Tom Cryer Takes On The IRS

[rottweiler]

CRYER'S defense was lack of willfulness. In other words Cryer, being surety for the principal CRYER, did not believe what he was doing is a crime, not whether or not filing is mandatory because that question has long been settled by the court. Cryer avoids prison for now but if he persists CRYER will be convicted and Cryer will go to the can. Remember the witch cornering Dorthy's alter egos in the wizard of OZ and lighting the strawman on fire with her broom?

CRYER was on trial and CRYER is a federal citizen which Congress has the power to legislate over in all matters how ever they see fit. It is no different than if Microsoft did not file. Cryer is responsible for CRYER just like the officers of Microsoft would be if Microsoft did not file.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Maybe. However, he is still entitled to a jury trial, therefore, this may give Mr. Cryer another chance to expose the tax hoax.

Further, this current victory may allow Mr. Cryer to pursue the government for malicious prosecution, he may be the man that can pull this difficult feat off.

Additionally, the government may have spent big bucks on this case, money they may not be able to recoup from Mr. Cryer. Of course the government hoped to use this case to instill fear in millions of people, this is how they profit. However, this isn't the case if they lose, as they did in the instant matter. Something to ponder.

[joseph sugarman]

The case is styled:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 06-50164-01
V. JUDGE: HICKS
TOMMY K. CRYER, Defendant MAGISTRATE: HORNSBY

From the above information you might be able to bring the case up on PACER. The other possibilities would be to contact the Court Clerk or Tommy Cryer's office in Shreveport; 318.865.3392. I hope this is helpful.

[FreeFromContract]

I spoke to someone who claims that CRYER was found not guilty on all charges. Anyone have any info on this? Like maybe a link to the court transcripts?

[joseph sugarman]

It is not a claim it is a fact. You can get much of the information at Triallogs.com. Just scroll down to the second through the fourth or fifth post on the first page. They even include four, YouTube, presentations by Cryer.

I contacted his office about the transcript and any costs. While he wrote back the transcript is going to cost arount $1600.00; he will offer it for free on his website: liefreezone.com. He asks, however, as many people as possible join Truth Attack at their website, and donate what they can to a common pool for the transcript costs. As you can well imagine, even though he and Larry Becraft won the day; the corrupt federal government has ruined his practice and him financially.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

The case is styled:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 06-50164-01
V. JUDGE: HICKS
TOMMY K. CRYER, Defendant MAGISTRATE: HORNSBY

In my several years of specializing in federal law, you can
imagine my shock one day, when I discovered how easy it had
become to rip any federal indictment into manifold shreds of
paper, without even reading to the second page.

Beginning at the top, we usually find one or more U.S. ATTORNeys
listed as having power(s) of ATTORNey to represent the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (spelled in CAPITAL LETTERS, per force). But,
Title 28 of the U.S. Code does not authorize U.S. ATTORNeys to
represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but only the United
States. Count one: misrepresentation.

As you probably know UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the United States
are not one and the same.

Check this out

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/matsch.htm

____________________

[rottweiler]

I never made the connection between federal and feudal before now. It makes perfect sense. Feudal, Federal, Fief, Fee.

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

In my several years of specializing in federal law, you can
imagine my shock one day, when I discovered how easy it had
become to rip any federal indictment into manifold shreds of
paper, without even reading to the second page.

Beginning at the top, we usually find one or more U.S. ATTORNeys
listed as having power(s) of ATTORNey to represent the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (spelled in CAPITAL LETTERS, per force). But,
Title 28 of the U.S. Code does not authorize U.S. ATTORNeys to
represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but only the United
States. Count one: misrepresentation.

As you probably know UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the United States
are not one and the same.

Check this out

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/matsch.htm

____________________

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

CRYER'S defense was lack of willfulness.

Okay.

In other words Cryer, being surety for the principal CRYER,

How did this happen?

did not believe what he was doing is a crime, not whether or not filing is mandatory because that question has long been settled by the court. Cryer avoids prison for now but if he persists CRYER will be convicted and Cryer will go to the can.

Why can't he win at another trial, just as he has in his recent victory?

[rottweiler]

BOBT12,
Here is my reasoning.

The charge is willful failure to file.

You can probably dig up Vernice Kuglin' story and you will see that the "courts" will not allow a "defendant" to argue whether or not the income tax is legally applied to wages and salaries in their defense at trial only that the defendant doesn't believe it is. In other words, the only defense that seems to work at trial is a defense based on a lack of willfulness.

Look at the 14th Amendment. It says "All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...." What naturalizes CRYER the "person" and consequently makes it subject to the power of Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" and "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States"? Invisible contracts like SSN, DL, BAR Card, mortgage, bank account, insurance, marriage license, warranty deed, etc. What is a person? I'll tell you, it's something that the United States Congress has absolute dominion over like a corporation. The strawman is a natural person, Microsoft is a artificial person, both are persons subject to Congress, both are considered to be involved in corporate activities. Congress can collect a tax on net income of corporations, without apportionment, according to the Supreme Court.

The "government" must prove willfulness which they obviously didn't do in Kuglin and Cryer's case according to the respective juries.

The IRS and "judge" will not tell the "defendant" what really makes him liable, only that the courts have ruled, because they either don't know and/or if they did their motto is to "never smarten a sucker".

When he accepted federal citizenship over his Citizenship of Louisiana he effectively waived his rights and consequently fell under Congress' tyranny.

The judge will now order him to file and their will be a hearing where he will be ordered to pay.

What Cryer should have done is cancelled out all the invisible contracts and then CRYER could not be charged because that person would no longer exist.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Okay.

How did this happen?

Why can't he win at another trial, just as he has in his recent victory?

[joseph sugarman]

Rottweiler,

You are wrong when you state the judge will order Cryer to pay........The trial is over; the judge has no authority over Cryer at this point.

If you are talking about a subsequent, civil proceeding, however; that judge will be powerless to order Cryer to do anything unless the government prevails at that trial.

[Logan]

What Cryer should have done is canceled out all the invisible contracts and then CRYER could not be charged because that person would no longer exist

I have one problem with that scenario: As per George Mercier's "Invisible Contracts", I agree with the fact that we are indentured and enslaved slowly and without disclosure, however, how would that individuals line of defense be? "Yes, judge, I am a sovereign American citizen NOT subjected to any and all invisible contracts relinquishing my GOD given rights or entering into this arena's jurisdiction".

I am sorry, but the judge is going to scratch his head and then just dismiss that statement for frivolity. Even if the judge allows that premise, the burden of proof rests with the sovereign to now not only prove he is not guilty of the unwarranted attack against his commercial person but he now has to retroactively prove that he is unbound to the color of law under admiralty, which would seem to an insurmountable task.

Do not misunderstand me, I agree with the principle in that approach, but the courts in this country are completely subservient to the dark lord and will not allow for this line of defense. Besides, how much effort would it take to reeducate the entire judicial system to even understand your sovereign basis much less compel them to accept it.

Do you know of any successful cases that used the sovereign non jurisdictional approach? I ask that question in all seriousness. If the courts allowed that foundation by the sovereign defendant, then the court could not hear the case and therefore precedent could never be set.


Post Script: The reason for my position comes from the many "profits + prophets" that I have heard of who promise a program by which you can regain your sovereign status, but to this day I have not met anyone or heard of anyone who has been successful in compelling the terrorists to regard them seriously. PLEASE INFORM ME IF YOU KNOW OF ANY, I AM VERY INTERESTED!