Cryer Trial

Disilloosianed · Post by **Disilloosianed** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:05 pm

I can't find anything, anywhere, besides LH. I've even gone through the Shreveport Times. I think someone jumped the gun.

Post by **webhick** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Famspear wrote:I just spoke with an employee in the office of the Clerk of the Court in Shreveport. As of approximately 9:10 am Central time, Thursday, July 12, 2007, no verdict has been docketed in the Cryer case. The individual I spoke with indicated that if a verdict had been rendered late yesterday afternoon, it would probably already be on PACER. As of a few minutes ago, there was nothing on PACER.

Not surprising...

But thanks for calling and finding out directly from the court house!

Post by **Famspear** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:21 pm

De rien!

Also, a few minutes ago I checked the website for KSLA-TV in Shreveport, which had reported Mr. Cryer's indictment. I found no report of any developments in the Cryer case.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:26 pm

From lost heads:

I received an email from WTP last night just before I posted. The case is still on-going as far as I know. I believe the headline is nothing more than the court-observers perception of what is going to happen... not what has actually happened.

Post by **Famspear** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:27 pm

I notice that over at losthorizons.com, a user named Ih8theIRS, the SAME user who posted the original report last night of a Cryer not guilty verdict, has posted the following there this morning:

received an email from WTP last night just before I posted. The case is still on-going as far as I know. I believe the headline is nothing more than the court-observers perception of what is going to happen... not what has actually happened.

Well, gee, I guess whatever is posted at losthorizons.com must be authoritative.

Post by **Famspear** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:27 pm

Oops, Imalawman beat me to it!

John J. Bulten · Post by **John J. Bulten** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:38 pm

Quest wrote:Thursday, July 12, 2007
Tommy Cryer & Larry Becraft on Ed & Elaine Show Today 1PM CDT
Tommy Cryer and Larry Becraft will be my guests today Thursday 7/12/07 at 1PM CDT on the Ed & Elaine Brown show on Republic Broadcasting Network. They will be talking about his win Wednesday in court against the IRS ....
On Air Call in # is 800-313-9443
Your friend in Freedom!
Tim Wingate
posted by Mit at 10:42 AM 0 Comments

ErsatzAnatchist · Post by **ErsatzAnatchist** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:53 pm

Still nothing on PACER as of 11:05 eastern time.

Post by **Famspear** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:03 pm

John Bulten wrote:

I guess the Cryer Belief was provably a good-faith belief system after all.

Well, if Cryer ends up being acquitted, then yes, for Mr. Cryer personally the Cryer Belief will have been provably a good faith belief, at least assuming that the mens rea element was the only element substantially disputed at the Cryer trial (I don't know).

Similarly, as I have mentioned before, a Bulten Belief could rise to the level of a good faith belief! It's all a question of what the jury concludes in each case. So, whether Cryer is convicted or not: take heart, Mr. Bulten!

Geezz, I think I'm starting to sound like a therapist.

Post by **Famspear** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:33 pm

Over at losthorizons.com, John Bulten posted this a while ago:

I'm still biting my fingernails. What are the odds that Bob Hurt, D. Jahn, Rose Lear, Larken Rose, Bob Schulz, Fred Smart, and Gary Thomason might all be wrong on their first impressions of the same point? Actually, not insignificant. More asap. Consider this Texas lawyer's Quatloos claim (and note that docketing and rendering are different): [here, inserted Famspear's Quatloos report about the conversation with the Clerk's office]

Yes, a verdict could have been rendered, and just not be docketed yet. That's why I worded my report the way I did. It's important to keep the facts straight. To Bulten's credit, he doesn't seem to be going off the deep end, blindly swallowing unofficial reports on the Cryer case, the way some of the other posters at losthorizons.com have been doing. We don't have an official word yet on the current status.

Post by **Famspear** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:39 pm

Over in losthorizons, Bulten has posted this:

OK, under arbitrary and capricious journalistic standards, I will accept Sub Vet's and Tim Wingate's claims of direct Tom contact as sufficient proof for the not-guilty verdict.

I'm going to need to disagree politely and guardedly with SV. It appears the proper significance is merely that Tom is the first attorney to prevail against WFTF on a Cheek defense. This does NOT in any way demonstrate the validity of Tom's views: it demonstrates that, factually, it is reasonable to hold such views in good faith. That of course also presumes the absence of evidence that one was aware of contrasting views. For instance, if in the next WFTF the prosecutor brings up Glenshaw and Kowalski like SOMEONE HERE is so fond of doing, and if the defendant has heard about them but does not have a good-faith belief in their inapplicability, there is danger.

