Skip to main content
Freedom Club USA (International)
My Account
New Member Welcome
Club News

The Year of Reckoning!

|---------- Getting Started ----------|

|--------------- Calls ---------------|

|--------------- News ---------------|

|--------------- Misc ---------------|

Select One Inactive Inactive Benevolence Member - Ambassador
Select One Victory Celebration Email Booster FAQ Mission Ambassador Bonus Awards Awaken

You cannot get what you’ve never had unless you’re willing to do what you’ve never done.


When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always.
- Mahatma Gandhi


The Lion asked the Wizard one time, "When does a slave become a king?"

"When You start acting like one! "

Otherwise You remain a slave all Your life.

 Attorney Challenges Tax Law 
Attorney Challenges Tax Law
March 3, 2007


Finally: Judiciary vs. Judiciary

If all attorneys are officers of the courts that make up the judicial branch of the government, then the government now has one of its best and brightest members challenging the legality of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system on constitutional and statutory grounds.  

Meet Thomas K. Cryer, Attorney at Law.  

On February 20, 2007, the news about Thomas K. Cryer broke on the Internet with the publication of an article titled, "Attorney Challenges Income Tax Law, Constitutional History in the Making." 

As part of WTP's due diligence we studied the documents on file in the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana in USA v Cryer, CASE #: 5:06-cr-50164-SMH-MLH-ALL, and in Cryer v USA, CASE #: 5:02-mc-00019-DEW. In addition, we interviewed Cryer by telephone and we reviewed Cryer's biographic summary and the information on his website at 

Cryer, like IRS Special Agent Joe Banister before him, undertook a two-year study of the income tax system at his own expense. Like Banister, Cryer concluded that consistent with the tax clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America, there is no law that requires individuals to file tax returns and pay a direct un-apportioned tax on their labor, and no law that requires employers to withhold such a tax from the paychecks of their employees. 



Cryer's strategy is to have the indictment dismissed on the merits of his constitutional and statutory arguments. He has filed an approximately 100-page motion that can be described in one word - "brilliant."    

WTP has invited Thomas Cryer to be a featured speaker at GML 2007. Cryer has accepted. He will be attending the conference with his wife Bettye.

Click here to read Cryer's Motion to Dismiss

We are still asking for $159 donations so we can help others
fill our reserved allotment of GML2007 conference hotel rooms...
Each donation receives a FREE
3-day LIVE webcast
& CD/DVD copy of the entire conference.
Click here for details....

Click Below to Read and Sign our NEW Petitions
For Redress of Grievances:

Illegal Immigration and the impending North American Union

Click Here
for instructions for making a GML 2007 donation
                     and obtaining your PPV webcast password

Cryer stopped filing tax returns, stopped withholding the tax from his employees and has now been indicted for tax evasion.  

Conference agenda



The Conference
on the State
of the Constitution 

Click here to register
for the GML 2007 conference
using our secure registration system

Click Here to reserve a hotel room
at the GML 2007 discount
conference rate

To lower your travel expense,
shared room reservations can
also be made at the Hilton.

Attorney Challenges Income Tax

Attorney Challenges Income Tax Law
Constitutional History in the Making

 Longtime Shreveport , Louisiana , attorney, Tommy K. Cryer, is no stranger to conflict and controversy.  The Hall of Fame attorney, an honor graduate of LSU Law School and member of the prestigious Order of the Coif, has a reputation for taking on issues no one else would and, on a number of occasions, he has made new inroads in the legal world.  But now he has thrown down the gauntlet in front of the mother of all 800 pound gorillas, the Internal Revenue Service, and the mama gorilla has picked it up.  The only thing certain now is that someone is going to be hurt.

The story began over a decade ago when a friend told Cryer that the income tax was a sham.  Cryer did not believe a word of it and thought his friend had gone off the deep end.  Learning that his friend had decided to stop filing tax returns, Cryer determined to research the matter, show his friend where he was wrong, and keep him from getting in trouble with the IRS.  That is how a two-year research project began, but it did not turn out the way Cryer expected.  Sporting a wry grin, Cryer said "That just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished."

His research not only included the tax laws themselves, but went past the first income tax in 1861 to the drafting of the Constitution and included reading hundreds of cases, Congressional archives and tax laws from 1913 to present.  Cryer learned that although his friend had only a piece of the picture, he was right.  "The Tax Code and its regulations are carefully and," he adds, "ingeniously crafted to deceive," said Cryer.  He explains that the answer is not in what the laws say, but rather in what they do not say, and those provisions that are revealing are either hidden within tons of verbiage or behind double and triple negatives.  And, more importantly, he says, he knows why.

