"In Cryer’s case, a 12-member jury in federal jury him not guilty of the IRS’ allegations..."At the time, he told WND that his argument was that “income” did not necessarily refer to any money that a person acquires, but rather limited categories such as profit and interest.
"He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t necessarily make the compensation “income” for tax purposes."
How is this not a national precedent?
Cryer was a much more skillful trial attorney than were any of the Assistant US Attorneys who prosecuted the case. While the Court ruled against Cryer on his constitutional arguments, he successfully argued to the jury that "intent" was a necessary element of the crime for which he was charged and the prosecution had failed to introduce any evidence on that element.
bttt
How can it be when it doesn't make national news? Most of the people in this country are too busy watching circuses to notice invaders...