Cryer Trial

[Joey Smith]

Larry Becraft files returns and pays his taxes.

It's really a great racket: Convince the TPs that they don't have to pay, watch them get indicted, the few with money hire you to represent them, you charge a big fee which you receive whether you win or not, if you lose no big deal these people were guilty anyway, but if you win then great advertising.

All the while, you pay your own taxes so that Los Federales don't come after you.

[RyanMcC]

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

Sprung by the Illuminati, that explains it all..

[LPC]

The government dropped the tax evasion charge prior to the trial and I suppose they could revisit it and refile charges on that count.

I think that would violate double jeopardy.

I recall reading a Supreme Court decision in which the court held that its a violation of double jeopardy to charge someone with a different crime if the second charge involves acts that were included in the first charge. In other words, if some does X, Y, and Z, and the combination of X and Y is crime A while the combination of Y and Z is crime B, the government can try him for crime A or crime B or both of them together, but can't try him for crime A and then later try him for crime B.

In this case, although it might be theoretically possible to charge Cryer with tax evasion for the same years, in order to do it without violating double jeopardy, the government would have to do it without ever referring to Cryer's failure to file tax returns, and I don't think that's possible.

The willful failure to file charge has been described as a "lesser included offense" to the charge of tax evasion. That meant the government had proof that Cryer had income and had willfully failed to file a return, which is the crime of failure to file, and they also had evidence that Cryer had done something to hide income (or something else sufficient to elevate the failure to file from simple failure to file to evasion). If the government is barred from introducing evidence that Cryer had income and willfully failed to file a return (the charge for which he has been acquitted), then all they have left is evidence that he hid income (or something), and hiding income is not a crime unless it is done with intent to evade. And the government can't prove intent to evade because it is barred from introducing evidence that Cryer willfully failed to file tax returns.

I may be wrong about the Supreme Court case (law school was a long time ago), but double jeopardy feels right to me in this case, because I don't think that the government should be able to prosecute Cryer twice for the same tax years.

[LPC]

Still nothing on PACER. Last entry as of 7:45 a.m. EDT is dated 7/8/2007.

[.]

From the Shreveport Times a few hours ago:

Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges

Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago

July 13, 2007

By Loresha Wilson
ljwilson@gannett.com

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.

[snip]

Article link

Apparently Loresha isn't comfortable with the word "willful," the word appears nowhere in the entire article. Either that, or she's just not very bright.

In fact, the entire article reads as if it was written by Cryer. Which wouldn't be surprising, knowing the usual quality of local journos.

[webhick]

In fact, the entire article reads as if it was written by Cryer. Which wouldn't be surprising, knowing the usual quality of local journos.

Someone mentioned (I'm too lazy to look up who right now) that there would be a press release issued. Perhaps this is it?

[Disilloosianed]

I think if I were the government attorneys, I'd have to appeal this one. I have to think that you could make a good argument that the jury couldn't have had substantial evidence to decide as it did. I mean honestly, the evidence would have to show that an attorney can't read and understand legal precedent. Does anyone know what kind of evidence he submitted to demonstrate reasonable belief?

[Demosthenes]

Offtopic: Disilloosianed, you need a new avatar. All we see is a "don't steal our bandwidth" type of image.

Ontopic: I listened to the Brown radio show and Ed's sour grapes about Tommy's win were priceless. "It's not fair."

Tommy's victory won't get much play on the Brown situation. They're already trashing it on the Quest blog:

The Cryer and Beecraft IRS Performance. A Misdirecting Disinformation Fiasco in the Making.

by Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

I listened to the Ed and Elaine Brown Talk Radio show on RBN today July 12, hosted by Tim Wingate interviewing Guest Lawyers Tom Cryer and Lawyer Larry Beecraft.

My intention was to congratulate Cryer and Beecraft for their win over the IRS "NO LAW" issue. I held on for 40 minutes of the 60 minute program and was never allowed on.

The more I listened, the more my "disinformation" antenna began to pick up the actual direction taken by these two lawyers. Keep in mind they, Cryer and Beecraft, were two lawyers who outlawyered the government lawyers.

The facts show that these are two Lawyers who are fictional corporate entities themselves, engaged in arguing a fictional principle in a fictional "show trial" setting with other lawyers, other fictional entities, none of whom, because of their fictional status, are Sovereign,. In short, it was a closed environment, a tightly controlled play of words composed of ALL fictional persons, who have sold their souls to the Government Corporation and its Courts. Read more here. and here.

[The Observer]

The more I listened, the more my "disinformation" antenna began to pick up the actual direction taken by these two lawyers. Keep in mind they, Cryer and Beecraft, were two lawyers who outlawyered the government lawyers.

The facts show that these are two Lawyers who are fictional corporate entities themselves, engaged in arguing a fictional principle in a fictional "show trial" setting with other lawyers, other fictional entities, none of whom, because of their fictional status, are Sovereign,. In short, it was a closed environment, a tightly controlled play of words composed of ALL fictional persons, who have sold their souls to the Government Corporation and its Courts. Read more here. and here.

[/quote]

Interesting - a TP who is essentially saying that a TP win doesn't count because two lawyers were involved. I can only conclude that in Frickintardistan it is far better to lose like Ed Brown than win like Tom Cryer.

[wserra]

I think if I were the government attorneys, I'd have to appeal this one.

Not serious, right? As Dan posted earlier, Cryer can't be recharged with the nolle'd evasion counts due to double jeopardy, and the govt certainly can't appeal the acquittal. (Sorry if you know this, but I don't want those who don't to get the wrong idea.)

I have to think that you could make a good argument that the jury couldn't have had substantial evidence to decide as it did.

That's the civil standard, where there is no DJ.

[Imalawman]

I think if I were the government attorneys, I'd have to appeal this one.

Not serious, right? As Dan posted earlier, Cryer can't be recharged with the nolle'd evasion counts due to double jeopardy, and the govt certainly can't appeal the acquittal. (Sorry if you know this, but I don't want those who don't to get the wrong idea.)

My wife and I were trying disparately to remember criminal procedure. Is there ever a case in which the government can appeal in an acquittal? (got to love ad/civil law, I can appeal my way up to the state supreme court)

[Disilloosianed]

thanks, Demos. I just killed it. I'm pretty much computer illiterate. Not even sure what I'm stealing, although it does remind me of when one of my adminstrators asked me if the radio bandwidth should be taxed as tangible or intangible property. I then set out to justify that it was real property, just to throw a wrench in the options.

[Famspear]

Imalawman wrote:

My wife and I were trying disparately to remember criminal procedure. Is there ever a case in which the government can appeal in an acquittal?

Not in a criminal case.

But wait, we need to think like the tax protesters on this! Here's the deal: If "there's no law requiring them to pay an income tax" then my argument is that the tax protester is in no real jeopardy when he's charged with tax evasion, etc. Since there's no law, there's no crime, and no jeopardy, and therefore no double jeopardy!

Sooooo, DOJ can just keep re-trying the tax protester over and over, no matter how many times he's acquitted, until DOJ wins a conviction!

Yeahhhh, that's the ticket!

(Hey, I'd argue it doesn't make any "less" sense than the stuff the tax protesters come up with!)

[Imalawman]

That is what we thought, which explains why we couldn't remember any exceptions.

[Disilloosianed]

That's the civil standard, where there is no DJ.

Hell, you all are right....we never try ours criminally and I spaced on the criminal aspect. I wish we would try ours criminally

[Famspear]

Quoting myself:

Sooooo, DOJ can just keep re-trying the tax protester over and over, no matter how many times he's acquitted, until DOJ wins a conviction!

And of course, when the tax protester is sent to Federal prison, it's not "really" a prison -- just as the tax law under which he was convicted wasn't "really" the law. So, really, when you think about it, you can extend the tax protester "logic" on and on, and ultimately there is balance and harmony in the universe.

[Demosthenes]

thanks, Demos. I just killed it. I'm pretty much computer illiterate. Not even sure what I'm stealing, although it does remind me of when one of my adminstrators asked me if the radio bandwidth should be taxed as tangible or intangible property. I then set out to justify that it was real property, just to throw a wrench in the options.

If you have an image you want to use, email it to me:

jj at cheatingfrenzy dot com.

[wserra]

Is there ever a case in which the government can appeal in an acquittal?

I believe that it has only happened once in the history of the United States. That case is the best example that I know of, by far, of how hard cases make bad law. And yes, I do remember the case, not through general legal knowledge but because it is such bad law.

Harry "The Hook" Aleman was an enforcer for the Chicago mob in the seventies. Charged with the murder of a Teamsters official who refused to give him shipping info to help him hijack trucks, Aleman waived a jury - somewhat suspicious in itself. Despite eyewitness testimony that he did the shooting, a Chicage judge acquitted Aleman.

Fast forward 20+ years. Aleman's lawyer is indicted for something, flips, and reveals to prosecutors that he bribed the judge to acquit. Aleman, then in jail (I think) for something else, is retried for the Teamster murder and convicted. The Seventh Circuit in Aleman v. Judges of the Criminal Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998), ruled that since result of Aleman's first trial was foregone - a bench trial in which the judge was bribed - he was never in jeopardy once and could thus be retried.

The judge - by then retired - blows his brains out.

FWIW, I think that's terrible law, the definition of a slippery slope in a vital constitutional right. Where do you draw the line? Suppose a jury is bribed? Should be the same result, right? How about six of the twelve jurors? How about one juror? How about a witness? How about a bailiff, who then "loses" an important piece of evidence? How about a bailiff, who then "loses" an unimportant piece of evidence?

An acquittal will hopefully never again be appealable.

[Dr. Caligari]

My wife and I were trying disparately to remember criminal procedure. Is there ever a case in which the government can appeal in an acquittal?

Virtually never. The only exception is if the jury returns a guilty verdict and the judge, after that verdict, directs a verdict of not guilty.

If a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, or if the judge, for any reason (even an erroneous one) directs an acquittal after the trial has started, double jeopardy bars any government appeal.

[John J. Bulten]

Here's the press release. Truth Troopers are directed to distribute it widely:

TRUTH ATTACK

(GOOD!!)

NEWS FROM THE FRONT

SUPER SPECIAL EDITION

July 13, 2007



TOM CRYER ACQUITTED

UNANIMOUS VERDICT: NOT GUILTY!!



In a time when good news is hard to come by a truck load was delivered this week when a unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict was handed down by a jury following a hotly contested and hard fought trial on Tom Cryer’s case. Hallelujah!! Never again doubt the power of prayer and hard work.



Nationally renowned tax defense attorney Larry Becraft was lead counsel backed up by long-time tax honesty advocate attorney George Harp. Larry turned in a flawless performance. Efforts by the government to prevent any testimony and evidence about the law resulted in rulings that prevented them from introducing any law or IRS procedural rules and Tom was not permitted to read to the jury from any of the key Supreme Court decisions. But those exclusions and limitations were repeatedly overcome as Larry and Tom shifted tactics and examination techniques to get the truth out for the jury to hear. Having two seasoned trial lawyers presenting the truth from both the podium and the witness box was a rare combination that was nothing less than a thing of beauty and Larry’s closing argument was truly compelling, placing the perfect “cherry” on top of a brilliantly conducted trial.



Tom Cryer’s testimony was inspirational as he clearly laid out his study of the law and the sequence of his conclusions, each leading to the next. At one point the entire courtroom was spellbound as Tom gave a passionate and heartfelt explanation of how his fundamental rights, including his right to earn a living, were not from the Constitution—not from the government—but from his Creator, and that he received those rights with the first tiny breath of air he sucked into his lungs in 1949.



Truth Troopers came to attend the trial from as far away as Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and elsewhere as well as friends and associates of Tom’s from Shreveport. These patriots, who the government perceives as a bunch of wild-eyed radicals and scofflaws, sat quietly and conducted themselves in a truly dignified manner, lending credibility and substance to the message of the truth and belying the government’s portrayal of the community. We are proud of each and every one of them.



For the play-by-play account of the trial you can tune in to Larry Becraft’s and Tom Cryer’s Republic Broadcasting Network programs this Saturday (http://www.republicbroadcasting.org). Both Larry and Tom will be on their two RBN programs and they will be taking questions at 800 313-9443.



Larry Becraft’s RBN show “airs” from 9-10 a.m. Central and Tom’s from 2-4 p.m. Central. A lot of the trial went on behind the scenes and you can be assured that there will be plenty of stories and tidbits of what actually goes on that even those attending could not see or hear.



NOTE: Tom Cryer has asked us to remind everyone that his victory is not a ticket to take on the beast single-handed. He warns that his course of action is too risky for most and that fighting together, protected by the First Amendment, is the best avenue for us to pursue. He says the antidote for a lie is the Truth.



TOM IS STILL IN THE HOLE

WE NEED TO HELP HIM CLIMB OUT



Although Tom Cryer has won an amazing victory for the cause of truth and the restoration of the rule of law, the battle was not won without paying a steep price. His practice has been ruined and he has incurred expenses he still has to meet. He is having to start all over again and we can help. Please do what you can, no matter how much or how little, by going to http://www.liefreezone.com and clicking “Send Help”.



You can donate to the cause on line through the paypal link or you can send help to Tom’s defense fund at the address provided.



TA FUNDS REQUEST REMINDER

(WE NEED TO STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS STILL HOT)



Tom Cryer’s victory proves that we can win. People WILL listen and CAN recognize the Truth when they hear it. But spreading that message is not free. Now is exactly the time to capitalize on this sensational news.



The recent request for Twenty FRN’s (about $1.54) has resulted in roughly five percent of us sending in this badly needed help. All Tom Cryer risked was everything he had, so can’t we ALL risk twenty “whatever those are”? Please (but as always, only if you can do so without financial injury) chip in to help TA follow through on this immense step forward. On line through the web site or send to Truth Attack, 4348 Youree Drive, Shreveport, LA 71105



PLEASE FORWARD THIS GOOD NEWS TO EVERYONE

DON'T LET THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION STOP SPREADING

http://WWW.TRUTHATTACK.ORG

I see that Famspear sometimes understands me:

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.