Thursday, July 12, 2007

"Live" With Tom Cryer, Larry Becraft, Ed and Elaine On RBN

First 20 min "Live" recap:

Tim Wingate is the host. He introduced all the parties on the line and then asked Ed to comment. Ed simply said he was/is amazed at how this system of justice works - ie. Tom Cryer was found not guilty while he and Elaine were completely denied due process. Ed took exception with one of Tom's comments. Ed stated emphatically that they were denied ALL their rights to due process and that their jury was tampered with by the judge, etc. Ed explained that since they didn't haven an attorney they were almost totally disenfranchised by the system. Tom responded that he didn't go in pro se or pro per primarily due to procedural and administrative issues that are best handled by the assistance of counsel in the form of an attorney. Tom said he didn't trust his objectivity and he appreciated the assistance of Larry Becraft.

Tom Cryer admitted that he was unable to present actual evidence of the law - or lack of the law - but that he was allowed to present his "beliefs" in a way that was credible enough to the jurors to support/enable an acquittal.

To continue - second 20 mins.

Bob Schulz, Chairman of We The People Congress, will be coming on the show to, hopefully, make an offer to get a plane ticket so that Tommy Cryer could visit Ed and Elaine Brown for the festivities this weekend. Bob did come on and is offering to use We The People Foundation's press distribution network to "get the word out" about this win once all the facts are confirmed and documented by Larry and Tom. Bob also formally offered to get Tom to NH this weekend. Tom is going to get back to Bob and seemed to express an interest in the offer. He said that he has to do his Saturday afternoon show on RBN, but that he could do the show from NH.

Tom said that the case was by no means a "slam dunk" but that he/they were surprised by how quickly the jury came back with a not guilty verdict.

As Tom said, "we went over, around, under and through a lot of barnwire.....but we made it..." "They wouldn't let us present anything in writing...." etc.

Bob Schulz had to drop of the line, but the offer to help get Tom Cryer to NH will be followed up with.

Click here to listen "live".


Blogger Davidd1501 said...

What to go Mr. Cryer. I am elated he beat the beasts.

5:59 PM  
Blogger Jeremy said...

Why won't they let you present anything in writing, seems a bit fishy.

In law from what I understand,
nothing holds any water unless it is in writing.

Seems like they are trying to protect themselves by letting you slide so easy.

8:11 PM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

To Jeremy:

Good observation--- most likely they don't want it in writing (hard evidence) because then it can be cited, and would set a precedent for allowing such evidence in a tax trial.

This way, it's just Tom's opinion (as part of his beliefs) of the (for example) Supreme Court cases that blow away the Individual Income Tax. Sure, the original rulings can still be cited by people, but they were back in the period from about 1916 to 1920. If they were allowed as evidence now, the Establishment would have to deal with them. They should anyway, but won't for obvious reasons. The judge avoided that, and now he can claim that Tom's statements were only his "beliefs". [If pressed, the judge can always say that Tom is misinterpreting the evidence; he can say that about the jury as well.]

8:53 PM  
Blogger Tuva or bust said...

Cryer is a Mason.

Past Master, W. H. Booth Lodge #380, F & AM

Past Master, First Masonic District Lodge

Scottish Rite Bodies, Shreveport Valley, 32°

El Karubah Shrine, Shreveport, LA

10:11 PM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

To Tuva...

Haley was a cowboy.

See left side of page:

Past hand on various working cattle ranches

Past wrangler on various dude ranches

Colorado and Oregon


1:45 AM  
Blogger Jeremy said...

To Mr. Cryer,

Try and get something in writing explaining why you won the case and were found innocent.

Can't an attorney demand this, isn't having things in writing part of the legal process.

We can't win if we play by their rules, that is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Congratulations on your win, but try and get this documented.

7:39 AM  
Blogger Jeremy said...

Also from what I have read on the blog about the verdict, if my beliefs and understandings are that I do Not have to pay taxes on my labor, then so be it.

Ed and Elaine also believe this so they are not guilty.

9:12 AM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

To Jeremy:

It's possible that the jury came forth with "jury nullification", meaning that they recognized (wrongly) the existence of the law, but believed that the law is unfair...and so, nullified it in their verdict.

This is only one jury. Not every jury might agree...or, believe that there is no law.

For more on the income tax, and jury nullification, see:

---left side of page, scroll down to "Video Archive". The series of short video clips on the income tax are especially good. [You need RealPlayer.]


6:08 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home