Tom Cryer Victory

[psholtz]

What do people here think of the Tom Cryer victory?

It sounds nice, but there's something about it that raises my alarm bells.. perhaps unnecessarily, but still..

Although I'm not familiar w/ all the details of the case, Tom Cryer apparently won by using an argument that is almost always destined to fail in court: namely, the "Constitutionality" of the income tax.

Most people who try to argue along these lines fail.

Tom Cryer apparently won.

Tom Cryer is also a 32nd-degree Mason.

We must remember that Amerika today has been thoroughly Sovietized, and just as in the Soviet Union the government would routinely stage "show" trials, where dissents would be made an "example" of, so we too here in America must be aware that "show" trials are probably the rule of the day.. and yet, the "show" trials in America are perhaps different than those in the USSR in that here, they are designed as propaganda pieces intended to entrap and decieve the public.

I'm not saying that Tom Cryer is in on any of that, but still.. there's something about that case that seems wierd.

I was just wondering what other people thought.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Although I'm not familiar w/ all the details of the case, Tom Cryer apparently won by using an argument that is almost always destined to fail in court: namely, the "Constitutionality" of the income tax.

No, Cryer abandoned his crackpot legal theories about the constitutionality of the income tax and relied insted on a so-called Cheek defense, named after the leading Supreme Court case in the area. His defense was simply that he had not willfully evaded taxes, which is one of the elements of the offense he was charged with. He basically argued that he sincerely believed that the income tax was unlawful, and this belief (even though wrong) negated any element of willfullness. The jury bought his story.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

No, Cryer abandoned his crackpot legal theories about the constitutionality of the income tax and relied insted on a so-called Cheek defense, named after the leading Supreme Court case in the area. His defense was simply that he had not willfully evaded taxes, which is one of the elements of the offense he was charged with. He basically argued that he sincerely believed that the income tax was unlawful, and this belief (even though wrong) negated any element of willfullness. The jury bought his story.

Mertensv16, thank you for supporting my belief that the whole system relies on the 'confidence game.'

Tom Cryer, did believe he was right, and after a thorough test to see if he would stick to his belief(court process, offenses assigned to him, etc), his adversaries could not get him to believe otherwise. NO AGREEMENT. Willfullness is a word that has great flexibility, and I believe has been defined in Black's Law to throw people off of the true purpose, which I believe to be agreement as the finality and purpose of one's actions. One definition in Black's Law is voluntary. Now there is that word again. Just like taxes, voluntary, huh?

Black's Law 4th again: VOLUNTARY. Unconstrained by interference; unimpelled by another's influence; spontaneous; acting of(from) oneself. Proceeding from the free and unrestrained will of(from) the person; the word, especially in statutes, often implies knowledge of essential facts.

There is nothing weird about Tom Cryer' case. The bottom line is the game was played the way that they(lawyers, judges, DA's, IRS) like to play it. Long, drawn out, a bit of grand standing and lots of media, but in the end, no agreement, no contract, no breach of contract, no breach of trust, no penalty for Mr. Cryer.
(maybe he lost his bar card, or was barred from ever drinking Kool-aid in that specific court)

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by moishanb

The bottom line is the game was played the way that they(lawyers, judges, DA's, IRS) like to play it. Long, drawn out, a bit of grand standing and lots of media, but in the end, no agreement, no contract, no breach of contract, no breach of trust, no penalty for Mr. Cryer.
(maybe he lost his bar card, or was barred from ever drinking Kool-aid in that specific court)

Just think of all of those billible hours! Someone bought a new boat.

..J

[weishaupt1776]

all of these "wins" you heear about are beating criminal charges, which does nothing for them when the IRS proceeds aginst them with liens, levies, seizures, etc . .

[mertensv16]

The main thing to take from the Cryer case is that he didn't have the guts to argue his own crackpot theories before the court. Many tax deniers do this when it comes to crunch time: they abandon the theories they peddle to others and raise the "I-was-too-stupid-to-know-the-law" defense of lack of willfullness.

[Friendsplacect]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

all of these "wins" you heear about are beating criminal charges, which does nothing for them when the IRS proceeds aginst them with liens, levies, seizures, etc . .

I think the most compelling part of his case was when he took the stand, the prosecution was not able to make him stutter, I think thats what convinced the jury the most.
As far as paying anything I questioned him on this and he has stated that he has not paid 1 dime and doesnt plan to. He stated the IRS "illegally" levies property and he stated that according to his master file the IRS has on him he has a zero balance.
I am not saying that any of the above are true im just stating what he told me.

[rottweiler]

People are trying to apply the constitution and unalienable rights to Congress' power to legislate however they see fit for the territories and posssessions of the United States. That jurisdiction is a tyranny by consent and Congress' contractors like the IRS have immunity from suit.

http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/irsnara.html

The best way is to use the waiver of sovereign immunity found in Title 26. It basically amounts to a savings to suitors clause and it gives the court jurisdiction to hear the suitor's complaints against the IRS' NFTL if it even gets that far. Administrative notice must be given to the IRS with proof that the NFTL is unenforcable and they will get off your back forever.

[David Merrill]

From a few days ago;


Material sent by email had a commentary by Cryer. And he is not calling the case a Victory. So I think instead of listening to Cryer or commentary from others, somebody needs to link us actual case information and the docket so we can read what is really going on.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[rottweiler]

Supposedly volume III is the juicy part.

http://www.truthattack.org/downloads.html