Case Law
Logan County Jury Acquits Harrell

Harrell v. State of Illinois

Logan County Jury Acquits Harrell 5/26/00

Lincoln - Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell of rural Latham was acquitted by a 12 person jury of the 4 count criminal
felony charges of willful failure to file an Illinois State Income Tax form. The actual trial began on Wednesday
May 24th in the Logan County Circuit Court room, presided over by Senior Judge David "Slick" Coogan ("Slick
is how the judge identifies himself) and closed on Friday after four hours of deliberation when the jury returned
with four consecutive "not guilty" verdicts.

"We were in a heated debate" reported one unnamed juror, "but when the court refused, after our specific
written request, to furnish us copies of the actual statutes, (that imposed the obligation on the defendant,) it didn't
take long for all of us to see that something was wrong with the State's case.

"That was not all the court refused to let the jury see," added Jerry Barringer, Harrell's attorney. "The court, at
the request of the Illinois State's attorney, denied the jury access to evidence that already had been introduced
and accepted." "Astoundingly, even the Bill of Indictment was denied to the jury," chimed in Barringer's legal
assistant Lindsey Springer, "Also denied were jury instructions sanctioned by the Supreme Court and even a
VCR recorder to play the video tape that Whitey had made of his meeting with the CID agent." "I've seen a lot
of tyranny in the courts, but never anything so blatent as what I saw here over the last two days," added Bob
Minark, an Indiana friend of Harrell's.

The 4 criminal felony charges had been brought against Harrell in 1997 and just came to trial this past week.
Harrell had submitted numerous motions in a case that saw both assigned judges and assigned state's attorneys
resign or recuse themselves. All Harrell's motions were denied.

The case started back in early 1997 when Harrell was approached by Illinois Dept. of Revenue Criminal
Investigation Division (CID) agent Robert Craner, who asked him for an interview. The testimony was that
Harrel refused until he had witnesses present and a video camera set up at the local library where he later video
taped a 45 minute meeting with Craner. On the video, which was shown to the jury at the trial, Harrel specificlly
pointed out that he could find no section of the Illinois statutes that obligated him to file an Illinois income tax
return. He presented Craner with numerous documents which he identified as outlines of statutes and regulations
and "administrative code" which he said he searched to no avail in finding any obligation that would apply to him.
Craner accepted the documents. The tape showed that Craner promised Harrell at least five different times, to
produce the statutes that made Harrell liable and get answers to Harrell's questions.

The testimony later showed that Craner didn't do that and instead went back to the Grand Jury to testify that
Harrell was a resident of Logan County who failed to file Illinois state income tax forms. Unbeknownst to Harrel,
at the time of the interview, Craner was also acting as a Grand Jury investigator. "He never told me," said
Harrell, "He never read me a Miranda warning. He just promised to get me the information, but instead went
back to the Grand Jury to get an Indictment." Grand Jury Transcripts show that Craner testified that Harrel, at
the library meeting, had nothing to offer in his defense of why he didn't file a tax return, but the video tape
brought Craner's credibility into serious question.

Harrell testified in his own defense and verified his many efforts to obtain the law that made him liable for the
income tax or how his activity was privledged. The prosecution brought out on cross examination that Harrell
had filed many law suits in the past and that those suits were dismissed in both the state and federal courts. In an
attempt to prove knowledge, the state also elicited that Harrell had previously filed tax returns previouslly.
Harrell's Attorney Barringer likened that to believing in Santa Claus when you were a child and then gaining
knowledge of the fact that Santa Claus is a fantasy as you got older and wiser. Barringer's questioning of Agent
Craner as to his belief in Santa Claus brought an objection from the State's attorney which was sustained by the
judge without any recognition of humor. Harrel, 62, had worked for the United States Post Office as a rural mail
carrier and also received a pension from Caterpiller from where he retired in 1990.

Asked if his case will set a preccedent, Harrel said, "Legally, No, but I certainly hope it sets the precedent that
more people question the loss of their rights and property whenever government claims its the law. I feel sure this
jury will be thinking twice."

Interestingly, even after the specifc request of the jury, neither the state or the court ever did produce any statute
showing Harrel had any obligation. "We don't have anything to say at this time other than Mr. Harrell was very
lucky and we will be watching his activities carefully," stated an assistant State's Attorney who asked not to be
identified.

Harrel plans to keep up his efforts to expose, what he says, is the one of the largest frauds ever committed on
the people of Illinois. "Al Capone couldn't hold a candle to these guys," Harrell commented when talking about
the State's claim of a requirement for wage earners and independent contractors to file a state income tax form.

Harrell's bail bond has been released and the funds obtained from Harrell to gurantee the bond will be returned.
No further court actions are pending against Harrell at this time, but Harrell anticipates further actions by himself
against both the state Department of Revenue and the federal Internal Revenue Service.

"... the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state)." -- Greenspan, Alan; "Gold and Economic
Freedom", Rand, Ayn; Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal; Signet Books, 1967; pp96-101. See full text in FAME's FedWatch section www.fame.org.

DISCLAIMER: The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. The primary purpose of this site is education. We do not advocate any specific course of action. What you do with this information and any course of action you decide to take, if any, is entirely your responsibility.

]