Lost Horizontal claims Quatloos can not rebut Cryer motion

[jg]

In reference to the a motion by Tommy Cryer at http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MI ... ismiss.pdf

Posted - 03/06/2007 : 1:25:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by richardf614

This motion is a fine piece of research. This could be sold as a book
on the proper application of the income tax. This validates Pete's work and book. Everything is contained in this motion, I would hate to be the procecution in this case and the judge!

As far as taxing labor is concerned, he is right on target. Your earnings are only making you whole again, nothing more. No gain or profits are involved.

The system is in for a jolt! Between Pete's arguments and Mr. Cryers,
no amount of dancing from the courts can avoid these new arguments.

About time! Rebut this Quatloos!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They cannot.
Cryer did his homework. He put the peices of the puzzle together the way an attorney would and hes going do what Ive been doing for years, throw back into their faces, the very stuff they give you.

Thats right, sling it right back at 'em. They cannot overcome. So what do they do? They do to Cryer what they did to Ed Brown, they outright refuse to allow him to present ANYTHING to a Jury. Thats how they will Nail him.

His writtings do tell us a very important thing about liablity. So it makes you wonder, how the IRS can compell you to risk PERJURY as a condition of being in compliance with their wishes, if you are not the person liable.

If the "withholding agent" or "employer" is liable, then why are we filling out forms that THEY should be doing? Isn't that a case of involuntary servitude?

If nothing else, if a jury sees that motion, that might get them thinking. Then again.. on second thought.. after watching what happens in our local courts.. er.. ah.. they will probbaly ignore the facts, ignore the testimony and rubberstamp what ever the judge says.

Pitty America..it was once a good dream.

Despite another thread on the prior forum in regard to Cryer's motion, (and the inherent difficulty in rebutting the nearly incoherent) it seems best not to "avoid these new arguments".

[Imalawman]

Geez! 84 pages of tax protestor misunderstanding and muddled concepts of reality. I suppose he has nothing better to do than write that kind of legal nonsense. I will give him credit for a better put together brief that most. But in the end, its the same old same old that we've rebutted time after time.

It is interesting to read the human capital argument, becuase its astounding how badly they misunderstand basis vs. value. (Of course, so did the Murphy court)

In any event, as the court in Colement v. CIR stated,

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. “Tax protesters” have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead -- so tax protesters think - to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.

791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th. Cir. 1986).

[LPC]

Of course no one can rebut Cryer's "brief" (which is more of a one-word oxymoron than usual) on Lost Horizons, because if anyone did they would be immediately banned.

Silence means nothing when you've muzzled all other voices.

[LPC]

Geez! 84 pages of tax protestor misunderstanding and muddled concepts of reality. I suppose he has nothing better to do than write that kind of legal nonsense. I will give him credit for a better put together brief that most. But in the end, its the same old same old that we've rebutted time after time.

Glancing through it again, I'm amazed by how much "research" he might have done without ever finding any of the Supreme Court (and Circuit Court) decisions that are adverse.

Which looks to me like a violation of Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a), which states (in part) that "A lawyer shall not knowingly: ... (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel...."

Cryer is representing himself, and not a client, so maybe the rule doesn't apply, but I think that the government ought to start looking harder at some of the goofball lawyers that are enabling this kind of nonsense to see if ethics complaints might be in order.

[.]

Goofball.

A term which accurately describes many things, to include most TPs.

Would it fall into the category of "scientific" terms if one is practicing law?

Has anyone ever gotten an expert witness to describe a TP as such under oath?



Just kidding.

[grammarian44]

Cryer is representing himself, and not a client, so maybe the rule doesn't apply...

I'm not sure, but I would think that the duty to disclose adverse authority is not a duty owed to clients, but to the court. The duty would arise regardless of whether or not one is representing a client.

On the other hand, more generally the courts and bar associations hesitate to dole out sanctions solely for failure to disclose adverse authority. I'll bet that if you looked at published cases, you would find that when sanctions are handed down on this basis, they come alongside more serious violations, such as affirmative misrepresentations to the court.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... which states (in part) that "A lawyer shall not knowingly: ... (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel...

