Expect this one to be the ralling cry

[Quixote]

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.

I have always assumed that your non sequiturs were an attempt to avoid the issue. Now I wonder if you really can't understand what people are talking about and think you're actually responding to something they wrote. Cryer's delusion that he doesn't have to pay taxes has nothing to do with Congress's power to lay a general income tax.

[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.

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

The reason Cryer broke no law is that what he was charged with was a specific intent crime involving the element of willfullness; if he didn't willfully evade taxes (i.e., if he honestly believed he had no obligation to pay), then he should have been acquitted, regardless of how moronic his beliefs actually are.

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.

Cryer's belief didn't change what the law is -- it simply precluded a finding of willfullness.

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.

Considering that Jefferson's quote referred to the federal taxing power and not to the spending power, your attempt at changing the subject is duly noted.

[SteveSy]

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.

There was no doubt Jefferson wanted public education.....however Jefferson admitted that public education was unconstitutional.

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.

- Jefferson 1801

Considering that Jefferson's quote referred to the federal taxing power and not to the spending power, your attempt at changing the subject is duly noted.

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

- Jefferson 1817

Ok, you lost....now what? Another out of context quote to support the fraud?

[SteveSy]

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.

The reason Cryer broke no law is that what he was charged with was a specific intent crime involving the element of willfullness; if he didn't willfully evade taxes (i.e., if he honestly believed he had no obligation to pay), then he should have been acquitted, regardless of how moronic his beliefs actually are.

Spin it however you wish. The jury believed Cryer was not commiting a crime when he did not file. I know that really hurts but it's the facts.

[Quixote]

The jury believed Cryer was not commiting a crime when he did not file. I know that really hurts but it's the facts.

You finally got it right. The jury did not believe Cryer did not have to file, only that his failure to do so was not a crime.

[SteveSy]

The jury believed Cryer was not commiting a crime when he did not file. I know that really hurts but it's the facts.

You finally got it right. The jury did not believe Cryer did not have to file, only that his failure to do so was not a crime.

Whatever floats your little boat.....btw you mind providing some evidence to show the jury thought he was required to file? I realize that's an impossible task considering they let him off for not filing.

Kind of amusing watching you try very hard to dance around the fact that Cryer commited no crime by not filing. It seems that you're saying that he was required by law to file and on the other he commited no crime by not filing, and you claim I'm irrational .

Crime:

An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

[natty]

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.

The only thing Cryer won was a temporary revival of his failed law practice (if the bar doesn't take away his license like they did to another "winner"-Bill Drexler).

Cryer will be the media darling of the wacked-out, conspiracy, anti-govt seminar circuit. The loser, of course, will be the family of the deluded fool who has been sitting on the TP fence who now believes he can get out of paying taxes.

[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.

The only thing Cryer won was a temporary revival of his failed law practice (if the bar doesn't take away his license like they did to another "winner"-Bill Drexler).

Cryer will be the media darling of the wacked-out, conspiracy, anti-govt seminar circuit. The loser, of course, will be the family of the deluded fool who has been sitting on the TP fence who now believes he can get out of paying taxes.

No one is going to take the Cryer case, who sitting on the fence, and now believe they can get out of paying taxes. It is hope though for those who believe that there is a small chance the system will work properly for them. The law is simple, if you believe you are required to file then you must. If you believe otherwise you do not. It is unjust to convict someone of a crime that they knew and believed was not a crime.

Anyone trying to get out of paying taxes they know they owe should and most likely will be found guilty of evading taxes or willfully violating a know legal duty.

[Dr. Caligari]

Kind of amusing watching you try very hard to dance around the fact that Cryer commited no crime by not filing. It seems that you're saying that he was required by law to file and on the other he commited no crime by not filing, and you claim I'm irrational .

There is a difference between criminal and civil liability. If I leave a restaurant and take your coat from the coat rack by the front door because I mistakenly believe it was mine, I have not committed a crime, because larceny requires an intent to take what I know does not belong to me; but you can still sue me to make me return your coat.

[natty]

.....btw you mind providing some evidence to show the jury thought he was required to file? I realize that's an impossible task considering they let him off for not filing.

Becraft made it perfectly clear that the only thing at issue was INTENT. Therefore, the jury let him off for being IGNORANT.

[SteveSy]

Kind of amusing watching you try very hard to dance around the fact that Cryer commited no crime by not filing. It seems that you're saying that he was required by law to file and on the other he commited no crime by not filing, and you claim I'm irrational .

There is a difference between criminal and civil liability. If I leave a restaurant and take your coat from the coat rack by the front door because I mistakenly believe it was mine, I have not committed a crime, because larceny requires an intent to take what I know does not belong to me; but you can still sue me to make me return your coat.

I agree.

[SteveSy]

.....btw you mind providing some evidence to show the jury thought he was required to file? I realize that's an impossible task considering they let him off for not filing.

Becraft made it perfectly clear that the only thing at issue was INTENT. Therefore, the jury let him off for being IGNORANT.

Whatever floats your boat....you mind offering some evidence to show that the jury let him off for being ignorant? Personally I think you're speaking from ignorance, unless of course you have personal knowledge of this fact….do you?

[natty]

No one is going to take the Cryer case, who sitting on the fence, and now believe they can get out of paying taxes.

Too funny. Interview any TP and ask them what made them take the giant leap to quit filing and paying taxes. 99% will say it was some TP guru who led them to believe it was OK. It is the lemming effect. Most come back to their senses. A few become hardcore tax deniers. Some like you, stevesy, just blather.

[natty]

Personally I think you're speaking from ignorance, unless of course you have personal knowledge of this fact….do you?

Becraft has a program on Republic Broadcast on Saturdays. I heard it from the horse's mouth.

Cryer has a program also. He is now promoting himself.

[Quixote]

The jury believed Cryer was not commiting a crime when he did not file. I know that really hurts but it's the facts.

You finally got it right. The jury did not believe Cryer did not have to file, only that his failure to do so was not a crime.

No, only his WILLFUL failure to not file was not a crime.

No, had he willfully failed to file, he would be guilty of a crime. The jury found that he did not act willfully. We know that because it was the only disputed issue. Cryer's failure to file those two returns was not a crime because he did not do so willfully. He may have willfully failed to file the other 8 returns he claims not to have filed, but we'll never know that unless a grand jury indicts him for those apparent crimes.

[Quixote]

The law is simple, if you believe you are required to file then you must. If you believe otherwise you do not.

Oh, too bad. I had such hopes for you. The requirement to file a return has nothing to do with one's beliefs. Cryer's beliefs kept him out of jail, but he still had a legal requirement to file returns.

[SteveSy]

No one is going to take the Cryer case, who sitting on the fence, and now believe they can get out of paying taxes.

Too funny. Interview any TP and ask them what made them take the giant leap to quit filing and paying taxes. 99% will say it was some TP guru who led them to believe it was OK. It is the lemming effect. Most come back to their senses. A few become hardcore tax deniers. Some like you, stevesy, just blather.

So all the people that do file actually have read the law or some court case and know, from personal knowledge, they are really required to file? Or, do they act like lemmings and just file because some tax guru (who also most likely never read the law) told them they must?
Trouble is for your group the average people who actually read the law comes to the realization they are most likely not required to pay income taxes or at least have serious doubts. Present the average person with the "includes" bs in the law or who the government may place a levy on and you'll soon find out no one with a shred of common sense will come to the conclusion it includes them. Whether it does or does not is irrelevant what matters is what they believe once they read it for themselves.

It takes some "guru, who probably never actually read any part of the law concerning the tax in question to convince them they are required to file and to ignore their own eyes. This is why all of you always fail miserably trying to use common sense and reason and why you rarely if ever attempt it. Instead you must resort to quoting this person or that person to support your argument otherwise no one would believe you. It's also why you must always hold the word of a judge as if it came from God himself. If not there is no believability to your argument because it requires someone to ignore common sense and reason.

[natty]

If not there is no believability to your argument because it requires someone to ignore common sense and reason.

Guru A says, "you must file and pay income taxes."

Guru B says, "the income tax laws do not apply to you."

What would 'common sense and reason' say?
"Is there a way to test both theories without risk?"

Walla...
Why do you file and pay taxes, stevesy?

[Cpt Banjo]

Considering that Jefferson's quote referred to the federal taxing power and not to the spending power, your attempt at changing the subject is duly noted.

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

- Jefferson 1817

Ok, you lost....now what? Another out of context quote to support the fraud?

Still trying to change the subject, are you? The issue is what Congress can tax, not what can it spend tax revenue on. Since the Constitution specifies only one thing (exports) that Congress can't tax, and since the Supreme Court has found only one additional thing inherent in our federalist system that can't be taxed (certain state and local governmental activity), your inane claim that Congress can't levy a general income tax remains, as it ever has, totally without legal support.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Trouble is for your group the average people who actually read the law comes to the realization they are most likely not required to pay income taxes or at least have serious doubts. Present the average person with the "includes" bs in the law or who the government may place a levy on and you'll soon find out no one with a shred of common sense will come to the conclusion it includes them. Whether it does or does not is irrelevant what matters is what they believe once they read it for themselves.

It takes some "guru, who probably never actually read any part of the law concerning the tax in question to convince them they are required to file and to ignore their own eyes. This is why all of you always fail miserably trying to use common sense and reason and why you rarely if ever attempt it. Instead you must resort to quoting this person or that person to support your argument otherwise no one would believe you. It's also why you must always hold the word of a judge as if it came from God himself. If not there is no believability to your argument because it requires someone to ignore common sense and reason.

No, Steve, you are quite wrong. The average person who actually reads the law files tax returns and pays taxes. Tax protesters are a minority. The average person realizes -- the vast majority of people with a "shred of common sense realize -- that paying Federal income taxes is a legal obligation. Look around, Steve.