Tom Cryer Tax Case - TRANSCRIPTS UP!

JOEJOEJOE

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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.

ok, I meant SUCCESSFULLY challenged!

DriftingByTheStorm

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

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.

Lesbelges

In the end even if someone proved that the government could not tax your personal income, the government would find another way for you to pay it.

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.

JamMastaE

Lesbelges wrote:

In the end even if someone proved that the government could not tax your personal income, the government would find another way for you to pay it.

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.

yeah,lay down and take it up the ass.you're a true patriot.

DriftingByTheStorm

Lesbelges wrote:

In the end even if someone proved that the government could not tax your personal income, the government would find another way for you to pay it.

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.

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...

DriftingByTheStorm

Everyone Should READ THIS

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!

DriftingByTheStorm

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE - JUNE 16, 1909

[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!

blackredyellow

I don't know what the lawyer charge in this case (if anything), but my question is, What costs more, paying taxes or paying the legal fees just to have chance to get out of paying taxes... I'm guessing legal fees would be more.... and you still will probably owe back taxes in the end when you lose.

DriftingByTheStorm

blackredyellow wrote:

I don't know what the lawyer charge in this case (if anything), but my question is, What costs more, paying taxes or paying the legal fees just to have chance to get out of paying taxes... I'm guessing legal fees would be more.... and you still will probably owe back taxes in the end when you lose.

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.

gue_barium

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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.

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

gue_barium wrote:

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.

No one would have, I doubt.
And there is a reason for that.

Just like Aaron Russo's UNREPORTED DEATH ... Tom Cryer beats the IRS in jury trial, and NOT ONE SINGULAR REPORT IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ... outside of the hometown newspaper ... sheesh!

Just the fact that the story has been 100% burried should give you folks a clue that it is no bullshit.

If something is a sham they would do their damned-est to smear it all over the news ... my guess is cryer may have found the winning argument in court and these fuckers are scared shitless ...

also, the above letter to congress from Taft is unreal ... it may explain why IRS agents are so eager to bust you ... either they don't know the truth, or worse ... they do know, and they are livid that ONLY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FALL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE INCOME TAX!

How is that for a motivator to fuck the common man?

Lesbelges

JamMastaE wrote:

yeah,lay down and take it up the ass.you're a true patriot.

I wouldn't call myself a patriot as I am not even American...

I would call myself someone who doesn't live in LaLa land and can face the reality of how the world works.

Taxes are what funds the government and their activities, whether you like it or not. Now lets say income taxes were made illegal, then one of two things will happen.
1) The government gives up and gives up the revenue from taxation, and there goes the money for public schools, police, army etc.

or
2) The government finds a different way to get that revenue. Like I said, they could just have an insane sales tax to make it all up. They could also have really high tax rates for all corporations in America, which in the end would trickle down to the consumers as higher prices.

Now I'm no expert, but taxation is a reality and it's not going away whether you like it or not (and trust me i don't). Whatever happens, the government will get that money one way or another.

DriftingByTheStorm

Lesbelges wrote:

I wouldn't call myself a patriot as I am not even American...

I would call myself someone who doesn't live in LaLa land and can face the reality of how the world works.

The reality is that the US Government is WAY WAY WAY out of it's constitutional bounds ... maybe chopping off it's wallet book would force it back in those clearly drawn boundaries ...

and again, you miss the point.
Just because it is convenient to the government's pockets, doesn't make violating the constitution acceptable.

You sound like my father, and unfortunately he IS a citizen of this country, which is scary.

"Nicholas, you sound crazy. If we got rid of the income tax, how do you propose the government would pay for itself?"

Yeah, like Jammasta said, lay down and take it up the ass, dad. I don't know about you but it is NEVER ok for you to violate my GOD GIVEN INHERENT RIGHTS ... they aren't even constitutional rights ... the constitution explicitly states that these are your NATURAL BORN GOD GIVEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ... and that piece of paper is merely protection of said rights ...

fuck your wallet, give me my birthright back and figure out some other way to fuel your bullshit wars and wealth redistribution scam of a federal reserve (ie. communist central bank) system. And please don't ever mention the federal government in connection with education ... you won't win much support from me on that ... you may as well have criminals giving us lectures on ethics if you think that is appropriate.

Lesbelges

Well being from Europe, I can tell you that a lot of our taxed income (and we get taxed a lot more than you do) goes to helping people in need with global health care, welfare and free public education, college too.


And no I am not missing the point. I am just telling you that the US could not exist without taxes of one kind or another.

Besides the army which protects you (I am very much against the Iraq war) there are many other things which taxes fund and you would notice right away once they were gone.

For example, the FDA which makes sure the drugs you ingest and the food you eat is safe. No taxes = no FDA = companies will be able to put whatever they want on the market.

