He was being investigated for criminal charges and for encouraging others to behave in a criminal fashion - talking to his clients seems a reasonable way for that investigation to proceed.
All of his claims about not owing income tax were rejected - he just convinced a jury he had no intent to commit a crime by not filing since he honestly believed his theory about his trust being legal.
So basically I think this suit is one more crazy stunt by people who put their energy into pretending income tax doesn’t exist instead of trying to reform the system.
Oh come on and think just a bit... "talking to clients" is not the potential issue, but what is might be what was said to those clients.
For example, I just opened an investigation about you regarding some potentical incidents involving possession and distribution of child pornography. Shall I just announce this investigation on the public forums or discuss them with your friends & family? :-)
I’m pretty sure the 7th Circuit ruled that that wasn’t a valid defense, though I don’t know if the 5th Circuit has dealt with this issue and I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court hasn’t.
Cryer didn't say the income tax doesn't exist. There is some income that is taxable, but most is not for individuals who work for a living.
When Cryer asked the IRS witnesses to cite the law that required him to pay taxes for the income related to his work, the IRS couldn't, or refused to show him or the jury the law.
What is an honest juror to do when the defendant only asks the government to cite the law being violated and the government can't do it?