Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
User avatar
cynicalflyer
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Half Way Between the Gutter And The Stars

Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby cynicalflyer » Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:08 pm

In reading this, you can almost see the points at which the insanity ramps up notch upon notch. I am wondering if Cryer's starting to feel the pressure for having to pay the taxes he still owes (criminal acquittal notwithstanding).

------Begin forwarded message------

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am sickened, frustrated, saddened, guilt-ridden, and consumed with a sense of helplessness and insignificance. I don't know whether to scream "Rally and Charge", "Run and Hide" or just explode.

In the first thirty something years of my practice prior to my getting into this movement I was able to win acquittals of no less than a dozen innocent men and women and as many guilty ones where the evidence was lacking. I don't remember all of them, much less their names, but I do remember the two innocent men who were convicted notwithstanding my best efforts and I will never forget the looks on their faces when the verdicts were read. Those names and those faces weigh on me like millstones even though I was able to prevent one from going to prison and to minimize the impact on the other. They haunt me.

[snip]

I believe that our fear of sanctions and exile is exaggerated.

[snip]

We cannot continue to bow and scrape to inferior court decisions and dictum, and, yes, that includes Circuit Court cases. The federal legal system is a CIVIL LAW system, not a common law. Judges are merely processors, not originators of law. How can we expect them to see that when we treat them as though they are the source, the font?

[snip]

We have to start filing motions to dismiss on the basis of absence of liability, absence of requirement to file, the true meaning of income, the zero basis for zero basis rule, the Constitutional tax exemption of the exercise of a fundamental right to earn a living. And we have to start filing motions to dismiss on Larry's APA [Administrative Procedure Act] based absence of any publication of a substantive rule setting tax rates or standard exemptions. All of these motions are rock solid and eventually we'll find a judge with enough integrity to stand up for the rule of law.

[snip]

We have to start confronting these lying mercenary witnesses by crossing them like we would a crooked, lying cop and beating them like rented mules.

Which of the general classes of "taxpayer" did you determine defendant fell into?

To which of the special classes of "taxpayer" did you determine defendant belongs? A? B? . . . . L?

Agree with the Privacy Act Notice in the instructions? Must file a return or statement for "any tax you are liable for (sic)"?

What is the statutory basis for your conclusion that defendant is among those liable?

Section 1? Here's your Section 1--Show me, Asshole!

Section 1.1-1? Here's your 1.1-1, so if all citizens are liable why do you limit "citizens" to only those "subject to. . ."??? What make this defendant subject to . . ? Here's the Constitution, show me where the federal government has dominion over his activity. NONE!!

What is the legal basis for your concluding that what defendant received was income within the meaning. . etc.? 61? Let's look at that section, you lying son of a bitch.

What cases did you consider? Inferior Courts? Dictum? Can you spell dictum? IRM says those aren't binding, doesn't it? So what about Supreme Court cases?

What law requires someone who isn't liable to file an income tax return? 6012? You must be either an idiot or a liar, because an "expert" like you pretend to be would know that a basic rule of statutory construction requires you to give both 6001 and 6012 effect, so it takes both liability and income in excess, doesn't it?

What basis did you assign to defendant's labor, expertise, experience, knowledge, skill, time, energy and exertion, all at the expense of depletion of his finite, yet unknown, work life? ZERO???? ZERO???

Here's your code, Dilbert. Show me any legal basis for assigning a zero basis. None!! Isn't that the definition of a frivolous argument????

You've stated that defendant's asking what law entitles you to demand his private financial information and a cut of his labor is a frivolous argument. Here's the IRS's "official" list of frivolous arguments--find the absence of any statutory imposition of liability. Can't? Some expert.

Here's 1.861-8T, Dilbert. It tells us what is not exempt, so as an expert give me some examples of what is beyond the federal taxing power. C'mon, say something. How about taxing our rights? Is our freedom of speech taxable or exempt? Is our going to church taxable or exempt? Is our right to exchange or labor for a living taxable or exempt?

