Friday, April 06, 2007

Tommy Cryer Trial Delayed by Superseding Indictment



Tom Cryer's trial was set for April 9th, but word is that has now been "upset" or set aside. The government filed a superseding indictment on March 28 bringing additional counts of evasion and willful failure to file a return.

Read more at TrialLogs.com.

3 Comments:

Blogger Anonymous said...

"1944 Diggs, Yet still no Law...?"
12 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments

Brian said...

Uh ... that is totally untrue. A comment to a post was posted on this website when the offer was first made showing them the law.

Nobody with any sense has any illusions that the "reward" will be paid.

Unless you have an impartial decider to determine whether the proof is satisfactory, and so long as Ed and Elaine are the ones who get to decide if the proof is adequate, I suspect that Ed and Elaine will "conveniently" fail to find *any* proof which would satisfy them.

This is the typical m.o. for these types of offers ... "show me the law, but I get to decide if the law you show me is actually the law." Of course, not surprisingly, nobody can ever show them the law.

2:46 PM
Casey Lee Cobb said...

Sorry you're wrong brian, no one has shown the law. I personally have been looking for it for over 7 years! Still no law in site that makes me liable to pay........


I guess there must be no law, no one seems to be able to find it.

5:03 PM
Casey Lee Cobb said...

Enlighten yourself watch “America: From Freedom to Fascism”. Watch Sheldon Cohen former IRS commissioner get cornered by Aaron Russo, and then drop the ball through his own fallacious arguments proving without a shadow of a doubt that there is no law.

5:20 PM
Brian said...

Like I said, there's nothing anyone can say to you guys that will ever convince you.

I've been showing people the law for years ... and surprise, surprise ... tax protestors just don't see it.

But that's because they don't *want* to see it ...

5:37 PM
Bored to be Wild said...

I'm offering a million dollar reward to anyone who can tell me the correct answer to 2 + 2. I refuse to accept 4 for the answer, though.

6:04 PM
Casey Lee Cobb said...

Ok smart guy, what law makes the average American liable for an income tax?

If you have the answer back your word up on this thread. If you don’t, then don’t bother leaving another comment.

I know for a fact that you cannot site a statute that expressly demonstrates a tax liability.

And your failure to respond will be the proof.

7:07 PM
Tyler Moore said...

2 + 2 (in base 3) = 11

May I have my million dollars, please. :)

7:54 PM
Bored to be Wild said...

IRC Sections 1, 63, and 63.

As cited by the DOJ in the Ed and Elaine Brown criminal trial motions.

Yawn.

8:48 PM
Bored to be Wild said...

The ironic part is that the dental practice property is no longer Ed's to pledge. The jury ruled that he forfeited the property, and the court issued a restraining order explicitly prohibiting him from pledging the property.

Not only that, but there's already a lien of $368,000 on the real estate since Elaine evaded New Hampshire business taxes as well.

8:54 PM
Casey Lee Cobb said...

I’m sorry you are incorrect. “IRC Sections 1, 63, and 63” do not convey liability. Please try again, send in your answers to Ed@ShowEdTheLaw.com.

9:07 PM
Bored to be Wild said...

The equivalent of "nuh huh" is all you have?

9:14 PM
Anonymous said...

I have said it many times here and yet not a word about coming up with a way to prove one way or the other. The fact is there is no law but until there is a way to prove one way or the other the million dollar reward is mute.

My suggestion is to use the 537 questions from the we the people class action law suite. I would have to say that anyone who can answer those questions in the right way should win the million dollar prize if it still exists.

Joey tryed to use the IRS FAQ but we have disputed this false document. We have also made it very clear simply stating the 16th amendment is not an answer.

You must start with the constitution and the supreme court opinions following the enactment of the 16 amendment. So I say lets use the 537 questions and have those who are offering a prize to put it in writing, otherwise those who say it is all just garbage are right. I mean get real, there is no million dollars unless it is in trust, with rules set up and a way to answer and win. So far it is all hot air.


If ed is for real, then do as I suggest. His credibility is already falling by the way side.

