Monday, July 16, 2007

Truth Attack Hits Illinois State Senator Chris Lauzen

We received this email this morning from Mike Fogelsanger who hails from Sycamore Illinois:

Details of Tom Cryer's trial, and the loss of the I.R.S. on a Income Tax case!

Date: July 15, 2007 8:35 pm (10 hours ago)
From Mike Fogelsanger (
To: Illinois State Senator Chris Lauzen & Contacts list
Subject: Details of Tom Cryer's trial, and the loss of the I.R.S. on a Income Tax case!


I know you are busy trying to get a buget done for the State, and I understand it is hard work. But I thought you may find the below information interesting, so I have provided it for your review. We have talked about the Income Tax issue for years, and yet here is another case were if the jury can see the evidence they tend to find the defendant not guilty! Since you have seen Arron Russo's movie America;Freedom To Fascism you already know much of this information. But we have several cases now to look at, Tom Cryer, Joe Banister (former I.R.S. agent), Vernice Kuglin, and here in Illinois Gaylon Harrel all found NOT GUILTY on Income Tax cases. So there must be some doubt about the Tax code and who it applies to.

I hope you will start asking the questions that need to be asked, because when we ask them they are simply ignored. We need to know can you SHOW ME THE LAW that makes us liable for the Federal Income Tax? If not, the Illinois State bubget will have more problems. Because the Illinois State Income Tax clearly requires that you must be liable for Federal Income Tax in order to be liable for the State Income Tax. So if there is no clear liability then there is no obligation to pay either Tax!

Senator Lauzen I believe the Illinois Department of Revenue, and the I.R.S. are using Deception, Fraud, and Intimidation to collect taxes from citizens who do not owe them. In a free Country that should make you very uncomfortable.

Written by djahn
Friday, 13 July 2007



July 13, 2007

We the jury find the Defendant, Tommy K. Cryer.........

By Gary Thomason This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Dear Fellow Truth Troopers,

Early reports have been spreading, circulating around the tax honesty community that Shreveport, Louisiana lawyer, Tommy K. Cryer has been found NOT GUILTY of 'willful failure to file' charges by a 12-0 jury verdict in the Federal District Court for Western Louisiana, in Shreveport, LA. My friend it's TRUE and what follows is a summary of the trial leading up to the emotionally inspiring verdict including exclusive quotes courtesy of Mr. Tommy Cryer.

First, I want to thank each and everyone of you who attended the trial for your unwavering support and peaceful, respectful

nature during every phase of this historical trial where Mr. Cryer, the truth AND the rule of law prevailed today, July 11, 2007 in the United States of America. Truth Attack had approximately 25 Truth Troopers (some from as far away as 1,200 miles!) attending the three-day proceedings topping the historical event off with a "victory for the rule of law" celebration after the unanimous not guilty verdict was read in open court.

Today, July 11, 2007 Mr. Tommy K. Cryer, a lawyer from Shreveport, Louisiana was found not guilty by a 12-0 verdict on two separate counts of violating Title 26 Section 7203, willful failure to file federal income tax returns for the "tax-years" 2000 and 2001 respectively, which carried a two-year prison sentence had the government prevailed.

The trial began July 9. 2007 at 8:30 AM at the United States District Court for Western Louisiana located at 300 Fannin Street in Shreveport, Louisiana. Judge Maurice Hicks presided over the trial, Earl Campbell represented the Internal Revenue Service by and through the U.S. Department of Justice and Mr. Larry Becraft represented Mr. Tommy K. Cryer as lead defense counsel, with Mr. George Harp assisting.

Day One: July 9, 2007
The first order of business was a government Motion To Dismiss two of the total four counts of the government's indictment. Originally, the indictment was brought with two counts of "tax evasion" and two counts of "willful failure to file" a federal income tax return. Mr. Cryer was facing 5 + 5 years in federal prison and with the government dropping its two counts of fede ral income tax evasion, Mr. Cryer's exposure to jail time had been reduced to two years.

After the government's Motion to Dismiss was granted, jury selection took place and the panel of 12 jurors and two alternates were seated and were listening to opening arguments of the parties by 4:00 PM. After opening arguments the Court recessed until 9:00AM Tuesday.

Day Two: July 10, 2007
Day Two started with the government presenting its case in the morning session and Tom taking the stand and offering his direct testimony until the close of yesterday's proceedings...

The government first brought an IRS supervisor to the stand... her testimony established the paperwork flow and indicated that Tommy filed "employer" documentation for his "employee" but did not file his individual returns.

Next was Tommy's secretary... she did not show up as a hostile witness towards the prosecution... but in the same breath, she did not give the government any help when she testified that she fills out all of her own IRS from r equired of the employer, and even writes and signs most of the checks!

The DOJ tried to get in a point in that area... and she said that Tommy gave her the option to file or not-- then he abruptly stopped her... then on another question... she added that it was her choice to file even after she found out that there was no law making he liable-- where of course, he cut her off again.

The CPA took the stand and testified to profit and loss statements related to Tommy's practice of law... he simply established the numbers but never stated with authority to the lawful and legal definition of income... Larry was able to establish that the CPA had only a very insignificant understanding of the IRC.

The government's final witness was an IRS "special agent" in the Criminal Investigation Division who testified to the 'audits' of Tom's business and on Larry's cross-exam made it clear that the 'Code" is enormous and he only knew small bits and pieces of some of it... The IRS used Section 61 of the IRC to prop up its claim of liability to file and pay income taxes... but failed to clarify the first three words of Section 61... which state, "Unless otherwise provided..."

After lunch Tom took the stand... There were some fireworks during Tom's testimony and the judge was clearly aggravated with the rule of law being presented in 'his' courtroom... and several times stopped Tom's testimony. One of those times the judge brought up the "Cheek" ruling where Larry and the judge went around and around on Tom's right to present his beliefs to the jury. The judge overruled and objection of the prosecutor on another occasion but also warned Larry about the "very narrow" path he's taking the case and will not allow Tom to argue that the IRS is unconstitutional... which of course Tom never intended to do and has not done in the least.

Day Two ended with the judge calling counsel into the judge's chamber and unload ing... venting his frustration mainly aimed at Larry and Tom taking over the courtroom and plowing ahead with getting the Internal Revenue Code... the Code of Federal Regulations the Constitution and a plethora of Supreme Court cases in front of the jury. At the close of the preceding day’s hearing... the judge ordered Larry to turn over Tom's notes and research to the DOJ as the court believed that

Tom's notebook filled with law and supporting Supreme Court cases was "discovery" and therefore the DOJ was entitled to it, which is a crucial turning point that must be noted. Larry agreed with the court and the defense team looked forward to seeing more of it in the record and presented to the jury during cross-examination of Tom's beliefs.

The U.S. Department of Justice walked out of "Day Two" with years of Tommy Cryer's research that was condensed into a very well organized presentation, which proved that not only did Mr. Cryer believe what he had researc hed, but also proof that there is no law making him liable for any federal income tax on his right to earn a living.

Day three promises to be very interesting! The parties will meet prior to the start to discuss jury instructions before the jury is brought in and seated. The DOJ opens day three with cross-examination and Larry's re-direct may well occur before noon and closing arguments will surely take place before the close of today's proceedings...

Day Three: July 11
Tommy Cryer was seated at the witness stand and the U.S. Attorney opened his cross examination of Mr. Cryer with a series of questions establishing the fact pattern aimed at 'proving' that Mr. Cryer had 'income' and earned 'income' in the course of practicing law. Mr. Cryer had no effort to deny that he earned fees in exchange for his labor.

The line of questioning turned to finer points of the Internal Revenue Code related to Sections addressing the 'tax imposed' one 'in come' from whatever source derived. Listening very carefully Mr. Cryer addressed the spin on commonly used terms and pointed out that certain terms in the law had application of strict construction as ruled consistently by the U.S. Supreme Court. An argument of sorts ensued between the U.S. Attorney and Mr. Cryer on these finer points and ultimately the judge stopped the exchange and commented that the court reporter was having difficulty making the record.

Stepping back, the U. S. Attorney turned to Mr. Cryer and engaged a line of questions that addressed two U.S. Court of Appeals cases and asked Mr. Cryer if he had any occasion to read the rulings in those cases. Mr. Cryer explained to the jury that one of the cases the U.S. Attorney quoted was in the form of a footnote, and the other had nothing to do with a 'willful failure to file' action to which was the matter before this court.

T he U.S. Attorney read into the record the 'footnote' of the first case he had asked Mr. Cryer about, and Mr. Cryer leaned forward and noted for the record and the jury that the full statement the Court of Appeals issued in its footnote clearly stated that neither party briefed the issue on appeal and it had no bearing on the opinion of the Court.

It should be noted that (with Mr. Cryer's trial notes in hand) at this point the U.S. Government (the IRS and the DOJ) did not make any effort to contest any of the content of Mr. Cryer's testimonial notebook, which was organized in such a fashion that anyone with experience in legal research could follow the line of reasoning that Mr. Cryer had used in order to arrive at his heartfelt beliefs.

The U.S. Attorney held up Mr. Cryer's 108-page Memorandum and cited one phrase coined from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that pointed out... that the incom e tax (Internal Revenue Code) is unconstitutional--expecting a "yes" or "no" answer.

Mr. Cryer kindly directed the U.S. Attorney back to the Memorandum and stated that HE didn't say that the Internal Revenue Code was unconstitutional... but that the U.S. Supreme Court had held that AS APPLIED the income tax WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

"No further questions your Honor."

Mr. Becraft approached Mr. Cryer and addressed each of the government's efforts to derail Mr. Cryer's beliefs. One after one, the defense closed each open gate espousing the government's contentions and ended the re-direct with Mr. Cryer confidently stating that he swore an oath to defend the rule of law and he had no other option when it came to his beliefs, which are today as they were yesterday and as they will be tomorrow, "There is NO LAW making me liable for the federal income tax."

