Image via Wikipedia

Here is an email that tells you something about the character of attorney Tommy Cryer. It is from him to another of my law buddies, Bob Hurt:

From: Tom Cryer Date: Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM

Subject: Re: Not Good Notes on Dr. Sam Kennedy

To: Bob Hurt

Hi, Bob.

Just a couple of comments on your note that may help place things in perspective.

Almost every person who dies, and we all will, does so under the care of a physician. Almost every person who goes to prison was under the care of an attorney.

Not everyone who is treated by a physician dies from the ailment, but anyone who elects to have someone other than a physician perform surgery on him is far more likely to die from the treatment than from the ailment. Same for attorneys.

You have covered almost all of the possible reasons for both viable patients dying and innocent defendants being convicted in your note. Almost. The most important aspect of these cases is collusion between the judicial and executive branches as you pointed out, but nearly as important are two others:

1. The fact that juries are totally in the dark about the genuine nature of the issues “tax protesters” have with regard to the income tax law; and

2. The fact that the government gets to pick the cases.

If jurors were aware that there is a genuine and well founded claim that the IRS is lying about the scope of the income tax, not only with regard to who owes it, but what is and is not income and what is and is not taxable by the federal government, they would not have any difficulty in accepting a defendant’s claim that he does not believe he is legally obligated to file or pay income taxes–that he did not “knowingly” or “wilfully” fail to file or pay.

And if we could choose which cases the government prosecuted, then we would only choose the cases with the cleanest hands and skirts and the most articulate and knowledgeable of defendants. Since the government chooses, however, they prefer cases where they can at least claim the defendant’s hands and skirts are dirty. These cases are almost impossible to win given the fact that the jury is likely to reject the defendant’s testimony out of hand.

We can accomplish both through intense public information efforts such as those Truth Attack has on the drawing board waiting for funding and people to carry them out. We don’t have to make people experts in taxation, just make them aware there is a genuine issue and that the government is not leveling with them.

If the general public knew that the objections are credible, believable, juries would refuse to convict any defendant who raised those objections, correcting problem number 1.

If the general public knew that the objections are credible, believable, GRAND juries would refuse to indict any defendant who raised those objections, correcting problem number 2, at least in part.

WE THE PEOPLE, as grand jurors, decide which cases to prosecute and, as jurors, decide which defendants to convict. WE THE PEOPLE need a lesson in civics and an introduction to the law as it is written, not as it is described by the government.

All an attorney can do is demand and argue for a fair trial and try to paint his client’s picture of the facts. He does not make the facts. He does not make the law. And he cannot take the jury home with him to educate them on either. Just as in the case of the physician, he has to treat his patient as he finds him and with what he has to treat him with.

As an attorney who has fought to preserve every client’s right to fair treatment I know that I am not unique. The bar consists of a lot of good men and women who take their role in the system seriously and who try to save every patient or, where the situation is terminal, minimize the suffering. It is a mere 99% that give all the rest of us such a bad name.

Attorneys, however, are bound and committed to making the system work in spite of its faults, but through the process itself, not by breaching the process they are trying to preserve. The government, both executive and judicial, does that enough already.

I remember watching a football game where the wife of one of the guys watching took a momentary interest in what was causing such a commotion. After watching a couple of plays she said the defensive squad deserved to lose the game. Asked why, she responded that “Well, look at them, just standing there right next to the ball. The other team is ganged up talking with their backs turned. If they had any sense at all they could grab the ball and be at the goal before the other team knew they had it.”

It helps to know the rules before you judge the players.

It would also help if those wanting to win supported those players rather than heckling them.

Best as always and hoping to see you at the Council in Houston,

Tom

Related articles by Zemanta

• Attorney general says investigating jurors ‘not acceptable’ (windsorstar.com)
• Furor grows over secret background checks on potential jurors (cbc.ca)

• What Are Your Thoughts on “Dr.” Sam Kennedy?
• Is It Possible to Make the IRS Afraid of You? Part 2
• What Are Your Thought on Dr. Sam Kennedy? Part 3
• Know of Any IRS Agents Involved in Willful Oppression?
• Can the IRS Just Do Whatever It Wants??
• Does Proverbs 11:8 Explain How We Bring Oppressors (IRS) & Suffering (Disease) Upon Ourselves?
• What Did This Willful Failure to File Defendant Do Right?
• What’s Wrong With Calling the Creator God?? Part 2
• As A Taxpayer, Did You Know You Are Treated As An Entity?
• A Brief Timeline of Taxation of the USA, Section Three