Tom Cryer Tax Case - TRANSCRIPTS UP!
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
TRANSCRIPTS FOR CASE WHERE MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE HIS TAX RETURNS!
The Truth Attacks people raised enough money (1,600) to buy a copy of the transcripts of the trial where tom was found NOT GUILTY of failure to file ...
Volume I of the Transcripts Pre-trial Issues - Prosecution Drops Felony Charges [hmm]
Volume II of the Transcripts Prosecution Witnesses & Cross Examination by Defense
Volume III of the Transcripts Defense Witness [READ!]
Volume IV of the Transcripts Defense Witness Cross Examination by Prosecution, and Redirect by Defense , Jury Charge, and Verdict [READ!]
These transcripts are amazing. I finished them last night (Aug 24th) and am blown away by how the trial progressed, and how lenient the Judge was with allowing Tom's testimony, even after stating "I am not happy with the direction this line of questioning is heading" several times. The judge was just fantastic. As good as a judge could be in a case like this, I'd say.
Oh. The defense was amazing too. duh!
The Truth Attacks people raised enough money (1,600) to buy a copy of the transcripts of the trial where tom was found NOT GUILTY of failure to file ...
Volume I of the Transcripts Pre-trial Issues - Prosecution Drops Felony Charges [hmm]
Volume II of the Transcripts Prosecution Witnesses & Cross Examination by Defense
Volume III of the Transcripts Defense Witness [READ!]
Volume IV of the Transcripts Defense Witness Cross Examination by Prosecution, and Redirect by Defense , Jury Charge, and Verdict [READ!]
These transcripts are amazing. I finished them last night (Aug 24th) and am blown away by how the trial progressed, and how lenient the Judge was with allowing Tom's testimony, even after stating "I am not happy with the direction this line of questioning is heading" several times. The judge was just fantastic. As good as a judge could be in a case like this, I'd say.
Oh. The defense was amazing too. duh!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Volume I is simply pre-trial discussion, where the government drops its original felony case.
Volume II is the prosecutions case and cross examination, which despite what you may think is not all that relevant. They basicaly just go over lots of tax returns, and documents that Tommy's accountant drafted that show that they had calculated their taxes for the years he didn't pay (this is at Tommy's request after the IRS is on his ass, so that he can probably start making legal decissions as to how to best save his ass) ... basically the government just proves that Tom Cryer knew how to calculate his taxes, assuming he believed he was liable, which he does\did not.
Volume III is where you get to hear Tom Cryer directly assert and explain to the world how the tax code is a crock of shit.
Unfortunately i'm only 1\3rd the way through the 134 pages (spent too much time reading the 200 pages in the first 2 volumes) and will have to get the cliff hanger tonight after i get off work.
i encourage ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE LEGALITY OF INCOME TAX to look over volume three and understand that a person JUST GOT A NOT GUILTY VERDICT because the jury fully believed that he did not believe he was liable.
No, it doesn't mean you can stop paying taxes without consequence, it just means that a jury of 12 heard the government argue a mans guilt over failure to file, and then heard the man argue why he BELIEVED he was not liable to file, and the Jury UNANIMOUSLY decided that, at the very least, Tom Cryer had clearly presented evidence that it was his firm belief that he was not liable for income tax. And no, he did not plea insane ... he is a lawyer himself, and an incredibly smart man! Order of the Coif, even.
Even that should tell you something.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As of this ruling, HE DOES NOT PAY TAX!
This case required the government to prove that Tom Cryer
a. Had an obligation to file taxes for 2001 & 2002
b. Failed to pay on his tax LIABILITY
c. That his failure was deliberate AND wilful
The judge instructed the jury on all of this at the jury charge conference before deliberations, he actually charged them with "his version" of the tax code, which was basicaly "a single man under the age of 65 with income of more than $7,500 was required to file taxes in 2001" etc ...
STILL, the JURY FOUND TOM CRYER NOT GUILTY by a UNANIMOUS VERDICT after nearly 5 hours of deliberation.
Tom's sole defense was HIS testimony, directed by defense attourney Larry Becraft ... Larry would ask Tom questions about his "beliefs" and understandings of the law as he found them, and Tom would essentially restate the law, "as he found it" ... this is somewhat of a loop hole that allows what is basically "hearsay" about the law in to evidence on the grounds that this hearsay is imperative to an understanding of the defendant's state of mind and belief system. IT WORKED.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This is from page 33 of transcript IV which is the prosecutions cross-examination of the sole defense witness (Tom Cryer) and then the redirect of Tom by Larry after the cross-examination ... this is Larry asking Tom during said redirect:
BY MR BECRAFT:
Q. How do you account for or explain the difference between your belief and the position asserted by the IRS as to whether or not that might constitute a disagreement on your part about the tax laws?
A. Well, you have to remember, when I started this research, I wasn't researching to establish a difference. I was researching to establish that the IRS's understanding of the law was correct. I was trying to find that there was a liability provision that applied to me. I was trying to belie what the claim was that I had heard. I also applied the same approach to the issue on income as to establish whether or not the IRS's description of income and that personal earnings, gross receipts are all income, and, you know, what I ended up finding differed from the law [editor: as the IRS claims the law to be]. And that -- so I had -- basically, I started them back over. But, originally, I set out to verify the IRS's version of the law, and I not only couldn't verify it, but I found out that the law tells me to believe something entirely different. At that particular point, I had to choose who to believe, whether to believe the IRS or whether to believe the Code, the regulations, and the Supreme Court. And I followed that process exactly as the Code and exactly as Mr. Sandefur [the IRS special agent assigned to his case] described in deducting, excluding those items that arenot income and those items that are exempt, are outside the tax, not taxable, and the only conclusion that I could reach for me was that: (A) I wasn't liable for the tax; (B), what I brought in was not exchanged for nothing, I gave up something for that, and that it didn't meet the definition of, the constitutional definition of income; and (C), that if it were income, even if it were income, that it is not taxable income. And the income tax is imposed on taxable income, and I don't believe I have either, income nor -- that it would be taxable if it were income.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
MR BECRAFT: In reply, Your Honor, the case was brought up [by the prosecution], and I think the defendant is entitiled to testify about his belief and --
THE COURT: Then ask him what his belief is instead of the legal interpretation exercise you're putting all of us through.
BY MR. BECRAFT:
Q. Tell us your belief.
A. My belief regarding Lonsdale is that, first off, Lonsdale did not rule on that issue [namely, "what is income"] because it wasn't before it. The second is that Lonsdale is an appelate court case that applies to the parties and the case before it and none other. And third is that Lonsdale is an appelate court case and cannot overturn or counterman the formulas and the definitions, the constitutional formulas and definitions that the Supreme Court has given me that I have applied in formulating my belief.
Q. Okay. There was another case that Mr. Campbell [prosecuting attourney] brought out, the Koliboski case. Do you remember the year that that case was decided?
A. No, sir. I don't remember the year.
Q. Okay. Do you remember what circuit it was?
A. I think he said it was Seventh Circuit. I believed him.
Q. Okay. What's your opinon or belief about the Koliboski case?
A. Again, in Koliboski, it was my belief that -- well, as a matter of fact, if you look at that footnote [the entirety of what the prosecution read was from this footnote!], the first thing the footnote says, you know, is also not raised in brief. The issue wasn't before the court. It was a proclamation. It wasn't a decision. And it cited no authority, and all of the law I had before, it didn't counterman it or counteract or overturn anybody. You can't -- an appellate court can't overturn the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court can overturn a Supreme Court decision.
EDITORS NOTE: People, look at this: IRS's "Truth" About Frivolous Tax Arguments PDF -- Notice how EVERY court case cited is a LOWER COURT ... look above at what Tom just said, NONE OF THESE HOLD WATER ... do the research, the truth is out there, the Supreme Court has upheld time and time again that your efforts\work is personal property and is not subject to an excise tax (the income tax) ... also notice that NONE of the supposedly frivolous arguments is Tom's ultimate argument, which is that there is no code provision holding you "LIABLE" for income tax ... why do all other taxes assign a liability to someone, but the income tax, strangely does not assign "liability" to you? And why doesn't the IRS bother to shoot down THAT argument, huh?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.
