User talk:Benalcazar

Tom Cryer
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

In the above-referenced article, the following language you inserted was the most problematic:


 * Throughout the trial, the Internal Revenue Service was not able to provide jurors with a "chapter and verse" citation in federal law or the U.S. Constitution requiring citizens to pay federal income taxes (even with Cryer's offer to pay all amounts under dispute upon the presentation of such evidence).

That verbiage is false, and is part of a false story that was spread around the internet right after the acquittal in the case. The verbiage leads to the false impression that the government tried to prove to the jury that the income tax law exists, or is valid, etc., etc. As already noted (in the article or the talk page or both), neither side in a court case is allowed to provide the jury -- with "chapter and verse" laws -- that there is (or is not) a law requiring citizens to pay federal income taxes. The jury simply does not make that kind of determination in a court case.

The verbiage is false for another reason, too. The Internal Revenue Service itself did not prosecute the Cryer case, and indeed the IRS does not prosecute criminal tax cases at all. The IRS only performs the investigation (and provides some IRS employees as witnesses at the trial). Criminal tax cases are prosecuted only by attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice (either the local U.S. Attorney's office or Tax Division in Washington).

As already noted and documented from the actual court record, Cryer specifically tried to argue to the judge about whether there was a valid law imposing the tax, etc. The judge ruled against Cryer. That is documented in the record (and I think in the article as well).

Indeed, as odd it may sound to a non-lawyer, had Cryer won the argument that "there is no law," the jury would never have had the chance to render a verdict. The whole purpose of filing a brief with the court arguing that there is no tax law is to prevent the jury from having the chance to give a verdict.

Instead, the judge ruled Cryer's argument to be invalid.

The case then went to the jury, and the jury found Cryer "not guilty" in the form of something called a verdict. That's a verdict, not a judgment. The judgment of acquittal was then rendered by the judge.

For years, tax protesters have spread the phony story that the jury itself decides what the law is, or that a defendant in a criminal tax case is allowed to prove to the jury itself that there is no law. Under the U.S. legal system, those kinds of arguments cannot be decided by the bailiff, or by the court reporter, or by the court clerk, or by the attorneys, or by the members of the jury.

Those kinds of arguments are decided only by the judge.

In the Cryer case, the jury may or may not have engaged in what is sometimes called jury nullification. That is a separate legal concept. There is no way to know whether that happened (unless you interview the members of the jury, essentially).

Summary: Under the U.S. legal system, a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal tax case does not constitute a ruling that there is no law requiring an income tax. Similarly, a "not guilty" verdict in a murder case does not constitute a ruling that there is no law prohibiting murder. A verdict and a ruling are two different things. Rulings are made only by the judge.

I have studied tax protesters for years. No Federal court has ever ruled in favor of one of Cryer's tax protester arguments. Not even once. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)