Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Engr
Joined: 3/12/2007
Msg: 82
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRSPage 6 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

What law makes the average American liable for an unapportioned tax on wages?
What law requires anyone to file a form 1040?
I’m still waiting for the answers.

Wow!!! Smjle is outnumbered a half dozen to one and he keeps blowing the IRS shills out the water. Even I can see that.

They can't answer his questions because there are no such laws. So the shills lie, call him names, and keep recycling the same stupid arguments that he easily refuted with Supreme Court rulings.
 gentlepatrick
Joined: 3/26/2006
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/4/2007 5:31:58 PM
Wow Engr!! - hero worship is such a great thing - leaves you sort of tongue tied doesn't it lad? But feel free to jump in with a thought if you ever get one.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 84
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/4/2007 5:51:12 PM

Wow!!! Smjle is outnumbered a half dozen to one and he keeps blowing the IRS shills out the water. Even I can see that.

They can't answer his questions because there are no such laws. So the shills lie, call him names, and keep recycling the same stupid arguments that he easily refuted with Supreme Court rulings.

Perhaps you can back this up?

So far you have yet to offer one fact to support this opinion and you continue to miss the multiple times those exact questions have been answered.

Even I can see that.

What is the most scary about this is that you claim to be a civil engineer.

This is the level of critical thinking and "astute" analysis that passes for higher education these days?

I don't think I'll be driving over any bridges in Wisconsin anytime soon.
 formula
Joined: 11/8/2005
Msg: 85
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/24/2007 7:08:20 AM
For therecord, the definition of income was decided in, "Merchant's Loan & Trust
Company v. Smientanka, 255 US 509 (1921) pages 18 and 519 when it held:

There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given
the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the
Corporaation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely
settled by decisions of the court.


So, if you have no income as defined by the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909
you have no income.


This is a Supreme court case!
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 86
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/24/2007 3:06:51 PM

For therecord, the definition of income was decided in, "Merchant's Loan & Trust
Company v. Smientanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

Once again, someone who has no clue how to read a court decision. You cannot 'cherry pick' sentences and declare them to mean something they don't mean.

For the record: This was a case where an effort was made to recover money paid in taxes on the income recieved from the sale of shares of capital stock. The Supreme Court case cited UPHELD the tax in dispute and ruled that the appellant was NOT entitled to recover the money paid in taxes.

Also for the record: The lines quoted

There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given
the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the
Corporaation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely
settled by decisions of the court.

were in reference to the following definition of 'income'

Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.

This was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a ruling which exempted wages from being taxable (or, in the case cited, from the sale of capital stocks).
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 87
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/26/2007 4:13:02 AM
Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.

Of course the IRS shills will lie and say that's not what the Supreme Court said. But it mean exactly what it says. None of the IRS shills have been able to answer the following two questions because there are not any such laws. They will lie and claim they did, hoping you will not check and see that they didn't.

What Law makes the ordinary American liable for an income tax on wages?

What Law requires anyone to file a 1040?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 88
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/26/2007 4:48:06 AM
Hilarious how many of us Shills are on POF, and from so many different countries too!

Didn't you know that the Machiavellian tentacles of the IRS (Illuminati Revenue Service) conspiracy had a global reach?

Of course the IRS shills will lie and say that's not what the Supreme Court said. But it mean exactly what it says. None of the IRS shills have been able to answer the following two questions because there are not any such laws. They will lie and claim they did, hoping you will not check and see that they didn't.

What Law makes the ordinary American liable for an income tax on wages?

What Law requires anyone to file a 1040?


Go back and read the last, oh, 154 posts. Your answers are there.
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 89
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/12/2007 7:24:06 AM
To the distress of the DOJ, the IRS, and all the IRS shills on this site the Jury in the trial of Attorney Tom Cryer found there is no law making the average American liable for the income tax. Tom Cryer was found not guilty on all counts.

The prosecution lied to the jury claiming there was such a law. Of course, they were unable to show the jury such a law because there is none. All the prosecution could come up with was two lower court rulings from corupt and lying judges. However, as Tom Cryer pointed out the lower courts cannot overturn the Supreme Court and he pointed out numberous Supreme Courts proving to the jury, that not only was there no such law, but such a law would be unconstitutional.

The DOJ and IRS had the judge in their pocket and so they were licking their chops at the prospects of winning by lying to the jury. However, the jury saw through their lies and would not convict.