YOUR PERSONAL WAGES ARE NOT TAXABLE.
I hate to sound crazy, but it's the damned truth.
If you even bother to investigate this just a smidge, you will soon uncover that truth ...
...it may be dry as hell, but I suggest starting with Theft By Deception - Deciphering the Federal Income Tax as it does an excellent job of explaining the CFR 861 argument and showing historicaly how the tax code has been altered to deceive you in to believing you owe tax.
If anyone tells you 861 is a bunk argument, they are full of shit. Tom Cryer relied on several pieces of information in his trial, and 861 is certainly one of the pieces he used, along with constitutional issues regarding definitions of income, and personal property, and federal taxing authority; also the issue of tax "liability" and the fact that the tax code does not hold the average american LIABLE to pay any tax ...
So i suggest you start with that video, simply because of the way it lays out the code as written now against the historical version which was far more truthfull (but still meant to decieve) ... and then go look at other aspects ... like try to find where the code holds you "liable", and THEN start researching the constitutional matters ... because that will require reading court briefs, and that can be a hell of a lot of fun ... actually you may want to start with the Tom Cryer trial to get some references as to good Supreme Court decisions to read up on ... I'll post some in the next few days for you, too.
people, you need to do your own research on this and understand it, because it quite frankly is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the USA in history!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hey.
I just do my best to share what i find to be truth.
It is the responsibility of all of us as individuals to figure out our own personal truth.
I'm glad we have something to agree on.
Have fun at work. I am going to the beach for a few hours.
If you are crunched for time, transcripts III and IV are the essentials ... the governments case in Transcript II explains nothing except that Tom used to pay taxes before '94 and that his secretary still does, and that he signed off on her W-2s (and therefore he MUST know HE should pay taxes too, haha) ...
If I opened it now would you not understand?
www.seanbrady.net
File a new W-4 to claim an exemption. Your HR / Payroll department should be able to provide you with the form, or you can get it here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf?portlet=3
Write "Exempt" on Line 7.
This will stop the employer from witholding taxes from your paycheck.
Good luck.
If personal wages were truly not taxable, don't you think that someone would have challenged it much earlier?
and what about when the kid has a huge tax liability when it comes time to file his tax return due to lack of sufficient withholding throughout the year?
You gonna help him then? You gonna pay his interest and penalties?
I wouldn't rely on random people here for tax or legal advice!
I know people have tried, and the rulings have been as vague as the law itself. I believe there was a supreme court opinion about wages being an exchange for services rendered rather than a taxable gain, but don't quote me on that. I'm no lawyer. I know there is a documentary called Freedom to Fascism which covers this whole issue very well.
I am not a lawyer. I am not an accountant. I am not a tax preparer. I am not an expert in this field. I'm just a random messageboard poster, and my advise is worth exactly what you paid for it.
EDIT: He asked a procedural question ("How do I..."). I simply answered that. I gave no opinion about the prudence of doing so.
I understand that, but if the fella whom you advised to claim "exempt" from withholding isn't smart enough to realize this, it would suck for him to get in trouble with the IRS just because he relied on your "advice".
I am not knocking your opinion regarding the court decision, we are all entitled to our opinions.
Good point.
DISCLAIMER: Do not try this at home. This should only be attempted by professionals!
Or, it should only be attempted by people who can afford legal fees, or those who will be able to come up with the taxes, interest and penalties should the "defense" not be valid!
This reminds me of 2005, when people here were giving immigration advice in relation to getting into Canada for the PJ shows.
I was curious about the looks on the border officers' faces when someone stoner said "But the dude on the PJ message board said I didn't need a passport or a drivers license to cross the boarder"
Joe and Jeff,
Jeff thanks for the tip and Joe thanks for looking out....
Oh I am not a kid but thanks. I would of course speak to my lawyer first(actually my wife first) before I did anything. I am not worried about the money aspect of it, I do have some but I am not sure I would want to spend it all on lawyer fees and the like. I need to finish my 2nd story addition first, then a vacation and spend it on some other stuff and then maybe I would consider such a big move.
www.seanbrady.net
Joe.
The above is a joke, right?
The income tax has been challenged time and time again.
The problem is, the sytem really wants there to be an income tax, and beyond that, alot of "honest" judges just don't "get it" ...
it's not that they are "in on it" or anything, it's just that, as far as they know ... and as far as your average "JOE" knows, there IS an income tax, and it IS legitimate, otherwise, like you say, wouldn't it have been challenged?
Well, it HAS been challenged by many many people.
A few have actually won their cases in court, but the IRS just comes after you again next year.
I have a question in to Tom about this case and the possibility of a precedent... i will let you know what i hear.
I will say that, unless you are willing to spend some time researching this yourself, you shouldn't start poking holes at it.
You really do not know what you are talking about.
I have only spend probably 24 hours solid looking at this stuff in total, but that even is enough for me to know that it is no bullshit.
Ask yourself how many people you know have studied the Income Tax code ... oh... none you say?
Yeah.
That kind of illustrates the point.
EVERYONE simply pays it, they ASSUME it is real ...
but if you look in to it, it is a crock of shit.
I suggest you start with the notion of trying to find any section in the code imposing liablity on you ... SEE IF YOU CAN ...
start here, i made a post showing you where to look ...
try it for yourself ...
see if you can find ANYTING with the words "liable" in it that applies to you ... i BET YOU A MILLION DOLLARS you CAN NOT.
do it.
and then get started researching in earnest.
like i said ,watch that video i referenced above, Theft By Deception ...
then get back to me.
If you can't even take that step,
you have no business insinuating that you know better,
because i promise you, YOU DO NOT.
THERE IS NO LAW MAKING YOU LIABLE TO PAY INCOME TAX.
now, DISCLAIMER ... that don't mean the big bad IRS man won't come after you ... he DOES want his money ... REGARDLESS of wheather you actually owe it or not.
Because the problem is, big bad IRS man doesn't really know the law ... he was trained simply to go get you, not to know the law behind the it, or the truth.
seriously.
ok?
i'm drunk.
i'm out.
goodnight moon.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
ok, I meant SUCCESSFULLY challenged!
look man.
all i'm saying is that, just because the truth is being repressed, does not mean it is NOT the truth.
You really should watch that video i mentioned.
After that, you may have another opinion.
Once you see the way the code has been manipulated since the '30s to make it less obvious that you are NOT LIABLE, maybe you will wake up.
Until then, just acknowledge that you don't know enough to challenge the notion that their may not be a real law holding you liable to pay income tax.
seriously.
that is all.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
For example, increasing the sales tax on everything to 40%. In the end the government needs that money and it's going to get it one way or another.
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
yeah,lay down and take it up the ass.you're a true patriot.
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Lesbelges.
You are correct.
But you know ... at least that would be "fair", and CONSTITUTIONAL ... one of Tom Cryer's points in his trial is that the intent the founding fathers had when they wrote the constitution was to make it hard for congress to make direct taxes - namely taxes on properties, because you by and large can't avoid such a tax ... where as an indirect tax, an excise tax (same thing) is a tax on an activity and as such can be avoided ...
the notion that the 16th ammendment gives congress the right to impose an DIRECT excise tax upon your labor is unconstitutional in the regard that you can NOT avoid working ...
well, i mean, come on now, you can argue that, but i mean, really ...
anyhow, that was one of the notions Tom mentions from the stand ...
he is actually supported by SC case law ... which seem to indicate a somewhat counterintuitive notion that labor is not, constitutionaly speaking, an activity, but rather property ... as it is your most sacred personal possession ... it is the personal wealth from which all other personal wealth is created, and therefore is your most sacred personal property.
let me dig up a few decisions here...
