Huh -- the Anti-IRS tax people actually won in court -- what now?
Tockk
gotta pay 'em, so I do. But it looks like this guy who says we don't have
to (at least not on earned income) had his day in court, and the jury ruled
for him, 12-0. Anyone know anything else?
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321
Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago
July 13, 2007
By Loresha Wilson
A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the
legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he
failed to file returns.
A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two
misdemeanor counts of failure to file.
And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax
evasion prior to trial.
Attempts by The Times on Thursday to reach U.S. Attorney Donald Washington
or Bill Flanagan, first assistant U.S. attorney, were not successful. Calls
made to the two were not immediately returned.
"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues
taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government
cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you
work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so
everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."
Cryer was indicted last year on two counts of tax evasion. The indictment
alleged he evaded payment of $73,000 in income tax to the Internal Revenue
Service during 2000 and 2001.
Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments
of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the
indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of
income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust.
"I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some
were income," Cryer said. "I refuse to file, I refuse to pay unless they can
show me I have a lawful reason to pay."
"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange.
I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."
Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he
investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't
actually tax personal earning.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Tockk" <to...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tDdqi.24613$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> Anyone follow this topic? All I know about it is that the IRS tells me I
> gotta pay 'em, so I do. But it looks like this guy who says we don't
> have to (at least not on earned income) had his day in court, and the jury
> ruled for him, 12-0. Anyone know anything else?
>
> http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321
>
> Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he
> investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law
> doesn't actually tax personal earning.
my investigations show that he's probably correct; the wage slave doesn't
have
to pay tax on wages. some who may have to pay on wages: business owners,
corporate
officers, corporations, residents of d.c. and other u.s. territories,
employees of the federal govt.
http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/
go to the download report and on that page you'll find a drop down box
that will give you other names to search for along with irs.
and perhaps you'd like to investigate 9-11 while you're at it.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
other side info: http://www.quatlosers.com/joe_banister.htm
and are you aware that federal, state and county govts keep
2 sets of books? http://www.cafrman.com/
clams casino
>Anyone follow this topic? All I know about it is that the IRS tells me I
>gotta pay 'em, so I do. But it looks like this guy who says we don't have
>to (at least not on earned income) had his day in court, and the jury ruled
>for him, 12-0. Anyone know anything else?
>
>
>
After doing a google search, all I'm finding are brief stories
reporting two felonies were dropped and a lot of gossip / speculation
on blogs & other wacky sites.
It would be interesting to know WHY the two felonies were dropped
("before coming to trial"). I'm not finding what I can call a
reliable reference explaining why they were dropped.
"dismissed" two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial is not
really the same as "acquitted" / not guilty.
The reference sites seem to restate what Cryer mouths vs. the court's
reasons for dismissal.
He reminds me of the DC lawyer suing for his pants.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"clams casino" <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote in message
news:Xamqi.2863$dA7....@newsfe16.lga...
> Tockk wrote:
>
>>Anyone follow this topic? All I know about it is that the IRS tells me I
>>gotta pay 'em, so I do. But it looks like this guy who says we don't
>>have to (at least not on earned income) had his day in court, and the jury
>>ruled for him, 12-0. Anyone know anything else?
>>
>>
>
> After doing a google search, all I'm finding are brief stories reporting
> two felonies were dropped and a lot of gossip / speculation on blogs &
> other wacky sites.
>
> It would be interesting to know WHY the two felonies were dropped ("before
> coming to trial"). I'm not finding what I can call a reliable reference
> explaining why they were dropped.
>
> "dismissed" two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial is not really
> the same as "acquitted" / not guilty.
if you were the irs, and the defendent really had the goods, would
you want it reported all over the country via a full-blown aquittal?
better to order the da to stand down, don't ya think?
clams casino
Fully agree, which is why I'd like to hear the other side (from a
reliable source). Only the wacky sites seem to be responding.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>
>>>After doing a google search, all I'm finding are brief stories reporting
>>>two felonies were dropped and a lot of gossip / speculation on blogs &
>>>other wacky sites.
>>>
>>>It would be interesting to know WHY the two felonies were dropped
>>>("before coming to trial"). I'm not finding what I can call a reliable
>>>reference explaining why they were dropped.
>>>
>>>"dismissed" two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial is not
>>>really the same as "acquitted" / not guilty.
>>>
>>
>>if you were the irs, and the defendent really had the goods, would
>>you want it reported all over the country via a full-blown aquittal?
>>better to order the da to stand down, don't ya think?
> Fully agree, which is why I'd like to hear the other side (from a reliable
> source). Only the wacky sites seem to be responding.
what sites are you finding your info on? normally, the asshole in
nc excepted, ada doesn't file felony charges unless he thinks he
can win the case. however, after discovery or via an order from
above....
it just seems really strange.
Brontide
wrote:
> Fully agree, which is why I'd like to hear the other side (from a
> reliable source). Only the wacky sites seem to be responding.
