Expect this one to be the ralling cry

[Kimokeo]

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbc ... 062/NEWS03

From the article

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."

[Kimokeo]

Just noticed this is on another board here.

But, I'm seeing it popping up all over the place.

Another criminal trial lost.

He stopped filing 10 years ago, what was the prosecution saying to the court?

[Bud Dickman]

Why doesn’t the Service file for him?

[Kimokeo]

Why doesn’t the Service file for him?

That's what I always wonder when there is no return. Would it cause a problem in a Criminal trial if there is a return on file - by IRS?

[LPC]

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.

For "years" read "since indicted."

Seriously, does anyone have any evidence that this guy had ever even thought about the validity of the federal income tax until he was indicted?

[Famspear]

Kimokeo wrote:

That's what I always wonder when there is no return. Would it cause a problem in a Criminal trial if there is a return on file - by IRS?

My view: Where the taxpayer himself/herself has willfully failed to file a tax return, the taxpayer has a criminal problem, even where the IRS has "filed" a "substitute for return" (SFR, or 6020(b)). On these criminal statutes, once you're guilty you cannot technically "unring" the "guilty bell" by filing your own return. If the IRS itself goes to the "trouble" of doing an SFR for the taxpayer, that would be even less of a defense.

[Quixote]

Why doesn’t the Service file for him?

I have heard that some of the information gathering tools available to the IRS do not mesh well with the federal rules of evidence in criminal cases. For example, the IRS can issue, and a court will enforce, a summons for the taxpayer's financial records from the taxpayer himself. I have heard that that can raise 5th Amendment issues that the prosecution would rather not have to deal with.

[Famspear]

Quixote wrote:

I have heard that some of the information gathering tools available to the IRS do not mesh well with the federal rules of evidence in criminal cases. For example, the IRS can issue, and a court will enforce, a summons for the taxpayer's financial records from the taxpayer himself. I have heard that that can raise 5th Amendment issues that the prosecution would rather not have to deal with.

Yeah, it would be similar to any other demand that the taxpayer provide documents, or that any witness in a case provide documents. An assertion of the 5th Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination would be upheld only if the Act of Production Doctrine came into play. Essentially, the mere fact that the document contained incriminating information would not be enough for the taxpayer to avoid having to produce those documents. Under the Act of Production Doctrine, the taxpayer could successfully invoke the privilege only where the actual act of production involved, in substance, a sort of constructive "testimony" by the taxpayer as to the documents' existence, authenticity, or custody. If the government already has sufficient information on existence, authenticity and custody prior to the taxpayer's production of those documents, the taxpayer might be out of luck.

[natty]

Seriously, does anyone have any evidence that this guy had ever even thought about the validity of the federal income tax until he was indicted?

I have listened to cryer brag since his aquittal on his internet broadcast and have watched his you-tube clips posted since his aquittal. He is 58. He has had two heart attacks. He sounds like he has lung or throat cancer. His wife recently died. He was broke before the IRS ever came after him. Now, he has an audience that will donate money to him which he never fails to beg for.

All of his arguments are standard issue tax protest gibberish that have been around for over 30 years- nothing new. Too bad he was aquitted because he did file a Motion for Dismissal which laid out all of his arguments better than I have seen from any pro se. It would have been interesting to see if Becraft or any other lawyer would have signed on for the appeal because sanctions would surely have followed.

[SteveSy]

It would have been interesting to see if Becraft or any other lawyer would have signed on for the appeal because sanctions would surely have followed.

Well, since they won that just won't happen. I love reading the ramblings on this board after a TP wins....you guys go and barf a lung trying to explain how it was anything other than a win. Of course when the DOJ wins that's another story.....

How about the government tried their best but they just couldn't win because the jury didn't buy the government BS?

[.]

Cryer avoided prison. So, what?

He will still wind up paying tax, penalty, interest and his lawyer. What did he really win? The distinction of convincing a jury that he really, really, really believed he didn't have to file? He won't be able to do that the next time around.

He's a loser, just like the rest of the TPs.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Well, since they won that just won't happen. I love reading the ramblings on this board after a TP wins....you guys go and barf a lung trying to explain how it was anything other than a win. Of course when the DOJ wins that's another story.....

How about the government tried their best but they just couldn't win because the jury didn't buy the government BS?

Steve, here's a clue: The basic ramble is that when a jury finds a criminal defendant not guilty, the government indeed did try its best (whether they "botched" it or not), and the jury indeed did not buy the government's case.