The SEC wouldnt be there, so there would be no one making sure that there is no insider trading and stuff like ENRON going on. So if all this begins to happen, a few people make a ton of money, but the rest of us lose money (think an indirect taxation).

There are many examples, these are just 2. I do not agree in all the ways the US uses its tax revenues, I am just arguing that taxation is a necessity to having a central government.

I'd love to be able to do whatever I wanted without anyone regulating me or taxing me. The reason I don't want that to happen is because of all the non-honest people out there who would take advantage, that is why you need a central government.

DriftingByTheStorm

Lesbelges wrote:

For example, the FDA which makes sure the drugs you ingest and the food you eat is safe. No taxes = no FDA = companies will be able to put whatever they want on the market.

Jesus.
Keep naming agencies we could do with out.


Does The FDA Violate The Constitution? ... hint hint ... YES ...

Ron Paul Wants to Tell the FDA to STFU

and anyhow,
the FDA FY2008 budget is 1.8billion ... i'm guessing the SEC comes in somewhere around there as well ...

I believe personal income tax alone now totals over ONE TRILLION in "revenues" to the government ...

Thanks for giving me a civics lesson on federal budgets.
My stance still remains on fundamental grounds.
Something which is an inherent violation of the constitution is just that ...

... find a "better" way to get your funds or "better yet" ... trim down your nasty budgets, ASSERT YOUR CONSTITUTIONALY GIVEN AUTHORITY TO PRINT YOUR OWN GODDAMN MONEY, and quit handing over interest to private bankers for no reason ...

almost half of our debt is self imposed by giving the "federal" reserve the authority to "coin" our money ...

har har...

Lesbelges

Now I'm not arguing that the current level of taxation is correct or that the taxed money is used properly. I am just arguing that taxation is a necessity.

And you keep mentioning that it's a violation of your constitutional rights. Sure I agree that it violates what's stated in the constitution, but that doesn't make the constitution right. Has the constitution ever been amended?

DriftingByTheStorm

Lesbelges wrote:

Sure I agree that it violates what's stated in the constitution, but that doesn't make the constitution right

Uh?

huh huh.

uh?

This is a joke, right?

This is where i respectfully ask that you go back to belgium, where hopefully you have a better understanding of the fundamental and ultimate law of the land.

Of COURSE it is right.
it is the fucking constitution.

sweet lord.

Lesbelges

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Uh?

huh huh.

uh?

This is a joke, right?

This is where i respectfully ask that you go back to belgium, where hopefully you have a better understanding of the fundamental and ultimate law of the land.

Of COURSE it is right.
it is the fucking constitution.

sweet lord.

Now I will say that I am no expert in the US government nor the constitution. But my understanding is that there are 27 amendments to the constitution, is that incorrect? If it's incorrect, then ok you're right. But if there are indeed 27 amendments to the constitution, your argument of "it is the fucking constitution" is not valid as having 27 amendements means that 27 times there were oversights in the constitution.

By the way the go back to Belgium comment was very mature, never gets old.

DriftingByTheStorm

Lesbelges wrote:

Now I will say that I am no expert in the US government nor the constitution. But my understanding is that there are 27 amendments to the constitution, is that incorrect? If it's incorrect, then ok you're right. But if there are indeed 27 amendments to the constitution, your argument of "it is the fucking constitution" is not valid as having 27 amendements means that 27 times there were oversights in the constitution.

By the way the go back to Belgium comment was very mature, never gets old.

Look,
no disrespect but that is a poor argument.
the constitution itself provides the ability for ammendments to be made to it. the ammendments are additions and not "fixes" as you seem to think (save for the one that repeals the ban on alcohol which WAS unconstitutional to begin with) ...

i don't think you will find much support anywhere around here for the idea that the constitution is somehow "not necessarily right" ... even us CT loonies won't say that.

This is what your arguments are reminding me of:
Poor Irwin Schiff, Trying to "Debate' With Hannity & Colmes ...

have the poor guy on the show long enough to "make a fool" of him and slander him by calling him unpatriotic, COMPLETELY IGNORE THE REAL ISSUE (likely because those thickskulls cant even understand it), cut him off, disregard intelligent remarks, and then say good bye.

Dont succumb to that mentality.

Why don't you go read or view ANY of what i have previously posted and then get back to me.

Otherwise you are no better than Jlew when it comes to your debate style ... namely, it isn't a debate, because you aren't formulating opinions based on my responses... you are just formulating NEW responses based on your own whim ...

baraka

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Joe.

THERE IS NO LAW MAKING YOU LIABLE TO PAY INCOME TAX.

Very interesting case indeed, DriftingByTheStorm! I'm surprised I overlooked this thread before. You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject, so I have a question for you. Perhaps you interpret it differently than me. It seems to me that the constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


Perhaps you can shed some light on this.