Posted on 07/15/2007 7:25:50 AM PDT by badgerlandjim
I spoke to Cryer when I learned of his case. This was shortly after the IRS brought it. I found his response to me to be interesting.
First of all, I have a similar issue to Cryer. I do not have a problem paying taxes. I pay gas, tobacco, alcohol and other excise and imposts without any complaint. Those are constitutional taxes and I am not an anarchist. I simply find a tax on my wages to be anathema to freedom. I work for my money; I trade a portion of my life for it - a portion of my finite time here on the planet. When I volunteer to pay a tax, I am acting of my own cognition. However, a tax on my life is anti-freedom and outside the scope of any government that is supposed to protect my right to be free. This is a right that is above the constitution and what Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration.
It’s been about 11 years for me. So when I learned of Cryer’s case, I contacted him. What he told me was this: ‘If I had a family or someone who was relying on me, I would not take on this fight. I would encourage anyone who has people relying on them to not fight as I have.’ In other words, your claim that this is somehow a big con game and your insinuation that “tax protesters” are trying to get more people to fight the gestapo is misinformed. Of course, I personally wish more people would but I no one encourages them to do so. I am sickened to think that you can vote portions of my life away from me. The United States is a country of individuals with individual rights. My right to my time is not in question. Why do people feel it is okay then to take part of my day from me and put it to use for the “common good”. I don’t care about the common good. I care about my good, my family’s good and the good I want to support. Do I have a constitutional right to care only about those things I care about? Do I have some constitutional compulsion to agree with you and to do as you say or else risk time in jail so long as I don’t usurp any of your rights? Can’t I be a greedy, self-centered bastard if I want? Is it greedy to just want to keep what is mine; to keep those things I have traded my life for and to only give them up when I damn well choose? I want everyone and certainly me to be free.
If a person comes to you and demands money, you can choose not to give it to him - no matter how badly he “needs” it. If he takes it, you call the police and he goes to jail. But if the masses vote for someone who then take that money from you and you refuse, you now go to jail. Where’s the justice in that?
There is due process contained in the article.
It seems to me that the IRS could hae taken these actions againt Cryer without resorting to a criminal prosecution; so why didn’t they take that course of action?
Like I told you before, they wanted a criminal conviction and they put all civil actions on hold so they don't screw up there case.
Isn’t it a bit difficult to defend a civil action when the IRS won’t or can’t tell the citizen the legal basis which requires him to pay the tax and in what amount?
No, its not there job. Go to the library or read the clear answers they have on there web site about such questions.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106498,00.html
It appears that Cryer has been attempting to resolve the matter for a period of several years now. The problem isn’t an unwillingness to pay any tax that might be due; it’s that the IRS hasn’t shown him the law that makes him liable for payment.
The law is very plain. It is simply Code section 1 of the IRS code.
If a company sent you a bill demanding payment, would you just pay it without any proof that you owed it? I doubt it.
Of course not.
Could you answer a simple question that I’ve asked several times. Would vote to convict Cryer when the IRS refused to the cite the law that required him to pay income taxes under his circumstances?
In a heartbeat. Its not their job to be his attorney or CPA. Do you get free legal services from other federal agencies?
Apparently the original income tax was passed due to assurances that it would only be an itty-bitty tax on really wealthy people. Of course, that is certainly no longer the case. I have great admiration for people who confront the IRS (while risking their own treasure and freedom) because they sincerely believe, rightly or wrongly, that the income tax in its present form is an illegal concoction of contradictory regulations that constitute an onerous burden to the citizenry.
I consider these to be true patriots and resent your terming them "scumbags". To me, the scumbags are the bloodsuckers who depend on the graduated income tax for their livelihood, and would fight to the death against any replacement tax.
Flame away, sir.
Typical tax protester attitude.
This thread, like all such threads, contains a fine sampling of the delusions of the TP crowd. Anyone who pursues this nonsense stands an excellent chance of winding up in prison, Cryer is a VERY rare exception.
And, prison sentence or no, you still get to pay every penny of tax, penalty and interest. Just ask Schiff, Rose, Simkanin, Meredith, Johnson, Kuglin, Cryer and a long list of others.
The IRS has increased its enforcement effort in this area, pursuing both injunctions against the morons who promote this junk and selective criminal prosecutions, again mostly against promoters. However, there are still hundreds of "little people" who aren't promoters convicted every single year. If you want to vastly increase your odds of totally screwing up your life, just follow some of the TP delusions on this thread.
I, for one, thank you for your struggle. I haven't the ability, the opportunity, nor the wealth to fight the IRS; but would if I could. Best wishes to you and yours.
Thanks for the link.
See post #184.
Yes, well I know others who have made this argument and spent time in Federal Prison, so copy at your own risk.
See post #186.
I thought I made it clear... I’m not a tax protester. I have no problem paying taxes. Why do you not address the general philosophy behind my post. Does it not make me less free if you can vote my time away from me? Is this not a country that is based on freedom? Under your argument, were not the founders “typical tax protesters”?
The constitution lays out the means under which the government will collect revenue. It is called excise and impost. But now we have lawyers and accountants whose lively-hood is based on the government usurping the rights of the people. You guys are like the doctor who will fix your broken leg... just after he breaks it.
An income tax is not necessary. We collect 1.2 Trillion each year in income taxes and pay $700 Billion to people like you to try to calculate the tax for us, keep us out of trouble and so that you can pay lobbyists millions of dollars to make it so that you don’t have to pay the tax. Seems like a pretty good racket you’ve got going - provide no value to society and fabricate your worth.
Answer the questions: what right do the people have to usurp the rights of the individual? If the people decide that some class of individual is not as valuable as another, is that okay? Does it serve the common good to corrupt the economy with arbitrary tax rates on their time? Is a person’s time their own and should an entity be able to decide that it is not? If the government takes my time and gives the fruits of it to some class of people, are they not simply buying votes off of my labors? Am I more or less free under an income tax system? What is point number 2 of the communist manifesto?
I only know one who made the arguments I make. He was just acquitted.
To make it easy for you, I’ll post the manifesto of what became one of the most brutal governments to exist (all in the name of helping the common good) and what Rand wrote about. Here are the ten points of the communist manifesto, how many of them do we labor under today?
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Sorry. I used nonspecific language. I should have said: Folks who tell others its okay to break the law because of some half-baked theory are scum. Folks who charge others for the same theories are scumbags.
I recommend you give these reasons to the IRS agent if they come knocking. Also, tell him or her how you are not required to pay unless the point out to you the law that says you have to.
I’m sure they’ll just ignore you and move on.
I see you won’t answer my questions. Why is that?
I actually know a few people who have asked the IRS to point to the law that requires them to pay. They don’t broadcast the fact they don’t pay income taxes and the IRS doesn’t bother with them. Once the IRS realizes they are serious, they never hear from them again.
Isn’t that how the IRS treated Cryer prior to his efforts to publicize his position. After all, he went 10 years without paying.
If you have not found answers to the questions you raised on this thread and the links then I am afraid to tell you that you are illiterate and possibly retarded (in the medical sense).
I know lots of folks who have been ignored by the IRS. They simply don't have the income or the assets to pay the bills that are due. If they understood the laws better they could get the old bills waived with and offer in compromise. Too bad they are ignorant of their true rights.
Several of the people I know have significant assets.
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.