Cryer, Tommy

The purpose of this board is to track the status of activity, cases, and ultimately the incarceration or fines against TP promoters and certain high-profile TPs.
User avatar
Cathulhu
Order of the Quatloos, Brevet First Class
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Cathulhu » Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:54 pm

I've done a lot of radio shows myself. I'm sorry you didn't get through, Dog. I may not always agree with you, but I honor your attempt to go get 'em.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold

Noah
Exalted Parter of the Great Sea of Insanity
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Noah » Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:12 am

His interview is posted on youtube for those who are interested and missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGDR0Fz-SGk

Lawdog...do you think you could have jumped in with a statement or question that he could relate to? :brickwall: If so I would like to know what it would have been.

Nikki

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Nikki » Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:31 am

Unfortunately, you'd have been only one click away from "Oh, well, we seem to have lost that caller. Next caller please."

Unless you're participating in studio or on a totally unbiased call-in show, you're at the mercy of the host and his little red button. If he sees his in-studio guest start to stammer or sweat, you get cut off.

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3557
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:51 am

Nikki wrote:Unfortunately, you'd have been only one click away from "Oh, well, we seem to have lost that caller. Next caller please."

Unless you're participating in studio or on a totally unbiased call-in show, you're at the mercy of the host and his little red button. If he sees his in-studio guest start to stammer or sweat, you get cut off.


Actually, you're at the mercy of possibly several people, not the least of which is the producer. They aren't interested in accuracy - Coast to Coast is ENTERTAINMENT. The host(s) and producers know exactly where the audience needs to be teased on a real-time basis in order to assure loyal listenership. FACTS ARE NOT REQUIRED.

You cannot expect to have an authoritative alternate viewpoint allowed in as a happenstance call in; that can quickly become controversial to the point where the loyal listening audience is turned off.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:19 pm

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Dezcad » Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:16 pm

Cryer's Tax Court case is scheduled for trial on December 5, 2011.

06/27/2011 NOTICE of Trial on 12/5/2011 at New Orleans, LA.
06/27/2011 STANDING PRE-TRIAL ORDER attached to Notice of Trial

User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Kestrel » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:33 pm

Dezcad wrote:Cryer's Tax Court case is scheduled for trial on December 5, 2011.

06/27/2011 NOTICE of Trial on 12/5/2011 at New Orleans, LA.
06/27/2011 STANDING PRE-TRIAL ORDER attached to Notice of Trial

Been waiting for this. I won't hold my breath, tho. Cryer doesn't want his pet theories to be shot down.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6431
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby wserra » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:44 pm

Tax Court mavens: Is a "Standing Pretrial Order" in TC the same as the Pretrial Order that we District Court practitioners are used to? IOW, do they contain the parties' stips on agreed facts, disputed facts, witnesses, exhibits, legal issues and so forth?

If so, and someone has access to TC records, can you link to this PTO? Thanks.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Nikki

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Nikki » Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:27 pm

SPTO is boiler plate.
Communication Between the Parties. The parties shall begin discussing settlement and/or preparation of a stipulation of facts as soon as practicable. Valuation cases and reasonable compensation cases are generally susceptible of settlement, and the Court expects the parties to negotiate in good faith with this goal in mind. All minor issues should be settled so that the Court can focus on the issue(s) needing a Court decision. If a party has trouble communicating with another party or complying with this Order, the affected party should promptly advise the Court in writing, with a copy to each other party, or request a conference call for the parties and the trial Judge.

Continuances. Continuances (i.e., postponements of trial) will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. See Rule 133, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. (The Court's Rules are available at www.ustaxcourt.gov.) Even joint motions for continuance are not granted automatically.

Sanctions. The Court may impose appropriate sanctions, including dismissal, for any unexcused failure to comply with this Order. See Rule 131(b). Such failure may also be considered in relation to sanctions against and disciplinary proceedings involving counsel. See Rule 202(a).

