Another brilliant idea from Bob Hurt's web site

[Famspear]

From Bob Hurt's web site:

Truth Attack collects money organizes people and works to build a powerful icepick in the brain of income tax. Tom [presumably Tommy Cryer] and Larry [presumably Lowell "Larry" Becraft] support this and push it.

They cannot eat air. They have to receive money for their work, or their families and other obligations die.

It will cost $50,000 to fund the litigation they will do as a MODEL to BUILD CASE LAW in vulnerable areas against income tax.

People will be able to use this case law in years to come.

Instead of working with a real broke patriot with a family suffering from real torturous oppression by the IRS (the typical idiot client who didn't think before bucking against income tax), we set up a dummy situation with real but shell corporation having no purpose other than this lawsuit, hiring one employee for the purpose of this lawsuit, who then files suit against the corporation and uses this lawsuit to hammer the IRS in a way where the win or loss does not cost anybody JAIL TIME and loss of a FORTUNE and FAMILY. The plaintiff works for summary judgment without opposition by the defendant, and it has to do with a crappy income tax issue. The defendant then appeals the ruling and of course the plaintiff wins.

THIS IS A FRIENDLY lawsuit where the parties do it as friendly adversaries to create case law, not out of necessary hostility.

Get it? So HELP ME GET THE MONEY TOGETHER. This is not some bullshit project. It matters. It means something, and it will set the stage for more and more projects like it that can (may, might, possibly) win against the income tax.

It makes more sense to do it this way than to stand aside and watch the IRS and DOJ rape and destroy the lives of one patriot after another, at immense loss of money, liberty, family, reputation, and so on.

We have no other practical way to band together. It's a lot cheaper to pay for litigation than to get out in the street with guns, knives, hoes, and broken whiskey bottles, isn't it?

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... 26b1c53f1e

So, Bob Hurt has discovered the concept of a collusive action -- and now he wants to tell everyone about it?

Somebody alert the media.....

[Doktor Avalanche]

I never met anyone who wanted to save the world without first hitting you up for some money.

[Judge Roy Bean]

At this late hour, I'm somehow reminded of Foghorn Leghorn vs. the more cunning dog.

[fortinbras]

A stunt like this could get both lawyers disbarred. And any real lawyer knows the worthlessness of a collusive lawsuit as precedent.

[notorial dissent]

So Bobby is shilling for money for the two current darlings of the tax fraud movement, well color me shocked and surprised!!! What I would like to know is what his cut of the take will be? If all they are looking for is $50k they must not be planning on mounting anything real serious, sounds like a certain recent legal defense that ate up all the retainer before they ever got to court and then the wonderful attorney [Mark Lane] wanted out before he could get his wings clipped for filing nonsense.

I can foresee several people going to jail over this for fraud, and a couple of lawyers losing their tickets, and probably joining their clients if they are actually stupid enough to do this. Wanna bet that "Tom and Larry" haven't actually been consulted on this little charade? I can't imagine either of them being dumb enough to think this could end any way but badly, particularly for them.

I'm kind of surprised that he didn't include Barringer in this little cabal, except he for sure isn't going to be practicing much if any law any time soon.

A stunt like this could get both lawyers disbarred. And any real lawyer knows the worthlessness of a collusive lawsuit as precedent.

I think you pretty well answered your question as you asked it here, didn't you?

[Kestrel]

I can foresee several people going to jail over this for fraud, and a couple of lawyers losing their tickets, and probably joining their clients if they are actually stupid enough to do this. Wanna bet that "Tom and Larry" haven't actually been consulted on this little charade? I can't imagine either of them being dumb enough to think this could end any way but badly, particularly for them.

I don't know Larry, but I do know Tommy personally and he's a man with nothing left to lose.

Yes, he really is that dumb. I'm suspecting Tommy may even have concocted the little cabal. From his website:

Truth Attack is ready to go on the offensive. It's time we choose the cases, carefully selecting winnable suits presenting optimum facts and well-supported and properly prosecuted legal positions. Truth Attack is ready to make new law, rein in the IRS and confront the courts with the law for once. The first cases we file taking them to task for violating the law have to be perfect test cases in order to build a "favorable body of case law" against the IRS.