However, the Cheek defense always assumes that the defendant may well be WRONG: the question is not whether he was legally wrong, but whether he was factually reasonable. That is why, as FB asked, the IRS can still pursue collection: to collect, they don't have to prove Cryer was unreasonable, they just have to toe the line on their view of the law being right. So don't get too hopeful. This is a wider chink on the criminal side but no dent in the civil.

John, you are correct when you say this does not in any way demonstrate the validity of Tommy Cryer's views. You are incorrect to the extent that it would demonstrate that it is reasonable to hold such views in good faith. The jury does not need to be persuaded that it was REASONABLE for Cryer to hold his views in good faith. If the jury is persuaded that Cryer DID actually hold his views in good faith, that would be enough for an acquittal, EVEN THOUGH CRYER'S BELIEFS ARE UNREASONABLE (see the first holding in the Cheek case). So, actually, the law is even more favorable for a defendant like Cryer than you have suggested (tax protesters, take heart).

Regarding this statement: "However, the Cheek defense always assumes that the defendant may well be WRONG: the question is not whether he was legally wrong, but whether he was factually reasonable." Actually, that's incorrect, for the same reason I noted. The question is not whether the defendant was factually reasonable, but whether the defendant actually believed in good faith (even if not reasonably) based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Code. Again, this is ironically actually a bit more favorable for a tax protester (at least theoretically).

Now, the REASONABLENESS of the defendant's belief IS, however, legally relevant for a jury in deciding whether the defendant actually holds that belief in good faith. It's just that reasonableness is not a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for the defendant's belief to qualify as an actual good faith belief. The more unreasonable your beliefs, the more likely the jury is to conclude that you really didn't hold those beliefs in good faith. But there's no rule that says that the jury can't go the other way, no matter how unreasonable your belief.

Anyway, I hope you're following the nuance here; the Cheek Doctrine is actually more beneficial for tax protesters than you may realize. (But it's still very difficult to win an acquittal.)

Anyway, we're still waiting on official word on the status of the Cryer case.

--Famspear

Post by **Famspear** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:49 pm

Here I am, telling John Bulten that he is misunderstanding the law -- that holding #1 of the Cheek Doctrine is actually more favorable to tax protesters than he realizes.

This is scary.

Post by **Famspear** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:00 pm

John J. Bulten wrote, in losthorizons:

But the lesson for today is that, right or wrong, it's reasonable even for attorneys to believe that most earnings are not income.

For the reasons already listed above: No, John, this part is incorrect. Even assuming that Cryer were to be ultimately acquitted, the lesson would not be that it is "reasonable" for an attorney to believe that most earnings are not income. The jury will render no verdict on "reasonableness" on this count.

If a defendant in a criminal tax case is acquitted (and assuming the non-mens rea elements of the offense are not so much at issue), the lesson would be that the prosecution will have failed to prove that the defendant had the required good faith belief, etc. A good faith believe can be "unreasonable" and still be a good faith belief.

In other words, a jury could conclude that a defendant who happens to be an attorney actually believed in good faith that most earnings are not income (and that his/her own earnings were not income), even if the jury also concludes that the belief was TOTALLY unreasonable.

--Famspear

natty · Post by **natty** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:10 pm

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

--- THIS FROM WE THE PEOPLE ---

NOT GUILTY!

Tom Cryer and Becraft Best the DOJ

According to our court-watcher we can tell you the following:

At the start of the trial the DOJ withdrew the felony charges, leaving two counts of willful failure to file.

In TP fantasyland, when the DOJ dropped the evasion charges, THAT was the not guilty "verdict".

Dr. Caligari · Post by **Dr. Caligari** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:21 pm

Now I'm confused. Is there a veridct, or isn't there?

Post by **LPC** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:31 pm

Cryer and Becraft are supposed to be on the "Ed and Elaine Brown Show" at 2:00 pm today. I think Becraft is somewhat loopy, but if he says there was a not guilty verdict, then I'm inclined to believe that there was.

Post by **LPC** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:14 pm

Larry Becraft is saying they won, so I guess they won.

Post by **webhick** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:36 pm

I don't know about everyone else, but I would prefer to hear something a little less "word of mouth". Can't wait until the verdict is in PACER.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:42 pm

Becraft is weird, but he wouldn't go on the radio and declare a verdict if it had in fact not be rendered. I think its safe to say the trial was botched. I think there was the perception that it was a slam dunk, but maybe the lack of preparation ultimately proved fatal to the case.

I just know I'm going to have to explain the concept of criminal vs. civil to a lot of TPs now. So, I'm pretty irritated that this one was lost, the last thing I want to do is spend more of my time on these loons.

natty · Post by **natty** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:52 pm

Cryer is a true koolaid drinker.
Becraft is an opportunist. (He still files and pays taxes.)
Both admitted that they won because they were good at lawyering.

Cryer is broke. So now he is begging for money.