This trial is a MAJOR HIT against the IRS and the Department of Injustice. As more citizens become aware that the government has been lying to them, the DOJ will not be able to get convictions, regardless of how unfair the trials are. Within a few years the IRS is toast; they are history.
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 90
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/12/2007 10:02:24 AM
This is breaking news and of course the primary media will attempt to bury it. However, you can find the case at U. S. District Court, 300 Fannin St., Shreveport, Louisiana. The trial was in courtroom 2 on 4th floor.

To find our more, Tom Cryer will discuss the case on the Republic Broadcasting (Network (http://republicbroadcasting.org/). The show is broadcast over the internet and on short-wave on Saturdays from 2-4, p.m., Central. You can listen to the show live or afterwards on the "Show Arkives".

Also, within a few days there will be plenty of articles by writers much better than myself telling about the case. The IRS shills on this site can dispute and lie about it all they wish, but they cannot bury the story. In a few day Google and you will find plenty of articles.
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 91
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/12/2007 11:13:34 AM
You lack information and knowledge about how things are done. The DOJ cannot appeal this case and Tom Cryer will not appeal the case since he won. Therefore, it is not a case that makes new law. Further, if you wish a transcript you must pay the court reporter to transcribe and type up the case. Typically about $800 per day or about $2,000 for this case. The DOJ or someone may order and pay for the transcript. If they do, then the court reporter will provide you a copy for a nominal price.

This is not a ruling by the court. This is the decision of the jury. You can find some of the rulings leading up to the trial by going to www.liefreezone.com.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 92
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/12/2007 11:24:36 AM

This is breaking news and of course the primary media will attempt to bury it. However, you can find the case at U. S. District Court, 300 Fannin St., Shreveport, Louisiana. The trial was in courtroom 2 on 4th floor.

Well, the Tom Cryer website, The Lie-Free Zone, has no information on it at all (could it be that our friend smjle is jumping the gun a tad?). You would think that is the place that would trumpet the news within an hour.

To see the thunderous silence for yourself:

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/index.htm

According to this report:

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/search?q=tom+cryer&x=52&y=9

Cryer was found not guilty of "willful failure to file" but it makes NO MENTION of any determination by the jury or the judge that income tax itself does not have to be paid (you would think that they would mention something like that if there was even a vague hint of it).

Further, they continue to shill for donation to Tom Cryers defense fund. If he is completely innocent and the income tax is illegal (as in not payable) why would he continue to need a defense fund?

Yep, I think our buddy smjle is jumping the gun and, as usual, reading his own wishful conspiracy theories into it.
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 93
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/12/2007 8:55:32 PM
Of course the web site is not updated every minute or even every day and it has only been a day. Tom Cryer has many other things he must do such as prepare for Saturday's two hour radio show and respond to media and well wishers in addition to his law practice. However, in due time the site will be updated.

That doesn't change the fact that there is no law making the average American liable for the income tax. As more and more people become aware of this the Department of Injustice and corrupt judges that deny citizens a fair trial will find it increasing difficult to get juries to convict in spite of all their lies.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 94
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/12/2007 9:15:09 PM

That doesn't change the fact that there is no law making the average American liable for the income tax.

How does the saying go? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see (or in this case read). Go back and reread the last, oh, 6 pages. You will find it there many times.

As more and more people become aware of this the Department of Injustice and corrupt judges that deny citizens a fair trial will find it increasing difficult to get juries to convict in spite of all their lies.

I hardly think so.

Remember, the outcome of the case only found that "willful failure to file" was not proven. This requires that it be shown that the failure to file carried an intent to evade, or avoid by fraud, the tax owed.

It did NOT determine that no tax was owed or that no law required the filing of a return though it is not surprising that a tax protester would attempt to construe this as the outcome.

I might have voted not guilty myself (if only by reason of insanity) but that does not change the facts (or the law).


The facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

- Sgt. Joe Friday
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 95
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/13/2007 6:14:18 AM
There mungojoe goes again. However, neither he nor any of the other IRS shills have been able to answer either of the following two questions:

1. What law makes the average American liable for and an income tax on their wages?
2. What law requires anyone to file a form 1040?


And for the other IRS shills disputing my post that Tom Cryers was found not guilty of all charges the following is a link to the story in the Shreveport Times:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03

The IRS shills can deny the story but they cannot suppress it.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/13/2007 7:07:57 AM
There is very little in that newspaper article apart from Cryer's own claims. The only thing reported there as fact was that he was aquitted of two charges of failing to file. No other court conclusions are presented which are not [at this time] Cryer's own unsupported assertions.

