Poor attempt at shaping the news by the TP/TD buffoons

[Judge Roy Bean]

This is so typical - Cryer's cronies declare victory....

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86953

FL. Judge Holds Non-Filer Not Guilty Of Crime!!

But forget to read or even point to the actual report:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/cler ... 61_ROR.pdf

Pursuant to the Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgment, this referee finds
the respondent guilty of violating the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:
3-4.3 for the commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to
honesty and justice; and, 4-8.4(c) for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.....

Aggravating Factors
(a) prior disciplinary offense;
(g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct (respondent
maintains that the current form of federal taxation in the United States is
unconstitutional despite established law to the contrary)....

This referee has also considered the case law, including:
1. In The Florida Bar v. Pearce, 631 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1994), an attorney was
suspended for 45 days for failing to file federal tax returns for two years. Pearce
pled guilty in federal court to misdemeanor charges of failure to file income tax
returns. In recommending a suspension, the Court noted that “[k]nowledge of the
law is part and parcel of an attorney’s job” and that “[f]iling an annual tax return is
an ingrained part of American life.”

The recommendation is a 90-day suspension from the practice of law with automatic reinstatement and payment of costs which currently total $15,089.63.

Yee hawww!

[Number Six]

If all the energy and money wasted on these legal odysseys by the protesters were instead productively employed in gainful employment and in being useful citizens, life would improve for us all.

[LPC]

This is so typical - Cryer's cronies declare victory....

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86953

FL. Judge Holds Non-Filer Not Guilty Of Crime!!

But forget to read or even point to the actual report:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/cler ... 61_ROR.pdf

I got curious about this, because the referee's report was dated 2007, so why is Cryer claiming victory in March 2009?

A review of the docket shows that the Supreme Court sua sponte rejected the above referee's report in an order dated 10/30/2008:

The Court has before it the Petition for Review filed by Respondent. We reject his argument that the referee lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegations in Count II and further reject the argument that the referee abused his discretion in awarding costs related to the Bar's audit. However, considering Respondent's prior public reprimand in Florida Bar v. Behm, Case No. 06-294, and the Court's order in Florida Bar v. Cimbler, Case Nos. 04-2050 and 05-948 (concluding that the failure to file income tax returns warranted a longer suspension from the practice of law than that recommended by the referee), see copy attached, the Court disapproves the Report of the Referee Accepting Consent Judgment for a 90-Day Suspension, on the grounds that the recommended sanction of ninety days is too lenient for the admitted conduct and remands this cause to the referee for further proceedings as to Count II for the purpose of making factual findings and recommendations of guilt as to Count II and a recommendation of sanction based on both Counts I and II. A revised referee's report shall be filed within sixty days of the date of this order unless there are substantial reasons requiring delay.

The second, revised referee's report (filed 3/10/2009) reached the following conclusions as to the failure to file income tax returns (count II):

This referee finds that the respondent’s failure to file either personal or business federal income tax returns from 1999 through 2006 is unlawful. Furthermore, this referee finds that the respondent’s failure to pay federal income taxes from 1999 through 2006, either personal or business, is unlawful. Although this referee finds that the respondent has not been charged with any crime relating to his failure to pay income taxes or to file income tax returns, the failure to do so is nevertheless unlawful. Accordingly, this referee finds the respondent guilty of violating the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: 3-4.3 for the commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice; and, 4-8.4(c) for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

This referee finds the respondent not guilty of violating rule 4-8.4(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

The referee then recommended a 91 day suspension, instead of the previous 90 day suspension.

And can anyone explain what Cryer, a Louisiana lawyer who has failed to file income tax returns, is doing defending a Florida lawyer accused of failing to file income tax returns in a Florida disciplinary proceeding?

[LPC]

Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes....

No. What Boyer said was that Behm had not committed "a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects."

Which is different from saying that Behm had committed no criminal act at all.

Although I don't understand how Boyer could rule that Behm had committed an act that was "unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice" and engaged in conduct "involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," but did not commit a criminal act "that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." I don't understand the distinction, and the referee did not explain the distinction.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will clarify the difference.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I didn't go digging for the later report and now it's even worse than I originally thought. I'm curious if the Supreme Court will consider 1 additional day to be sufficient.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes....

No. What Boyer said was that Behm had not committed "a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects."

Which is different from saying that Behm had committed no criminal act at all.

Although I don't understand how Boyer could rule that Behm had committed an act that was "unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice" and engaged in conduct "involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," but did not commit a criminal act "that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." I don't understand the distinction, and the referee did not explain the distinction.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will clarify the difference.

I guess when it comes to retaining one's professional standing in Florida that having a civil injunction against you for committing what is a crime but not having been yet prosecuted isn't adverse to your fitness to practice law.

[grixit]

TPs probably think he's now got double jeopardy protection against a criminal charge.