Both tax protesters and normal people can work themselves into a frenzy arguing about WHY the jury did not buy the government's case in the Cryer case, or the Banister case, or some other tax protester case, but we don't need to do so. Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your point of view -- most juries in criminal cases have more common sense that the tax protesters who end up as criminal defendants.

The government in the Cryer case probably failed to PERSUADE the jury that Cryer intentionally violated a known legal duty. Regardless of the level of Mr. Cryer's ACTUAL awareness of his legal obligations to pay Federal income taxes or file returns, I would argue that the system on some level WORKED. Cryer had his day in court. The burden was on the government. The jury rendered its verdict.

The win in the Cryer case is a win for MR. CRYER. It is not a win for SteveSy or for convicted criminals like Irwin Schiff or Bonita Lynne Meredith or Peter Hendrickson or Ed ("it's all a Freemason conspiracy") Brown or any other delusional person who hates "the government" and who refuses to live by the rules. The sad and stubborn reality that bears down on SteveSy and all other tax protesters is that they are legally obligated to file tax returns, that they are obligated to pay Federal income taxes, that the government will continue to prosecute a few of those who refuse to obey the law, and that the government will continue to win the majority of those cases.

[Agent Observer]

I love reading the ramblings on this board after a TP wins

Translation: I have to live vicariously through other people's "wins" since I'm too spineless to do anything on my own. Here's some advice Stevesy, grow a pair and put up or shut up.

But I'll actually agree with your overall premise to some degree Stevesy. Why bother putting this guy in prison at the tax payer's expense? In the end, he will likely end up like most tax protesters who fight the system endlessly: penniless and homeless. Instead of a federal penitentiary, his prison will be a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen.

That's one hell of a win...

[Dezcad]

Doesn't Cryer's win blow holes in the theory that the courts, judges and juries are under the control of the IRS?

If the US government and the IRS are perpetrating the so-called "tax-fraud", why would anyone ever be acquitted?

[Quixote]

Doesn't Cryer's win blow holes in the theory that the courts, judges and juries are under the control of the IRS?

If the US government and the IRS are perpetrating the so-called "tax-fraud", why would anyone ever be acquitted?

1) A few acquittals make the system seem fair?

2) So many judges to bribe, so little time?

3) Becraft is kicking back some of his fees?

[Dezcad]

I believe this is a Nyarlathotep operation......

That explains a lot.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Well, since they won that just won't happen. I love reading the ramblings on this board after a TP wins....you guys go and barf a lung trying to explain how it was anything other than a win. Of course when the DOJ wins that's another story.....

How about the government tried their best but they just couldn't win because the jury didn't buy the government BS?

Steve, here's a clue: The basic ramble is that when a jury finds a criminal defendant not guilty, the government indeed did try its best (whether they "botched" it or not), and the jury indeed did not buy the government's case.

Both tax protesters and normal people can work themselves into a frenzy arguing about WHY the jury did not buy the government's case in the Cryer case, or the Banister case, or some other tax protester case, but we don't need to do so.

The problem is that most of you do work yourselves into a "frenzy" explaining away the win.

Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your point of view -- most juries in criminal cases have more common sense that the tax protesters who end up as criminal defendants.

If you say so....

The government in the Cryer case probably failed to PERSUADE the jury that Cryer intentionally violated a known legal duty. Regardless of the level of Mr. Cryer's ACTUAL awareness of his legal obligations to pay Federal income taxes or file returns, I would argue that the system on some level WORKED. Cryer had his day in court. The burden was on the government. The jury rendered its verdict.

Hey we agree....

The win in the Cryer case is a win for MR. CRYER. It is not a win for SteveSy or for convicted criminals like Irwin Schiff or Bonita Lynne Meredith or Peter Hendrickson or Ed ("it's all a Freemason conspiracy") Brown or any other delusional person who hates "the government" and who refuses to live by the rules.

It is a win for me. Though I may not use his win to avoid the evil government I do win receiving personal satisfaction in the fact that the government for the time being failed to convince average people that everyone must file and pay their extortion.

You obvioulsy know very little about the thought process of the average person who is like me. You have this flawed view that everyone like me is just looking to get out of paying something I know I should pay. Instead I'm just greedy....and want to keep my money.

Most TP's (if you want to call me that), feel that the government is stealing money from the average person. In that respect I'm no more greedy than I would be to deny a thief the money in my pocket to help him feed his family or his friends family. I do not believe, and many are right there with me, that the government does not have the constitutional power to lay a general income tax, under the guise of an excise tax, on everyone. The people who founded this country, created our constitution, and allowed you to be free of Britain’s rule would have NEVER accepted that a newly formed federal government would have such a power over the people and the States. In my opinion the facts are painfully obvious and nothing less than common sense, considering the colonists tarred, feathered and burn down the homes of tax collectors for far, far, far less. Btw, don’t give me this nonsense about it being about taxation without representation. There is no representation when someone I did not vote for in New York spends millions or even billions of dollars in tax revenues for pet projects that have nothing to do with “the general welfare”. Besides, the colonists refused representation in parliament. They wanted to be taxed by their local government not by some entity a thousand miles away.

