Cryer: Possible Discipline

[LPC]

The following is a possible complaint that might be filed with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board.

Louisiana attorney Tommy K. Cryer has recently been in the news, and his public actions merit discipline.

Mr. Cryer was indicted for federal income tax evasion in 2006 and responded by filing a motion to dismiss that is a classic (84-page) rehash of tax protester nonsense, including claims that the Internal Revenue Code does not impose any liability, that the income from a person's own labor is "fundamental right" that cannot be taxed, that compensation for labor is an "equal exchange" that does not result in gain, and that wages are not "income" within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. United States v. Tommy K. Cryer, No. 06-50164-10 (U.S.D.C. W.D. La. 2/7/2007). These kinds of arguments have been repeatedly rejected by the courts, and usually result in sanctions against the people making them.

Mr. Cryer admitted having income, and admitted that he did not file any federal income tax returns, but was acquitted of after a three-day jury trial during which he apparently convinced the jury that his failure to file was not “willful” in that he did not understand that he was required to file income tax returns.

Following his acquittal, Mr. Cryer has made public statements claiming (among other things) that there is no law making the “average American citizen” liable for the income tax, and that the jury verdict confirms this. See, for example, http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Bro ... n_0712.ram and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Of8M1MZJQ. He continues to make these statements even though the judge in his own case ruled against him on those exact issues.

A lawyer who is so ignorant, dishonest, or delusional that he does not understand that he is required to file income tax returns is not fit to practice law. See La. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and (c). Judging by Mr. Cryer’s disciplinary history, it is possible that he is delusional, because in Louisiana State Bar Association v. Cryer, 441 S.2d 734, 1983 La. LEXIS 12346 (11/29/1983), Mr. Cryer's "inexplicable behavior" was attributed to "emotional problems."

I would suggest that Mr. Cryer be suspended from the practice of law, and that his suspension should not end until he has filed the income tax returns required by law.

[webhick]

I love it. Only I would draw a bit more attention to his misrepresentations of the verdict since it demonstrates either an inability to understand the charges against him or an intentional deception. It seemed like it was mentioned in passing.

Maybe it's just me though, but I found the crap he was dishing *after* trial to be more indicative of a delusional person since he's getting "not guilty of willful failure to file" confused with "you don't have to pay taxes - no one does" It's pretty basic and must have been explained to him by his lawyer.

[Demosthenes]

I found the crap he was dishing *after* trial to be more indicative of a delusional person

I found it indicative of a tax cheat trying to raise donations from an unsophisticated fawning audience to pay off his legal bills.

[webhick]

I found the crap he was dishing *after* trial to be more indicative of a delusional person

I found it indicative of a tax cheat trying to raise donations from an unsophisticated fawning audience to pay off his legal bills.

<backpeddle>I thought that went without saying </backpeddle>

[John J. Bulten]

Mr. Cryer admitted having income,

Please elaborate. All I see is admission of filing employer documents.

Following his acquittal, Mr. Cryer has made public statements claiming (among other things) that there is no law making the “average American citizen” liable for the income tax, and that the jury verdict confirms this.

Before acquittal, he said the same, without the last clause.

I would suggest that Mr. Cryer be suspended from the practice of law, and that his suspension should not end until he has filed the income tax returns required by law.

I would certainly agree that he should file his 2000-2001 income tax returns immediately.

[Famspear]

More misinformation from Tommy Cryer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgbYkElqxw0

(I can't recall if this has already been posted in Quatloos, so I apologize if this duplicates a link already shown elsewhere.)

[ElfNinosMom]

I know a successful (but not financially successful) attorney in Florida who is scared to death of the IRS due to possible sanctions by the Florida Bar. He's chronically behind on his taxes, but it scares him half to death that he'll lose his license.

I guess I automatically assumed the state bar would take action against Cryer's license of their own accord, given the extent of his tax problems. If they haven't, then someone should bring it to their attention, given that he appears to pose a danger to the general public by giving them advice that could easily get them sent to prison.

[Joey Smith]

Illegal immigration is off-topic so take it to "Ranting & Raving", Amigos . . .

[The Operative]

So, Dan, have you filed the complaint with the ODC of the LADB yet? Or do you plan on doing so?

Just curious.

[Randall]

Remember ENM it is a Louisiana matter, a state noted for amazing levels of corruption, graft, greed and cronyism. Whether it is the Levees Commission using money for parties and fancy offices, rather than maintaining the leves, or rampant bribery and theivery in the NOPD (probably much better since Katrina) , not to mention a system geared towards keeping people, poor, ignorant and dependent on the government.

The part I highlighted in blue is the central aim of the Democrat party, because people who are dependent on government are much more likely to vote Democrat. So the more wards of the state you can produce, the better.

Which is so much different from the system where corporations get billion$ in tax breaks and protection from being held liable for their misdeeds.

[The Operative]

Which is so much different from the system where corporations get billion$ in tax breaks and protection from being held liable for their misdeeds.

Yet, government revenue collected from corporation income taxes has almost doubled since 2000. While revenue collected from individual income taxes dropped significantly after the tax cuts of 2001 and has just risen above 2000 levels this year.

[gezco]

In order to get a tax break, one must first pay taxes. This country taxes corporations about as heavily as any country in the world. Bitching about corporate tax breaks is just silly. If anything, corporations in this country pay too much tax.

[Judge Roy Bean]

What protection from being held liable for their misdeeds? Corporations get sued by private individuals and fined by the government all the time.

Not enough to prevent them or their replicants from doing it over and over again. There's no such thing as a corporate death penalty. And with a few notable and highly publicized exceptions, the individual perpetrators of non-SEC/investment related corporate malfeasance move on with only temporary and minor adjustments in lifestyle.

To be frank, perjury on the part of company officers and employees has to be assumed as part of the game in an enormous number of civil cases that settle pre-trial. Forged and supposedly unavailable documents just don't seem to be that big a deal unless a case is actually going to wind up in front of a jury. And we all know most cases never get that far, so brinksmanship is the play of the day, not truth.

If you look into the issues surrounding mortgage lending litigation, you cannot discount the not-so-subtle shift in settlement conferences when a court has finally (and often reluctantly) ordered production of previously missing evidence. Suddenly, either affidavits appear for in-camera review that weren't available or counsel for the lender is more willing to consider their position.

Don't forget, no one faces jail for losing a civil suit. And just try to find a corporate actor serving time for perjury in a non-SEC or IRS driven civil case.

If you lie for yourself in a civil trial, chances are you will be the subject of a grand jury's consideration. Company employees who tow the company line for the typical lender face no such gauntlet and have the company's almost unlimited legal resources behind them.

The courts today are simply far too trusting when it comes to lenders and their supposedly honest and upstanding executives and employees unless one of them happens to scam the company or turn on them with evidence of wrong doing.

As a lender, you scam enough borrowers you get sued and maybe investigated and after a very long and drawn out negotiation it's pretty much business as usual even if you paid a settlement amount or a fine. But as an individual, if you scam a financial institution you spend time behind bars, wind up financially destroyed and may eventually go to prison.

To me, that doesn't spell much in terms of personal liability for the corporate tortfeasor.