Electronic Filing (eFiling), eFiling is required for most documents (except the petition) filed by parties represented by counsel in cases in which the petition is filed on or after July 1, 2010.

Petitioners not represented by counsel may, but are not required to, eFile. For more information about eFiling and the Court's other electronic services, see www.ustaxcourt.gov.

To help the efficient disposition of all cases on the trial calendar:

1. Stipulation. It is ORDERED that all facts shall be stipulated (agreed upon in writing) to the maximum extent possible. All documents and written evidence shall be marked and stipulated in accordance with Rule 91(b), unless the evidence is to be used only to impeach (discredit) a witness.

Either party may preserve objections by noting them in the stipulation. If a complete stipulation of facts is not ready for submission at the start of the trial or when otherwise ordered by the Court, and if the Court determines that this is due to lack of cooperation by either party, the Court may order sanctions against the uncooperative party.

2. Trial Exhibits. It is ORDERED that any documents or materials which a party expects to use (except solely for impeachment) if the case is tried, but which are not stipulated, shall be identified in writing and exchanged by the parties at least 14 days before the first day of the trial session.

The Court may refuse to receive in evidence any document or material that is not so stipulated or exchanged, unless the parties have agreed otherwise or the Court so allows for good cause shown.

3. Pretrial Memoranda. It is ORDERED that, unless a basis of settlement (resolution of the issues) has been reached, each party shall prepare a Pretrial Memorandum containing the information in the attached form. Each party shall serve on the other party and file the Pretrial Memorandum not less than 14 days before the first day of the trial session.

4. Final Status Reports. It is ORDERED that, if the status of the case changes from that reported in a party's Pretrial Memorandum, the party shall submit to the undersigned and to the other party a Final Status Report containing the information in the attached form. A Final Status Report may be submitted to the Court in paper format, electronically by following the procedures in the "Final Status Report" tab on the Court's Web site or by fax sent to 202-521-3378. (Only the Final Status Report may be sent to this fax number; any other documents will be discarded.) The report must be received by the Court no later than 3 p.m. eastern time on the last business day (normally Friday) before the calendar call. The Final Status Report must be promptly submitted to the opposing party by mail, email, or fax, and a copy of the report must be given to the opposing party at the calendar call if the opposing party is present.

5. Witnesses. It is ORDERED that witnesses shall be identified in the Pretrial Memorandum with a brief summary of their anticipated testimony. Witnesses who are not identified will not be permitted to testify at the trial without a showing of good cause.

6. Expert Witnesses. It is ORDERED that unless otherwise permitted by the Court, expert witnesses shall prepare a written report which shall be submitted directly to the undersigned and served upon each other party at least 30 days before the first day of the trial session. An expert witness's testimony may be excluded for failure to comply with this Order and Rule 143(g).

7. Settlements. It is ORDERED that if the parties have reached a basis of settlement, a - stipulated decision shall be submitted to the Court prior to or at the call of the calendar on the first day of the trial session. Additional time for submitting a stipulated decision will be granted only where it is clear that all parties have approved the settlement. The parties shall be prepared to state for the record the basis of settlement and the reasons for delay. The Court will specify the date by which the stipulated decision and any related settlement documents will be due.

8. Time of Trial. It is ORDERED that all parties shall be preparëd for trial at any time during the trial session unless a specific date has been previously set by the Court. Your case may or may not be tried on the same date as the calendar call, and you may need to return to Court on a later date during the trial session. Thus, it may be beneficial to contact the Court in advance. Within 2 weeks before the start of the trial session, the parties may jointly contact the Judge's chambers to request a time and date certain for the trial. If practicable, the Court will attempt to accommodate the request, keeping in mind other scheduling requirements and the anticipated length of the session. Parties should jointly inform the Judge as early as possible if they expect trial to require 3 days or more.

