Continued Coverage In "New Media" vs. Total BlackOut In The "Old Controlled Media" (OCM)
Tom Cryer Wins Against the IRSThis is one of those groundbreaking cases that the mass media is not going to cover. Attorney Tom Cryer, who has not filed income tax for a decade, was dragged into court by the IRS on charges of tax fraud. The results: Cryer was able to prove in court that there was no law requiring taxation on individual income and won the case in a unanimous verdict by the jury.
This is not the first time this has happened. Time and time again, individuals have been dragged into court, demanding that the IRS show them the law which requires them to pay income tax and the time and time again the result is the same: the IRS cannot produce that law. It doesn’t exist. Read more here.
Editor's Note: This while our "Christian" leaders and friends are being sucked deeper and deeper into this rathole.
Labels: ed elaine brown irs tyranny show the law tom cryer open your minds eye
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
9:55 AM
28 Comments:
OJ was found not guilty of murder. According to Fred Smart, this means that murder is now legal.
Tuva:
How do you account for the complete black out?
Must be the "OJ Effect" in reverse.
The local Louisiana paper covered it briefly, and it isn't national news. He wasn't famous prior to the trial, no reporters attended the trial, and his case has no meaning to any future criminal cases since criminal cases don't set any precedent (the OJ example I gave.)
Why haven't you posted the half dozen criminal convictions that have occurred since Cryer was acquitted?
If you want press coverage, contact the press *before* the trial begins. If the reporter thinks the story will be interesting, he'll show up to watch and therefore report on the proceedings.
Of course, odds are better than 99% that they'll be reporting a conviction and bringing a lot of attention on how many people out there are trying to use nonsensical excuses for why they don't pay taxes.
So tell us, Fred, why is there a "new media" blackout on the losses. Why have you failed to report the negative verdicts of people like Stephen J. Short, Jr. (convicted on July 27th in Florida) or Harpreet S. Brar (convicted on July 26th in California).
And what kind of black out conspiracy are you running that you didn't report the sentencing for Louis T. Faison, Jr. and his wife Veta B. Faison who are We The People plaintiffs after all?
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/
usaopress/2007/
txdv0720070228faisonnr.pdf
http://www.send2press.com/
newswire/2005-09-0901-007.shtml
better info...
http://ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/
press/2007/07_34.html
Video cameras in the courtrooms will help to advance coverage and understanding of these and other trials in the future.
"Video cameras in the courtrooms will help to advance coverage and understanding of these and other trials in the future."
Rather than complaining about it on a blog, take it up with the people who make that decision - the Judicial Conference of the United States - they determine the court rules, not an angry mob at the courthouse steps.
But before you get too hopeful, keep in mind that everyone thought that the C-Span cameras would clean up the legislation process.
You should also be more careful in picking and choosing your causes. Blowing off steam on the Brown radio show because a camera wasn't allowed in a court proceeding involving the sexual abuse of a minor child is not a good way to win supporters who can actually make a difference to your cause. You've had two of those child/sex cases so far on the radio show and, quite frankly, cameras should *never* be allowed to film and broadcast such issues.
Hopefully Larry Becraft WILL indeed Represent Her.
We need more IRS Employees/Agents to come forward... People like Sherry Jackson and Joe Banister... They can Help to bring about the Major Changes this Country needs.
...And we need more Attorneys like Larry Becraft, Irwin Schiff, Bill Benson and Tommy Cryer, who possess the Fortitude, the Moral Dignity, and a keen sense of THE LAW to Stand Up and Defend these People in Court.
We need more Educated Jurors like Marcella Brooks, and more Judges who, rightfully, DO BELIEVE in Due Process... DO BELIEVE in the Constitution... And who WILL ENFORCE FULLY, Another's Right to a fair Trial... Who will ensure at all cost, dis-regarding any threat,
THAT ALL TESTIMONY BE HEARD, AND THAT EVERY STATUTE AND SUPREME COURT RULING...
BE READ IN LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTION! AND IN LIGHT OF GOD!
Judges and Lawyers who have an Honorable sense of Duty in their Pledge to the Flag and their Oath of Office... Judges who don't see their Obligation to fulfill their Oath, or their Pledge as a burden. But as a Blessing.
