Larken Rose Comments On Tom Cryer

From : 861-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent : Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:11 PM
To : dkenline@hotmail.com
Subject : Comments on Cryer

Dear Subscriber,

I just finished reading the trial transcripts of the case of Tommy
Cryer, the Louisiana lawyer recently ACQUITTED of "willful failure
to file." I only have a few comments about it:

1) First, the judge at his trial was both extremely obnoxious and
an idiot. (Well, maybe he was intentionally lying instead, but I'll
give him the benefit of the doubt that he was merely an idiot.)
Aside from being excessively rude and condescending towards Larry
Becraft, Mr. Cryer's attorney, as Mr. Cryer was testifying about
his beliefs, the judge kept completely mischaracterizing them as
beliefs that the tax laws are invalid or unconstitutional, which
anyone paying attention could see that Mr. Cryer was NOT at all
saying.

2) The prosecutor, though at first he came across (just from the
transcripts) as less of a @#$@$% than the ones in my case, either
tried to confuse the jury about the difference between
"disagreeing" with the law and believing you don't owe--or he
actually didn't understand the difference himself. Under the
concept of "willfulness," if you believe that the law doesn't tax
your income, you CAN'T be guilty of "willfulness," even if you're
dead wrong (i.e., even if your conclusions conflict with, or
"disagree" with the law itself). However, if you believe you DO owe
the tax, but you think the law is unconstitutional, unfair, etc.--
in other words, if you "disagree" with the tax ON PRINCIPLE--then
that is NOT a defense to "willfulness." Mr. Cryer was obviously
doing the former, but the prosecutor kept trying to paint that as a
"disagreement" with the law, which is NOT what the Supreme Court
meant by that when they said it in the Cheek decision.

3) When I finished reading the government's case (having not yet
read the defense case), I was completely stunned. Their entire case
consisted of proving that Mr. Cryer had made money, and hadn't
filed--which weren't even in question. The only thing that was even
remotely relevant to the essential element of "willfulness" was one
CID goon saying that Mr. Cryer's arguments were "frivolous"--which
is a little odd, because Mr. Cryer hadn't ARGUED anything at that
point. The fact that the government can be so horribly sloppy,
resorting only to envy and demonization, instead of even bothering
to try to prove that a crime was actually committed, not only
reflects badly on the "government" drones, but also on the American
people. Have we become so stupid that, in order to get a jury to
convict, all you have to do is say, "He's a meanie poopoohead, who
didn't do what he was told!"? Unfortunately, yes: most of "us" are
that stupid, as demonstrated by my trial, Dr. Tom's trial, and
Tessa's trial (among others). Thankfully, by some stroke of luck,
someone with a brain must have ended up on Mr. Cryer's jury, and
ended that particular witch-hunt.

4) To me, the funniest moment was when Mr. Cryer's secretary,
testifying as a witness for the government, blurted out something
like, "After Mr. Cryer learned that we are not liable for this
tax..." Of course, the government objected. But then the prosecutor
used the secretary's decision to continue to file herself as if it
proved that she didn't believe Mr. Cryer's conclusions, after
having STOPPED the defense from pointing out that maybe she kept
filing because she didn't want to be terrorized and prosecuted by
the feds. But what kind of goofy logic would that be anyway??:
"You, as a very accomplished, experienced, well-respected lawyer,
CAN'T have thought your conclusions were correct, because your
SECRETARY didn't agree with them (allegedly)." Huh? Anyway, the
government's non-existent case failed to dupe the jury, and that's
all that matters.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. Though the 861 evidence came up briefly at trial, as one of
the things which convinced Mr. Cryer that he didn't owe the tax,
there were other issues as well, some of which I disagree with.
Unlike the federal fascists, however, I don't want people put in
cages because they disagree with me. I am thrilled that Mr. Cryer
remains a free man... or rather, as "free" as one can be in this
country at present.)