Cryer's comments are, however, interesting. I would be inclined to agree with his statement that income [wage] is not profit as it is an exchange of service for pay. Whether the letter of the law would agree with that, I can't say. Income tax would then be a form of sales tax...and a damned steep one at that.

Someone is pretty fond of calling names. It seems that everyone is an IRS shill, regardless of their nationality or the fact they'd probably be quite happy to NOT be required to pay tax on income. No mistake, name-calling is all it is, given that there's no evidence that even ONE person here actually supports the IRS. What is being supported is the letter of the law.

Thus far, it looks as if the letter of the law is against Cryer in most cases. He only needs to be right once however, and the very fact he wasn't fined automatically for using the same tired arguments that have been eternally unsupported is points in his favor.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 97
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/13/2007 7:35:30 AM

There mungojoe goes again. However, neither he nor any of the other IRS shills have been able to answer either of the following two questions:

1. What law makes the average American liable for and an income tax on their wages?
2. What law requires anyone to file a form 1040?

Go back, read the last 6 pages, your answer is there.

And for the other IRS shills disputing my post that Tom Cryers was found not guilty of all charges the following is a link to the story in the Shreveport Times:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03

The IRS shills can deny the story but they cannot suppress it.

Who has denied the story? No-one that I can see (but then I can read).

The story is very simple. Cryer was found not guilty of 2 misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file.

As pointed out, conviction requires that it be demonstrated that the failure to file was done with the intent to evade, or avoid by fraud, taxes owed.

Cryer was not tried for evasion or fraud, just willful failure to file (misdemeanor). The jury was not satisfied that intent to evade or avoid by fraud was established. End of story.

Nothing in that says that income tax is not payable, or that filing is not required, by law. Any attempt to read that meaning into it is little more than a sign of wishful thinking, intentional deceit or a reading comprehension deficit.

P.S. The IRS still has not responded to my request to be paid for "shilling" for them (the b*stards!).
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 98
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/13/2007 7:52:47 AM

1. What law makes the average American liable for and an income tax on their wages?
2. What law requires anyone to file a form 1040?

Go back, read the last 6 pages, your answer is there.

That is false and you know it. I have read every post and the questions were never answered. One IRS shill provided the response that "Anyone made liable...". Of course, the reason he didn't point out who, if any person, that anyone was is because he knew that only non-resident aliens and foreign corportations are liable for the income tax.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/20/2007 8:53:05 PM
Shall we revisit the topic with a new example? Here we go!

LOS ANGELES TIMES
N.H. couple evade death and taxes
The Browns have been holed up, refusing to pay the IRS or go to prison. It's a battle that might end in bloodshed.
By Erika Hayasaki, Times Staff Writer
9:30 PM PDT, July 19, 2007



She sits on the lookout in a lawn chair on their front porch, her forehead glossy with sweat, Bible next to her left foot, wind chimes clinking at her back. Her husband of 24 years is by her side, German shepherd at his knee, handgun tucked beneath the belt on his jeans.

High in these humid hills, Ed and Elaine Brown have been holed up in their home for six months, refusing to serve a five-year prison sentence for tax evasion. They all but dared law officials to come and get them. This, they say, is a fight they're ready to die for.

"Show me the law!" says Ed, a trim 64-year-old with a silver mustache, whose forehead crinkles when he gets heated. The Browns stopped paying income taxes in 1996. They say the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions support their claims that ordinary labor cannot be taxed. But a judge ruled against them in January, convicting the Browns of conspiring to evade paying taxes on $1.9 million in income from Elaine's dentistry practice.

Now, the Browns say they're in a battle for freedom, and it just might end in bloodshed right here, in a towering turreted house with 8-inch-thick concrete walls and an American flag fluttering over the double-car garage. They have garnered national support, with blogs devoted to news about the standoff and supporters regularly showing up on the couple's doorstep with groceries.

Government and law officials have cut off power, Internet, house phone, cellphone, television, and mail service to the couple's 110-acre compound. But their house is equipped with solar panels, a watchtower, a satellite dish and a stockpile of food.

"We are self-sustained like a ship," Ed says. "We don't need power from the shore to run the ship."

FBI agents are trying to avoid a deadly shootout reminiscent of Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho. They have tried negotiating, waiting, begging.

"We are proceeding carefully to make sure no one gets hurt," says U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier, the lead officer handling the siege. "We are aware that there are guns in there."

Monier says the couple broke the law and should turn themselves in peacefully. "They have been tried and convicted and sentenced."

