been pointed out, he "beat" NOTHING other than the federal misdemeanor charges. With the "Cheek" defense of "I'm too stupid to understand the law and actually believed my BS reasons for not paying" even though he's a lawyer. LOL. There's nothing like an OJ jury.
His problem is that he still has to pay EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF TAX, penalty, interest, and, as an added bonus, his attorney's no doubt large bill. Isn't that wonderful?
BTW, Becraft, his attorney, pays his taxes. He's not as dumb as his clients.
When will people figure out that the tax protester nonsense is just that? That you can rarely count on an idiot jury to buy your baloney and keep you out of prison?
Wrong. I have heard Mr. Cryer speak on a nationwide conference call just last Thursday and in his own words he stated the jury found him innocent because the IRS could not substantiate a counterargument to his case which rested on absence of a law.
That you are now trying to speak for the jury tells me you are a liar. You are hoping this case is trivial, it is not. People affiliated in some way with the IRS always hope these cases are viewed as trivial. When the IRS places their bet on a court win and they lose, they always say it was a trivial ‘ruling’ even when it is a precedent setting jury ‘verdict’ as this case is.
Go to his website and read. You can even contact him yourself.
And tell your IRS buds that the revolt is just around the corner and Americans are now beginning to take names in preparation for a major ass-kicking.
That you continue to ignore this detail tells everyone all they need to know about you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.