Huh -- the Anti-IRS tax people actually won in court -- what now?

 Anyone follow this topic?   All I know about it is that the IRS tells me I
gotta pay 'em, so I do.   But it looks like this guy who says we don't have
to (at least not on earned income) had his day in court, and the jury ruled
for him, 12-0.   Anyone know anything else?



http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID  07707130321

Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago
July 13, 2007

By Loresha Wilson

A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the
legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he
failed to file returns.

A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two
misdemeanor counts of failure to file.


And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax
evasion prior to trial.

Attempts by The Times on Thursday to reach U.S. Attorney Donald Washington
or Bill Flanagan, first assistant U.S. attorney, were not successful. Calls
made to the two were not immediately returned.

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues
taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government
cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you
work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so
everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."

Cryer was indicted last year on two counts of tax evasion. The indictment
alleged he evaded payment of $73,000 in income tax to the Internal Revenue
Service during 2000 and 2001.

Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments
of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the
indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of
income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust.

"I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some
were income," Cryer said. "I refuse to file, I refuse to pay unless they can
show me I have a lawful reason to pay."

"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange.
I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."

Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he
investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't
actually tax personal earning.

  Tockk wrote:


After doing a google search, all I'm finding are brief  stories
reporting two  felonies were dropped and a lot of  gossip / speculation
on blogs & other wacky sites.

It would be interesting to know WHY the two felonies were dropped
("before coming to trial").    I'm not finding what I can call a
reliable reference explaining why they were dropped.

"dismissed" two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial is not
really the same as "acquitted" / not guilty.

The reference sites seem to restate what Cryer mouths vs. the court's
reasons for dismissal.

He reminds me of the DC lawyer suing for his pants.

 
<I SNIP after here>

  I have this suspicion as to why some charges were dropped:

  Suppose you went by a speed-limit-65 sign at 95 MPH and suppose that
such speeding was this kind of a big case rather than simply a fairly
bad traffic ticket.

  In this hypothetical situation, I would expect the driver to be charged
with:

*  Speeding by 26-30 MPH over the limit
*  Speeding more than 30 MPH over the limit
*  Speeding where the posted limit is over 55 MPH
*  Driving at speed too high for conditions
*  Careless Driving
*  Reckless Driving
*  Failure to observe traffic control devices
*  Driving While Intoxicated
*  Driving Under the Influence (Specifically chargeable when driving is
   impaired by alcohol below the DWI level or by drugs other than alcohol)

  Since two of these charges conflict (different MPH over limit), I expect
one to be dropped just on that basis.  Since "failure to observe traffic
control devices" is the same offense as exceeding a posted speed limit, I
expect one of those charges to be dropped.  "Speeding where posted limit
is over 55 MPH" is not a separate criminal offense but basis of
determining penalty for being convicted of remaining charges.
  Fair chance the defense argues that the defendant was driving either
carelessly or recklessly but not both since reckless driving is a more
serious offense that includes carelessness, so if the reckless driving
charge is upheld then the careless driving charge probably does not get
upheld.
  "Driving at speed too high for conditions" is usually not applied when a
speeding charge for specific degree of exceeding a speed limit is upheld
and (maybe even just "or") one for "driving too fast for conditions" is
upheld.
  "Driving While Intoxicated" in this hypothetical example does not make
it because evidence collected after arrest indicates that the defendant
was below the legal limit.  "Driving Under the Influence" gets dropped in
this hypothetical example because the driver had alcohol content below the
DWI level and collected evidence is running low that the driver was
speeding due to drinking/drugs as opposed to reckless attitude.

  I suspect that the prosecution, defense, and the judge may negotiate
such dropping of charges before the trial starts, especially in a court
high enough to hold the initial trial in a federal tax evasion case.

  In this hypothetical example - 9 charges, 7 get dropped, defendant has a
high chance of being found guilty of 1 possibly both of the remaining 2
charges.

 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)