Methinks the conditions described would be rare, indeed. One really should be able to rely on opposing counsel to argue on their own behalf.

[Demosthenes]

ATTORNEY CHALLENGE UPDATE

OPERATION MULDER HEADQUARTERS
March 15, 2007


The Court has granted our motion to inspect jury records. Although that will not eliminate the risk of a plant in the jury it will make it more difficult for the government to do so.

Although we are awaiting the Court's rulings on our motions to dismiss, detailed in the February 25 update, we are not idle. Preparations for trial on April 9 are proceeding full steam ahead, thanks to your contributions and your support. We are still far short of covering all of the costs of the defense and the trial, but with your continued support and assistance I am confident we will be able to finish the fight we've started and get the truth out for the People to see.

Looking back at the road to here I can't help noticing all of the "coincidences" that have funneled me into this conflict. It is impossible to ignore the fact that I was put here to do just this, to help end the last of slavery in America. I cannot believe that He would assign me to a task without giving me the means to accomplish His ends. I know that with your help we and the Truth will prevail.

And it is slavery. Even the indentured servants, many of those coming to the colonies from England and Europe, were "permitted" to retain 70-80% of their earnings, the remainder applied toward their freedom.

If the government can tax at the rate of 1% it can tax 100%. So, when the government claims not only a share in your profits, but in your sweat, labor and energy you expend in earning your wages, salaries or fees, it is claiming that it owns you and, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins the Supreme Court recognized that:

"For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."

I know that with all your help and support we will succeed in getting the truth out about what the income tax really says (and does not say), even though the government is doing everything in its power to suppress it.

I understand those who find it impossible to believe that the government would perpetrate such a massive and devastating fraud on its public because I, too, refused to believe and set out to disprove that claim. But the truth is the truth and the law is what the law says, not what an agency tells you to do. What is at stake here is the foundation of any free society, the rule of law instead of the rule of man. If we can be ruled by a pamphlet from the IRS, what else will follow? What other rights and freedoms can we feel secure in passing on to our children and grandchildren?

Other developments have been unfolding, mostly due to your continuing to forward these updates and to provide both spiritual and financial support. Please keep forwarding these updates out to as many as you can and please continue to send your prayers and contributions. I feel the strength from your prayers and every "bullet" counts.

Due to the generosity of a supporter who paid for my air fare, hotel and expenses I was able to accept the invitation to attend the Freedom and Justice Conference in Irvine, CA, this last weekend. The support and encouragement from the crowd was overwhelming, humbling, and when the hat was passed they were generous in their support. While I was there I was privileged to meet The Joe Banister, whose situation is almost perfectly parallel with mine. For those who do not know, Joe was an IRS criminal investigator who learned of the "big lie" and started asking questions. His supervisors told him to shut up, but he insisted on some answers. He was forced to choose between his job and his sworn duty and although it has caused him and his family great hardship, he, too, chose duty.

I also met The Bob Lawrence, who was accused of tax crimes in Peoria, IL. The charges were dismissed, with prejudice (meaning the government cannot refile the same charges), just prior to trial. Bob's energy and enthusiasm were apparent and contagious and helped reinforce my belief that here lies my duty to the law, the Constitution and the Truth.

I was also privileged to meet scores of others who are dedicated to this cause and who have, as I have, had their businesses, jobs and lives wrecked and siderailed by the IRS for daring to demand the truth from our government. I especially wish to thank Peymon Mottadeheh, the head of the Freedom Law School that sponsored the conference, for his invitation and his support.

Other news, as shocking to me as to anyone, is that following a radio interview on the John Stadtmiller show on Republic Broadcasting Network (although we weren't able to work out the details on publishing my book) I was given my own radio slot, called, of course, The Lie Free Zone. The show is broadcast over the internet and on short-wave on Saturdays from 2-4, p.m., Central. You can listen to the show at http://www.rbnlive.com, and you can call in with comments or questions at 800 313-9443 during the broadcast.

