Posted on 01/04/2008 5:06:16 AM PST by Man50D
A lawyer who was acquitted by a federal court trial jury of Internal Revenue Service accusations he failed to filed income tax returns for two years now is suing several IRS agents over their alleged improper disclosure of his personal information in the case.
A spokeswoman in the office of lawyer Tom Cryer told WND the case was assembled and filed by Cryer between Christmas Day and the end of 2007 and is expected to be placed on the docket in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Last summer in federal court a jury voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of the IRS allegations. He had been indicted on 2006 on government claims he failed to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001.
His successful defense was based on a challenge to the IRS to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax.
Now his claim against the government's agents, according to a report in the Shreveport Times, explains four IRS criminal investigation division workers tried to destroy his reputation during the course of their investigation in the case.
The lawsuit alleges IRS agents Jimmy H. Sandefur, Darrin A. Heusel and Judge Armand, and a trainee, Patrick Potter "entered into a smear and fear campaign to destroy Plaintiff's good reputation and law practice."
Cryer alleges the federal workers repeatedly violated federal laws that restrict the disclosure of tax information, release of information about an investigation and publicizing information about a grand jury investigation.
The report said Cryer's lawsuit alleges the agents continually raised those issues in telephone calls, during personal visits and in letters exchanged with Cryer's clients during their investigation.
The action seeks $1,000 in damages for each incident in which a federal agent compromised Cryer's confidential information.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
LOL. He has no credibility.
There's a reason you can't find anything.
Thanks for posting. It’s threads like this that really make it easy to identify our resident statists.
That was mean. They have to fill out extra paperwork in case of overpays, time probably worth more than the seven cents extra.
Hmmm, good idea!
* Tax-protesting CEO's fugitive life is over
* Ex-CEO regrets 'mission' to take on IRS
[snip]
(Who was it that said earlier that, "Like it or not, the tactics worked and should encourage us to study them as a means of further limiting a Federal entity that has way too much abusive power"? Well, study that, LOL!)
Beale later began reading books about the tax code. One was by Irwin Schiff, one of the nation's leading anti-tax crusaders. Beale attended one of Schiff's seminars.In February 2006, Schiff, 78, was sentenced to more than 13 years in federal prison for advising people that no U.S. law requires them to pay income tax.
Bottom line: Maybe the income tax is a BAD tax. Hell, I don't know anyone who likes it. Maybe it's even a "wrong" law. But, the fact is, it's THE law.
Break it -- and, unless you find a jury with an axe to grind, you WILL go to prison -- lose your life savings, your home, your car, maybe even your family -- but, at least you'll be in the company of the "experts" who go around teaching people how to "de-tax" themselves, eh?
Anyone can believe anything in this great country of ours — just look at Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I just don’t think that the judicial system is going to put themselves out of a job by agreeing with you.
However, I am VERY happy to see you say that you want to repeal the 16th amendment instead of some of the others who post here who say that it was never ratified because some of the ones voted on had different commas.
If that were the case, we would also not have a 2nd amendment (which is much more important to me). In fact, if different commas or capitalizations meant there was no valid ratification, I strongly suspect that NONE of the Bill of Rights has been ratified. That worries me even more — especially when the next Demoncratic President gets in (maybe not in 2008, but it is bound to happen sometime).
> “I agree with you on always wanting to see the court documents.”
Well, that makes two of us. Its looking pretty lonely for us right now.
I am disappointed that so many people here are rushing to agree with Cryer just because they want it to be true. I know that the liberal-left does that all the time, but I thought that conservatives were above that. I guess I was wrong.
I want it to be true very much. But the SCO fiasco taught me to distrust anything a party or the media says in relation to any court case. I'm not forming opinion or getting my hopes up until I see the relevant docs.
Black markets already exist. The FairTax will not create new criminals that would not already be inclined to join the ranks of criminals under the Income Tax.
FairTax legislation provides for severe penalties without recreating an IRS:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25
As to your comment that enforcement will have to be expanded, it is without evidence and indeed there is evidence against it. A few thousand large retailers will provide more than 70% of all NRST receipts collected. that means that enforcement authorities will have a much smaller base than presently to monitor for the remaining revenues. In fact, there will be 90% fewer filers allowing for fewer tax enforcers.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#33
So your ‘ranting’ about the necessity to expand enforcement is without merit. You have no data to back up your rant.
Hmm...
I wonder how that would apply to people who go around promoting the fairtax as though it was already ratified law - including the repeal of the 16th (fat chance)
It is not much of a leap of logic to predict that a 30 percent sales tax on all new goods is going to generate a significant black market in untaxed new goods. And that the government will respond to that black market in a heavy handed, authoritarian way. Just look at the failed war on some drugs.
It would be a leap of incorrect logic.
That is why you need to read and study more.
You can get the court docs but you will have to pay for them.
But even if you had the docs and were willing to follow Cryer’s precedent, you would be taking on a huge risk.
You are not dealing with law per se, rather you are dealing with a system that is designed to make its own rules and motions. To win you would need the legal acumen and trial experience of attorney Tom Cryer. More than likely you do not have those strengths. As I alluded to before this is a fight between gladiators where in most cases IRS attorneys take on the weaklings and brutalize them. The IRS did not size Cryer correctly and they are paying for it now.
In other words, documents no matter how strong in defense will most likely not help you. You would likely lose no matter what the law says.
Which information and to whom?
... but in the meantime the law is the law.
So was slave ownership.
Which information and to whom?
... but in the meantime the law is the law.
So was slave ownership.
You know I have seen many absurd statements against the FairTax. For example, it is founded and driven by Scientologists; it is a new massive socialist program; etc.
But yours is the first where the FairTax is linked with putting the ‘judicial system’ out of business.
There will still be a Tax Court, so if you have a job with them you need not fear too much although there may be downscaling. But there will be upscaling at the State level so you can easily transfer your skills.
As far as I know Ron Paul and Dennis K do not support the FairTax. Those that support it include 68 fine members of Congress, distinguished members of academia and former governors of the Federal Reserve system.
And the movement is growing faster and faster as people digest the reform and what it means.
My only run-in with the IRS was when they sent us a letter alleging we hadn’t claimed something like $2,500 in income. Turns out they had misread flexible spending account money as income. Anyway, I called an 800 number and explained. The woman looked it up, agreed then that we didn’t owe any more and a week later I got a letter confirming the record had been cleared.
From some of the horror stories I had heard, I had expected to go through weeks or months of red tape and maybe even have to hire a lawyer. Instead, it took about three minutes.
You’re almost right.
You said:
“But, the fact is, it’s THE law.”
No, it’s not a fact. But it is what IRS attorneys use in court.
Most lose in court against the IRS because they don’t have the trial experience or resources to win period.
The IRS ‘folds’ on cases involving persons able to fund high rated tax attorneys. IOW they generally won’t take someone to court that can afford to fight. They will settle out of court. Those that get dragged to court usually have lost before they get there and the IRS is just using them to score points. There are cases where such people do win in court but the IRS likes to keep their trial statistics high so they ‘fold’ or settle before getting to court.
Cryer himself said that he would be in prison today if not for his considerable skill as a trial lawyer and his knowledge of IRS tactics.
The bottomline is that the IRS badly miscalculated Cryer. They should have dropped the case or tried to settle with him. But like St. Paul he had his moment on the Road to Damascus and turned from prosecuting tax cheats to advocating the code was not lawful. His prominence in society, especially in legal circles egged the IRS attorneys on to confront him. They couldn’t keep him quiet. So they tried to smear him in the press and now they are being sued for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.