But the Browns aren't budging.

"You remember that little gentleman in China, Tiananmen Square?" Ed says, peering through his sunglasses. "He was the same as we are. You can scare me, you can kill me, but you can't intimidate me."

"We're fighting for you, your country," adds Elaine, 66, a calm woman with short, wavy dark hair. "This isn't just taxes."

"There's no more America," Ed says. "It's already gone."

"I'll die fighting, rather than live in slavery," Elaine says. "I'll tell you that."



The mountain air outside the Browns' home is hot and thick with flies. On the shaded front porch overlooking a small duck pond, a visitor in a straw hat — who drove his pickup truck for two days from Texas to meet the Browns — eats grapes out of a paper bag and flips through an issue of Shotgun News magazine. He introduces himself as Doug. His last name is Tibbetts, he says, pronounced "like that guy who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima."

Another guest, who refuses to give his name and makes it a point to tell everyone he is armed, drove here from Massachusetts. He talks about illegal immigration and government corruption in a slow deep drip of a voice that seems to irritate Ed, who frequently cuts him off.

The government, Ed says, is at a point of "communism in its purist form."

Elaine nods.


for the rest of this story..

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-taxevaders20jul20,0,778390.story?coll=la-tot-topstories&track=ntothtml
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/28/2007 6:34:37 PM
FINALLY - the verdict is in.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

Please refer to link for complete story - I will not be filing a tax for next year, and I plan to contact my H/R department to have my Federal Income Tax withholding stopped.





THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation


Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.
"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.
And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.
(Story continues below)
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 101
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/28/2007 7:00:46 PM
Please refer to link for complete story - I will not be filing a tax for next year, and I plan to contact my H/R department to have my Federal Income Tax withholding stopped.

You may want to go back and read that story from a couple of other sources.

The trial and outcome did not prove that income tax is unconstitutional or that it doesn't have to be paid.

The jury only found him not guilty of willful failure to file/pay. That means the IRS wasn't able to show he failed to file/pay with the intent to avoid/evade by fraud.

The income Cryer did not pay on was income from self-employment (no withholdings). If you stop your withholdings (which your employer is unlikely to do) and then not file/pay you're pretty much admitting to willful (i.e. fraudulent) intent.
 kensar
Joined: 7/22/2004
Msg: 102
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/28/2007 7:25:04 PM
The only ones liable for federal income tax is: corporations, (gov. state, city county workers) fall under corporations, foreigners, americans who have a business in the united states and reside in another country. That's It...... Americans working regular jobs and unincorporated businesses arent liable for fed. income tax.

Look up the word (Income) in the dictionary.

In 1913 filanderer fox purposed a fed. income tax law for people working, to the states to vote on. He needed 35 states to ratifiy the bill into law. He received less than 12 states saying "Yes" the rest said no or undecided. He took what he needed from the undecided votew to make up the rest of the states by falsifying the undecided documents to state yes. Ever since then the government has used intimidation to make people pay taxes, even as far as shooting them and killing them. Totalitarianism and communism is florishing with our government today. Read the contitutional amendment: (The right to bears arms) . It does state the right to bear arms because of burgulars and thieves breaking into our homes, no sir. It states in the constitutional amendment (the right to bear arms) Because of tyranny of the government. Don't believe me, read it. I think it is the 2nd constitutional amendment.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/28/2007 7:41:20 PM
Thanks mungojoe for reply. My question to you would be, how can there be fraudulent intent, if I have not filed and if there is no law requiring me to pay?

I've also been reading for months, on-line, about this topic. The Ed & Elaine Brown case has elicited quite a portfolio of sites and there are many other sites hosted by legal sources.

Also on the agenda are those who are fighting against real estate taxes as also being illegal. But that's another issue.

I've been trying to find information as to how this verdict has affected the Ed & Elaine Brown case. I have not been successful, but the verdict is only a couple days old.

