Man Bites Dog: Cryer Sues US

Post by **LPC** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:14 pm

Received from Demo:

According to
an article in the Shreveport Times, Tommy Cryer has sued the federal government for misconduct in investigating his tax liabilities.

A Shreveport attorney has sued the federal government over an Internal Revenue Service investigation of his business dealings.

Tommy Cryer alleges that four IRS criminal investigation division employees tried to destroy his reputation during the course of the investigation. His lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Shreveport, claims that IRS agents Jimmy H. Sandefur, Darrin A. Heusel and Judge Armand and agent trainee Patrick Potter "entered into a smear and fear campaign to destroy Plaintiff's good reputation and law practice."

The lawsuit also alleges that the four IRS employees violated federal laws forbidding the disclosure of tax information, disclosures about an investigation and disclosure of a grand jury investigation. Cryer's suit contends that the agents discussed those issues in phone calls, letters and personal visits while interviewing Cryer's clients during the investigation.

Cryer is seeking at least $1,000 in damages for each time an agent disclosed the information, according to the lawsuit.

He also has filed a criminal complaint with the U.S. Attorney's Office, asking that those officials investigate the agents' actions.

Neither the IRS nor U.S. Attorney Donald Washington returned calls seeking comment Friday.

In July, a jury acquitted Cryer of two federal misdemeanor charges that he failed to file tax returns. Two felony counts of tax evasion were dropped before the trial on the misdemeanor charges started. Those charges alleged that Cryer avoided income taxes by putting income into a trust he created in 1993. The charges alleged that Cryer failed to file income tax returns for the trust.

Cryer has contended for at least a decade that federal law doesn't tax personal earnings. He said he stopped filing returns 10 years ago.

Post by **notorial dissent** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:35 pm

Strange, It would seem that Mr Cryer had managed to do an excellent job of trashing his reputation all on his own, without any governmental help whatsoever. So he is now claiming that he is incompetent at that as well??

Post by **Famspear** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:50 pm

PACER shows the civil case, Cryer v. United States,

at: 5:07-cv-02206-DEW-MLH, on Dec. 26, 2007.

George Harp is Cryer's attorney. I am reading the complaint now.

Post by **Famspear** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:09 pm

The first page of the docket indicates a section 7426 wrongful levy action, but I haven't seen support for that in Cryer's complaint, based on a quick skim.

Essentially the complaint alleges improper disclosures by 3 or 4 IRS special agents of confidential information to about 30 clients of Cryer, in violation of section 6103 and section 7213.

Post by **Famspear** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:17 pm

Oh, and the action is for damages under section 7431(a), which reads (in part):

(a)(1) INSPECTION OR DISCLOSURE BY EMPLOYEE OF UNITED STATES. --If any officer or employee of the United States knowingly, or by reason of negligence, inspects or discloses any return or return information with respect to a taxpayer in violation of any provision of section 6103, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States.

I forgot to mention that the district court in Shreveport is for the Western District of Louisiana (same as for his criminal trial, of course). The judge assigned to this civil case is Donald Walter. He is a former United States attorney for the Western District.

Post by **LPC** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:22 pm

The gist of the complaint is that the CID officers unnecessarily disclosed that Cryer was the subject of a criminal investigation, which seems like a violation of section 6103.

But there's an exception in 6103(k)(6):

"An internal revenue officer or employee and an officer or employee of the Office of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration may, in connection with his official duties relating to any audit, collection activity, or civil or criminal tax investigation or any other offense under the internal revenue laws, disclose return information to the extent that such disclosure is necessary in obtaining information, which is not otherwise reasonably available, with respect to the correct determination of tax, liability for tax, or the amount to be collected or with respect to the enforcement of any other provision of this title. Such disclosures shall be made only in such situations and under such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation."

And there is this temporary regulation at 601.6103(k)(6)-1T(a)(3):

"Internal revenue and TIGTA employees may identify themselves, their organizational affiliation with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (e.g., Criminal Investigation (CI)) or TIGTA (e.g., Office of Investigations (OI)), and the nature of their investigation, when making an oral, written, or electronic contact with a third party witness..."

Post by **notorial dissent** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:38 pm

Like I said, I thought he had done a more than adequate job all on his own. Hasn't he been(or is in the process of) being disbarred by the state for conduct and character?

Post by **LPC** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:59 am

notorial dissent wrote:Hasn't he been(or is in the process of) being disbarred by the state for conduct and character?

I hope so.

I took the trouble to write to the state bar, pointing out his shortcomings and explaining why he should be disbarred. I'd hate to be ignored.

Post by **notorial dissent** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:03 am

All I can say is that it couldn't happen to a more deserving individual, with the exception of Ed Rivera or whatever his name is. More power to you.

Post by **webhick** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:32 pm

CaptainKickback wrote:Isn't Tommy Cryer a lawyer in Louisiana? If so, you may find that unless he is clearly videotaped killing a nun with an axe, he probably will not register on anyone's radar. I could be wrong....... it will depend on his connections and whose palms he has greased over the years.

No, in Louisiana the only way to get disbarred is if you meet all of the following criteria:

You have been digitally videotaped engaged in an act of squirrel-love (Y'all can thank ESO for this rule. No more squirrel-love Quatloosians! I know they look sexy with the buck teeth and the death wish, but no more bad touch!).
You have been caught banging your elbows against the inside of an elevator on President's day while wearing the full pelt of a bichon frise, singing "I Like Big Butts" at the top of your lungs, and making suggestive eyes at old women.
You hoarded all the tan M&Ms shortly before they were discontinued.
You enjoy long walks on the toxic beaches of New Jersey and watching the sun set on the hole in the ozone layer.
You occasionally scrape dinner off the road on your way home from work.
You have asked your bookkeeper if, in order to microwave a can of beans, you just had to vent the lid.
You called the OK soda hotline while you were sober.
You have never dared to call the state Liquor Commission and demand free booze (BTW, they find it really funny so long as you tell them up front that you're not serious).
As an adult, you once ate playdough.
You backwash when sipping someone else's beverage.
You confuse the trick to remember DST because it is just as plausible for a person to fall forward and spring back as it is for them to fall back and spring forward.
You bought a "Dodge Ram" thinking it gave you license to first dodge traffic, then ram into it.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:52 am

I fully understand I could be wrong, but:

Rule 8.4 of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct subsections (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects and (e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a judge, judicial officer, governmental agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

I do believe those apply to him.

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:17 pm

Doktor Avalanche wrote:I fully understand I could be wrong, but:

Rule 8.4 of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct subsections (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects and (e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a judge, judicial officer, governmental agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

I do believe those apply to him.

If they did, they should have applied to him some time ago.