Saturday, October 27, 2007

Tom Cryer Talks About Sherry Jackson Trial

Listen to Tom Cryer talk about the upcoming Sherry Jackson trial here.

See Saturday, Oct. 27

20 Comments:

Blogger Sooltauq said...

While Cryer tries to figure out how to pay his back taxes, interest, penalties -- and hefty legal defense fees.

Maybe he can take the $10 million challenge at http://www.hereisthelaw.com and make a few badly needed bucks.

9:53 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

Like I'm sure that Tommy has any intention of paying those taxes, specifically because he won't be locked up for not paying them! Ha ha ha... what a imbecile you must be, quatloos!

11:03 PM  
Blogger Trent said...

If he doesn't pay then he will never work a day again in his life or own any property again. Otherwise they will garnish wages and confiscate the property. No house, no land, no job....he will pay...with donations from the sheep who follow this "movement"

12:16 AM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...

The IRS (according to them) has so many nonfilers that they don't pursue 75% of them. They can't; it's physically impossible. The backlog is burying them.

That's one reason that Congress has been pursuing the Fair Tax Act for the last five years. They know that soon the number of nonfilers (those who are "required" to file due to the MISapplication of 26 USC, but don't) will soon exceed 50 million individuals.

Once again, here's what CONGRESS has to say about the Fed Income Tax---

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 [emphasis added];
(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."

Not even the Govt believes in the Income Tax anymore.

:)

3:07 AM  
Blogger Trent said...

Thats not what "congress" says at all. Its what 1 representative and 7 signers said. It got sent to committee 10 years ago and hasn't seen the light of day.

But latch onto anything you can, cause reality is not on your side...not that anyone in the tax "honesty" movement cares about reality.

3:26 AM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...

Absolutely not true. The Fair Tax Act has been introduced several times in the past five years. Most knowledgable DCers predict that it will be passed within the next five years.

Even the IRS admits that it pursues only 25% of nonfilers (those "required" to file by the MISapplication of 26 USC, but don't). The backlog has buried them. Congress is aware of this and is trying to refine the Fair Tax Act. Most opponents of it like the basic idea, but are hung up on a few of the details. Congress knows that it won't be long before the nonfilers (defined above) exceed 50 million individuals.

It took the IRS TEN YEARS to get to the point of pursuing Ed & Elaine. Too much backlog. And they knew about the couple in the mid-nineties, because Ed & Elaine told them exactly what they were doing.

Too many people (a few in Congress itself) are now aware of the MISapplication of the Constitutional 26 USC for Congress to ignore it any longer.

It's only a matter of time (and not much time) before the misapplied Individual Income Tax will be dumped. Anyone who thinks otherwise is the one who doesn't care about Reality.

:)

3:50 AM  
Blogger Sooltauq said...

I like the national sales tax because there is no way for tax protestors to avoid it!

As far as Cryer goes, goodbye assets and income and remember Vernice Kuglin who lost her FedEx pension paying her back taxes, interest and penalties.

The IRS can't go after all nonfilers (and never had) because included in that group are migrant farm workers, dead people, defunct corporations, etc. But it can go against those that it knows are collectible, like Cryer or Ed and Elaine Brown (whose property is even now being sold to pay their back taxes -- if Elaine survives prison she'll emerge to having nowhere to live).

9:47 AM  
Blogger Sooltauq said...

I think that the income tax does need reform. I don't like the national sales tax because it hits the poor, but at least that is a tax that the tax protestor idiots will not be able to avoid!

But even if that is passed, it will not eliminate the liability of non-filers prior to passage, contrary to their hopes.

http://www.hereisthelaw.com

BTW, Irwin Schiff once predicted that the income tax would be abolished within 10 years. He said that in 1978. Income tax reform has long been talked about, but dies about as quickly as somebody figures out that they lose their home mortgage interest deduction. Tax protestors can't see this since few of them have been successful enough to accumulate any property.

9:50 AM  
Blogger lifetimenonfiler said...

Anybody who supports the fair tax, doesnt know squat about the constitution!

article one section 2 (of the constitution) says.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States

...and of course, congress can pass no law that abridges a constitutional right.

If the (so called) fair tax is applied to food, clothing ,rent...
...or any other (necessity of life) medical care...

it will be unconstitutional.

lets keep the law the way it is!!!

The only reason we have trouble with the current law, is because judges are in on the scam, and violate their oath of office by not looking to the supreme court for a definition of income.

hold your judge to his oath of office...obey supreme court decisions and definitions.

Income is corporate profit.

If the fair tax is enacted...(unconstitutionally) it will have a negative effect on business...

...the black market will grow...big time

10:47 AM  
Blogger Trent said...

Ha! Let me guess those "Washington insiders" hang out at the same place all those people that win their tax arguments in court hang out at..........the denial of reality here is endemic.

11:06 AM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

Hey trent, for as informed as you seem, on the subject, one would think that you know about incorporating! Mr. Cryer is privy to this method of structuring. Just in case you actually are so ignorant, so as not to be aware of how the government has set it up for themselves (along for the utilization of the commoner!), here's how it works:

1) Create a corporation, whereby you are in control of it.
2) Generate income, from wich source you are so inclined.
3) The bank account, the house, car & et. al are NOT "owned" by you, but rather by your proxy... your good friend the corporation!