9:32 PM

9:34 PM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

What Brian, and other duped or complacent Americans, fail to grasp or are ignorant of is the following...

After the 16th Amendment was ratified (there is some argument about that, but to me it's an issue not worth pursuing), Congress passed the Income Tax LAW---USC Title 26. Then the raw law was turned over to the IRS (a part of the Treasury Dept., which is a part of the Executive Branch) so that they could write the REGULATION---the IRS Tax Code---CFR Title 26. Once that was done, the taxation of individuals began. Challenges to both the law and the regulation followed.

Between 1918 and 1923, eight Supreme Court rulings (none of which have been overturned or reversed) concluded that the word "incomes" meant "gain from corporate activity", and that the Amendment conferred "no new taxing powers" upon the Fed Govt. Congress then revised the law, incorporating the conclusions of the Court. The IRS then revised the regulation---the IRS Tax Code---but, purposely (an opinion) buried and scattered the relevant revisions in the voluminous and convoluted Code. It continued to tax individuals, referring to them (in small print) as "voluntary taxpayers"; the word "voluntary" was dropped in 1954 or thereabouts. The Tax Code has been revised since then as well, but the basic premise above still holds.

It is important to note that phrases such as "Married Individuals", "Heads of Households", and "Single Individuals" do not appear in the first revision of the Income Tax LAW, but only in the regulation--- the IRS Tax Code. A few years ago, We the People Foundation ran a full-page ad in USA Today, offering $50,000 cash to anyone who could produce a law requiring a tax on an individual's labor---in other words, a tax on a wage-earner's compensation. Two IRS Agents, Joe Banister and Sherry Jackson, independently decided to claim the money; for them, they figured, it would be a slam-dunk. On their own times, each began researching. After months of exhaustive research, both came up empty. Banister then approached his IRS superiors, inquiring as to the location of the law (not the regulation); he was "asked" to resign. [On his website, http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/ , on the left side of the Home page click on "Resignation Documents" for some interesting reading. One can also download his Preliminary Report on his investigation (about 50 pages, as I recall) for more details.]

No one has successfully claimed the $50,000 because there is no such LAW. For years, I believed that "tax protestors" (members of the Tax Honesty Movement) were kooks and crazies. It turns out they were correct regarding their claims. All those years, I was a tax chump, along with most Americans. The IRS Tax Code is impeccably Constitutional (assuming that, in fact, the 16th Amendment was properly ratified), but it is MISapplied to all wage-earning individuals.

One cannot determine whom USC Title 26 and CFR Title 26 apply to by citing selected portions of each. First, the CODE definitions of "income", "employee", "source", and other relevant terms must be ascertained. In addition, the history of the Statute (USC) and the Regulation (CFR) must be studied. It is only then that the deception is apparent.

Yawn.

2:08 AM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

Ooops---

I forgot to give an example of the Supreme Court rulings involving the 16th Amendment...

Example: Doyle v. Metro Brothers Company, 1918.

Disbelievers ask, "Why, then, has the Individual Income Tax not been thrown out?" The answer is simple: other than Congressional action, the only way to do that is to file a court case. Judges will not allow it to proceed----"frivolous", they maintain.

More---

In 2002, HR 2525, entitled, The Fair Tax Act, began with these words, "CONGRESS FINDS [emphasis added] that the Federal income tax: (1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public; (2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry; (3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times; (4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase; (5) lowers productivity; (6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers; (7) is unfair and inequitable; (8) UNNECESSARILY INTRUDES UPON THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS [emphasis added]; (9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy; (10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and (11) impedes upward social mobility."

Regarding point # (8) above, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that we shall be secure in our persons, houses, PAPERS AND EFFECTS unless a proper, lawful warrant is issued to seize something specific. In the 1950s, the outgoing IRS Commissioner, T. Coleman Andrews, made a speech in which he said that enforcement of the Individual Income Tax violates the Fourth Amendment---because the amount of your income is no one's business but yours. In addition, every time you sign a Form 1040, "under penalty of perjury", you are waiving your Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination. No sovereign individual should be forced to waive his/her Rights.

http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/

2:52 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 

SITEMETER