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Read the letter from PRESIDENT TAFT HIMSELF, regarding the proposed constitutional ammendment (the 16th ammendment) and see that the intent was to TAX CORPORATIONS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF ... ONLY ...
there is a reason why the tax code only holds officers of the government, foreign corporations, and entities operating in the US territories liable for tax ... this is because these are the ONLY entities which an excise tax on income CAN LEGALLY TAX!
also read this...
In the Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.,[12] Mr. Justice Butler stated:
It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.
Ask yourself,
when you TRADE your labor for money,
what portion of that exchange is GAIN?
Most likely you will conclude it to be an EVEN EXCHANGE!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
[From Pages 3344 – 3345]
The Secretary read as follows:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
It is the constitutional duty of the President from time to time to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures, as he shall judge necessary and expedient. In my inaugural address, immediately preceding this present extraordinary session of Congress, I invited attention to the necessity for a revision of the tariff at this session, and stated the principles upon which I thought the revision should be affected. I referred to the then rapidly increasing deficit and pointed out the obligation on the part of the framers of the tariff bill to arrange the duty so as to secure an adequate income, and suggested that if it was not possible to do so by import duties, new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among them I recommended a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and as certain and easy of collection.
The House of Representatives has adopted the suggestion, and has provided in the bill it passed for the collection of such a tax. In the Senate the action of its Finance Committee and the course of the debate indicate that it may not agree to this provision, and it is now proposed to make up the deficit by the imposition of a general income tax, in form and substance of almost exactly the same character as, that which in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S., 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population. [Emphasis added] This new proposal, which I did not discuss in my inaugural address or in my message at the opening of the present session, makes it appropriate for me to submit to the Congress certain additional recommendations.
Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency. The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that government had. It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have. It might be indispensable to the Nation’s life in great crises. Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power, a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent.
I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.
This course is much to be preferred to the one proposed of reenacting a law once judicially declared to be unconstitutional. For the Congress to assume that the court will reverse itself, and to enact legislation on such an assumption, will not strengthen popular confidence in the stability of judicial construction of the Constitution. It is much wiser policy to accept the decision and remedy the defect by amendment in due and regular course.
Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency, but by putting on the statute book a law already there and never repealed will simply be suggesting to the executive officers of the Government their possible duty to invoke litigation.
If the court should maintain its former view, no tax would be collected at all. If it should ultimately reverse itself, still no taxes would have been collected until after protracted delay.
It is said the difficulty and delay in securing the approval of three-fourths of the States will destroy all chance of adopting the amendment. Of course, no one can speak with certainty upon this point, but I have become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of investing the National Government with power to levy an income tax, and that they will secure the adoption of the amendment in the States, if proposed to them.
Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose as a corporation income tax and is free from certain objections urged to the proposed income tax measure.
I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure. It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the is well able to pay and when collection is easy.
Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations. While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty. If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.
I recommend, then, first, the adoption of a joint resolution by two-thirds of both Houses, proposing to the States an amendment to the Constitution granting to the Federal Government the right to levy and collect an income tax without apportionment among the several States according to population; and, second, the enactment, as part of the pending revenue measure, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the inheritance tax, of an excise tax upon all corporations, measured by 2 percent of their net income.
Wm. H. Taft
THE INTENT WAS TWO FOLD, ONLY:
1. Income tax on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
2. EXCISE tax on CORPORATE INCOME!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Tom Cryer IS AN ATTOURNEY AT LAW, he views this as his MISSION, his LIFE WORK ...
he is NOT DOING IT TO GET OUT OF TAXES,
he is doing it FOR YOU ... so that the average american will have a precedent ... which it seems he may have set ...
he is doing it because as a lawyer he swore to follow, uphold and defend the constitution and to fight for it in court ... and that is what he is doing ... his moral and professional duty both as a US Citizen and attourney at law ...
Tom Cryer has virtually lost his practice over this, and surel as you say is out thousands upon thousands in legal fees ... but that is not the reason he fought this battle ...
TOM CRYER IS A PATRIOT MAKING A STAND.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I appreciate you sharing all of this, Driftin'. I wouldn't have even known about it if you hadn't brought it to light here. We need to do some research and have a thread dedicated to all of those Americans making a patriotic stand.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.