9. Service of Documents. It is ORDERED that every pleading, motion, letter, or other document (with the exception of the petition and the posttrial briefs, see Rule 151(c)) submitted to the Court shall contain a certificate of service as specified in Rule 21(b), which shows that the party has given a copy of that pleading, motion, letter or other document to all other parties.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6431
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby wserra » Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:27 pm

Nikki wrote:SPTO is boiler plate.


Too bad. A "real" PTO is a type of preview of the trial.

Thanks, Nikki.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Kestrel » Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:01 pm

I'd lay odds that Cryer won't stipulate to anything of substance. This "little" tome printed by Cryer's "Truth Attack" is probably about as close to what we might see as a preview of his trial: The Truth About “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”.

I'd be interested to hear what Dan has to say about this. Warning: 59 pages of Cryer-speak.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

Noah
Exalted Parter of the Great Sea of Insanity
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Noah » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:17 am

Kestrel wrote:I'd lay odds that Cryer won't stipulate to anything of substance. This "little" tome printed by Cryer's "Truth Attack" is probably about as close to what we might see as a preview of his trial: The Truth About “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”.

I'd be interested to hear what Dan has to say about this. Warning: 59 pages of Cryer-speak.

What was the publish date of the "little" tome.

User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Kestrel » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:26 am

Noah wrote:What was the publish date of the "little" tome.

It was first circulated in October-November 2010, to the best of my knowledge, although he had been working on the content since before his 2006 indictment for tax evasion.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby LPC » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:55 am

Kestrel wrote:This "little" tome printed by Cryer's "Truth Attack" is probably about as close to what we might see as a preview of his trial: The Truth About “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”.

I'd be interested to hear what Dan has to say about this. Warning: 59 pages of Cryer-speak.

I've only gotten to contention #1 on page 6, but it's pretty much the same old crap. Cryer's crap is disingenuous in more complicated ways, but it's still crap.

I may post an exegesis if I have the time and inclination (I'm currently out of the office in my undisclosed location in the Adirondacks).
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

David Merrill

Cryer, Tommy

Postby David Merrill » Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:49 am

UGA Lawdog wrote:
Noah wrote:His interview is posted on youtube for those who are interested and missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGDR0Fz-SGk

Lawdog...do you think you could have jumped in with a statement or question that he could relate to? :brickwall: If so I would like to know what it would have been.


I could have refuted every one of his inane arguments with references to statutory and case law. Everything one needs to know is on LPC's Tax Protester FAQ. I also would have made the audience aware that Cryer was once reprimanded by the Louisiana bar, with citation to the appropriate case in the Southern Reporter.



I took a look - LPC's compendium is a bit lacking about redeeming lawful money.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

It is about the bonding - like I point out in my Signature.

User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Kestrel » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:07 pm

LPC wrote:I've only gotten to contention #1 on page 6, but it's pretty much the same old crap. Cryer's crap is disingenuous in more complicated ways, but it's still crap.

I may post an exegesis if I have the time and inclination (I'm currently out of the office in my undisclosed location in the Adirondacks).

Thanks for looking at this. Enjoy your vacation. You've picked a beautiful place to be right now.

The one Cryer contention in the entire 59 pages that I'd really like to know how to refute is this one. (Your FAQs already refute pretty much everything else very, very nicely.)
In its “Truth” About publication the IRS relies on numerous inferior court cases. Inferior courts are those inferior to the Supreme Court and consist of Tax and Claims Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, all of which are created by Congress. The IRS acknowledges in its Internal Revenue Manual, and Truth Attack agrees with them on this point, that inferior court holdings are not law and are binding only on the parties to the suit in question, and even then, only as to the years litigated. According to the IRM only Supreme Court cases are binding on it and considered the law of the land, “equivalent to the code”.

I remember reading that the federal Courts of Appeal are courts of final jurisdiction, so that particular part of the above statement fails. I'm unsure of the rest because I'm not a lawyer. Cryer uses this "inferior court" justification to dismiss all non-SCOTUS rulings as irrelevant and/or non-applicable. If the allegation is false, all his arguments collapse.