.....

Withholding is the heart of the income tax fraud because it allows the government to kidnap and hold wages and earnings hostage, forcing us to either abandon the hostages or waive our exemptions by filing tax returns. Truth Attack knows attorneys who are anxious to challenge that practice, which is based upon pure bluff and blow.

We are looking for cases that present the following conditions:
■Employer willing to be sued by his employee
■Employee willing to sue his employer
■In Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington or Wyoming
■Both "current" on tax filings, including 940's, 941's and 1040's (no exposure to retaliation)
■No outstanding assessments, liens or levies (no exposure to retaliation)
■Financially willing and able (or having supporters willing and able) to pay out of pocket expenses and at least some portion of legal fees (attorneys have to survive in order to fight)

Right now Tommy is living on borrowed time, but he doesn't grasp that concept. He's delaying the inevitable by dragging out his own tax court case (now entering its 30th month without being dismissed or going to trial - the IRS must really fear him!!!). The longer he can drag it out, and the more stroking he gets from the likes of Larry and Bob, the more invulnerable he believes himself to be.

At least while Carolyn was still alive Tommy had a reason to do the right thing whether he wanted to or not, because she couldn't take care of herself after she got sick. Now he's married to Dee Dee, who's appears to be an idol-worshipping "true believer." Yeah, that helps.

[notorial dissent]

Well, to quote uncle Irwin, "I could be dead wrong about this", but I still have a hard time believing anyone could be that dumb, well maybe not really, considering what we've seen people do in the "movement", but still. Not being privy to Tommy's personal problems, I have no idea what is going on with him otherwise, but that is just sad. I am quite convinced that he is working on self destructing, but I kind of figured he was doing it the more traditional way, but if he wants to get it over with quickly, this would be the way to do it. Maybe he and Barringer can get adjoining cells or even share one together.

[wserra]

Yes, he really is that dumb.

I didn't realize that, but your quote from his site proves it pretty conclusively.

Truth Attack is ready to go on the offensive. It's time we choose the cases
.....

We are looking for cases that present the following conditions:
■Employer willing to be sued by his employee
■Employee willing to sue his employer

As others have observed, this is called a "collusive suit". The Supreme Court has discussed them:

Such a suit is collusive because it is not in any real sense adversary. It does not assume the "honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights" to be adjudicated -- a safeguard essential to the integrity of the judicial process, and one which we have held to be indispensable to adjudication of constitutional questions by this Court. [Citations omitted.] Whenever, in the course of litigation, such a defect in the proceedings is brought to the court's attention, it may set aside any adjudication thus procured and dismiss the cause without entering judgment on the merits. It is the court's duty to do so where, as here, the public interest has been placed at hazard by the amenities of parties to a suit conducted under the domination of only one of them.

United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302 (1943). Nothing like laying out the facts that ensure the dismissal of your suit before you even bring it.

What a maroon.

[grixit]

Actually, i suspect they'll end up doing a mock trial, which will be mostly or totally scripted. Then they can market a video.

[Pottapaug1938]

Actually, i suspect they'll end up doing a mock trial, which will be mostly or totally scripted. Then they can market a video.

I'm sure that more than a few owners of vacant industrial property, more than a few pastors of churches with room to spare and more than a few veterans' posts are already salivating at the thought of renting out their space for the ...um, "courtroom".

[Famspear]

....I don't know Larry, but I do know Tommy personally and he's a man with nothing left to lose.....

I've never met Tommy Cryer, but there is a possibility that someone I used to know is a relative of his, possibly a close cousin. (Probably no way I'll ever know for sure, as I have not seen the individual in many years.)

Kestrel, what makes Tommy tick? How did he get to this point, in your view?

[fortinbras]

Actually, i suspect they'll end up doing a mock trial, which will be mostly or totally scripted. Then they can market a video.

And it will have all the validity, dignity, and meaning of television wrestling.

[Lambkin]

I don't know Larry, but I do know Tommy personally and he's a man with nothing left to lose.

His personal liberty?

[LPC]

Instead of working with a real broke patriot with a family suffering from real torturous oppression by the IRS (the typical idiot client who didn't think before bucking against income tax), we set up a dummy situation with real but shell corporation having no purpose other than this lawsuit, hiring one employee for the purpose of this lawsuit, who then files suit against the corporation and uses this lawsuit to hammer the IRS in a way where the win or loss does not cost anybody JAIL TIME and loss of a FORTUNE and FAMILY. The plaintiff works for summary judgment without opposition by the defendant, and it has to do with a crappy income tax issue. The defendant then appeals the ruling and of course the plaintiff wins.

THIS IS A FRIENDLY lawsuit where the parties do it as friendly adversaries to create case law, not out of necessary hostility.

It's nice to know that they are finally beginning to realize (but still repressing the logical consequences of the realization) that they will never win a case against the IRS or an actual adversary, and the only way to win a favorable decision will be through collusion.

And it still won't work.

1. The defendant-employer can't simply fail to respond, because a default judgment is not "case law" and creates no court decision or anything else of any use. So the employer-defendant has to file pleadings in opposition in order to force the court to rule, but the pleadings have to be completely inert and incompetent.

2. The case has to be assigned to a judge who is truly stupid and has law clerks who are totally ignorant. I mean, think about it: A judge whose own salary is subject to federal income tax withholding is handed a motion for summary judgment (or something) in which the plaintiff-employee alleges that federal income tax withholding is unconstitutional, invalid, or something, and the employer says no, that's not true, but fails to present any meaningful legal authority. The judge (or law clerk) has got to have the same reaction I had when first confronted with the claim that the federal income tax is unconstitutional: That's funny, because I don't remember hearing that in law school, and you would have thought that the issue would have been litigated at some point in the last 95 years, so where are the precedents? And it will take only about 5-10 minutes of legal research for the judge (or clerk) to figure out what the law is and rule accordingly.

3. Even if the parties draw a judge who is monumentally stupid (or sloppy) with clerks that are ignorant (and lazy), the decision does no one any good because withholding is based on statute, not case law, and every Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed that withholding is constitutional, relying on Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595 (1931).

4. The lawyers involved will almost certainly be disciplined for failing to disclose relevant legal precedents, as required by ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a) (which states in relevant part that "A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; [or] (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel....")

I find it difficult to believe that even Cryer or Becraft could be stupid or delusional enough to expect this scam to work, or corrupt enough to fleece the rubes for $50,000 for working the scam.

[Omne]

Actually, i suspect they'll end up doing a mock trial, which will be mostly or totally scripted. Then they can market a video.

They can package it as a double feature along with the alien autopsy video....

[Noah]

Right now Tommy is living on borrowed time, but he doesn't grasp that concept. He's delaying the inevitable by dragging out his own tax court case (now entering its 30th month without being dismissed or going to trial - the IRS must really fear him!!!). The longer he can drag it out, and the more stroking he gets from the likes of Larry and Bob, the more invulnerable he believes himself to be.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5563128

Do you have any info on Cryer's discovery requests and the IRS's reponse to the order?

[notorial dissent]

I'm sure that more than a few owners of vacant industrial property, more than a few pastors of churches with room to spare and more than a few veterans' posts are already salivating at the thought of renting out their space for the ...um, "courtroom".

Or they could just have lunch at the local Denny's and save themselves the rental fee.

And it will have all the validity, dignity, and meaning of television wrestling.

Nah, that's usually more believable and better theater.

...the decision does no one any good because withholding is based on statute, not case law, and every Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed that withholding is constitutional, relying on Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595 (1931) ...

I don't see how they could even get anything other than a dismissal unless the judge is profoundly braindead at the time of the trial, and I wouldn't think it would make any difference if the employer showed or not, since the law plainly exempts them from any liability in the matter, and requires them to comply, and the law in question, that they would have to challenge as you have pointed out has been repeatedly upheld as constitutional. Going to court on this would be an exercise in farce at the very least, and almost certainly the beginnings of a contempt citation and disbarment proceeding the attorney.

[Kestrel]

Kestrel, what makes Tommy tick? How did he get to this point, in your view?

What makes him tick? I’m not entirely sure, but some background may help.

-- Order of the Coif in law school. (Yeah, we knew that.)
-- Twice married, but no kids that I’m aware of. Current wife has been reported (by him) to be extremely supportive of his political views.
-- No denominational religious affiliation I know of, but he is a Mason and is (or was) Worshipful Master of his local Blue Lodge. His fondness of looking for hidden meanings and conspiracies may be derived from this.
-- Long-standing solo practitioner in a small law office, with only one long-term loyal employee. Practice specialty is (or was) estate and trust law. Enjoyed a solid positive reputation in his niche, and got most of his clients from personal referrals and repeat business.
-- First wife, Carolyn, had a brain injury. I think it was an early-in-life stroke but I’m not sure. I met her after she was already disabled, and it wasn’t the sort of thing that was polite to discuss.
-- As a solo practitioner, able to bury his personal expenses in his business tax return without being questioned. Able to make business-direction and business-reporting decisions without repercussion from associates.
-- Well read, but only of selected sources supporting his political views. Considers himself to be a historian and constitutional scholar. Enamored with “little guy” heroes self-defined as The Militia and Patriots. Embraced their idea that Federal Reserve Notes are not legitimate currency, the income tax constitutional amendment was not validly ratified, and that Circuit Courts of Appeal were not courts of final jurisdiction.

When put together we have a picture of a guy who considers himself unusually bright and a leader, but is generally unaccountable to any authority except himself. With no partners or associates, a mentally handicapped wife, and no kids, he is accustomed to being unchallenged.

Add to that:
-- Not a trial lawyer. Before the IRS got involved he spent very little time in a courtroom (which is biting him back now). His trial strategy has been “baffle them with massive mounds of bullshit,” which worked before a jury when defending against criminal tax evasion charges. It didn’t work so well in judge-only situations before the Supreme Courts of Louisiana and Florida, where his defenses resulted in two other lawyers being disbarred.
-- Not an accountant by any definition. Knowledgeable of the “Gross Income” and “Net Income” formulas for business returns, and harboring a sense of unfairness that expenses which can be deducted as business expenses (medical, meals, entertainment, automobile) are not deductable on the personal side. Tax return deductibility limitations for Carolyn’s huge medical expenses probably worsened his perspective.
-- Long-time non-filer of tax returns that would have shown only penny-ante income after charging off personal expenses as business expenses. Due to the consistency of marginal self-reported income and the lack outside agency reports, “flew under the radar” until he grew convinced that, since the IRS hadn’t ever done anything about, it they never would. The 1099 requirement to report gross moneys paid to an attorney came about because of people like him.

Ironically, it was his attempt to protect Carolyn through setting up a trust which triggered the outside-agency reports that brought him to the IRS’s attention. Fortunately for her, she was unaware of the depth of his tax troubles and died before they could reach a crisis.

As his criminal tax evasion trial approached Cryer felt besieged by the IRS’s attempt to obtain revenue information from his clients. When contact by IRS agents, his clients disavowed their affiliation with him and fired him; his cash flow dried up fast. It was shortly before the criminal trial, when he was desperate for money to keep the lights on, that he made contact with TP groups on the internet. Looking for fresh blood and a new front-man, they promptly set him up with an internet radio program, helped him build a website, and gave him a way to raise money.

[Kestrel]

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5563128

Do you have any info on Cryer's discovery requests and the IRS's reponse to the order?

I saw that myself and was hoping someone else would know. Cryer's not talking openly about it to anyone who's not one if his insiders.

[Famspear]

Thanks, Kestrel. That was very informative!