Cryer Trial

[.]

John Kotmair (both of them)

The (also convicted) kid's name is Edward. Who's the other John Kotmair?

[wserra]

Both admitted that they won because they were good at lawyering.

YM "bragged".

IPOF, even if (and certainly unless) you speak to the jurors afterwards, no one can say why juries reach some of the verdicts they reach. Any lawyer who has tried more than a few cases can point to verdicts that are all but inexplicable.

As a young PD, I tried an aggravated sexual abuse of a five-year-old boy, a case others of my colleagues refused to handle. (I had this curious belief that everyone charged with a crime was entitled to a defense.) The kid was cute and seemingly honest. The medical testimony corroborated his account. I did my best, but had no real hope - until the jury came back in two hours with an acquittal. Now I could "admit" that it was due to the fact that I am "good at lawyering", but in fact there is no explanation. I even spoke to the jury - alone, since the prosecutor had stomped out of the courtroom when the foreperson announced the verdict - to no real avail (they said they had a reasonable doubt).

Four months into a major federal narcotics trial, anonymous juror #7 came in with a box filled with thick (Christian fundie) religious tracts, one for everyone in the courtroom. The govt desperately wanted to get rid of him. I just as desperately wanted to keep him. On the evidence I thought I had little hope, but with God I had a 50-50 shot.

Gotta love juries - who, notwithstanding anything I write in this post, tend to do the right thing.

[Demosthenes]

"Live" With Tom Cryer, Larry Becraft, Ed and Elaine On RBN

First 20 min "Live" recap:

Tim Wingate is the host. He introduced all the parties on the line and then asked Ed to comment. Ed simply said he was/is amazed at how this system of justice works - ie. Tom Cryer was found not guilty while he and Elaine were completely denied due process. Ed took exception with one of Tom's comments. Ed stated emphatically that they were denied ALL their rights to due process and that their jury was tampered with by the judge, etc. Ed explained that since they didn't haven an attorney they were almost totally disenfranchised by the system. Tom responded that he didn't go in pro se or pro per primarily due to procedural and administrative issues that are best handled by the assistance of counsel in the form of an attorney. Tom said he didn't trust his objectivity and he appreciated the assistance of Larry Becraft.

Tom Cryer admitted that he was unable to present actual evidence of the law - or lack of the law - but that he was allowed to present his "beliefs" in a way that was credible enough to the jurors to support/enable an acquittal.

[RyanMcC]

"Ed stated emphatically that they were denied ALL their rights to due process and that their jury was tampered with by the judge, etc. Ed explained that since they didn't haven an attorney they were almost totally disenfranchised by the system."



Could they not afford an attorney? In a criminal case wouldn't they have been provided with an attorney if requested?

Was their problem that they couldn't find an attorney who agreed with them? How is it the government's fault that Ed Brown didn't have a lawyer?

[Demosthenes]

Ed could easily afford a lawyer.

The court offered Ed a court appointment lawyer (which Elaine used for a couple of months.)

Ed refused to use a lawyer because lawyers are controlled by the Queen of England and are all Illuminati members....

[ElfNinosMom]

How is it the government's fault that Ed Brown didn't have a lawyer?

It's not. The judge repeatedly advised the Browns to get an attorney, and they refused even though they could easily afford one. I'm sure the government (i.e., the prosecutor) would have preferred that the Browns have an attorney, because dealing with pro se defendants makes his job that much harder.

[LPC]

"Live" With Tom Cryer, Larry Becraft, Ed and Elaine On RBN

First 20 min "Live" recap:

Tim Wingate is the host. He introduced all the parties on the line and then asked Ed to comment. Ed simply said he was/is amazed at how this system of justice works - ie. Tom Cryer was found not guilty while he and Elaine were completely denied due process.

I listened to the first few minutes of the show (and then had to get back to work), and Ed said something early on that was completely irrational. He said he couldn't understand how Cryer could get off while he was convicted. He said that the law should be the same throughout the United States, so if Cryer was acquitted, he (Brown) should have been acquitted also, which completely ignores the fact that Cryer and Brown were charged with different crimes and there was different evidence introduced against them.

Tom Cryer admitted that he was unable to present actual evidence of the law - or lack of the law - but that he was allowed to present his "beliefs" in a way that was credible enough to the jurors to support/enable an acquittal.

That's not what the tax nuts are saying. The tax nuts are all claiming that Cryer won because he was able to show the jury "the law."

[Famspear]

Tom Cryer admitted that he was unable to present actual evidence of the law - or lack of the law - but that he was allowed to present his "beliefs" in a way that was credible enough to the jurors to support/enable an acquittal.

I listened to the broadcast with Cryer only briefly, but I happened to hear Cryer's comments in the radio broadcast on this particular point. To his credit, Cryer was pretty straightforward on this -- although, as LPC noted, many tax protesters will probably miss (or deliberately disregard) this crucial point.

[John J. Bulten]

And to celebrate, I'm going to break a couple of 100 Grand out of my frozen Swiss safe-deposit box to splurge for dinner tonight. I know it's a bit more expensive than Cristal and caviar, but this acquittal is worth a chocolate indulgence. Yessir, Bank of Nestle will convert your cash into bars of pure bullion quite easily, two $50,000 chocolate bars per package.

[wserra]

I think its safe to say the trial was botched.

I don't think it's at all safe to say that. You can't possibly know without having been there at least.

[Famspear]

John Bulten wrote, over at losthorizons.com:

For the jg8 types I must clarify my meaning. A jury may believe, reasonably and defensibly, that an attorney sincerely believes most earnings are not income, whether or not a jury may believe, reasonably and defensibly, that an attorney could reasonably believe that. This is why I hate explicating Cheek.

John, today you seem inexplicably more lucid and less delusional than usual. Not completely lucid or completely non-delusional, mind you. But your clarification about Cheek (above) is actually pretty good.

In the same post, you wrote:

But since an attorney may sincerely believe this, and sincere beliefs of attorneys are generally also reasonable, that's strong circumstantial evidence that such belief is reasonable in itself.

This part is problematic. First of all, who told you that sincere beliefs of attorneys are generally reasonable? Seriously, I understand what you're saying, but you know it's not of much use to tax protesters as defendants in criminal cases. Each defendant is on his/her own. Cryer's ability to persuade the jury that he had a good faith belief (assuming that's what happened) or, alternatively, the prosecutor's inability to persuade the jury that Cryer did not have a good faith belief (if that's what happened, and that's what should have happened since the burden is supposed to be on the prosecution) does not readily translate over to other defendants in other tax cases. And, as has been pointed out, a determination that a belief is held in good faith is not necessarily a conclusion that the belief is "reasonable." If I were on the jury, it's certainly possible a defendant could persuade me that his belief was in good faith, even though -- because of my superior knowledge of the tax law -- I would know his belief would be unreasonable. I'm just somewhat, uh, superior in that way.

Juusstttt teasing, John!

And for what it's worth, I think you SHOULD celebrate. I don't believe you have much cause for celebration, even assuming Cryer was acquitted -- but that doesn't mean you and other protesters shouldn't take what comfort you can. (Hey, I may be a mean old "tax beneficiary" or whatever it is tax protesters call the vast majority of tax practitioners who don't agree with tax protesters, but I'm semi-human as well.)

By the way, it's about 5:30 pm central time on Thursday, July 12, and I still haven't seen any verdict entry on the court docket in PACER. But then, due to computer problems that developed here at work I haven't been able to ACCESS the PACER system since early this morning! For some goofy reason I can access all other internet sites, but NONE of the PACER sites. This happens about once a month, and nobody knows why. Oh well.

--Famspear

[wserra]

The last entry on PACER is Becraft's trial brief from several days ago. But I'm with the others - Becraft wouldn't be saying he was acquitted if he wasn't. Assuming that he has in fact been saying so.

[Famspear]

Demo wrote:

Ed refused to use a lawyer because lawyers are controlled by the Queen of England and are all Illuminati members....

I thought we were all controlled by the Freemasons.