I haven't read the Internal Revenue Manual so I don't know what it really says about binding precedent, but given Cryer's tendency to misinterpret I certainly don't take his word for it. Unfortunately for me, the Cryer-supporter in my life does.

Thanks again.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1475
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Arthur Rubin » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:36 pm

Kestrel wrote:The one Cryer contention in the entire 59 pages that I'd really like to know how to refute is this one. (Your FAQs already refute pretty much everything else very, very nicely.)
In its “Truth” About publication the IRS relies on numerous inferior court cases. Inferior courts are those inferior to the Supreme Court and consist of Tax and Claims Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, all of which are created by Congress. The IRS acknowledges in its Internal Revenue Manual, and Truth Attack agrees with them on this point, that inferior court holdings are not law and are binding only on the parties to the suit in question, and even then, only as to the years litigated. According to the IRM only Supreme Court cases are binding on it and considered the law of the land, “equivalent to the code”.

I remember reading that the federal Courts of Appeal are courts of final jurisdiction, so that particular part of the above statement fails.
I think I can answer that. The IRS, whether or not it's legal, can choose "Non-Acquiescence" with lower court decisions. This means, in effect, they won't appeal or dispute the result with respect to the named taxpayers, but they won't apply the result to any other taxpayers.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6431
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby wserra » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:51 pm

As I've said many times, I've never practiced in Tax Court. But how is a decision of a Court of Appeals not the law in its Circuit? Whatever the IRS may recognize, judges - District, Tax, Bankruptcy, whatever - will follow it. If the IRS is dumb enough to say they don't recognize that, it sounds like like a sovrun ignoramus.

That's hard to believe. It's also yet another thing that makes Cryer sound like the pandering paytriot he is. Who gives a FF what he "recognizes"?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby Kestrel » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:19 pm

wserra wrote:As I've said many times, I've never practiced in Tax Court. But how is a decision of a Court of Appeals not the law in its Circuit? Whatever the IRS may recognize, judges - District, Tax, Bankruptcy, whatever - will follow it. If the IRS is dumb enough to say they don't recognize that, it sounds like like a sovrun ignoramus.

That's hard to believe. It's also yet another thing that makes Cryer sound like the pandering paytriot he is. Who gives a FF what he "recognizes"?

As a practical matter I am in agreement with you. The nuances of the law are my weak point.

Does it make a difference that a key opinion relied upon is rendered in a different circuit, particularly if said opinion was never commented upon by a Court of Appeals?

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm dealing with a Cryer-supporter I can't avoid (family) whose fallback position is "well, that ruling doesn't apply in THIS circuit."
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6431
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby wserra » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:30 pm

Kestrel wrote:Does it make a difference that a key opinion relied upon is rendered in a different circuit, particularly if said opinion was never commented upon by a Court of Appeals?


By that description, I take it that you're talking about a trial court opinion.

Technically speaking, a trial level opinion is in fact binding only on the parties to it. That said, a trial court opinion may in fact be ironclad, if it states clearly-established law. But clearly-established law is usually set forth in appellate opinions as well.

Perhaps it would help if you were more specific. What is the "key opinion"?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Cryer, Tommy

Postby The Operative » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:46 pm

Kestrel wrote:I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm dealing with a Cryer-supporter I can't avoid (family) whose fallback position is "well, that ruling doesn't apply in THIS circuit."


My only comment is that simply because a decision is rendered in one circuit, it doesn't mean that a court in another circuit won't reference it to point out that other courts have reached a certain conclusion. Generally speaking, if a tax protester/denier argument is frivolous in one district court or circuit court, it is probably going to be frivolous in any other district or circuit court.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.


Return to “TP Status Board: Tracking Promoters and High-Profile TPs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests