Posted on 07/15/2007 7:25:50 AM PDT by badgerlandjim
You have supplied some excellent material for our homeschool lesson on economics! Thank you Dick!
Avoiding paying a criminal penalty doesn’t mean he wins.
There have been many many cases won. You are allowing yourself to be ignorant. Why?
Cryer does not owe the tax. Visit his website, his case is spelled out there. His evasion charges were dropped because there were no taxes due. The criminal evasion charges were trumped up and advertised in the local press to smear him and create fear.
He owes no tax.
Why are you hoping otherwise?
I agree with the court system is turning there head.This is “TREASON” against the american people which conviently poloticians and judges are exempt from!!!??? We will only keep our country free if we pay attention and stand up! Do not ignore the bravery this man has.Learn from it because its very possible you will need this information someday to save yourself from the very thing this man went thru!
No, it didn't. He was charged with willfully failing to file, which requires as proof that he knew he was supposed to file, but didn't. He argued that he didn't know he was supposed to file, because he doesn't think he has to.
the jury agreed that he did not willfully fail to file. That does not mean that he was not required to.
That is simple fact.
No, there has not been a single case won where the defeandant claimed that the income tax was unconstitutional. There have been cases like this one. You are allowing yourself to be ignorant. Why?
I'm not. There are no cases. If there are, then cite one.
Cryer does not owe the tax. Visit his website, his case is spelled out there. His evasion charges were dropped because there were no taxes due. The criminal evasion charges were trumped up and advertised in the local press to smear him and create fear.
He may or may not owe a tax.. sometimes people who don't file wouldn't have owed anything anyway, but this case did not rule on whether or not the income tax is constitutional.
He owes no tax.
Remains to be seen.
Why are you hoping otherwise?
I'm not. I just don't believe in telling people that they don't have to pay taxes when they do.
To be clear in my last post: I meant to say that there has not been a single case where the jury has ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. Please cite one.
As has been pointed out, he "beat" NOTHING other than the federal misdemeanor charges. With the "Cheek" defense of "I'm too stupid to understand the law and actually believed my BS reasons for not paying" even though he's a lawyer. LOL. There's nothing like an OJ jury.
His problem is that he still has to pay EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF TAX, penalty, interest, and, as an added bonus, his attorney's no doubt large bill. Isn't that wonderful?
BTW, Becraft, his attorney, pays his taxes. He's not as dumb as his clients.
When will people figure out that the tax protester nonsense is just that? That you can rarely count on an idiot jury to buy your baloney and keep you out of prison?
Wrong. I have heard Mr. Cryer speak on a nationwide conference call just last Thursday and in his own words he stated the jury found him innocent because the IRS could not substantiate a counterargument to his case which rested on absence of a law.
That you are now trying to speak for the jury tells me you are a liar. You are hoping this case is trivial, it is not. People affiliated in some way with the IRS always hope these cases are viewed as trivial. When the IRS places their bet on a court win and they lose, they always say it was a trivial ‘ruling’ even when it is a precedent setting jury ‘verdict’ as this case is.
Go to his website and read. You can even contact him yourself.
And tell your IRS buds that the revolt is just around the corner and Americans are now beginning to take names in preparation for a major ass-kicking.
That you continue to ignore this detail tells everyone all they need to know about you.
I agree with your point about a fiat money system.
It’s akin to a tar pit. But we’re standing in the tar pit.
Now what?
Look who has arrived, scumbag himself.
Just like clockwork, to try and spin this case as NOTHING.
I am off to Church. I’ll say a prayer for you and your IRS rice bowl.
And he's wrong. He was charged with willfully failing to file. That is what he was acquitted of.
That you are now trying to speak for the jury tells me you are a liar.
It tells me that I understand basic logic, and that I know some basics about the law. That I keep asking you to cite the cases that you claim exist, yet you refuse to do so, tells me that you can't do it.
You are hoping this case is trivial, it is not.
I'm not hoping it is one thing or another. Funny you claim to speak for me when you just called me a liar for claiming to speak to the jury. Put up or shut up. Cite the cases that you cliam exist.
People affiliated in some way with the IRS always hope these cases are viewed as trivial.
Probably true. So what? My only affiliation with them is that they steal my money every year.
When the IRS places their bet on a court win and they lose, they always say it was a trivial ‘ruling’ even when it is a precedent setting jury ‘verdict’ as this case is.
How is this precedent setting? The court ruled that he did not willfully fail to file. There have been cases similar to this before. He did not believe he had to file, so he was aquitted of willful failure to file.
Go to his website and read. You can even contact him yourself.
I went to his website. In case you didn't know this, the defendents post trial remarks are not exactly an unbiased view of the ruling.
And tell your IRS buds that the revolt is just around the corner and Americans are now beginning to take names in preparation for a major ass-kicking.
I don't have any IRS buds. I hope everyone who works for the IRS rots in hell. I hope that a major ass kicking is coming.
But back to the point... put up or shut up. You claim their are cases where the judege and or jury has ruled that the income tax is unconstitutional. Cite one.
What does that change in substance? Nothing. It happens all the time that people challenge certain tax rules, and sometimes win. But, there has never been a case that has bought your bogus argument that wages are not income. If there is, cite it. It is a fraud. You are encouraing people to ruin their lives, and, most likely, you still pay yours becasue you know its not true.
That you continue to ignore this detail tells everyone all they need to know about you.
That you continue to refuse to cite the cases you claim exists shows that you can't. That you are incapable of understanding that a willful failure to file charge can be beaten by cliaming you didn't know you had to file shows you to be an idiot.
Once again, put up or shut up.
Running away before you cite the cases you claim exist. Have fun at the church of all bark and no bite.
No, THANK YOU. I am honored and flattered.
Please feed it to them in small doses lest you trigger massive cognitive dissonance.
db
All the cases I read concerning people in court with the IRS seam to end on the same note.”No Taxes Due”. This is how they keep the illegal collection of personal income tax from setting any kind of precedence.No claim, No Issue, Leads to no ruling on that particular issue!(My opinion)
With all due respect, you are reading a biased set of rulings. People get hit with huge amounts due all the time.
If he has been acquitted of the charge, he does not owe the tax. Has any of t he alleged tax" been collected? How in the world is the IRS going to collect something a jury said he doesn't owe. No court is going to order it paid when he won his case.
So what did he win? Years of legal expenses... plus the tax. He would have been better off paying the tax to begin with.
You have no admiration for a man who actually stands on a well-founded principle?
As evil as it may be, you are never going to convince any branch of the government that you do not have to pay it. Every angle has been tried, and it has been a failure.
don't have to convince the government; just a jury. Every angle has been a failure? Didn't you notice that this guy won. There will be many more to follow and I suggest that the IRS will not prosecute those who can read the documents in this case.
the point is not that the income tax is unconstitutional, just that it only applies to certain income and not other forms of income.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.