[mr.yet]

NOT GUILTY!

Tom Cryer and Becraft Beat the DOJ

According to our court-watcher we can tell you the following:

At the start of the trial the DOJ withdrew the felony charges, leaving two counts of willful failure to file.

The Constitution and the law were allowed into the courtroom. Although Cryer was able to tell the jury what he read, he was not allowed to show the jury what he read. Cryer was also able to tell the jury what he did not read in the law because he could not find it in the law - the law that made him liable to file and pay the federal income tax.

Tom did a good job of explaining to the jury what he read in the Brushhaber, Stanton and Eisner Supreme Court cases about the legal meaning of the word "income" and what he read in the Internal Revenue Code - everything but the law that required him to file. Tom had asked the IRS to show him the law that made him liable but the IRS did not respond.

Larry Becraft's closing arguments were "flawless."

Compared to the judges in the Simkanin and Schiff cases, Cryer's judge was "Cinderella."

Congratulations Tom and Larry. We are looking forward to your full report.

More details to follow on our website.


We The People Foundation & We The People Congress

[mr.yet]

Well, this open the question again, " Are you required to file Income Taxes?" Is there a law that makes any person do so?

IRS again failed to produce the law requiring a person to file income taxes!

[AtlantaTaxExpert]

Some people say our jury system offer the best opportunity for true justice in the legal system.

I tend to agree with that proposition, but, sometimes, the jury gets it WRONG!

This is one of those cases. This was simply a case of jury nullification, in that the jury felt justified to set aside law and precedent and rule on the perceived injustice of paying income taxes. Mr. Cryer and Mr. Becraft benefitted from their decision, though I suspect they paid MORE in legal fees than the actual tax owed.

Regardless, there have been COUNTLESS cases in which the argument that there is no law requiring payment of income taxes have been made. Given the number of times that argument has been presented, the law of averages would dictate that, eventually, you would have a case where the defense would prevail. This is just such a case.

This jury's verdict does NOT set a precedent! If it did, the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake verdicts would have made murder legal in California.

Future similar cases MAY be able to cite this case as an example in arguments before the jury, but if I was a betting man, I would give 20-to-1 odds in favor of the IRS prevailing in each of those cases.

Many people do not like the income tax, and they point to the days (in the 1800s) before the income tax with fond memories. They ignore the fact that the people who decry the high income tax rates are the same people who demand the government services which dictate the need for these high taxes.

There are currently proposals to reform the income tax system. The "Fair Tax" program championed by syndicated talk radio host Neil Boortz comes to mind. I recommend that if you do not like paying income taxes, you put your money and efforts behind the Fair Tax drive and CHANGE THE LAW! The result may be better or worse than what we currently have (I will NOT address that here), but it would definitely be a different way to fund our government.

Attempting to challenge the constitutionality of the income tax in the court system is an expensive and, In my opinion, futile exercise.

[mr.yet]

Some people say our jury system offer the best opportunity for true justice in the legal system.

I tend to agree with that proposition, but, sometimes, the jury gets it WRONG!!

This is one of those cases. This was simply a case of jury nullification, in that the jury felt justified to set aside law and precedent and rule on the perceived injustice of paying income axes.

There have been COUNTLESS cases in which the argument that there is no law requiring payment of income taxes have been made. Given the number of times the argument has been presented, the law of averages would dictate that, eventually, you would have a case where the defense prevails. This is just such a case.

A jury's verdict does NOT set a precedent! If it did, the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake verdicts would have made murder legal in California.

Future similar cases MAY be able to cite this case as an example in arguments before the jury, but if I was a betting man, I would give 20-to-1 odds in favor of the IRS prevailing in each of thses cases.

Many people do not like the income tax, and they point to the days before the income tax with fond memories. They ignore the fact that the people who decry the high income tax rates arew the same people who demand the government services which dictate the need for the high taxes.

There are currently proposals to reform the current system. The "Fair Tax" program championed by syndicated talk radio host Neil Boortz comes to mind. I recommend that if you do not like paying income taxes, you put to money and efforts behind the Fair Tax drive and CHANGE THE LAW!

Attempting to challenge the constitutionality of the income tax in the court system is an expensive and, IMHO, futile exercise.

Have you ever see the law that requires one to pay income tax? If so please stated what it is. And not Title 26

[AtlantaTaxExpert]

I am NOT an attorney, so I cannot make the citation.

I just routinely read synopses of multiple cases in the Tax Court where the "no law" argument is made and, in all but this case, NOT HEEDED by the juries.

I will pay attention when a judge declares the income tax unconstitutional AND that precedent is upheld on appeal. Until then, treat this case for what it is, a blip on the radar screen.