So Cryer decided he would also stop filing returns and would challenge the IRS if and when it came to call.  Cryer said "Once you've taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law, obeying the law is only half the job.  You also have to be willing to fight for it.  I've not only sworn to fight for the Constitution as an attorney, as a former officer in the Army I've sworn to die for it."

In 2001 they came, demanding information and returns.  Cryer advised them that if they could show him any law making him liable or making his revenues taxable he would file any tax returns required by the law.  They could not show him any law.

Instead, the IRS began to pelt Cryer with a series of summonses, gathering up all banking records.  It even subpoenaed Cryer's secretary into the office for interrogation.  But Cryer did not budge.  Frustrated, the IRS called in their criminal investigations division, CID, and Cryer told them the same thing, "Show me the law that makes me liable or my revenue taxable and I will file."  They could not show him any law.

CID began the summons pelting all over again, but Cryer filed a petition to quash the summonses, which even included summonsing his college and law school records from almost forty years ago.  "I suppose they thought the records would show I was some kind of kook or an idiot, but all they would have found is that I graduated from college in only three years and that I graduated from law school in the top of my class." Cryer said.

So, CID called in the Justice Department (DOJ) and the sabers began to rattle.  Cryer met with the Assistant U. S. Attorney and an official of the IRS and reminded them that all they need do is show him the law.  They could not show him any law, either.

"The CID and DOJ both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.'  I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" Cryer said, "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'  What would you say?  Would you write the check?"

"After that they circled for awhile, apparently not sure what to do with or to me," he continues, "but when I went public with a book I'm writing, LIBERTY LOST, A Treasure Map to Buried Freedom, about how the federal government has escaped its constitutional limits and how to put it back, that broke the impasse.  Within two months they accused me of tax evasion.  Do I look like Al Capone?  Well, I am a bit overweight and he was kind of chubby, too."

The two count indictment accuses Cryer of concealing income in a trust in 2000 and 2001, keeping himself "below the radar."  But in 2001 he was not only on the radar, he was in the cross-hairs.  Cryer, whose wife, Carolyn, was severely disabled, was worried that if anything happened to him Carolyn's son would have her destitute before the grass grew over his grave.  He set up the trust in 1993 and opened brokerage accounts in hopes of parlaying the seed money he could muster up into a fund to provide for her and safeguard the money.  Carolyn died in 1999, but he continued to trade in the accounts.

"They subpoenaed every record on me you could imagine, they even got into my dry cleaner's account, but they did not subpoena the brokerage account records.  They did not want the facts, just an indictment.  If they had they would have known that the trust not only had no income for those two years, it lost money both years, but they did not want to know the truth because that would prevent them from accusing me." he said.

Cryer says that it has already been an eye-opening experience for him, "It's been revealing.  I've had agents tell me the law did not apply to them, so I suppose they think they are above the law.  Another, challenged with having failed to follow IRS procedures explained that the procedures are binding on us (the peasants?), but that the IRS does not have to follow its own procedures unless it wants to.  After effecting a legal stay on the CID summonses, a CID investigator called the banks he had summonsed and when they pointed out that they were stayed and not allowed to release records until the court ruled, he demanded they send him the records anyway, law or no law.  After I made full disclosure of all records, saying show me where any of this is taxed, they sent agents out to 'visit' with my clients, and you can imagine what effect that has had on my practice.  But the ride is going to get a lot bumpier from here on.  I'm threatening a lot of rice bowls.  Someone may actually have to go get a job and work like the rest of us."

Well, now the worm has turned.  Cryer filed a motion to dismiss both counts against him, showing that the law, as it is written, does not make him liable nor tax his revenue from his law practice.  The motion takes another bold step, however, revealing that the income tax, as applied to wages, salaries and fees personally earned, is unconstitutional, citing four separate grounds for the unconstitutionality of the law as to almost every citizen's revenue personally earned.

According to Cryer, the law, which is carefully drawn to stay inside the Constitution, does not actually tax personal earnings, but the IRS publications, no more law than Time Magazine, say it does and by collecting taxes on personal earnings it has violated several fundamental constitutional restrictions.  He says that nearly a trillion dollars is siphoned, illegally, away from families and households every year, although their wages and salaries, including bonuses, are exempt from taxation under the Constitution.  "I wish there were some way I could have taken this case on a 1/3 contingency," he joked.

