the Haroki chicken hawk is a crafty bird, when cornered with a truth it is the nature for the chicken haroki to go into manic copy and paste mode:
Criminal income tax cases are subject to a special rule: the government has the burden of proving, not only that the defendant didn't pay his taxes, but that the defendant knew he had to pay his taxes. This is very unusual. Usually, in the criminal law, if you do the thing that constitutes the crime, and you know what you're doing, whether you know that your conduct is illegal is irrelevant. But in tax cases specifically, the government has to prove that you knew you were breaking the law. So if you really believe all this tax protestor nonsense about there being no law requiring people to pay income tax, it's not a crime for you to fail to pay. But, I hasten to add for anyone getting any ideas here, you still owe the money. Crazy beliefs may keep you out of jail, but they don't change the fact that you owe your taxes, plus the interest, plus the penalties -- which can add a whole lot to your tax bill. It's cheaper to pay what you owe. The government, one can be confident, will be coming down on Mr. Cryer for a pile of cash. In any event, his acquittal, of course, doesn't show that there's no law requiring people to pay taxes. It just means he convinced the jury that he really believes he doesn't have to pay -- or really, only that the government failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knows he does have to pay. Every few years a protestor gets off on this ground, and justice goes on
Actually, there was a jury instruction on the "law". The instruction said that the law requires that if you made over $ (insert correct figure here) during 2000/2001 you were required to file an income tax return. That was the jury instruction - that's the law. Cryer also said (under oath) that he believed the tax laws were constitutional - it was his belief that they didn't apply to him. Look at the court transcript - it'll be in black and white - you judge for yourself. The entire case centered on the willfulness as previously discussed. Twist it to suit your own needs. The transcript will speak for itself.
sorry... but i got a little nostalgic for the good ole days.... yes.. the original pancake days: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n-KPGh3wysw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n-KPGh3wysw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> Mem'ries, Light the corners of my mind Misty pancake-colored memories Of the way we were Scattered pancakes, Of the squibs we left behind Squibs we gave to one another For the way we were Can it be that it was all so simple then? Or has time re-written every line? If we had the chance to do it all again Tell me, would we? Could we? Mem'ries, may be beautiful and yet What's too painful to admit We simply choose to deny So it's the laughter We will remember Whenever we remember... The way we were... The way we were...
Tommy Cryer's a pussy. I was having this debate with the snapper head and he deleted the last 2 posts. Now I can't post on his video page comments at all. Now aren't all you CTerz outraged at the infringement of my free speech? Oh, the horror of it all.... LMAO !!! Here's a copy of the conversation: arok375 (2 days ago) Show Hide 0 (Reply) (Spam) Tommy's lawyer payes his taxes. What does that tell you? LIEFREEZONE (2 days ago) Show Hide (Reply) (Spam) What that tells you is that some of us fight one way and others fight another. I chose to fight my way and he fights his way, but we are both on the same side of this issue. You can fight without fear of retaliation by going to truthattack (dot) org and enlisting. harok375 (1 day ago) Show Hide 0 (Reply) (Spam) Tommy- the problem with your whole argument is that Congress writes the laws, right? If you were to get a ruling that some word or some phrase isn't well defined enough or doesn't apply to us, the 1st thing Congress would do is pass a new law defining it better. Correct me if you feel I'm wrong. LIEFREEZONE (1 day ago) Show Hide (Reply) (Spam) The problem isn't that the law is unartfully worded, which can be corrected. The problem is that the law is artfully worded to appear to go where it cannot. The law is written to deceive, trick, us into believing it applies to all of us when it does not because it cannot. Get the Memo and its inventory of the taxing authority, then go to truth attack dot org and do something (safe) about it. harok375 (1 day ago) Show Hide 0 (Reply) (Spam) Can't Congress just give itself the authority? They write the laws. They have the power to levy taxes. If the Constitution is written in a way to restrict what "income source" they can tax, can't that be fixed as they see fit? What memo? LIEFREEZONE (23 hours ago) Show Hide (Reply) (Spam) Sometimes it seems like Congress can write its own ticket, but its authority can only come from the