As evil, as the late Mr. Rockefeller may (or may have not) been, he can be quoted as saying the following, "own nothing; control everything..."

Touché Trent~

11:19 AM  
Blogger Trent said...

Ha! The corporate veil is not sacrosanct and is easily pierced. Anything Cryer sets up that he wants to avoid imparting liability needs to be completely separate from Cryer. If the Corporation owns Cryer's house and car and buys his food then that veil is easily pierced and all of the corporations assets will belong to the IRS.

So while some of his assets might be kept safe in a corporation he would never be allowed to use them. A very silly solution.

And any attempt to incorporate assets merely to avoid liability would get Cryer in even more trouble then he is in. Cryer is not stupid, just delusional, he knows when he has been beat. He will gather donations from the sheep of the tax "honesty" movement and pay off his taxes, fees, and interests from your pocket. It is ironic that all the die hard supporters of Cryer are going to wind up paying taxes indirectly!

11:51 AM  
Blogger lifetimenonfiler said...

excuse me, ..please I got carried away and started mixing up "FAIR TAX" and "NATIONAL SALES TAX" (another bad idea) on my last rant...

here is my amended rant.

Anybody who supports the fair tax, doesnt know squat about the constitution!

article one section 2 (of the constitution) says.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States

...and of course, congress can pass no law that abridges a constitutional right.lets keep the law the way it is!!!

The only reason we have trouble with the current law, is because judges are in on the scam, and violate their oath of office by not looking to the supreme court for a definition of income.

hold your judge to his oath of office...obey supreme court decisions and definitions.

p.s.

I think Larry Becraft,(opening statements) should confront the judge with (the judge w/ signature) oath of office.

and point out that he is ...BOUND to follow...SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

and then produce the several cases that adress the definition of income.

FORCE the judge into admitting that the only logical way someone like Sherry Jackson (or the judge HIMSELF!) ...to know what income is...

...is to look at the supreme court and the decisions they have made that stand to this day!

12:12 PM  
Blogger Trent said...

Becraft will not do anything like that. He is putting up a Cheek defense. He is going to try and convince the jury that Jackson didn't know she had to file. Good luck with that!

It's her only hope, if Becraft gets mired down in the delusions of "law" that are espoused around these parts it's over for her.

How is Jackson going to pay back her taxes though? Isn't the donation base getting a little thin. How many tax protester donations is it going to take to pay back the IRS? You guys are great free entertainment.

12:35 PM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...

I certainly don't support a national sales tax (which is the Fair Tax Act), but Congress IS looking into it. A few other things---
1. The poor would not be affected by it. Every version has contained a section that exempts the "poor" (and everyone else), up to a certain income level. That would be done (in one of the alternatives) by sending every family a govt check that would cover the tax up to a certain level of spending by a family.
2. I doubt that it's Constitutional as well. But it's not a direct tax; it's an excise ("privilege") tax. The problem with passing it largely has been in determining exactly which items are not "privileges", and are thus exempt...or, as an alternative, how much each govt check to each family should be.
3. The amount of the tax would be (depending upon which version passes) 23-25% of the purchase price...pretty hefty.

None of this is needed if the central govt would stay within its Constitutional limitations. Corp taxes, a gazillion excise taxes (such as that on every gallon of gasoline), SS taxes, Medicare taxes, duties, imposts, and a few odd taxes in place all could cover govt services IF the hacks in DC would keep the govt within Constitutional limits.

:)

http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/

3:13 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

C`mon, Trent~
as for the degree of ease, insofar as "piercing the corporate veil," well, perhaps I should have included a few other tidbits of nomenclature for you, as I was not referring to mere corporations.

Here ya go---> IBCs, PIFs & trusts- of course mostly offshore! You don't think that Haliburton moved offshore for mere tax savings, do you? Here's one better; try ascertaining who really runs/owns the Federal Reserve! Good luck, as it's control is mired in recondite (& very old) entities!

Now, don't claim that you didn't know that one can easily procure a (very) seasoned offshore entity & moreover, don't think Mr. Cryer isn't privy to the foregoing...

3:17 PM  
Blogger Trent said...

The only way that Cryer can protect any of his "resources" is through illegal means. You can not create corporate entities and trusts for the sole purpose of avoiding liability for an existing debt. If you do they are easily pierced or you wind up going to jail. Cryer got off by the skin of his teeth the last time, he won't risk it again.

That's the problem with the Cheek defense it only works once. Cryer will be filing on time from here on out or wind up in jail none-the-less. Jackson, if she manages to convince the jury of her ignorance, will be doing the same.

4:08 PM  
Blogger Sooltauq said...

If Cryer tries to hide his income, that will just be more criminal charges. You are insane if you don't think that the IRS faces sham corporations and undisclosed offshore accounts every day. There are very stiff criminal penalties for using such things.

7:04 AM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

If the Irrefutable Rehensible Sycophants (of the Federal Reserve) investigats 'offshore' accounts every day, then WHY isn't it indicting Haliburtan for relocating to Dubai?!? Oh yeah, because Cheney's untouchable...

10:24 AM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

Besides, Cryer would NOT be hiding his income, as it would be the income of the corporation. He would merely hold a position on a board of a autonomous entity;-)

10:26 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 

SITEMETER