If anyone comes accross such information, I hope they will post it right away.
 kensar
Joined: 7/22/2004
Msg: 104
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/28/2007 8:16:50 PM
The country will have no problem with money without stealing the peoples hard earned money. Why don't you take time to stop and see where else gov. is taking money:

Telephone bill. 2 fed taxes and 1 state tax
cell phone bill 2 fed tax
directv.....2-3 fed and state taxes
electric bill......fed tax
Gasoline.........5 different fed taxes
auto yearly tax..state tax
land....... tax
groceries......taxed
auto Ins. ......taxed.
internet.......taxed
water bill.......taxed
medicine.....taxed....most people seem to be on at least 5
natural gas...taxed
propane gas...taxed
auto inspection yearly....taxed
Auto. Tag....taxed.
Sounds to me you enjoy taxation. You agree with the gov. take our paycheck and with what is left pay all the above mention taxes. then with what is left ????
So lack of labor tax would cripple the country, ya say? There is still so many other ways we are being taxed that I couldn't remember to key it in.
Oh, yes. when you wake up in the frigging morning and walk outside, take a big breathe of fresh air. You will be taxed for that.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 105
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 7/28/2007 8:31:27 PM
kensars, thank-you for your posts here. When one considers all this how could we NOT come up with the idea that we are being double taxed? First we pay a tax on all the money we earn. Then we pay more tax as we spend the money we earn.

We really need to wake up and deal with what's happening. Everyone is so worried about keeping what they have, that they don't see that what they have can be confiscated by any number of governing agencies, state, local and federal.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 106
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 8/3/2007 11:41:56 AM

For anybody who still believes that federal income taxes are not mandatory:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/326180_cooksentence03.html?source=mypi

Of course many will still believe it even without letting the facts get in the way

http://jsiegel.blogspot.com/2007/07/tax-protestor-gets-off.html

Friday, July 13, 2007
Tax Protestor Gets Off!

Here's an oddball story: Tommy K. Cryer, a man who proudly proclaims that he hasn't paid his income taxes in ten years, and who made a series of videos explaining that there's no law requiring most people to pay taxes, is prosecuted for failing to file and is acquitted! His analysis: "The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable." Could it be true?

Of course not. Criminal income tax cases are subject to a special rule: the government has the burden of proving, not only that the defendant didn't pay his taxes, but that the defendant knew he had to pay his taxes. This is very unusual. Usually, in the criminal law, if you do the thing that constitutes the crime, and you know what you're doing, whether you know that your conduct is illegal is irrelevant. But in tax cases specifically, the government has to prove that you knew you were breaking the law. So if you really believe all this tax protestor nonsense about there being no law requiring people to pay income tax, it's not a crime for you to fail to pay.

But, I hasten to add for anyone getting any ideas here, you still owe the money. Crazy beliefs may keep you out of jail, but they don't change the fact that you owe your taxes, plus the interest, plus the penalties -- which can add a whole lot to your tax bill. It's cheaper to pay what you owe. The government, one can be confident, will be coming down on Mr. Cryer for a pile of cash.

In any event, his acquittal, of course, doesn't show that there's no law requiring people to pay taxes. It just means he convinced the jury that he really believes he doesn't have to pay -- or really, only that the government failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knows he does have to pay. Every few years a protestor gets off on this ground, and justice goes on -- another protestor was convicted yesterday.

The sad thing is that Tommy Cryer is an attorney. He even went to a decent law school (LSU) and graduated with honors. It's inconceivable that such a person could really believe tax protestor theories.

Although perhaps I shouldn't rule it out -- Cryer's had his share of trouble in the past. In the 1980s, he was hauled before a bar disciplinary committee for neglecting a professional matter (he failed to record a deed properly, and continued to fail for two years after the client called the matter to his attention, and also delayed reimbursing the client for the damages it suffered as a result), and he had his penalty reduced on the ground that he "suffered from a depressive illness" and "was on the brink of an emotional breakdown and also in severe financial straits" because his father had died while he was still young (only 28) and because he had "entered into the private practice of law without adequate funds or business." Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Cryer, 441 So.2d 734 (La. 1983). So, even though a doctor concluded that "recurrence of the depressive condition is unlikely," perhaps Cryer still has some mental condition that causes him, an apparently intelligent attorney, to fall for tax protestor nonsense.

Still, it's an embarrassment that an attorney is so associated with the tax protestor movement. The man should be disbarred. If he's giving his income tax theory as advice to actual clients, then he's violating the requirement of competence, and even if he isn't, he's still engaging in conduct that involves "deceit or misrepresentation" and "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice", which also violates the rules.

So Cryer still owes the money, it's just that he managed to convince a jury that he is sufficiently:

a) incompetetent,
b) mentally deficient or
c) stupid enough

to actually believe he didn't have to pay.

So there you have it. If you don't want to pay taxes then don't. All you have to do is show up in court dressed like Napoleon and you can get off.

Of course you will still have to pay the taxes plus penalties, interest and your exhorbitant lawyer/court costs on top of it but at least you won't go to jail.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS