Cryer, Tommy

[circle456]

Sorry, the man's name slipped me as I was writing. The case I was referencing involved a man by the name of Hauert.

From the previous 2 posts, it is simple to see that between the 2 of you the paradigm is:

1. Submit to authority ("power").

2. Use ridicule and sarcasm to muddy a clear view of the truth of a matter.

What is the Dun and Bradstreet D-U-N-S Number of the IRS office that you work from?

[wserra]

Sorry, the man's name slipped me as I was writing. The case I was referencing involved a man by the name of Hauert.

Ah, Mr. Hauert. Federal court in Chicago? Docket 93-cr-00285? Charged with tax evasion?

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of twelve (12) months on each of counts one through eight. Said term of imprisonment of twelve months on each count to concurrent. The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons, before 2:00 p.m. on 09/28/93, as notified by the United States Marshal, and/or as notified by the Probation Office. Upon release from imprisonm ent, the defendant shall be on supervised release for a term of three (3) years with conditions. The defendant shall pay a fine of $2,000.00, in full not later than expiration of supervised release.

Sure doesn't look "dismissed".

From the previous 2 posts, it is simple to see that between the 2 of you the paradigm is:

1. Submit to authority ("power").

I've done more to fight authority than you can dream of. Acquittals in high profile cases, multiple six and seven figure verdicts and settlements - against "authority".

What have you done?

2. Use ridicule and sarcasm to muddy a clear view of the truth of a matter.

Only when richly deserved. Such as Mr. Hauert going to federal prison after his case was "dismissed".

[Quixote]

And the conviction was affirmed in US v. Hauert, 40 F.3d 197 (7th Cir. 1994). The last line of that opinion seems relevant here: The writer must add that Justice Blackmun's dissent in Cheek evidences considerable prescience: "This Court's opinion, today, I fear, will encourage taxpayers to cling to frivolous views of the law in the hope of convincing a jury of their sincerity."

[Kimokeo]

Not Guilty

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbc ... 062/NEWS03

Of course, the reason he gives isn't the reason for not being convicted.

[Freedom Fighter One]

The Cryer trial was supposed to start today. Any news on whether or not it went forward. I need to taunt someone over on another board when Cryer is convicted.

:twisted:

http://wesawthat.blogspot.com/2007/07/s ... cryer.html
Here you go start taunting

[ErsatzAnatchist]

The Cryer trial was supposed to start today. Any news on whether or not it went forward. I need to taunt someone over on another board when Cryer is convicted.

http://wesawthat.blogspot.com/2007/07/s ... cryer.html
Here you go start taunting

Arfie?

[Demosthenes]

The Cryer trial was supposed to start today. Any news on whether or not it went forward. I need to taunt someone over on another board when Cryer is convicted.

http://wesawthat.blogspot.com/2007/07/s ... cryer.html
Here you go start taunting

Sorry. Taunting only occurs on the tax protester board:

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewforum.php?f=8

This board is for updates.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Tommy Cryer's videos are gone from YouTube. He used to have four videos and they're all gone.

[Dezcad]

Tommy Cryer's videos are gone from YouTube. He used to have four videos and they're all gone.

From his Truth Attack site there is a YouTube link for a number of his videos, although these videos may be different from the ones that you noticed have been removed.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Tommy Cryer's videos are gone from YouTube. He used to have four videos and they're all gone.

From his Truth Attack site there is a YouTube link for a number of his videos, although these videos may be different from the ones that you noticed have been removed.

Yup, he pulled the others.

[Famspear]

Sorry. Taunting only occurs on the tax protester board [ . . .]

This board is for updates.

Rules, rules, rules!

The rule says I must not be taunting
When, inside this board, I am haunting.
And I'm sure it is nice
To take Demo's advice;
It's her book that I'll some day be wanting.

[jcolvin2]

Cryer loses the appeal of his section 7431 (unlawful disclosure) case.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf

The original district court opinion:

TOMMY K. CRYER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING

Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #3] filed on behalf of defendant, the United States of America (the "Government"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff opposes this motion. For the reasons assigned herein, the Government's motion is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff, Tommy K. Cryer ("Cryer"), brings this action pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7431 against the Government asserting claims of wrongful oral and written disclosures of return information by Special Agents of the Criminal Investigative Division of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103. In particular, Cryer alleges that the Special Agents contacted plaintiff's clients and/or friends and wrongfully disclosed that "Plaintiff was the subject of a criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office," and/or "that Plaintiff was the subject of a secret criminal investigation being conducted by the Grand Jury." Complaint, ¶¶ 10-39.

In its Motion to Dismiss, the Government asserts that Cryer fails to state a claim under § 7431 because any disclosures made were not of "return information" as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2)(A); are permitted under the "investigative purposes" exception of 26 U.S.C. § 6103(k)(6); and are immunized under the "good faith, but erroneous interpretation of section 6103" defense provided under 26 U.S.C. § 7431(b). The Government further asserts that Oyer's wrongful disclosure claims based upon seven letters sent to third parties requesting information with regard to checks made payable to Cryer should also be dismissed as they are "innocuous and not actionable."

In opposing defendant's motion, Cryer asserts that the Complaint does, in fact, allege all of the elements required to establish a wrongful disclosure claim under § 7431, "i.e., that tax return information was unnecessarily disclosed in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103." Plaintiff further asserts that the Government's claim that the agents acted under a good faith misinterpretation of the laws prohibiting disclosures is merely an affirmative defense, and that the Complaint "clearly alleges bad faith on the part of the offending agents." Plaintiff's Opp., ¶ 2.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the "court accepts 'all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff'." Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999)). To survive such a motion, the plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, -- U.S. --, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

Section 7431 provides that a taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the 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." 26 U.S.C. § 7431(a)(1). Section 6103 prohibits an officer or employee of the United States, among others, from disclosing "any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section." 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). Section 6103(b) defines "return information," in pertinent part, as:

[A] taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense . . .

26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2)(A).

Each of the seven letters identified by Cryer in his Complaint1 as wrongfully disclosing return information opens as follows. "I am assisting the United States Attorney's Office in a grand jury investigation and need to determine the purpose of the attached check (i.e., legal fees, lawsuit settlement, etc.)." See Complaint, ¶¶ 13, 18-21, 26 & 31; see also defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Exhs. 1-7. The letters then contain a detailed description of the relevant check(s) that includes the identity of the payee as Tommy K. Cryer. Clearly, the letters do not disclose any "return information." Therefore, Cryer fails to state a claim under § 7431 with regard to the written disclosures.

As explained above, Cryer makes, at the most, only two allegations as to each identified incident of alleged unlawful oral disclosure by the Special Agents: (1) that "Plaintiff was the subject of a criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office;" and (2) "that Plaintiff was the subject of a secret criminal investigation being conducted by the Grand Jury." Complaint, ¶¶ 10-12, 14-17, 22-25, 27-30 & 32-39. The Government asserts that Cryer fails to allege the disclosure of "return information" and, even assuming plaintiff's Complaint could be amended or construed to allege oral disclosures of "return information," plaintiff's Complaint would still fail as the Special Agents' communications are protected by the "investigative purposes" exception, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(k)(6)2, or the "good faith" defense, 26 U.S.C. § 7431(b)(1).3

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court "will generally accept the pleader's description of what happened to him along with any conclusions that can reasonably be drawn therefrom." Jones v. Alcoa. Inc., 339 F.3d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). With the exception of plaintiff's identifying the individuals or business allegedly contacted by the Special Agents, Cryer's allegations with regard to the Agents' communications with, contacts of or disclosures to third party witnesses are devoid of detail, let alone any factual basis to support the conclusion that the Special Agents made disclosures in violation of § 6103. "Conclusory allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted as true" by a motion to dismiss. Associated Builders. Inc. v. Alabama Power Company, 505 F.2d 97, 100 (5th Cir. 1974).

This Court finds that even if plaintiff's allegations could be construed to allege that the Special Agents disclosed return information, the disclosures at issue are covered by the "investigative purposes" exception. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103(k)(6). Thus, the remaining communications relied upon by Cryer are also not actionable. Based on this finding, the Court need not address whether the "good faith" defense applies.

Finally, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim related to wrongful disclosure of Grand Jury proceedings. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 6.


CONCLUSION


For the reasons stated above, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED.
Donald E. Walter
United States District Judge

FOOTNOTES


1 The letters relied upon by Cryer were not attached to the Complaint but were attached to the Government's motion to dismiss. This Court's reliance upon these letters on a motion to dismiss is proper, and this Court need not convert defendant's motion to one for summary judgment, as the letters are referred to in plaintiff's Complaint and are central to his claim regarding the allegedly unlawful written disclosures. See In re Katrina Canal Breached Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet. Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004).

2 Section 6103(k)(6) provides, in part, that:

[a]n 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 . . . 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.

Further, 26 C.F.R. § 301.6103(k)(6)-1(a)(3) provides that IRS employees

may identify themselves, their organizational affiliation (e.g., [IRS], Criminal Investigation (CI) or TIGTA, Office of Investigations (OI), and the nature of their investigation, when making oral, written, or electronic contact with a third party witness. Permitted disclosures include, but are not limited to, the use and presentation of any identification media (such as a Federal agency badge, credential, or business card) or the use of an information document request, summons, or correspondence on Federal agency letterhead or which bears a return address or signature block that reveals affiliation with the Federal agency.

3 Section 7431(b)(1) provides immunity from liability for any inspection or disclosure that "results from a good faith, but erroneous, interpretation of section 6103."

[Nikki]

Tommy is so hard up for funds to pay his civil case that he'll take any possible avenue to get more money.

[Judge Roy Bean]

As cynic-in -residence I find this troubling:

This Court finds that even if plaintiff's allegations could be construed to allege that the Special Agents disclosed return information, the disclosures at issue are covered by the "investigative purposes" exception.

Granted, Cryer is a thorn.

But the belief in limitations regarding what information is or isn't actually shared among agencies (or more particularly employees therein) should be considered fairy tales.

Sorry - I have only so much faith in the executive branch and the alleged controls placed on what they can acquire in terms of information. What they can find is limitless; the only present barrier is what they can use.

We should all consider the implications of weakening that barrier.

[Nikki]

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Docket No. 8118-09
04/02/09 PETITION Filed
04/02/09 REQUEST for Place of Trial at New Orleans, LA
05/29/09 ANSWER by Chief Counsel
07/20/09 MOTION by Chief Counsel under Rule 37(c)
Reply to be filed: 8-11-09

A Rule 37(c) motion is a request that the Court enter an order that the undenied allegations in Counsel's Answer to the Petition be deemed to be admitted.

Counsel filed the Answer on 5/29 and Cryer failed to respond within the specified time frame.

Now, he has to show the Court why the allegations of fact by Counsel should not be accepted.

[Noah]

Are the pleadings posted anywhere ?
Thanks

[LPC]

Are the pleadings posted anywhere ?
Thanks

The public on-line source would be http://www.ustaxcourt.gov, but a docket inquiry shows that none of the documents are available.

If you're really curious, you can call or write the Tax Court to ask for copies, but they'll charge you per page. (I did it in one case because I was really curious about something. I got the copy of the petition I wanted, but was disappointed.)

[Noah]

Update

Docket #
0009 12/18/2009 ORDER Parties by 1-29-10 file jt. status report.

0010 02/03/2010 JOINT REPORT.

0011 02/18/2010 ORDER Parties by the dates contained herein comply

0012 04/22/2010 JOINT MOTION to continue trial generally.

Tommy must have come up with something new to get this far.

[Famspear]

Update

Docket #
0009 12/18/2009 ORDER Parties by 1-29-10 file jt. status report.

0010 02/03/2010 JOINT REPORT.

0011 02/18/2010 ORDER Parties by the dates contained herein comply

0012 04/22/2010 JOINT MOTION to continue trial generally.

Tommy must have come up with something new to get this far.

What do you mean?

[Noah]

Update

Docket #
0009 12/18/2009 ORDER Parties by 1-29-10 file jt. status report.

0010 02/03/2010 JOINT REPORT.

0011 02/18/2010 ORDER Parties by the dates contained herein comply

0012 04/22/2010 JOINT MOTION to continue trial generally.

Tommy must have come up with something new to get this far.

What do you mean?

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/asp/Index.asp

Should be with this thread but it was read only

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4072&st=0&sk=t&sd=a