We Must Defend these People... These Truth Seekers... At all Cost.
They are not only Truth seekers... They are the Finders of Truth. For they have found THE TRUTH. They are Discovers of Truth. Just as Columbus Discovered America... There is no denying it.
IT'S ALL PRERECORDED HISTORY. That's a Fact. (Pre IRS CODE/FRA) The Supreme Court Rulings predate these things, as does the Constitution and The Bible.
The IRS, the Federal Reserve, and all those who ALLOW THEM to (Still) exist... Would have You all forget the only good part of Our History that's left.
Our Constitution, and Our Rights under it. All Granted to us by GOD... And Good Men. A lot of Good Men.
These good Men shed their Blood for us... They believed in Freedom so much that they Bled for our Flag, that it's stripes might stay Red. They themselves turned pale, that it's Stars would shine bright.... So Pale they've become, some stripes also white. They talked long, and wrote into the night. They wrote it all down, and they've written it True... In our quest for Freedom... The Blue in Our Flag is for Me and for You.
-The Declaration of Independence
-The Constitution of the U.S.
-The Bill of Rights
-The SUPREME COURT
-American Patriots
or
-The IRS
-The Federal Reserve
-Mainstream Media (Biased to above)
-Joey/Tuva/Murdoch/Cheney/Rice/
Silverstein/giuliani/Bush/Hitler
Please see
"Theft by Deception" By Larkin Rose
“The Law That Never Was” By Bill Benson
and
"America, Freedom to Fascism" By Aaron Russo
You are intellectually dead in the water without research – to include all relevant Case Law and Supreme Court Rulings – The IRC – Bill of Rights – U.S. Constitution and Local STATE Constitutions. If You haven’t done this Tovi… and Educated yourself on the IRS, The Federal Reserve/Patriot/Military Commissions Acts… Then any argument you present here is intellectually inept. You Might find the word “Frivolous” more to your understanding.
Have a great day. By the way… What will you be Reporting Tomarrow? Or haven’t you asked yet?
"Larken Rose ... Bill Benson ...
and Aaron Russo"
Two out of three have done time in prison for tax crimes.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results -- Albert Einstein
Tuva?... Guess Tovi was wrong... Sorry.
The Message is what counts.
Every Mainstream Media Agency CONSTANTLY Reports on ""Non-Criminal"" Tax Honesty Advocates, and "CRIMINAL" Tax Evaders!
But they put them ALL in the "Criminal" Category!
They love to Report on Criminals period.
Tuva, Your reasoning, and your lack of Education is the only "nonsensical excuse" you have to ignore the TRUTH.
Tuva said:
So tell us, Fred, why is there a "new media" blackout on the losses. Why have you failed to report the negative verdicts of people like Stephen J. Short, Jr. (convicted on July 27th in Florida) or Harpreet S. Brar (convicted on July 26th in California).
I'll answer that simply. Tom Cryer's Win can benifit all the people's loses you mentioned. And More. Yours and mine too.
It's the Win that needs to be Reported on. The Truth that needs to be reported on... so that it Educates others of the Truth! Not the same old "LIE" of: We Own You, You're Our Slave, And My Code makes it so. The Lie of: We Own Your Labor... and the Lie that EVERY CITIZEN is Income Taxable!
That is utter Bull Dung. Most U.S. Citizens are in fact, Fully Legal, Constitutionally Correct... Non-TaxPayers. 100 percent EXEMPT from "Income" Tax... And fully within the Law, and the CODE.
Income IS NOT your weekly wages! Not the Inheratence your Mother left you, and it is Certainly NOT, Your Home or your Land! What you do with your Hands for that Wage is an EVEN EXCHANGE.
IT IS NOT FOREIGN PROFIT OR GAIN. Nor is it derived from a Federal Possession. And, in itself, does not make you a Foreigner... And in itself does not make you a Federal or State Government Benificiary! In itself, it is NOT INTREST. These are "Activities" that ARE Income Taxable.