Or, is the Queen a Freemason? I know she worked on truck motors or something when she was a young princess, during World War II. There's actually a picture of her somewhere working on a vehicle.

No, wait, motors - that wouldn't be Freemasons. No. That's uh....

Unless, no, wait, she was working on motors just to FOOL us into thinking she isn't a Freemason when she really is. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Maybe I'm reading way too much tax protester literature.

[Quixote]

You forgot one that was acquitted, Fred Allnutt.

That appears to be correct. He was acquitted of tax evasion charges in 1996.

So there's an acquittal about once every five years.

But Allnutt was convicted of willfully failing to file Maryland tax returns in 1983, so maybe it's a wash.

Bob Graham is still trying to milk his 1985 acquital on three counts of willful failure to file. ("He would have won if he had read my book.") That acquital is somewhat marred by his conviction, apparently in a separate trial, on one count of "conspiracy to defraud the United States by impending (sic) the lawful functions of the Internal Revenue Service in the computation and collection of income taxes" and "two counts of aiding in the preparation and presentation of false tax returns." US v. GRAHAM, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18774

Graham had filed zero returns. The jury was no doubt instructed that a zero return is not considered a return, but probably had trouble wrapping their minds around that concept. He should have been charged with tax evasion. Filing zero returns look to me like an affirmative act intended to mislead the government.

[The Observer]

Or, is the Queen a Freemason? I know she worked on truck motors or something when she was a young princess, during World War II. There's actually a picture of her somewhere working on a vehicle.

No, wait, motors - that wouldn't be Freemasons. No. That's uh....

Perhaps you were thinking of the ancient and insidious order of Freemechanics?

[iplawyer]

And to celebrate, I'm going to break a couple of 100 Grand out of my frozen Swiss safe-deposit box to splurge for dinner tonight. I know it's a bit more expensive than Cristal and caviar, but this acquittal is worth a chocolate indulgence. Yessir, Bank of Nestle will convert your cash into bars of pure bullion quite easily, two $50,000 chocolate bars per package.

John,
What are you talking about?

[Famspear]

The Observer wrote:

Perhaps you were thinking of the ancient and insidious order of Freemechanics?

Yeahhhh, that's the ticket!

[natty]

The government dropped the tax evasion charge prior to the trial and I suppose they could revisit it and refile charges on that count. And that may have been part of their strategy. Why tie the evasion case to a case that had a higher likelyhood of failure.

I listened to the whole interview. Becraft said that the only evidence the govt had on the evasion charge was that Cryer put money in a trust "which actually lost money"; and, they were prepared to defend that charge. But the govt tried the "lesser included charge" strategy by adding the failure to file charge. They filed a motion on the day of trial arguing that their Circuit did not permit "lesser included charges", or something to that effect. The govt apparently had no chose but to drop the felony charges without risking their whole case.

[agent86x]

Demo wrote:

Ed refused to use a lawyer because lawyers are controlled by the Queen of England and are all Illuminati members....

I thought we were all controlled by the Freemasons.

Cryer is a Mason.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PR ... /Cryer.pdf

Past Master, W. H. Booth Lodge #380, F & AM

Past Master, First Masonic District Lodge

Scottish Rite Bodies, Shreveport Valley, 32°

El Karubah Shrine, Shreveport, LA

[natty]

Tom Cryer admitted that he was unable to present actual evidence of the law - or lack of the law - but that he was allowed to present his "beliefs" in a way that was credible enough to the jurors to support/enable an acquittal.

That's not what the tax nuts are saying. The tax nuts are all claiming that Cryer won because he was able to show the jury "the law."

Which makes this aquittal so pathetic.
Becraft knows the limits of the Cheek defense and he can present it and coach his clients better than anyone. But he does nothing to quash these illusions in the tax nut community that Cheek goes anywhere but nowhere in the overall scheme of things. He just sits back and defends these nutjobs who have ruined their lives financially and otherwise.

On the other hand, Cryer is a fully immersed koolaid drinker. He ended the interview with "they can't show us the law" crap. He will be on the seminar trail taking the "donations" (cash only, of course).