For Phoenix - case cite regarding taxation

[The Great Ag]

Hey, Phoenix:

A couple of months ago, in another thread, I promised, when I had time, I would post a case where the defendant was found NOT guilty for failure to file income taxes. Here it is PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL, Case Number 97CF89 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

In 2000 the State of Illinois charged Mr. Harrell for willful failure to file income taxes for the years 1992-1995. The jury found him NOT guilty on all four counts. In Federal courts, it is NOT a felony for failure to file income taxes, but in Illinois it is, and that is where the case was brought.

The cards were stacked against Mr. Harrell and yet he won. It is my opinion, the reason why he won was that he had a good jury who asked the proper questions. They wanted to see the law that required Mr. Harrell to file taxes. The best the judge gave was Illinois state code that said something like, "If required to file federal taxes, then the person must file a tax return for Illinois." Neither the prosecution nor the judge gave any evidence showing that Mr. Harrell was required to file. If you have access to watch the movie Freedom to Fascism directed by Aaron Russo, watch between the 39th-46th minute for an interview with one of the jurors. If you do not have access, here are two youtubes. Start the first at the 9th minute and watch the first 6 minutes of the second for the interview. I have some issues the movie, but I use it to give useful information regarding the tax case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr0xUoZiojo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nclI-NbFE&feature=related

An interesting consequence is the State of Illinois, in 2002, charged Mr. Harrell for willful failure to file taxes for the years 1996-1998. The case was finally settled in 2008 and Mr. Harrell lost for a host of reasons. See this link for more info http://www.triallogs.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=284

There you go, here is a case where the jury found a defendant NOT guilty for not paying taxes.

Below is a motivational poster I found and thought you would appreciate it.

The Great Ag

[Phoenix]

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/gaylon-harrell

Harrell was one of several plaintiffs who attempted another action for damages under section 7433, contending that they were exempt from federal income tax because Illinois was not "State" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. The District Court dismissed the complaint and imposed sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 on everyone else who had signed the complaint, including Harrell. LaRue v. Collector of Internal Revenue, No. 95-3036, 76 AFTR2d Par. 95-5011, 95 TNT 123-89 (U.S.D.C. C.D. Ill. 5/8/1995) (complaint dismissed), 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8225, 1995 WL 479521 (U.S.D.C. C.D. Ill. 6/21/1995) (sanctions imposed).

Harrell also did not file income tax returns for 1991, 1992, and 1993, and the IRS issued additional notices of deficiencies. Harrell petitioned the Tax Court again, this time claiming that he did not receive income but payments "traded for labor of equal value from which there can be no taxable gain." The Tax Court affirmed the deficiencies in a motion for summary judgment, noting that "there is nothing in petitioner's filings but tax protester rhetoric, unsupported assertions, and legalistic gibberish." Gaylon L. Harrell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-64, 96 TNT 36-16, No. 7339-95 (2/20/1996). However, the Tax Court did not reach the issue of whether there should be additions to tax. After a hearing during which Harrell both repeated his argument that the monies he received were for labor of equal value and not taxable, and argued that Federal Reserve Notes are not "money" within the meaning of the Constitution, the Tax Court then affirmed that Harrell was liable for an addition to tax for fraud under section 6651(f), and the Tax Court imposed a penalty of $10,000 for frivolous arguments. Gaylon L. Harrell v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1998-207, 98 TNT 115-13, No. 7339-95 (6/15/1998), aff'd 1999 TNT 163-9, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5194, No. 98-4120 (7th Cir. 8/19/1999) (rejecting arguments that taxation without apportionment under the 16th Amendment is a violation of the 10th Amendment, and that the receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not income, and imposing additional sanctions of $2,000 for maintaining a frivolous appeal).

Harrell's one "victory" is that he was acquitted of failing to file Illinois state income tax returns in People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 97CF89 (Cir. Ct. of St. Clair Co. Ill.).

However, in 2006, he was charged again with three counts of criminal failure to file Illinois income tax returns for 1996, 1997, and 1998, and was convicted on all three counts on 12/17/2008. People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 2006CM215 (Cir. Ct. of Logan Co. Ill.). As noted above, Harrell filed a motion to dismiss the Illinois prosecution on the grounds that it was barred by the federal Paperwork Reduction Act, but the motion was denied. On February 5, 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500 and court costs, and payment of his taxes for 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.

[Phoenix]

Below is a motivational poster I found and thought you would appreciate it.


I do appreciate it, and wish you would appreciate how very true it is. ;)

[Glass]

I think it still stands that he won the cases for the years 1991, 1992, 1993. All the subsequent convictions were years other than those three. Summary judgement is pretty hard to beat if the case stays in that jurisdiction i.e. a Court of Summary Judgement. That is because the defendant is not heard in those cases. It would be interesting to see how those cases were handled, who handled them and if they were handled by the same people who handled the 3 that he won. That would really tell us something.

[The Great Ag]

Hey, Phoenix:

I understand all of what you wrote and I even pointed out that he lost the same court case you cited in my first post. The point was to show you one case where a person was found not liable for taxation. I have done that. It matters not that he lost other attempts. It only matters that he won, at least once and minimally showing the taxation issue is ambiguous. If it was not, he would not of won.

In reference to the other legal cases and why he lost is because almost no one understands nationality, the nature of the FRN and taxation and how all overlap in a curious manner.

Because I am fed up with the ignorance displayed by people, especially conservatives in the media, I have begun an essay on that matter. As soon as it is done, and I have no time table for it, I shall post it here on GSUS in the constitutional law forum.

The Great Ag

The Great Ag

[Gknowmx]

Hey, Phoenix:

I understand all of what you wrote and I even pointed out that he lost the same court case you cited in my first post. The point was to show you one case where a person was found not liable for taxation. I have done that. It matters not that he lost other attempts. It only matters that he won, at least once and minimally showing the taxation issue is ambiguous. If it was not, he would not of won.

In reference to the other legal cases and why he lost is because almost no one understands nationality, the nature of the FRN and taxation and how all overlap in a curious manner.

Because I am fed up with the ignorance displayed by people, especially conservatives in the media, I have begun an essay on that matter. As soon as it is done, and I have no time table for it, I shall post it here on GSUS in the constitutional law forum.

The Great Ag

The Great Ag


I look forward to that.

[Phoenix]

Because I am fed up with the ignorance displayed by people, especially conservatives in the media, I have begun an essay on that matter. As soon as it is done, and I have no time table for it, I shall post it here on GSUS in the constitutional law forum.


I am only thanking you in advance for your essay, not for agreeing with what you posted.