Your Labor, and Paymeny for said Labor, is NOT INCOME! Unless it is Derived from such activities as Foreign Commerce, etc.!
The Constitution and the Supreme Court have Written/Ruled it so, long before the Internal Revenue Code existed and shortly After the 16th Amendment was Fraudulently Ratified!
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court Case Law is the Prescident, and is... The Law of the Land.
Combine it with the Declaration of Independence, it is what makes us Free.
Combine these with the Bible, and they are what make us Individual, Sovereign Men and Women under God.
Without them, We are Slaves to Devils called the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the RFID Implant and the Mainstream Media for Duping us into the LIE of it all.
A Question for you Tuva? Do Have Children? If so, what will you tell them in 20 years when they approach you and ask:
"Mom, Dad... Why did you lie to us and teach us that we were Free? Why did you teach us of a Constitution and a Bill of rights if it was all Fiction? Why did you teach us of Due Process and a Fair Trial, Because there isn't one, and We are NOT Free!" "Mom, why did you Lie to Me?"
I suggest you research all of the Important things Tuva, and Do not leave out the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts. You may want to start telling your kids the Truth now, so that your perception of the Truth doesn't become a Lie to them later.
Because 20 years from now, Your very own Children may learn the Truth on their own, and Spark the next Revolution that will Bring the Truth Forward.
If it doesn't happen now, then I pray they do. I even Pray that my Son Helps them to restore a Free People, a Free Nation under GOD and the Constitution once again. If we cannot succeed now, it may even be too late for them.
They will have no Land, no home, No Credits. They will be a Slave in every way to an even more Twisted Society than Ours. If they cannot be FORCED to work or be Microchipped, They will be labeled OutCasts, Tortured, Enslaved, Sent to fight a Needless War, or even Killed.
So Pray for them, and Do Everything you can for them NOW.
The Federal Reserve consists of Private Worldwide Bankers and is a FOR - PROFIT Corp. which cannot be Audited. The only People getting Rich off of You are J.P. Morgan's Grandkids, John Rockefellar's Grandkids, Paul Warburg and Philander Knox's Grandkids, The Rothchild's kids and George Bush's Kids. Anyone else in office today who supports the IRS and the FEDERAL RESERVE. Rupert Murdoch and Rudy giuliani for keeping secrets from American Citizens.
If you are good at Math... Then you know that Numbers always add up. Just follow the Money Trail. You know... The trail of YOUR MONEY. THAT YOU NO LONGER HAVE. Where did you see it go? You Didn't? Then ask yourself where in the hell it ends up?!
Another simple question? If your Income tax money goes to pay the National debt? Then when was the last fiscal year you remember it to have gone down? You can't? Then what the hell does it pay for? Infrastructure like roads, schools etc? Wrong. That's what Lotteries, gasoline tax, tolls, tire tax pays for. Then there's other user tax:
Cell phone, cable, utility tax... Automobile excise tax... cigarette and alcohol tax... Crop taxes, bread tax, merchant/vending taxes etc etc...
No... I'll tell you what your income tax pays for. it pays the interest on the money that States and Congress borrow from the Federal Reserve! And don't you forget it.
But alas... Even with the Ability to Print Money out of thin air, and with the ability to make us pay it all back in Taxes, Interest and more, You'd think all that Money the Federal Reserve Makes off of You and I would be enough.
What did you pay for a gallon of gas yesterday? A pack of butts last year? get the point?
Between 1894 and 1913, Congress gave the Federal Reserve Bankers their Power to Coin Money for this nation. (not backed by gold or anything else) Now do you really wonder why congress writes their own raises, and defends the Fed? Do you really wonder why Bush can get away with suspending Habeas Corpus? Do you really wonder how it is that Bush can take War Powers away from the Congress, and continue to circumvent any objection from congress? Do You?
The Fed now Prints Money backed by Credit. Backed by the interest they make on that credit. And backed by an American Population duped into believing that their labors are owned by the Government. Our Federal Dollars are only backed by the Theft of YOUR LABOR! Backed by the interest on the Credit we Acquire all in their rush for a cashless, microchipped society of Slave Laborers. You, Me... Our Children. Make no mistake about it.
If your Income tax money goes to pay the National debt? Then when was the last fiscal year you remember it to have gone down?
After you ponder that question awhile? go online and take a look at Stocks. Try Haliburton... You may be surprised when you find out where all your money goes.
You don't by chance support Genocide do you? Are you sure?
Better check your 401k... Just Follow the Money Trail
And all three of them are saying the same things that Larry Becraft Proved in the Tom Cryer Case.
Hey Tuva... Why aren't they all in jail then... You are too ignorant to even see that there is no equality for Citizens in our Court System.
If 2,3 or 10 people all do the same thing, There's no Statute to break, and all present identical facts in their defense (No Law)... then exactly how do you justify imprisoning one, and freeing the others?
Are you that Educationally Challenged?
2 people commit murder. (Is a Law)
Both did it for sure, but one goes free, the other doesn't. (Your O.J.)
One's a criminal and one's not?
How about this?
2 people help an old lady across the street (For which there is no Statute against). they're 2 towns over from each other in the same county or a different one.
Both are indicted for kindness... And Both of their testimonies Stated:
"I was just being kind your Honor, No Law against that, I checked"
Judge number one says: "FRIVOLOUS"! "I will not allow the Jury to see the evidence or hear your Witness! 10 Years Jail time!"
Judge number 2 says:
"Kind huh? Let's hear your Witness's Testimony Please."
Witness speaks, jury sees evidence of Old Lady's broken Walker and (No LAW), and the judge says:
"No Wrong Doing, Case dismissed!"
One man's life is ruined, and one Man gets Justice?
Is this how you think it aught to be? If it is then you are certainly not a person of Morals, standards or class. Not a person who who can grasp the concept of patriotism, Freedom, or Due Process.
What you ARE... Is Ignorant of the very Principals of our Constitution and our bill of rights. Not to mention, a little out of touch with reality regarding Statutes of Law, Jury Trials, and the Proper way to implement them.
"And all three of them are saying the same things that Larry Becraft Proved in the Tom Cryer Case."
All Cryer did was show the jury that he was honest in his belief, even if he was wrong.
The opening of Cryer's Trial Brief:
"Comes now the Defendant, Tommy K. Cryer, through his undersigned counsel, and submits the following brief regarding issues that arose during a pre-trial conference on July 6, 2007, relating to “intent” evidence that Cryer may offer through his testimony at trial, and the implications of United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2005). Respectfully, the defense submits that via Cheek and its progeny, a defendant’s beliefs, whether reasonable or unreasonable, are grist for the jury to decide in determining whether the defendant acted willfully. Even if a trial court concludes that such beliefs are unreasonable, that matter is properly the subject of a limiting instruction, not exclusion of such testimony. See Burton, infra."
True Logic or bust! Thanks for sharing!
Tuva said:
All Cryer did was show the jury that he was honest in his belief, even if he was wrong.
Wrong Tuva... WhatCryer and Becraft did... Was shove the Supreme court Rulings right down the Judge and Prosecution's Throats.
Remember that the Prosecution had Tom Cryer's Trial book for a whole day. It cited all the Supreme court rulings, as well as parts of the IRC... The next day, when everyone expected a rebut from the prosecution, none came.
BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT REFUTE THE EVIDENCE HE HAD COLLECTED.
The Power of a Judge to convict people of Not filing, lies solely in his/her ability to coerce the Jury.
This is exactly why most Judges WILL NOT ALLOW THE CONSTITUTION THE IRC OR THE STATUTES TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN TAX CASES! Once they do... they usually lose.
Did Ed Brown's Judge allow any evidence for the Brown's Defense? NO!
Did Ed Brown's Judge allow the Jury's request to show them the Internal Revenue Code? NO!
So why did The Judge in Cryer's Case?
Did Irwin Schiff's Judge afford Him a fair Trial, or Due Process? No!
As I have Previously Stated... Your reasoning, and your lack of Education is the only "nonsensical excuse" you have to ignore the TRUTH.
Quit regurgitating Lies and Educate Yourself.
Who in the hell are You to call the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rulings Wrong?
I believe that you are nothing more than a Lobbyist for Disinformation.
I know the TRUTH. You Should too... The fact that you don't can only mean one of two things. You are ignorant of it... Or you don't want it known.
I'm hoping you are only ignorant. And not a sell out. but I've been wrong about people before.
Just not these people.
Have fun in the Hell you create for your Loved ones. Have fun Living your Lies. Truth will find its glory on top... You will find yours at the bottom.
Good Day.
Tax evasion is a term that is used broadly. After reading why they were found guilty, each one was found guilty for different reasons.
People need to know what they are doing and have a plan. All these people never said 'show me the law'.
Many times they misrepresented themselves on their tax return. Your playing into their tax system game by doing that, instead of arming yourself with the Constitution.
This is what I think is going on.
If everyone who was accused of tax evasion said show me the law and then brought out title 26 section (861)in regards to US wage earning citizens, the result should be the same for all.
see these videos
http://www.fdrs.org/our_company.html
according to Tuva... Anyone who can prove that
"THEY HONESTLY BELIEVE THEY AREN"T LIABLE FOR TAXES"
Will be found innocent.
Tuva just proved that his/her Education is very limited.
Can't grasp the whole picture due to narrow mindedness and Ignorance.
Hell Tuva... If that's all it took we'd all be tax free.
Don't be so simple minded. for God sake, open your mind to the truth.
You can't learn the truth if all you think about is the "TAX TRIAL"
Learn what led to taxation in the first place. The Federal Reserve. The IRS as the Fed's Enforcement Arm... And a lot of corrupt people from 1894 until now.
Every Child Learns how to Crawl eventually. So Learn. Impress me.
Speak the truth here Tuva. or at least give your opinion. But DO NOT try to deceive people here! Do not try to brainwash us! Your efforts will be futile. And you people are far too easy to see comming.
We know your kind. Always trying to twist the reality of things. Always trying to ensure that Citizens continue believing YOUR LIES, and therefore continue PAYING.
You're easy to see, because you always try too hard to push your lies. And you target the people who are waking to the truth of the matter you want buried.
This fact would make a great bedtime story for your Children.
teach them young... to spot people like you.
You're not good enough to carry Ed Brown's Lunch Bag. You disgust me. Your Belief system disgusts me. and the fact that you have no appetite for Truth disgusts me.
Tuva said:
All Cryer did was show the jury that he was honest in his belief, even if he was wrong.
Wrong Tuva... WhatCryer and Becraft did... Was shove the Supreme court Rulings right down the Judge and Prosecution's Throats.
Remember that the Prosecution had Tom Cryer's Trial book for a whole day. It cited all the Supreme court rulings, as well as parts of the IRC... The next day, when everyone expected a rebut from the prosecution, none came.
BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT REFUTE THE EVIDENCE HE HAD COLLECTED.
I'm pretty damned sure that if there WAS a Statute, And if they Could Have convicted Him...
They Would Have!
They did not... Because there is NO STATUTE MAKING YOU LIABLE!
Even a blind Man can HEAR the Truth for cryin out loud.
All the evidence you'll ever need to know that "THERE IS NO LAW", is right in the Cryer Case File.
Would Tom be in jail if they could have made it happen? You bet your Azz!
Why didn't they just whip it out then? This Law? Huh?
Sorry Tuva... I hate to rain on your parade... But I eat up disinformationists like you all day long. And You're not that challenging an adversary. Mostly due to your lack of Constitutional knowledge of the federal reserve. On this blog site, and to all believers in Ed Browns cause... You and your disinformation are like Barney Rubble coming to debate with HELLBOY.
"Did Ed Brown's Judge allow any evidence for the Brown's Defense? NO!"
Liar.
Among other things, the judge allowed Elaine to play Larken Rose's entire video to the jury. Ed, of course, was too much of a coward to even show up. Poor Elaine had to try to defend both of them all by herself.
"according to Tuva... Anyone who can prove that "THEY HONESTLY BELIEVE THEY AREN"T LIABLE FOR TAXES" Will be found innocent."
Yep. It's called a Cheek defense from the Cheek Supreme Court case. You should read it. Cryer did, and Becraft is a pro at using it.
Kuglin argued Cheek. So did Cryer. So did Lloyd Long. In fact, 100% of the tax deniers who have been found not guilty by juries in the past 20 years all relied on it.
Larken and Clayton both tried to argue Cheek, but the juries didn't find either of them believable. You can't use the "I was too stupid to understand" defense while still exuding arrogance.
Okay Tuva... You got me there...
But my Point is simply this:
Ed Brown was not allowed to put up a defense at all.
If a Judge allows the Constitution and the "LAW" to be shown in court to a Jury, Then More often than not, a NOT GUILTY Verdict will be rendered.
In Cryers Case, The Judge DID allow the LAW in Court. As He Should. And He allowed the Supreme Court Case Law Regarding the 16th Amendment.
This is not usually the Case However.
Most Judges act Unlawfully in order to bring about a Guilty Virdict in Tax Cases.
They are the Real Criminals here. Not Ed and Elaine Brown. Not Tom Cryer. Please try to understand this.
Judges have no right to Disallow the Law or the Statutes as a defense. No Judge has the right to Disallow the Constitution or the Supreme Court Rulings in Court.
And no Judge has the right to Deny a Defense to the accused, or to the Jury. No Judge has the right to instruct the Jury: "You will find the Law as I give it to you."
This is not DUE PROCESS. It is more akin to being Crucified, without a Cross or Nails.
Thanks Tuva
"Ed Brown was not allowed to put up a defense at all."
Imagine how much more defense he could have presented if he bothered to show up...
Seriously, he left the courtroom prior to the defense phase of the trial and never came back.
Poor Elaine was left holding the bad. You can't show that your intentions were good (Cheek) if you don't even show up.
"No Judge has the right to instruct the Jury: "You will find the Law as I give it to you." "
That's exactly what the Supreme Court ruled should happen in 1895.
The wording in the Supreme Court Ruling on Jury Instruction is Close. Very close indeed.
But not "You will find the Law as I give it to you."
Source:
Public Law Research Institute
http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/spr96tex/juryinst.html
Until at least the nineteenth century, juries often decided both questions of fact and law. In 1895, however, the United States Supreme Court first declared that "it is the duty of juries . . . to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence." [4] As restrictions were placed on the jury's discretion to decide legal questions, states began mandating that the judge instruct the jurors on what the law required. Today, the trial judge provides the jury with lengthy instructions, the purpose of which is to inform the jury what the issues are, the principles of the applicable law, and the facts which must be proved to justify their verdict.
Merely instructing the jury as to the applicable law, however, is not enough. The only way a jury can possibly apply the law to the facts of a case is if the judge's instructions are comprehensible. Unfortunately, both case law and social science research reveal that juries often do not understand the instructions given to them.
One study, conducted in the 1970s, found that a significant number of jurors failed to understand or refused to accept certain instructions. The study of 116 people summoned for jury service in Florida, tested the comprehensibility of Florida's pattern criminal jury instructions. Despite instructions to the contrary, 43 percent of the surveyed jurors believed that circumstantial evidence was of no value. Only half of the jurors understood that the defendant did not have to present evidence of his innocence, despite an instruction on the presumption of innocence. [5] In the past few decades many similar studies have been conducted throughout the United States, all resulting in the same conclusion that most jurors do not understand the judge's instructions. [6]
This general lack of comprehension raises several questions about the accuracy and legitimacy of jury verdicts. If jurors do not understand the instructions given them, it is possible that many of their verdicts are reached on the basis of improper law or without regard to the law at all.
Fortunately, he same studies that reveal jury misunderstanding of instructions also reveal ways in which juror comprehension of instructions can be greatly improved. First, the instructions themselves can be rewritten in light of linguistic principles to make them easier for lay jurors to understand. Second, the manner in which instructions are given can be changed to effect greater comprehension on the part of the jury. For example, rather than waiting until the end of the trial to instruct the jury on substantive legal principles, the jury should be instructed at the beginning of the trial. Then, the final instructions should be delivered prior to, rather than after, counsels' closing arguments.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home