Due to the adverse publicity and clients' fear of being targeted if they get too close to a target, Cryer says his practice has suffered immensely, placing him in a severe financial strain.  "Getting the government off everyone's back and out of their pockets is going to be expensive and, frankly, I don't have the means," Cryer said, "but somehow I am going to finish this.  I am totally convinced that this is why I am here on this Earth, this is why I am a lawyer, and since it's meant to be, it will be."

This man has devoted his life and practice to helping people.  He left the big firm road over thirty years ago and opened a storefront solo practice because he did not become a lawyer to run up billable hours and stack up money.  He wanted to solve people's problems and make the system work as it was intended.  He is not a fat cat lawyer and deals with the same problems we all do every day.  Now, he's put his freedom and future on the line for all of us.

The government has destroyed Tom Cryer's practice in order to impede his ability to fight this battle and he needs your help.  If you are tired of being afraid of your own government and can help, please send whatever you can to the Tom Cryer Defense Fund and then forward this message to everyone you know.

Make checks payable to "C. L. Mitchell" with "Cryer Defense" on the memo line and mail to:

C. L. Mitchell
Cryer Defense Fund
11190 General Bradley Ave.
Shreveport , LA   71106
(and for a free copy of the 104 page memorandum Mr. Cryer filed explaining the law and the reasons the Constitution makes your paycheck exempt, include your email)
Contributors will NOT be disclosed to ANYONE, especially the government.  This is not a political campaign, so there are no reporting requirements.
God bless you and God bless the USA .

Show Me the Law


Hauert was indicted on five counts Se. 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc. Hauert wanted to know the OFFENSE statute he was accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to. He wanted to know the particular statute that made him the person required to pay the income tax. His attorney (addressing the judge) "The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea bargain. My client is interested but has a few demands of the prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address. Will the court entertain that question?"


Judge: "Certainly."


Hauert: "Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DIS-CIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used to determine if I am the "any person" required to file. The term "any person" is ambiguous.


Judge: "I don't know what he is asking for.(Looking at Prosecutor) Do you know what he's asking for?"


Prosecutor: "No, your honor, I don't know what he's asking for either."


Judge: "I am not knowledgeable of every law and can't be."
(Hey, isn't he presumed to to know the law?)


Hauert: Could you please bring me the I.R. Code book with 7203 in it so I can show you what I am talking about. (note: the clerk brought in the I.R Code book.)


Judge: (Reading Sec. 7203) " Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return..."


Judge: "Sounds clear to me."


Note: (In the words of Hauert) "I looked at the prosecuting attorney and criminal investigator looking business-like and smiling confidently and I thought, these suckers have gotten to the judge."


Hauert: "May I see the book? (Reading) any person required by this Title.. What I am asking is, what statute establishes the FACT that I am one of these "persons" required, by this title, to pay the tax? Where, exactly, in the Title is the offense defined, where am I made the subject of the tax?" Note: (In the words of Hauert: "I then handed the judge back the book. Looking perplexed, the judge read those words over and over again for what felt like an eternity.")


Judge: "So what you're asking for, Mr. Hauert, is the Statute, referred to in Section 7203, that makes a person liable for the tax and subject to the penalties imposed by Section 7203?"


Hauert: "Yes, that's what I have been asking the prosecutor for. I have also been asking the IRS the same question for several years and no one will give me the Statute of law that I am accused of breaking."


Note: In one sentence that would destroy the government's entire case,


Judge: "No problem, Mr. Prosecutor, I'm sure that you can provide a copy of that statute."


Prosecutor: (Stammering and stuttering) "Um, ohh.. I'm...uh.. not familiar with.. uh.. that part of the code." (With that, the Prosecutor lost his business like composure and the case was concluded. The prosecutor was ordered to find someone who knew which statute defined the offense.) Hauert's attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return. A Bill of Particulars is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES against the defendant. This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution still could not supply the court with the offense statute or regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax
(because no such statute exists). Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a dismissal!

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Freedom Club USA


All material on this site is protected under the copyright laws of the United States for the express protection of their creators.

©  Copyright 2004-2022 Freedom Foundation USA, LLC
All rights reserved.