Still more news, the program for the upcoming We The People Conference in Alexandria, VA, March 29-31 is firming up. It appears that I will be speaking at either 3 or 4 p.m., Eastern, on Thursday, March 29. A webcast of the entire conference will be available through PPV at this LINK.

An additional tool for you to get the truth out is also available. Aaron Russo, the award winning producer and director (Trading Places with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy) has produced and directed a documentary called America—Freedom to Fascism, which proves that the government can cite no law making the average working American liable for the income tax. A link to his website where the movie can be obtained for a nominal charge is being added to this site. EVERYONE needs to see this movie in order to see what is at stake in this struggle.

Finally, a gentleman in Oklahoma City, who I would name if I had been authorized to do so, noted that the domain name, LieFreeZone, was available. He bought the domain name and linked it to this page so that you can now access this site for updates by simply typing LieFreeZone.com in your browser. Thank you, sir, for a very thoughtful and generous contribution to the effort. I will be on his radio program this evening, March 15, 2007, from midnight to 2, a.m., Central. Those wishing to listen to the show can do so at truthnetradio.com.

All of these things are happening because of you and your support in responding with help and in forwarding these updates to all you know. The task is not completed, however, and we need to keep at it until the truth is out and the government stops deceiving the American population into paying trillions of its hard earned wages and salaries on a non-existent tax that it does not owe.

And, please, continue to pray for my continued strength, for the Judge's courage and conviction to place duty and the law before self interest, for a fair, impartial and intelligent jury and, most of all, for our successful pursuit of Truth and Justice.

Tom Cryer

God Bless You and God Bless a Free USA
(Free—the way God and the Founding Fathers intended it to be)

[notorial dissent]

Ya think!!!

[Imalawman]

Anyone got any Bio information on Tommy Cryer and what his main argument is. (its apparent from his brief he's trying every theory out there, but I'm guessing there's something in particular that he did to get caught by the IRS)

[notorial dissent]

Has anyone ever considered doing a laundry list of the favorite tax denier excuses and then adding 2 or 3 cases under it that have blown that argument out of the water and into the frivolous realm? Would cut down on the bandwidth expended. Since originality and inventiveness doesn’t seem to be a big item with most of this crew it shouldn’t be all that hard to come up with a list, and if one of them gets inventive and comes up with something new it could then be a new entry in the tax denier sweepstakes of how soon will I get my own room at the gray bar hotel?

[LPC]

Has anyone ever considered doing a laundry list of the favorite tax denier excuses and then adding 2 or 3 cases under it that have blown that argument out of the water and into the frivolous realm?

That's sort of what I was trying to do with the Tax Protester FAQ, but I kind of got carried away. (For some of the common recurring themes, such as "wages are not income," I've been trying to get one nugget from each circuit, and list them in circuit order.)

[notorial dissent]

Dan,

Exactly what I mean, and I can understand, considering that there have been so many cases where the TP drivel has been rather thoroughly and conslusively blown out of the water, I would suspect it would come under the heading of a superabundance to choose from. I will look forward to seeing it when it is done.

[Quixote]

Dan,

Exactly what I mean, and I can understand, considering that there have been so many cases where the TP drivel has been rather thoroughly and conslusively blown out of the water, I would suspect it would come under the heading of a superabundance to choose from. I will look forward to seeing it when it is done.

How is what your talking about different from Dan's Tax Protester FAQ?

[SteveSy]

Has anyone ever considered doing a laundry list of the favorite tax denier excuses and then adding 2 or 3 cases under it that have blown that argument out of the water and into the frivolous realm?

Good luck.....

