Posted on 07/15/2007 7:25:50 AM PDT by badgerlandjim
Today a Louisiana Federal Jury found Attorney Tommy Cryer NOT GUILTY of 2 counts of willful failure to file an income tax return. Earlier on Monday July 9th the Government had on its own motion dismissed 2 counts of tax evasion charges that it had charged Tommy Cryer with.
(Excerpt) Read more at wingswatchman.org ...
Easy. The jury wasn't there to decide if he owed the taxes. That is not what the trial was about. Whether or not he owes the taxes is a civil matter. This was a criminal matter of willful failure to file. In order to be convicted, the jury has to find that he knew he had to file, but didn't. Well, the jury found that the guy really didn't think he had to file, therefore he is not guilty of the criminal charge. This has no bearing on whether or not he owes any taxes.
You have no admiration for a man who actually stands on a well-founded principle?
Well, I admire the man. I just get bothered by people who encourage others to get themselves and their families in deep sh*t with the feds.
don't have to convince the government; just a jury.
Not true. You need a federal appeals court to rule that all these various cliams aobut wages not being income are true.
Every angle has been a failure?
yes.
Didn't you notice that this guy won.
this case had nothing to do with his underlying claims, just whether or not he "willfully" failed to file. Since he really, really believed this stuff, the jury ruled that he was not "willful". That is, he didn't actually believe he had to file.
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.
I hope you are correct, but I doubt it.
I should have been more specific. But, all of my arguments still stand if modified to fit the wording you want. All of these "wages are not income" theories have been tried many times and all have failed.
If this guy is smart, he will specialize in helping other people do what he did. After all, he’s already done all the research and tested his own strategies. The key is to make sure there’s always a jury trial.
Not true. You need a federal appeals court to rule that all these various cliams aobut wages not being income are true.
The government cannot appeal a "not guilty" verdict. The case is over and this guy will never have to pay taxes on nontaxable income.
In this case you are correct. I meant on the broad issue of whether wages are "income", etc.
Has anyone asked the jury why they acquitted him. If so, I'd like to read what the jury had to say. Absent any questioning of the jury after the verdict, one cannot conclude the decision was based soley on the "willful" element.
Well, that is the law he was acquitted of. It may be that they simply acquitted him because they agree with him in general.
You are giving truth to the “true believers”. “True believers” don’t desire truth, they simply want their fantasy and they are willing to pay big bucks for it.
Quit trying to screw up some other guys market.
I suppose you also tell people that Tarrot Card readers and crsytal ball fortune tellers are scam artists too.
You should be ashamed.
>>>If somebody’s got to beat them at their own game I’d rather it WASN’T a lawyer !!!
One lawyer with a briefcase will steal more from you than a dozen armed men.
ping
and it could have been that the jury agreed with him that none of the three elemants of the crime were committed.
In any event, this was a huge loss for the IRS. Keep in mind that they pretty much left him alone until he wrote a book. He was daring them to charge him by being “in you face” with the IRS. He wanted to prove his point in a court of law and called the bluff of the IRS.
Not likely to happen as there is this thing called the 16th Amendment
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
bttt
My thinking on that is, if the IRS did not use any statutes or IRS rules, they did so as not to have them struck down, which would open up Pandora's box.
In other words, if something is not introduced in the trial, it can't be ruled upon.
This way, they just accepted defeat in this case and all their statutes and rules remain intact and they go merrily along collecting their bounty.
If you read about his background, you'd be glad that he won. He is not your typical slimeball attorney.
Gee, you're not very bright, are you?
If you look into it you'll find, probably much to your great surprise, that a criminal acquittal has nothing to do with whether or not you owe the tax. Guess what? You still owe every single penny of tax, penalty and interest.
Ask Vernice Kuglin, the last tax-kook who won on a Cheek defense. Same attorney (Becraft.) He (on her behalf) admitted her liability (during the sentencing process) and her wages are garnished to pay her tax liability. To this very day she is busy paying the very same liability which she claimed she was too stupid to understand. All she did was avoid prison. All Cryer did was avoid prison. They got lucky. Both of them will pay their taxes eventually, assuming they don't file bankruptcy more than 3 years hence.
Standard procedure is to first press criminal charges because the civil suit could screw up the criminal case. The civil suit will commence after this one.
And this is his one and only get out of jail card and from her e on the IRS has much more control over him because he can no longer use the same defense.
Either way the IRS won.
Now, true to protester form, this guy will claim he actually won something. Folks like you will turn over huge sums of money and some of you will end up in criminal court too.
Then the con game continues.
““victimless crime””
Nice story. Good point. However, I have found one person’s definition of “victimless” to differ from that of another.
I think that there are quite a lot of people around here that will wind up with serious financial/personal problems and/or prison time due to their delusional tax beliefs.
The IRS is quite serious about putting this nonsense to rest. One need only read what the morons at suijuris dot com have to say about their failed marriages and evictions to get an idea of what’s in store for “tax protesters.”
Let me know when, and if the IRS goes after him in tax court. If the IRS could or would not cite the law in the criminal case, why do you think they can or will in a civil action?
And if you are so bright, maybe you can cite the law that required him to file and pay.
Did you read the briefs relatred to his motion to dismiss the charges? If you had, you’d realize this guy knows the law and the IRS response was “lacking”.
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.