Tom Cryer, an lawyer from Shreveport, Louisiana, tells his story about how he was prosecuted for refusing to file income tax.
In June, 1994, Tom met a man who claimed that the Internal Revenue Code did not make him liable to pay income tax. This was a life-changing event for this lawyer, who then began to research into the law in order to prove this man wrong. What he discovered was that there is no income tax liability relative to American citizens. This presented Tom with a dilemma: does he put his head down and pretend not to know the truth, or to honor his oath to support and defend the rule of law and the Constitution? He chose the latter path, and ceased filing income tax.
As Tom says, it is apparent that the US government is stealing trillions of dollars from honest, hard-working Americans. It was using this stolen money to expand its reach far beyond its intended role. It is stealing, and using the sweat and labor of Americans to destroy their country.
Tom stopped filing and paying income tax UNLESS and UNTIL the government could show him it had any right to demand he do either. He was charged with two counts of tax evasion, which charges were later dropped to two counts of failure to file. He was tried on July 9, 2007 in Federal District Court in Shreveport. During that trial, he said he learned first hand how far tyranny has advanced within the US government — even into the courtrooms. The judge, in an attempt to aid the prosecutor in attempting to convict Tom, violated the laws of evidence and due process by not allowing Tom to present any physical evidence or material facts. The judge further tried to hamper his testimony in an effort to prevent the jury from understanding that Tom did not have any income tax liability, and that the law does not say with the IRS tells them it says. Seeing the truth in his words, because they were not permitted to see any evidence, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty on both counts after only a few hours of deliberation.
Amazing testimony.
If you wish to find out more or to support these people, check out the Liberty Works website:
http://www.libertyworksradionetwork.com/jml/index.php
Wake up, America! Wake up, World!
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
You are STILL babbling (idle or foolish talk, To utter a meaningless confusion of words).
Stealing:larceny-the act of taking something from someone unlawfully.
In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person’s property without that person’s freely-given consent…
If it is lawful it cannot be, by definition, ‘stealing’.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
By the way Tax Truth and everyone watching this video…While I am researching on the court case(s) and my local tax laws, do a Google Video search call “The Money Masters” By Bill Still. Maybe this video can help you understand of what I am imposing on Tax Truth and everyone else.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
So if the 16th Amendment allowed legal stealing supported by USSC opinion, what would make people subject to legalized stealing?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Oh Nevermind…..Found it: United States v. Thomas
788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 04/17/1986)
It was great conversating to you in this public comment section. I will contact you directly. Feel free ladies and gentleman to be invovle with this debate.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Or was it the case in Tennessee in 1996 about electronic bulletin board, still no relevance?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Ok. May I ask what year did this case (U.S. Vs. Thomas) took place? Is it the one with The Sedition Act of 1798 and went to court in April 1800? I looked at the overview of the case via Google and it showed little relevance to the 16th Amendment being ratified, which it was not. Google “U.S. v. Thomas” and try to find The Archive’s website. I wish I can post a link in this public comment area, but youtube does not allow it and discards it automatically.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“How about the 16th Amendment was not ratified for the Federal Reserve to come into effect”
The 16th was ratified (U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d) and has nothing to do with the FED.
“illegal from the start.”
That is the whole point, income tax is the law and is not illegal.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“obtain money from 1776 to 1862?”
Tariffs on imports and excise taxes on items sold.
“IRS and Federal Reserve have gotten stronger in power”
Maybe it’s really because Congress has spent more money?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
In addition to TaxTruth, How about the 16th Amendment was not ratified for the Federal Reserve to come into effect and place an income tax on the public, hence the IRS’s empowerment came about? I guarentee, we as individuals here in the U.S. will be taxed on our gross work/pay up to 60%, either directly and/or indirectly, by next decade because of these factors and that it is illegal from the start.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
You were right that it was formed in 1862….and in connection with my previous statement, it was renamed IRS in 1953. Now to be more specific than before, how did the U.S. Government was able to obtain money from 1776 to 1862? Is that question still in relation with the tariffs on imports? Also, because since IRS and Federal Reserve have gotten stronger in power within the government since their creations, and more money is taken from the public like a crazy train.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“1950′s, when the IRS was formed?”
