March 20, 2009


That’s right! After a trial of a hearing on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles “Chuck” Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act by refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999 Judge Tyree Boyer ruled that Behm committed no criminal act. The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP. From opening statement to close the DOJ’s fingerprints were all over the case. The only new twist was DOJ’s latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like “tax protesters”, “tax defiers” and, now “Constitutionalists”!! (Behm’s defense attorney, TA’s Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response.)

In his cross examination of the Bar’s “expert witness”, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of “frivolous arguments”. The witness also admitted on cross that he did not really have a clear definition of “income”, that he knew of no lawful authority for the IRS’s “zero basis” policy applied only to working Americans’ gross receipts and that the zero basis for “zero basis” is not on the IRS’s list of “frivolous arguments.”

Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns; that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment and that he is engaging in no activity that is within the federal government’s power to tax. Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject.

In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws. Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights and to stand up to the government when it abuses either.

Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling and in that process the Court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes.


  1. Attorney Donofrio states that the constitution cannot be changed without a official amendment. How has the Federal reserve gotten away with it for so many years? “Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof” And, “Schecter Poultry v US 295 US 495 1935. The supreme court
    states, “Congress cannot abdicate it’s duty and delegate to another group” Apply Stare Decisis to that. Ron Moss

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s