Counsel delivered closing arguments with the government addressing the jury first and reserving time for rebuttal. The U.S. Attorney stressed his argument that there is a law and the law made Mr. Cryer Liable for the federal income tax system. Asking the jury to rule our willfulness and in due turn, convict Mr. Cryer of breaking the law and seeing to it that Mr. Cryer is found guilty of failing to do his duty of filing federal income taxes.

Mr. Becraft started his closing arguments by informing the jury that "today in this court room…" there are, in a sense, four branches of the United States Government. Mr. Becraft pointed to the federal law books and said that those books were written and the laws forged by the legislative branch of our government, Congress.

He continued by giving generous praise to the U.S. Attorney for doing a fine job representing the Executive branch of the federal governm ent in the courtroom. Mr. Becraft gestured to the judge and remarked that the judicial branch of the government presided over this proceeding making certain that justice and the rule of law remained intact according to our Constitution.

Then, Mr. Becraft turned to the jury and said the fourth branch is the jury… the American people that our founding fathers believed to be the ultimate deciding factor as to whether justice is done.

Mr. Becraft’s eloquent summation of the jury’s duty to weigh the facts in this case were so very vital to this ensuring that our system of justice moved forward intact and secure. Mr. Becraft reviewed the flow of testimony reminding the jury that nowhere during this trial did Mr. Cryer deny or object the government as to advancing its intention to show that he had earnings.

He went on to say that the issue in this case is Mr. Cryer’s beliefs and the fact pattern that Mr. Cryer used as he presented his beliefs were so convincingly delivered that even if they did not fully understand the legal interpretations testified to, Mr. Cryer undoubtedly believed those conclusions.

The Judge Hicks recessed for a break and upon return read the jury instructions and the jury retired to the jury room. After a little more than two hours of deliberation the judge called the parties into the courtroom. There was a question as to jury instruction 17, which centered on reasonable doubt and to willfulness. The court reviewed the various jury instructions referencing those terms and after about 30 minutes of discussions and the approval of the parties, the court delivered a clarification to the jury.

By this time it was 4:30PM and the judge asked the jury if they wanted to recess for the day or continue? The reply was they wished to stay a little longer to deliberate. The judge informed the parties and the courtroom was cleared. Together, Mr. Cryer’s legal team and supporters returned to the first floor waiting area of the courthouse.

At 4:33PM the U.S. Marshal summonsed Mr. Becraft and company and announced that the jury had reached a verdict. Approximately at 4:35PM the jury returned to the courtroom and the customary tradition of the passing of the verdict to the judge for entry into the record and reading of it in open court took place.

Unanimously, NOT GUILTY.

Please stay tuned to for exclusive audio, video and written interviews with Mr. Cryer and his legal defense team. For questions please contact This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Mark your calendar! ! ! Larry Becraft has a radio show on Republic Broadcasting on Saturday mornings from 9 to 10 AM, (central time). Tommy Cryer's radio show is the same day, but at 2 to 4 PM, (central time).

Please make note! Tommy will be appearing on Larry’s show THIS Saturday, July 14, 2007 and Larry will join Tommy at 2 to 4PM taking your questions and discussing the historical win in Shreveport…so tune in if you want to find out more.

Find it here -->

Gary Thomason

PS… Please share this message with your friends and encourage them to get involved ! ! !

Slay the BEAST with a MOUSE -

Editor's Note: Illinois State Senator Chris Lauzen can be reached at the following address:

P.O. Box 7036 Aurora, Illinois 60507
p: (630) 264-2419 f: (630) 264-1566

PS. I personally spoke with Senator Chris Lauzen after he saw Aaron Russo's movie, America: Freedom To Fascism (AFTF) in St. Charles Illinois on March 18, 2006. Mike Fogelsanger - who has been in contact with Senator Lauzen on this issue for many years - shamed Senator Lauzen to go to St. Charles that day and we have eye witnesses who indeed saw him there in the audience. After the March 18th screening of AFTF I sent out an email in response to a confrontational email that Mike had sent to Senator Lauzen in which could have been construed as questioning his integrity. Senator Lauzen was infuriated with my email and personally called me and screamed at me over the phone. After Chris' emotions calmed down I was able to talk to him about the need to get to the bottom of this issue for if we don't our entire country is at risk because you cannot build anything on a foundation rooted in fraud and corruption. Chris said he is willing to remain open about this issue. He said he looked into the ratification of the 16th ammendment to the Constitution and felt that it was done properly and that was about all he seemed to be interested in from a research and follow-up standpoint. He's a passionate guy who has got the ear and respect of his constituents, but on this issue he continues to do a masterful job of dodging, weaving and ducking.


Blogger here2daygonetomorrow said...

Why do people keep questioning the ratification of the 16th amendment to the Constitution? I've even heard Ron Paul speak about it. I thought the issue of the 16th amendment had been put to bed, and rightly so, long ago. It has no bearing on the requirement of the average citizen of the United States being taxed on their labor.

11:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home