Sure the government has the power to lay and collect taxes and spend it providing they follow the constitutional rules (which they don't), but it must be for the “general welfare”, not local. It must be for something that affects all States and a majority of the population. Anything less is unconstitutional plain and simple. You don’t need to be a high paid lawyer or some judge to look up the history and read it for yourself to know that these are the facts regardless of what someone else might say. Oh, and I could really couldn't care less what a some federal judge says who is appointed by and paid by the very people trying to usurp the constitution. If the facts says otherwise that's what I accept. Do I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it's my right. The law is public for the public. Do I always decide the law in my favor, no, I do not. I accept for instance the government has the power to lay a VAT. Would I like a VAT, no I personally would like not to pay any taxes as would most. However I accept based on the facts that the federal government has this power. A general income tax fails every common sense test.

The sad and stubborn reality that bears down on SteveSy and all other tax protesters is that they are legally obligated to file tax returns, that they are obligated to pay Federal income taxes, that the government will continue to prosecute a few of those who refuse to obey the law, and that the government will continue to win the majority of those cases.

You keep thinking that.....

The government only prosecutes maybe a few hundred cases a year....there are FAR more people dropping off the tax rolls every year and not reporting their earnings. Thankfully it’s doomed to failure no matter how harsh the government treats those people.

[Cpt Banjo]

It is a win for me. Though I may not use his win to avoid the evil government I do win receiving personal satisfaction in the fact that the government for the time being failed to convince average people that everyone must file and pay their extortion.

As the litigators say, Stevie is assuming a fact not in evidence. There is no indication that the jury wasn't convinced that people have to pay taxes. The more likely reason was that they believed Cryer's Cheek defense: that he honestly believed that he didn't have to pay.

You obvioulsy know very little about the thought process of the average person who is like me.

I agree -- irrationality is hard to understand.

I do not believe, and many are right there with me, that the government does not have the constitutional power to lay a general income tax, under the guise of an excise tax, on everyone.

Stevie persists in the delusion that what the law really is somehow depends upon what he believes it to be, and not on what Congress and the Supreme Court believe. Didn't someone previously call this legal solipsism?

The people who founded this country, created our constitution, and allowed you to be free of Britain’s rule would have NEVER accepted that a newly formed federal government would have such a power over the people and the States.

"I thought at first that the power of taxation [given in the new Federal Constitution] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." Thomas Jefferson

[SteveSy]

It is a win for me. Though I may not use his win to avoid the evil government I do win receiving personal satisfaction in the fact that the government for the time being failed to convince average people that everyone must file and pay their extortion.

As the litigators say, Stevie is assuming a fact not in evidence. There is no indication that the jury wasn't convinced that people have to pay taxes. The more likely reason was that they believed Cryer's Cheek defense: that he honestly believed that he didn't have to pay.

Cryer is part of everyone. They obviously believed that Cryer broke no law based on his belief.

You obvioulsy know very little about the thought process of the average person who is like me.

I agree -- irrationality is hard to understand.

Same to you.....it's nothing but being irrational IMO to accept the nonsensical.

I do not believe, and many are right there with me, that the government does not have the constitutional power to lay a general income tax, under the guise of an excise tax, on everyone.

Stevie persists in the delusion that what the law really is somehow depends upon what he believes it to be, and not on what Congress and the Supreme Court believe. Didn't someone previously call this legal solipsism?

Seems you're in a logical cul-de-sac because Cryer believed he didn't have to file and was exonerated of committing a crime regardless of what some judge thought the law was. Judges are just people, some very stupid I might add.

The people who founded this country, created our constitution, and allowed you to be free of Britain’s rule would have NEVER accepted that a newly formed federal government would have such a power over the people and the States.

"I thought at first that the power of taxation [given in the new Federal Constitution] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." Thomas Jefferson

Considering Jefferson made it clear federal government spending on education was unconstitutional, because it was not an enumerated power, that pretty much shoots down your attempt to confuse the average reader.

[Demosthenes]

Considering Jefferson made it clear federal government spending on education was unconstitutional that pretty much shoots down your attempt to confuse the average reader.

And yet Jefferson floated the first Bill for public education which was voted down so he had to start the first public schools himself by getting buddies to pledge.