Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

See other Activism Articles

Source: email
Published: Feb 2, 2008
Author: Tom Cryer
Post Date: 2008-02-02 08:50:48 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 2458
Comments: 10


February 2, 2008





HONOLULU, HI—The news came through right on the heels of the Snipes verdict and did not garner the attention that partial conviction received, but it’s all good news from Hawaii. Lucky Bennett, accused of conspiracy and tax evasion walked out of the courtroom after a trial that was on and off since it started on January 8, 2008, leaving as innocent has he had entered. Unlike the Snipes case, Bennett took the stand and explained how he came to discover that the income tax had no application to him and Larry Becraft delivered a brilliant closing, pointing out that the only evidence of Bennett’s belief at the time of the “crime” was Bennett’s testimony.

Larry argued to the jury that the government has the burden to prove Bennett’s belief and intentions as of April 15 of each year for which he was charged, that proof required evidence. Holding his hands out like a scale he demonstrated that the government must shift the scale all the way over, not just tip it—beyond any reasonable doubt. He pointed out that Lucky gave his sworn testimony as to what he believed as of those April 15’s—the scales move to his side. But what evidence has the government shown you about Lucky’s beliefs or intent on those dates? Still holding his “scales” out, “Did you see it move? I didn’t see it move.”

Obviously, some of the jury understood that. From one who has been in this system for nearly four decades it is almost impossible to convince a jury that firmly believes the earth is flat that anyone who says otherwise truly believes that it is round. A hung jury is a monumental achievement. It is a loss by the government, who walks away empty handed, no head to display on its lance.

Whether the government will take a second shot at Bennett remains to be seen, but although they could not tip the scales they have tipped their hands, and that means Lucky Bennett knows what they have up their sleeves and will be even better prepared and able to mount his defense.

Well done, Lucky! Well done, Larry!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

#5. To: James Deffenbach (#0)

The problem that I see with these types of "victories" is that there is no resolution. There are millions of people that simply want to know what they have to do to withdraw, be shown the law and get the IRS out of their lives.

This type of victory leaves the system and the attorneys in charge of peoples lives and makes it necessary for each individual to fight the system, rather than establish conclusive evidence that there is a means of eliminating the fraud from ones life completely.

noone222  posted on  2008-02-02   11:39:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#6. To: noone222 (#5)

Well, if the gestapo decided to "make an example" of me I would rather get a hung jury than a guilty verdict. The problem is not with the "income tax" per se, but in its fraudulent application to that which is not "income" and upon people who engage in "occupations of common right" who don't owe it. If more people understood that you would see more people not filing and more not guilty verdicts in these political prisoner cases.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-02-02   11:44:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#7. To: James Deffenbach (#6)

My reluctance to agree with you is not that what you're saying is incorrect. I am of the opinion that the application of revenue laws are based upon contracts and not law. The fraudulent application of law is what awakened me to the problem, but studying cases as they became available over the years, and more because people relying upon similar arguments were getting different results like Ed and Elaine Brown vs. Tommy Crier, or Larken Rose et al., made me see that the jury and the lawyers were more relevant than the laws. This in a nation of laws is inconsistent and intolerable.

noone222  posted on  2008-02-02   11:57:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#8. To: noone222 (#7)

I am of the opinion that the application of revenue laws are based upon contracts and not law.

Point taken. And most people pay them out of ignorance and fear, not because there is any law which would compel them to.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-02-02   12:36:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Replies to Comment # 8.

        There are no replies to Comment # 8.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest