Here are a couple email replies posted on the thread reportedly from Tommy:
I don't know who you are, so am at an obvious disadvantage.
There is no way I can explain the host of questions you have asked, although I acknowledge that all of those questions are reasonable. I am trying to help people and promote Truth Attack at the same time. But I'll try to answer the two or three most important.
I can say, however, that you seem to have been playing with some dangerous kids. "Trade or business" sounds like one of the gurus out there who is misleading people on the meaning of "includes" and getting a lot of them in trouble in the process. Look at 7701(c) if you want to know how to interpret "includes" for the IRC.
The Schulz case merely states that in order to be mandatory a summons must be coupled with an order on a show cause motion to compel. They issue the summons and compliance is voluntary, then they take it to the court and the court orders you to comply and it becomes mandatory. The next step is contempt if you do not comply.
There are other indicators that you have been associating with the wrong crowd, but there is no way I can cover all of that with the time I have. Suffice to say that you should not accept anything anyone tells you unless and until you can verify it with an attorney.
You are in the beast's cave and in the cave it defines reality, it says who is safe or out, what is fair or foul, and it owns the scoreboard and the umpire. You should be very careful.
You need to either get "in compliance" or get a good attorney, because after this exchange they are going to want your head on a lance. And don't go to an attorney with "no cash". You wouldn't go to the grocery store empty-handed and expect to walk out with a cart full of groceries. Get the best attorney you can afford.
Tom
Ernest,
I think we’ve already discussed this matter and determined that you are too infected to be helped. Since you know more about the law than I do, there is nothing I can offer that you don’t already know better than.
In either event, I cannot render legal advice on the basis of an email.
I think it is the height of hilarity that even Tommy Cryer sees and thinks that CTC is a crock, and comes right out and says so. The mental defective asking for his aid won’t ever figure that out though. I particularly like the one comment quoted below. To me it is priceless, and will be totally lost on the non-cognoscenti. Maybe Cryer isn’t so dumb after all, just cheap instead.
Tommy Cryer wrote:...you are too infected to be helped...
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Nikki wrote:Is is at all possible that his [Cryer's] brain has engaged the rational thinking gear?
Doubtful.
It's possible that he's enjoying the attention from tax deniers and is leading them on, but it's much more likely that he's still in delusion mode.
Exchanges with him might be interesting though, because he's not stupid. So perhaps someone should invite him to Quatloos and see if he bites. (I don't think I'm the right person because of the judgments I express in my "Tax Protester Dossiers" wiki.)
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.
Nikki wrote:Is is at all possible that his [Cryer's] brain has engaged the rational thinking gear?
Doubtful.
It's possible that he's enjoying the attention from tax deniers and is leading them on, but it's much more likely that he's still in delusion mode.
Exchanges with him might be interesting though, because he's not stupid. So perhaps someone should invite him to Quatloos and see if he bites. (I don't think I'm the right person because of the judgments I express in my "Tax Protester Dossiers" wiki.)
(boldface mine)
I think you're right. Visit his YouTube videos and you'll see him post occasionally to root on his flunkies. He tends to become scarce though if one puts him on the spot.
Nikki wrote:Is is at all possible that his [Cryer's] brain has engaged the rational thinking gear?
Doubtful.
It's possible that he's enjoying the attention from tax deniers and is leading them on, but it's much more likely that he's still in delusion mode.
Exchanges with him might be interesting though, because he's not stupid. So perhaps someone should invite him to Quatloos and see if he bites. (I don't think I'm the right person because of the judgments I express in my "Tax Protester Dossiers" wiki.)
(boldface mine)
I think you're right. Visit his YouTube videos and you'll see him post occasionally to root on his flunkies. He tends to become scarce though if one puts him on the spot.
I've always thought that Cryer was not delusional. Simply a cheat. He knows not to encourage others too much, and he knows that CTC, like every other TP theory is BS. Somehow he avoided jail, I'll never understand that one. But in any event, I tend to think he'll start filing income tax returns and work himself out of the TP movement before too long. Then again, I could be completely wrong.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
If it's actually them, the classic fingers behind the head is perhaps an unintentionally accurate silent commentary by who I assume is Becraft on the efficacy of the arguments of this TP hero.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Imalawman wrote: I've always thought that Cryer was not delusional. Simply a cheat. He knows not to encourage others too much, and he knows that CTC, like every other TP theory is BS. Somehow he avoided jail, I'll never understand that one. But in any event, I tend to think he'll start filing income tax returns and work himself out of the TP movement before too long. Then again, I could be completely wrong.
I agree that he's not delusional, though he has a documented history of drug abuse. He was lucky and I think he knows he was lucky.