It was created in 1862 as The Bureau of Internal Revenue. In the 50s, the agency was reorganized to replace a patronage system with career, professional employees. The Bureau of Internal Revenue name was changed to the Internal Revenue Service.
“how was the government able to function”
Because there were higher tariffs on imports and lower taxes.
And YES, the laws are LAWS and very official. Read the rest of the comments.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
All I am typing is that regardless of the codes and laws mention from you TaxTruth, they are not ratified and/or were offical to begin with, because the IRS was spontaneously created to drain more money from the public, and not the public’s services and functions. Just think about it, how was the government able to function with money from 1776 to 1913, or better yet to the early 1950′s, when the IRS was formed?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“disprove me wrong”
I don’t understand WHAT you mean here, would you like to try again?
Taxes go to the US Treasury.
“Any idea from your views of where I got the concept”
Sorry, I left my chrystal ball in my other pants.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
I know where I got my conecept on about The Federal Reserve connection with IRS. I am asking you from your perspective and your reasearch to disprove me wrong about our “taxes” go directly to the public, when it is transfer first through a Central Bank? Any idea from your views of where I got the concept that effects your IRS codes and acts you tired to explain?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“so where did my concept came about”
I have no idea where you got that concept.
Don’t you know?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“The government does not need to tax income to keep society functioning, just like it didn’t before 1913″
That is because in 1913 they lowered duties on imports and offset that loss of revenue with an income tax.
And YES they do spend (way) too much on BS!
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Ok Tax Truth…..so where did my concept came about that our “tax” money directly goes to the Federal Reserve first(mind you this is a central bank for international use), and luckly some portion goes back to the U.S with interest…..hence major errors and unessecary waste? Please explain.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Bullshit is right. TaxTruth & ReTSquid are about legalistic socialism and not your self-evident creator endowed rights.
That’s why both of these sanction legal stealing and legal murder.
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law…powers are delegated to..government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“You do benefit, it’s a ‘functioning society’.”
Bullshit. The government does not need to tax income to keep society functioning, just like it didn’t before 1913. What it needs to do, whether it taxes the fuck out of its citizens or not, is to stop spending so goddamn much money. Because even if they took 100% of our income, they would still find a way to spend it all and then some. Waste, fraud, and abuse: the government is fraught with it.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves.
United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Taxpayers’ argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer’s laborsthe term income includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered. Taxpayers’ argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous.
Funk v. Commissioner
You do benefit, it’s a ‘functioning society’.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
To the extent that income taxes are said to be “voluntary,” however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, see, e.g.,
Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988); Newman v. Schiff
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
…If that $1000 in taxes is not apportion properly. This income tax is mainly on corporations, not on individual labor, work, or services to the workplace. Work=time=full pay. Whoever want to discuss about it more, email me via Youtube, so I can give you my email address and/or gamertag on Xbox360 about this situation and many other topics. Thanks guys.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Who is this IRS tell me I have to pay to something that is not only entirely benefiting me, but to some central bank in international territories that will never come back to the U.S. The filing of tax returns….If I do not request no extemptions, exceptions, and/or allowances from the IRS(like $1000 in taxes taken), and file for that amount, I will get at most $300 back to me, if I am lucky. Most people think they will get 100%. So, I should be entitled to getting 100% back from taxes, if…
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
In addition to Tax Truth, IRS never showed a contract for me to pay taxes to that agency. In order to get a service to benefit mutually among everyone, everyone must come to terms with the system, even the public on writing. Nothing from the IRS to the public is not really on writing, meaning this interaction is voluntary. I can also choose to work and how long I can work there. If you were forced to buy auto insurance without public’s consent, that also going against your rights as a consumer.