I suppose if "it's frivolous" suffices for being "blow out of the water" then that should be easy. If you're looking for something with substance that shows why it's wrong it's not going to happen except for a few arguments. For instance no court has ever explained why 100% of wage earners gross earnings from wages are 100% income considering earning a wage requires captial in most every case. Income does not include the return of capital per the SC. Congress cannot define what is income so having a court point to a code section and claim the code has established that wages are 100% income is disingenuous.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy, you are blaming the courts for their interpretation, when the root problem is language in the underlying law that is vague, confusing and unclear.

In computer terms it is GIGO.

You enact a crappy law, don't be surprised that it ends up in court to be interpreted.

Agreed to a point. However it's the court's job to review the argument in light of the constitution if such an argument is raised. The code cannot trump the constitution; it derives its force and effect from it. After all, their main duty was to protect the citizens from an overzealous government.

[Quixote]

For instance no court has ever explained why 100% of wage earners gross earnings from wages are 100% income considering earning a wage requires captial in most every case.

Why would the court explain something that everyone understands so well that it never gets litigated?

[LPC]

For instance no court has ever explained why 100% of wage earners gross earnings from wages are 100% income considering earning a wage requires captial in most every case.

Why would the court explain something that everyone understands so well that it never gets litigated?

The "human capital" argument was effectively rejected by the Supreme Court in 1913. Addressing an argument that a mine owner should be allowed to deduct as a form of depreciation the value of the ore that is in the ground before it is extracted, the Supreme Court stated:

“As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.”

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

So, even if human time and effort could be considered a kind of “capital,” the compensation for that capital has still been considered a form of income throughout history.

Sybil will now bluster about how the Supreme Court didn't mean what it said, or why we should ignore what the Supreme Court said, for which he will offer no support other than his own certainty.

[Bashful]

What about the "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" publication that the IRS puts out. It seems to address the major frivolous arguments and has court cites to refute these positions.

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

[SteveSy]

For instance no court has ever explained why 100% of wage earners gross earnings from wages are 100% income considering earning a wage requires captial in most every case.

Why would the court explain something that everyone understands so well that it never gets litigated?

The "human capital" argument was effectively rejected by the Supreme Court in 1913. Addressing an argument that a mine owner should be allowed to deduct as a form of depreciation the value of the ore that is in the ground before it is extracted, the Supreme Court stated:

“As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.”

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

So, even if human time and effort could be considered a kind of “capital,” the compensation for that capital has still been considered a form of income throughout history.

Even if I accept that for the sake of argument how do you explain expenses for traveling to work? Please don't use the "personal expense" argument. It's not in reality a "personal" expense to travel to earn an income. Also please don't use the "I don't want to subsidize" argument as that is irrelevant as to whether it’s an expense. We “subsidize” businesses all the time when they could use public transportation or other less expensive means of travel. They could also choose clients closer to their facilities. Just like a wage earner could choose closer employment instead of getting that high paying job 30 miles or more away.
More importantly we're talking about court cases here. You have not provided a court case that uses Stratton's in the context you used it against the argument that wages are always 100% taxable as income.

Sybil will now bluster about how the Supreme Court didn't mean what it said, or why we should ignore what the Supreme Court said, for which he will offer no support other than his own certainty.

Even if they meant to imply that applies to wage earners which I seriously doubt and they certainly didn’t even hint that it did it's irrelevant to whether a court has used that to apply it to wage earners. It's obviously in refernece to businesses using labor or the brains of another to profit. Such as a business using a labor force employed for a given service, businesses providing consulting etc. Please show me a case that used your reasoning and applied Stratton's "depletion of capital" opinion to rebut the wages are income argument. That is after all the point of my original post.

btw, you highlighted a portion which shoots down your theory that they meant to apply that to the average wage person.
"[C]ommonly dealt with in legislation as income" Show me where federal law "commonly dealt" with a laborers earnings in 1909 or prior. They are clearly talking about business income there not the average person because no one individually was taxed on their income back then nor was there any laws that could have taxed them. Obviously commonly dealt with was not in reference to individuals. The only thing that could have remotely taxed individuals on their income was over 40 years prior. Even then the exemption was so high it only included people who had ownership in businesses.