The misdemeanor charger were related to failure to file tax returns
and he probably got off on a technicality. Just like those earning
less than $600 you don't have to file if you know you won't be liable
for any taxes. There was probably enough belief that he honestly
didn't believe that he was liable to get him off.
This does not mean he does not owe, just that he honestly didn't think
he had to file. This may also protect him from the worst fraud
charges and penalties, but not from paying.
This will ruin more lives of people that believe they can get
something for nothing from our government.
-Eric
Tockk
"Brontide" <eri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185570917....@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 27, 10:43 am, clams casino <PeterGrif...@drunkin-clam.com>
> wrote:
>> Fully agree, which is why I'd like to hear the other side (from a
>> reliable source). Only the wacky sites seem to be responding.
>
> The misdemeanor charger were related to failure to file tax returns
> and he probably got off on a technicality.
Ya, I'd like to see more of what some other mainstream folks have to say
about this . . .
I dunno about that technicality -- the case went to the jury for their
decision, and whatever this was all about, they found for him, 12-0.
One other aspect of this conflict that intrigues me, is how the gov't
officials never directly address the question, "Where does it say that we
have to pay income tax?" Seems to me that's a fairly simple question.
I dunno . . . guess we'll see how this all plays out . . .
Don K
> One other aspect of this conflict that intrigues me, is how the gov't officials never
> directly address the question, "Where does it say that we have to pay income tax?"
> Seems to me that's a fairly simple question.
Line 76 of the 1040 form is where it says you have to pay income tax.
Don
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
news:JdidnWnoesf7Ojfb...@comcast.com...
a law; not a form.
Don Klipstein
>Tockk wrote:
>
>>Anyone follow this topic? All I know about it is that the IRS tells me I
>>gotta pay 'em, so I do. But it looks like this guy who says we don't have
>>to (at least not on earned income) had his day in court, and the jury ruled
>>for him, 12-0. Anyone know anything else?
>
>After doing a google search, all I'm finding are brief stories
>reporting two felonies were dropped and a lot of gossip / speculation
>on blogs & other wacky sites.
>
>It would be interesting to know WHY the two felonies were dropped
>("before coming to trial"). I'm not finding what I can call a
>reliable reference explaining why they were dropped.
>
>"dismissed" two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial is not
>really the same as "acquitted" / not guilty.
<I SNIP after here>
I have this suspicion as to why some charges were dropped:
Suppose you went by a speed-limit-65 sign at 95 MPH and suppose that
such speeding was this kind of a big case rather than simply a fairly
bad traffic ticket.
In this hypothetical situation, I would expect the driver to be charged
with:
* Speeding by 26-30 MPH over the limit
* Speeding more than 30 MPH over the limit
* Speeding where the posted limit is over 55 MPH
* Driving at speed too high for conditions
* Careless Driving
* Reckless Driving
* Failure to observe traffic control devices
* Driving While Intoxicated
* Driving Under the Influence (Specifically chargeable when driving is
impaired by alcohol below the DWI level or by drugs other than alcohol)
Since two of these charges conflict (different MPH over limit), I expect
one to be dropped just on that basis. Since "failure to observe traffic
control devices" is the same offense as exceeding a posted speed limit, I
expect one of those charges to be dropped. "Speeding where posted limit
is over 55 MPH" is not a separate criminal offense but basis of
determining penalty for being convicted of remaining charges.
Fair chance the defense argues that the defendant was driving either
carelessly or recklessly but not both since reckless driving is a more
serious offense that includes carelessness, so if the reckless driving
charge is upheld then the careless driving charge probably does not get
upheld.
"Driving at speed too high for conditions" is usually not applied when a
speeding charge for specific degree of exceeding a speed limit is upheld
and (maybe even just "or") one for "driving too fast for conditions" is
upheld.
"Driving While Intoxicated" in this hypothetical example does not make
it because evidence collected after arrest indicates that the defendant
was below the legal limit. "Driving Under the Influence" gets dropped in
this hypothetical example because the driver had alcohol content below the
DWI level and collected evidence is running low that the driver was
speeding due to drinking/drugs as opposed to reckless attitude.
I suspect that the prosecution, defense, and the judge may negotiate
such dropping of charges before the trial starts, especially in a court
high enough to hold the initial trial in a federal tax evasion case.
In this hypothetical example - 9 charges, 7 get dropped, defendant has a
high chance of being found guilty of 1 possibly both of the remaining 2
charges.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
I'm sure that the "Internal Revenue Code" says we have to pay it. Try
getting a court to saw we don't have to obey the "Internal Revenue Code".
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
> I'm sure that the "Internal Revenue Code" says we have to pay it. Try
>getting a court to saw we don't have to obey the "Internal Revenue Code".
One local guy has avoided paying taxes for many years by claiming
the income tax was only intended for UNearned income, as with landlords
and stockholders. He spends lots of time in law libraries.
Nick
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f8f5j2$7...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
he's partially right. corporations, corporate officers, residents of d.c.,
employees
of the u.s. govt and business owners have to pay on earned income, as well.