Tom Cryer Takes On The IRS

[ezrhythm]

Links to four YouTube vids;

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...gi?read=104324

[charlesa6]

Thanks for the link.

[mrg]

From the link:

As a member of the armed services of the United States and as an attorney, he twice swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and Tommy Cryer is still honoring those solemn oaths.

Unfortunately, that puts him at odds with a federal prosecutor, the IRS, a misled grand jury, and a US District Court judge.

On July 9 the battle between America's fundamental law and the most corrupt segment of the federal government begins in a federal courtroom in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Nowhere in "America's fundamental law" do I find the terms "federal," "federal government," or "federal courtroom."

These are entities of a power foreign to "...this Constitution for the United States of America," and should be observed, and held as such.

The prosecutor, grand jury, and "judge" have sworn oaths of obligation to the constitutional, but act on behalf of the foreign power opposed to it?!

[Answerman]

Originally Posted by mrg

From the link:



Nowhere in "America's fundamental law" do I find the terms "federal," "federal government," or "federal courtroom."

These are entities of a power foreign to "...this Constitution for the United States of America," and should be observed, and held as such.

The prosecutor, grand jury, and "judge" have sworn oaths of obligation to the constitutional, but act on behalf of the foreign power opposed to it?!

Yes, but here is the folly of the whole situation. Cryer is knee deep in equity. He is licensed. He is part of the organization. He has to follow the law. Until he forgoes his license, he cannot practice what he preaches. Few people understand the jurisdiction he is acting under.

Incidently, Which Constitution is he upholding? The organic Constitution of 1789 or the written constitution of 1874?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Answerman

Incidently, Which Constitution is he upholding?

The organic Constitution of 1789 or the written constitution of 1874?

I only see the one as Constitution.

I see a whole lot of that which is pretty clearly repugnant to the Constitution presumably attached to it, under the guise or color of "amendment."

The Article providing for "amendment" says nothing about the Powers tearing and shredding the very fabric.

That seems to be the work of a power foreign to the Constitution, and the work seems to be repugnant to it.

Several so called amendments (as well as a refusal to abide by and refusal of adherance to popular representation by stipulated and prescribed apportionment) appear to have thoroughly altered and abolished the very form of government, and the government itself, which was ordained and established in the document as originally written.

I do not think this was what was intended in the Unanimous Declaration concerning altering or abolishing.

I could be wrong, perhaps Ford is in His Flivver and all is well with the world.

[Answerman]

Originally Posted by mrg

I only see the one as Constitution.

I see a whole lot of that which is pretty clearly repugnant to the Constitution presumably attached to it, under the guise or color of "amendment."

The Article providing for "amendment" says nothing about the Powers tearing and shredding the very fabric.

That seems to be the work of a power foreign to the Constitution, and the work seems to be repugnant to it.

Several so called amendments (as well as a refusal to abide by and refusal of adherance to popular representation by stipulated and prescribed apportionment) appear to have thoroughly altered and abolished the very form of government, and the government itself, which was ordained and established in the document as originally written.

I do not think this was what was intended in the Unanimous Declaration concerning altering or abolishing.

I could be wrong, perhaps Ford is in His Flivver and all is well with the world.

It may be interesting to note that the United States has done nothing illegal or unlawful. The states in rebellion gave way to bringing in new law when the Federal Government had conquered the nation. However lawful the law is, it does not abolish the old law. As long as the Constitution exists, the old law still exists.

The act of 1871 to codify the laws and statutes of the United States had chose to incorporate the organic law of the United States. When a Constiution is reduced to writing, (printed in statute form), it takes on a new legal character. This new constitution and the new code that came with it were to be construed liberally instead of strict construction under common law.

The civil code depends on registration to regulate. Licenses, registration, offer, acceptance are the nature of the beast.

