NOT GUILTY!
From: Bob Schulz
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:00 PM
To: Bob Hurt
Subject: [We The People] NOT GUILTY! Tom Cryer and Becraft Best the DOJ
July 11, 2007
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.
www.givemeliberty.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:00 PM
To: Bob Hurt
Subject: [We The People] NOT GUILTY! Tom Cryer and Becraft Best the DOJ
July 11, 2007
Tom Cryer and Becraft
Best 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.
www.givemeliberty.org
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
9:03 PM
8 Comments:
Hallelujah!
Perhaps a copy of the case and the outcome need to go to the NH governor and the Plainfield City Council. Perhaps they would begin to be more sympathetic to Ed and Elaine...
WOW!!! This RARELY happens. Congratulations to the Cryer team.
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
But he still has to pay the taxes, doesn't he? The jury question (criminal intent) is separate from what the government sees as a tax liability. So this isn't the victory it's said to be.
P.S.: If somewhere another jury convicts another defendant of the same charges, does that prove there is a law?
Sheldon said:
If somewhere another jury convicts another defendant of the same charges, does that prove there is a law?
It doesn't prove anything except that 12 people had the opinion that he/she was guilty.
I think I know what you're getting at and I couldn't agree more. Perhaps the focus needs to go away from "Show me the Law" to "How can a liability be created without my consent?". After all what is considered law today is nothing more than an arbitrary opinion of a group of men and women calling themselves the Senate and Congress.
Government is nothing more than a religion that you are forced to believe under duress. Unfortunately, many people cannot accept this and the scam continues...
Here today, gone tomorrow.
To Sheldon:
You're right...the Individual Income Tax has not been defeated. Any victory, though, is one more step in that direction.
Please see my piece, "Congress...On the Income Tax". Link below. It demonstrates that progress IS being made.
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/2007/04/congresson-income-tax.html
Sincerely,
Scott
p.s. The link may not display properly on this page. If that's the case, you'll have to locate the piece at---
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
Oooops... forgot to give the date.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007---
In the "Blog Archive", click on "04/08 - 04/15" for the piece, "Congress...On the Income Tax".
I don't necessarily support the Fair Tax Act (a national sales tax), but the preamble of it shows how Congress is noticing our efforts. They are scrambling to avoid a MASSIVE number of non-filers of the 1040...because they know that it's coming. It's only a matter of time.
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home