IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability...
Lawyer acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

"I believe that, in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un-American. Death and Taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes are not!"
-- Ronald Reagan, White House Address to the Nation.

   When one considers how hard we work in order to keep what little many of us have and to provide for our families' basic needs, its frustrating to see the IRS, whether federal or state agencies, continue to raise taxes for frivolous pork-barrel projects and further intrusion into our lives by unconstitutional federal agencies.
   So when a person is able to stand up to the thugs who enforce these laws and win, it gives hope, if only for a fleeting moment, that maybe we ALL have a chance to restore government to the people of the United States.
   I want to make it clear though off the bat, that I am NOT an across-the-board tax protester... I understand the economics of infrastructure and providing for common defense and emergency services, whether it be on a local, state or national level. And THAT I don't have a problem with. What I AM in protest of is the blatant and unconstitutional authority government assumes with respect to our private lives... an ironic twist considering it was this totalitarian control we rebelled against nearly 225 years ago.
   This was again brought to mind following a news story this morning concerning an "Accident Tax" being levied in many municipalities nationwide to recoup the cost of emergency services called to investigate and assist following an accident.
   The "tax" is assessed against individuals involved in accidents in order to recoup the cost of fire, police and ambulance personnel and the services rendered in response to these incidents. Then why in the hell am I aying Personal Property and Real Estate taxes to begin with? Am I expected to not only pay my share of emergency services personnel salaries, but pay for them to actually DO their job as well? I guess it just reinforces the adage, "Any tax is a good tax..."
   The tax is currently active in some form of local government in 26 states, while 9 states have now banned the taxation outright as illegal and unconstitutional. There may be hope for government yet. So back to the main focus...

   The Internal Revenue Service recently lost a lawyer's challenge in a jury trial to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.
   "I think people are beginning to realize this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples' property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer reflected just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.
   Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer explained the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued, income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.
   He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.
   If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"Income tax is the instrument of totalitarianism, it is the means by which the government can manipulate people and put you into a condition of servitude."
-- G. Edward Griffin

   "The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size," he explained. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority."
   For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.
   The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.
   "There are three points that are important," he commented. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."
   When asked about this comment, spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office said the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."
   He said throughout his battle [with the IRS], he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.
   "The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous or not?" he said. "Imagine me sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call and ask what the bill is for I simply say, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"
   His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."
  He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."
   He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.
   "The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a [billion] dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."
   "But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer explained. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."
   While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.
   "I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.
   He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.
   "Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.
   "The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.
   The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.

The White Paper Report
"...because not everything in life is black & white"

"...there has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayers' expense, when even Hillary (Clinton) had three; Jackie Kennedy, one; Laura Bush, one, and prior to Mamie Eisenhower, social help came from the President's own pocket."

Fact: According to the 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff, as of July 1, 2009, there are currently 16 staff members with a title specifically indicating they work for Michelle Obama. In other words, there are 16 people with "First Lady" specifically in their title such as Dana Lewis, Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady, with an annual salary of $60,000.
   The 29-page report lists not only Michelle Obama's staff but collateral employees assigned dual positions such as Camille Johnston who serves as both Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communication for the First Lady with an annual salary of $102,000. Additionally, the report lists six other staffers who do not have "First Lady" in their title but are a part of the Michele Obama's office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary ($113,000), and Natalie Bookey, Staff Assistant ($36,000).

Claim: "There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life."
Fact: Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, explained it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." However, she further explained that White House telephone directory records indicate Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000.

   With respect to Laura Bush, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, emphasized that Obama's staff is conparable to Bush's in size and resembles a very similar staffing model. We were able to verify that Laura Bush maintained a staff of some 24 assistants, though the actual number fluctuated in accordance to event requirements while 18 maintained a reference to the "First Lady" in their title. Additionally, the combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama comes to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.
   What is most disturbing about the facts surrounding the "Office" of First Lady is that while she is assigned NO specific duties or job function, she employes more personnel than most corporate CEO's and in true Washington bureaucratic redundancy, maintains "special assistants to the executive Assisant to the Director of..." And none of this takes into account her hair stylist and clothing designer.
   Case in point, Camille Johnston, Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady, $102,000; Catherine Lelyveld, Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady, $84,000; Tyler Lechtenberg, Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady, $45,000; Deilia Jackson, Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady, $36,000. But equally disturbing, there are some 30 unspecified "Staff" and "Executive" assistants assigned to the White House and First Lady.
   We can conclude nothing from this report except that the Obama White House, in their pledge to decrease the rate of unemployment in America, has taken the lead by increasing administration staff in positions that provide no tangible benefit to the gross national product but rather contribute to the increase in national debt... however minor in substance.

Credits for this Report:
FactCheck.org
Canada Free Press
White House/Office of the Press Secretary
Congressional Record
The Last Crusade