Constitution. Congress cannot change the Constitution, only we can do that. The Memo is a brief I wrote that you can have for free: Go to Truthattack dot org and click "Downloads". It explains everything. harok375 (20 hours ago) Show Hide 0 (Reply) (Spam) LOL-that's a "memo" that only a lawyer could love. All those arguments have been put down by the courts before though. The only possible explanation for your acquittal is that you convinced the jury that your failure to file wasn't willful. You even stated - under oath - that the tax laws were Constitutional. But they didn't apply to you. How does that merge with your prior post? LIEFREEZONE (15 hours ago) Show Hide (Reply) (Spam) None of those arguments can be refuted, either by the courts or by the IRS. The tax doesn't apply to me or any of the other hardworking Americans you and your colleagues are bludgeoning and robbing. The law is not unconstitutional because it doesn't apply. The way you guys apply it, law or no law, is what is unconstitutional. harok375 (8 seconds ago) Show Hide 0 (Reply) (Spam) You guys? LOL... Believe me, if I didn't have to pay taxes, I wouldn't. Nobody would. But if you're right about your arguments can't be refuted, then I'm sure you feel that you will win in the civil case, right? Also, no other tax protestor has ever won a civil case, using the same arguments that you did in your motions to dismiss. And they had some pretty good lawyers, actually, a few had the same lawyer as you. harok375 (5 seconds ago) Show Hide 0 (Reply) (Spam) I read the trial transcripts also, thx for the doc. Why would the main thrust of your defense focus on the "willfulness" issue, rather than focusing on the Constitutionality of the tax laws? Actually, you can when you go to your civil case, all you need to do is pay first, then challenge it. I'll be looking forward to see that in court and await the outcome. Screenshot below...
outta curiosity, but are you that happy to pay income tax? and since of all the money it raises none is spent to benefit the collective social but only to repay the interests the govt is charged on the lending by private bankers, do you view it as fair and necessary? it's not necessary and infact it's the definition of usury, only that is on a massive scale. how can you disagree? all the effort you spend siding wth the fed tells us you either have an interest in seeing the income tax staying [how's that, i can't figure] or can't understand money creation and supply,,,sorry haroki, no two ways about it.
Bit: >outta curiosity, but are you that happy to pay >income tax? and since of all the money it raises >none is spent to benefit the collective social but >only to repay the interests the govt is charged >on the lending by private bankers, do you view >it as fair and necessary? Your above definition of taxes as "unnecessary" is the exact equivalent of saying "when I work, my pay only goes to cover the interest on my car/house/boat/motorcycle/plane payment -- therefore there is no benefit to me and no point in working". Sheeeesh. Your 'logic' (and you force me to use that word loosely) can't even be called "twisted". >all the effort you spend siding with the fed tells >us you either have an interest in seeing the >income tax staying ... Shhhh...Haroki. *Shhhhh*. Don't blow this for us in an unguarded moment of response. You may be in great shape, but I really need this money (to make those above payments). JB
Turok had a good response, I'll add just a little. Your statement about how you think I know nothing about money creation and supply is unnecessary and inflammatory. You can be a nice guy when you want. Knock it off. I want taxes to be lowered. But IMO, loonies that claim there is NO income tax take away from the serious people that would be able to make real arguments. If I would have been able to continue posting, my posts would have taken the tone that he was wasting his lawyering talent with cases like this. I would have encouraged him instead to fight taxes ina way that he's able to win. What that is, I don't know, but he's just pissing into the wind here. If they want to make their arguments in court about whether or not the Fed is legal would be a better avenue, for example. Your whole argument about the Fed...... has SOME merit to it. But there is another side of the coin that I won't get into, other than to say that there are advantages to having a fiat currency. However, I believe that the whole "all our taxes are to pay the Fed" to be waaaay off base. Most of our country's debt is held in bonds, something that you or I can buy if we wish. The Fed owns some also, but that's ok, it's business. Also, I believe that close to 50% of our debt is foreign held - in bonds again. The bigger issue, to me. will never be about how much the govt has to borrow, but how much it spends. This is much more important than any Fed issue. Cuz if we had a balanced budget.........