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.
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.