When we start understanding WHO we are and WHAT type of law we are existing under, thats when we will be free. The people of the revolutionary war knew all to well that the civil law was killing them. however, they were much more educated than we are. I don't think that we as a nation will ever wake up enough to understand or that more than 5% will ever care.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Answerman

It may be interesting to note that the United States has done nothing illegal or unlawful. The states in rebellion gave way to bringing in new law when the Federal Government had conquered the nation. However lawful the law is, it does not abolish the old law. As long as the Constitution exists, the old law still exists.

The act of 1871 to codify the laws and statutes of the United States had chose to incorporate the organic law of the United States. When a Constiution is reduced to writing, (printed in statute form), it takes on a new legal character. This new constitution and the new code that came with it were to be construed liberally instead of strict construction under common law.

The civil code depends on registration to regulate. Licenses, registration, offer, acceptance are the nature of the beast.

When we start understanding WHO we are and WHAT type of law we are existing under, thats when we will be free. The people of the revolutionary war knew all to well that the civil law was killing them. however, they were much more educated than we are. I don't think that we as a nation will ever wake up enough to understand or that more than 5% will ever care.

Again, I see no such thing as "Federal Government."

I do see that the nation has been conquered.

Could you point me to "The act of 1871 to codify the laws and statutes of the United States..."

Could you show how it is that "When a Constiution is reduced to writing, (printed in statute form), it takes on a new legal character?"

And how "This new constitution and the new code that came with it were to be construed liberally instead of strict construction under common law?"

I am not trying to be argumentative, just want to know.

[Answerman]

Originally Posted by mrg

Again, I see no such thing as "Federal Government."

I do see that the nation has been conquered.

Could you point me to "The act of 1871 to codify the laws and statutes of the United States..."

Could you show how it is that "When a Constiution is reduced to writing, (printed in statute form), it takes on a new legal character?"

And how "This new constitution and the new code that came with it were to be construed liberally instead of strict construction under common law?"

I am not trying to be argumentative, just want to know.

Sure guy,
This link will lead you to the statute for codifying the laws of the United States. The first law was directly after the civil rights act was passed in 1866. They reintroduced the law when the 14th was passed.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...16.db&recNum=8

Here is a case that states the 14th amendment should be read in a liberally instead of strict construction.

This act deprives the appellees of their liberty and property without due process of law, and abridges the privileges and immunities of the appellees as citizens of the United States within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment…. This provision of the constitution is to be liberally construed, (Boyd v. U. S. 116 U.S. 635 , 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524,) Mugler v Kansas 123 U.S. 623 (1887)

The following is from the Uniform Statute and rule construction act of 1995

(11) "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

SECTION 18. PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION; PRESUMPTION.


(a) A statute or rule is construed, if possible, to:

(1) give effect to its objective and purpose;

(2) give effect to its entire text; and

(3) avoid an unconstitutional, absurd, or unachievable result.

(b) A statute that is intended to be uniform with those of other States is construed to effectuate that purpose with respect to the subject of the statute.

(c) The presumption that a civil statute in derogation of the common law is construed strictly does not apply to a statute of this [State].

The Constitution of the United States of America was written into the 1874 revised statutes as the United States Constitution located here

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...8.db&recNum=32

If the revised statutes for the civil codes were liberally construed, so was this new constitution.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Answerman

Yes, but here is the folly of the whole situation. Cryer is knee deep in equity. He is licensed. He is part of the organization. He has to follow the law. Until he forgoes his license, he cannot practice what he preaches. Few people understand the jurisdiction he is acting under.

Incidently, Which Constitution is he upholding? The organic Constitution of 1789 or the written constitution of 1874?

These equity arguments are just so many excuses (made by the IRS/Establishment) to commit their tyranny.

Yes, what you say may be correct as per the "letter" of the law, but the Letter of the Law killeth while the Spirit giveth life. It's clear that the IRS violates the spirit of the law, while Cryer is in harmony w/ the Spirit.

[psholtz]

Does the Cryer trial start on June 9 or July 9?