NO MATTER WHAT THE ANSWERS, THESE QUESTIONS TELL THE JURY THAT THE ATTORNEY KNOWS AND THE IRS KNOWS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS RIGHT.


We have to do this people, or we might as well pack up our tools and call it a day, actually, an era spent and run its course. We have to fight these cases just as we would a burglary or a robbery defense, crossing and exposing false testimony and dragging the law into the courtroom or we might as well just plead all the sheep chosen for skinning instead of shearing. Get it over with.

So, attorneys, which of you would be willing to sign off on substantive motions or amicus curiae briefs? I certainly would. And I'll help with the research and writing the briefs. I don't know when, but nothing else is more important. Which of you would be willing to go toe to toe with someone half your intellect? I'll help frame the cross and the exhibits needed to nail to the false "witness" even if it means other things go undone.

Organizations, which of you would sponsor, lend your name to, an amicus curiae brief?

Venting hasn't made me feel any better, but it has made me feel tired, so I'm going to try to get some sleep.

Best to all of you and thanks for putting up with me.

Tom
"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." -- General Henry M. Robert author, Robert's Rules of Order

.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:06 am

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby . » Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:44 pm

Whining, defeated and perhaps future disbarred lawyer wrote:prior to my getting into this movement


Which pretty much says it all. Decades as a practicing professional of no particular note. Join a cult. Throw it all away.

Perhaps he wants to be the next TP "guru," seeing as how their ranks have been rapidly thinning due to severe incarceration and is disappointed that nobody cares. I'm just glad that I never needed competent counsel while in any jurisdiction in which he's ever been licensed to practice.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.

Nikki

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Nikki » Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:56 pm

According to the docket sheet for his tax court case (8118-09), IRS' counsel served their answer to his petition* on him on May 28th.

It may have taken him this long to realize that all of his allegations in his petition don't amount to a hill of beans.


* I believe someone may have posted a copy of his petition, earlier.

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4929
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:45 pm

Cryer has not only lost it, he has become completely unhinged. Any first year -- or even first semester -- law student would hear the words "The federal legal system is a CIVIL LAW system, not a common law", and wonder how this buffoon ever made it through his first year of law school, let alone the bar exam.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby LPC » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:00 pm

I'm not sure if Cryer is losing it, of if he never had it, but if he did have it, he's definitely losing it.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Trippy

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Trippy » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:01 pm

Tommy-Soon-To-Be-Sobbing wrote:... but I do remember the two innocent men who were convicted notwithstanding my best efforts and I will never forget the looks on their faces when the verdicts were read. Those names and those faces weigh on me like millstones even though I was able to prevent one from going to prison and to minimize the impact on the other. They haunt me.


Little bit of projection, there, eh Tommy?

And that's too bad -- you got into "the movement" at the wrong time. Banister timed it just right and made a pretty good chunk of change before all his trouble started. You, on the other hand, will shortly be penniless, friendless, and forgotten.

Some career epitaph. Not the way I'd want to be remembered.

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby LPC » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:03 pm

Pottapaug1938 wrote:Cryer has not only lost it, he has become completely unhinged. Any first year -- or even first semester -- law student would hear the words "The federal legal system is a CIVIL LAW system, not a common law", and wonder how this buffoon ever made it through his first year of law school, let alone the bar exam.

Practicing in Louisiana, you would think that Cryer would know what is meant by "civil law," because Louisiana is unique in the U.S. in adopting the French civil law system. And yet he obviously doesn't.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Famspear » Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:14 pm

LPC wrote:
Pottapaug1938 wrote:Cryer has not only lost it, he has become completely unhinged. Any first year -- or even first semester -- law student would hear the words "The federal legal system is a CIVIL LAW system, not a common law", and wonder how this buffoon ever made it through his first year of law school, let alone the bar exam.

Practicing in Louisiana, you would think that Cryer would know what is meant by "civil law," because Louisiana is unique in the U.S. in adopting the French civil law system. And yet he obviously doesn't.


This is disheartening. And as someone previously pointed out a long time ago (might have been Dan?), Cryer has impressive credentials, being a member of Order of the Coif. It's not as though Cryer "barely" made it through law school or anything. It's difficult to think about someone with Cryer's education and experience sinking so low, mentally.

He's obviously hurting, and I think one thing that a person can do for Cryer is to pray for him. What's the term that you've used, Dan? "Hold him in the light"?
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10643
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby notorial dissent » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:28 am

Crying Tommy wrote:I am sickened, frustrated, saddened, guilt-ridden, and consumed with a sense of helplessness and insignificance. I don't know whether to scream "Rally and Charge", "Run and Hide" or just explode.
Along with delusional, confused, and flat out lying.

In the first thirty something years of my practice prior to my getting into this movement I was able to win acquittals of no less than a dozen innocent men and women and as many guilty ones where the evidence was lacking.
12 cases in thirty years, not much of a track record, and with so few wins I would think they would be memorable based on the scarcity of them!

I believe that our fear of sanctions and exile is exaggerated.
Apparently not enough, you’re still spouting the same old BS.

We cannot continue to bow and scrape to inferior court decisions and dictum, and, yes, that includes Circuit Court cases.
Then what are the lower courts for if not to carry out the standing law? Oh, I forgot, they disagreed with your enlightened perceptions.

Judges are merely processors, not originators of law.
Their purpose is to follow the law as written, not as you want it interpreted, maybe that is the problem.

We have to start filing motions to dismiss on the basis of absence of liability, absence of requirement to file, the true meaning of income, the zero basis for zero basis rule, the Constitutional tax exemption of the exercise of a fundamental right to earn a living. And we have to start filing motions to dismiss on Larry's APA [Administrative Procedure Act] based absence of any publication of a substantive rule setting tax rates or standard exemptions. All of these motions are rock solid and eventually we'll find a judge with enough integrity to stand up for the rule of law.
Thought you and Larry had already tried that and lost, maybe you didn’t use the right magic phrases and that is why you keep losing.

We have to start confronting these lying mercenary witnesses by crossing them like we would a crooked, lying cop and beating them like rented mules.
That is a new classification, care to elaborate???

........ rest snipped out of boredom and same old nonsense


My what an entertaining rant, that goes right down the hole into mindless frothing. I see he has managed to resurrect all the usual TP fantasies and repeat them as his own, obviously originality along with the law just isn’t his forté.

I would say that there rants a rather desperate soon to be ex-lawyer.

I think “.” pretty well summed it up with “Decades as a practicing professional of no particular note. Join a cult. Throw it all away. ”

Whatever grip he may once have had, he has now long lost.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA
Contact:

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Doktor Avalanche » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:21 am

Image
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4929
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:15 pm

This guy reminds me of the lawyer, formerly a Deputy Attorney General in Pennsylvania, who is STILL desperately pushing case after case to "prove" that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen and is thus ineligible to be President. I can only assume that something happened with this attorney, as with Cryer, to completely unhinge him and make him willing to throw away a professional reputation, built over many years, for something like this.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby wserra » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:24 pm

Pottapaug1938 wrote:I can only assume that something happened with this attorney, as with Cryer, to completely unhinge him and make him willing to throw away a professional reputation, built over many years, for something like this.


Well, not in the case of Philip Berg, the Philadelphia lawyer to whom you refer. Before he was a "birfer", he was a "trufer" - 9/11 type, that is.

Some people are just nutjobs.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
Joey Smith
Infidel Enslaver
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Joey Smith » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:05 pm

Once people tie their reputation to a goofy theory, it becomes a cul-de-sac if not true. They can't stop, they can't go back, and so all they can do is to go around and around until someday they run out of gas.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -

Noah
Exalted Parter of the Great Sea of Insanity
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Noah » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:00 am

cynicalflyer wrote:In reading this, you can almost see the points at which the insanity ramps up notch upon notch. I am wondering if Cryer's starting to feel the pressure for having to pay the taxes he still owes (criminal acquittal notwithstanding).

------Begin forwarded message------

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am sickened, frustrated, saddened, guilt-ridden, and consumed with a sense of helplessness and insignificance. I don't know whether to scream "Rally and Charge", "Run and Hide" or just explode.

In the first thirty something years of my practice prior to my getting into this movement I was able to win acquittals of no less than a dozen innocent men and women and as many guilty ones where the evidence was lacking. I don't remember all of them, much less their names, but I do remember the two innocent men who were convicted notwithstanding my best efforts and I will never forget the looks on their faces when the verdicts were read. Those names and those faces weigh on me like millstones even though I was able to prevent one from going to prison and to minimize the impact on the other. They haunt me.

[snip]

I believe that our fear of sanctions and exile is exaggerated.

[snip]

We cannot continue to bow and scrape to inferior court decisions and dictum, and, yes, that includes Circuit Court cases. The federal legal system is a CIVIL LAW system, not a common law. Judges are merely processors, not originators of law. How can we expect them to see that when we treat them as though they are the source, the font?

[snip]

We have to start filing motions to dismiss on the basis of absence of liability, absence of requirement to file, the true meaning of income, the zero basis for zero basis rule, the Constitutional tax exemption of the exercise of a fundamental right to earn a living. And we have to start filing motions to dismiss on Larry's APA [Administrative Procedure Act] based absence of any publication of a substantive rule setting tax rates or standard exemptions. All of these motions are rock solid and eventually we'll find a judge with enough integrity to stand up for the rule of law.

[snip]

We have to start confronting these lying mercenary witnesses by crossing them like we would a crooked, lying cop and beating them like rented mules.

Which of the general classes of "taxpayer" did you determine defendant fell into?

To which of the special classes of "taxpayer" did you determine defendant belongs? A? B? . . . . L?

Agree with the Privacy Act Notice in the instructions? Must file a return or statement for "any tax you are liable for (sic)"?

What is the statutory basis for your conclusion that defendant is among those liable?

Section 1? Here's your Section 1--Show me, Asshole!

Section 1.1-1? Here's your 1.1-1, so if all citizens are liable why do you limit "citizens" to only those "subject to. . ."??? What make this defendant subject to . . ? Here's the Constitution, show me where the federal government has dominion over his activity. NONE!!

What is the legal basis for your concluding that what defendant received was income within the meaning. . etc.? 61? Let's look at that section, you lying son of a bitch.

What cases did you consider? Inferior Courts? Dictum? Can you spell dictum? IRM says those aren't binding, doesn't it? So what about Supreme Court cases?

What law requires someone who isn't liable to file an income tax return? 6012? You must be either an idiot or a liar, because an "expert" like you pretend to be would know that a basic rule of statutory construction requires you to give both 6001 and 6012 effect, so it takes both liability and income in excess, doesn't it?

What basis did you assign to defendant's labor, expertise, experience, knowledge, skill, time, energy and exertion, all at the expense of depletion of his finite, yet unknown, work life? ZERO???? ZERO???

Here's your code, Dilbert. Show me any legal basis for assigning a zero basis. None!! Isn't that the definition of a frivolous argument????

You've stated that defendant's asking what law entitles you to demand his private financial information and a cut of his labor is a frivolous argument. Here's the IRS's "official" list of frivolous arguments--find the absence of any statutory imposition of liability. Can't? Some expert.

Here's 1.861-8T, Dilbert. It tells us what is not exempt, so as an expert give me some examples of what is beyond the federal taxing power. C'mon, say something. How about taxing our rights? Is our freedom of speech taxable or exempt? Is our going to church taxable or exempt? Is our right to exchange or labor for a living taxable or exempt?

NO MATTER WHAT THE ANSWERS, THESE QUESTIONS TELL THE JURY THAT THE ATTORNEY KNOWS AND THE IRS KNOWS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS RIGHT.


We have to do this people, or we might as well pack up our tools and call it a day, actually, an era spent and run its course. We have to fight these cases just as we would a burglary or a robbery defense, crossing and exposing false testimony and dragging the law into the courtroom or we might as well just plead all the sheep chosen for skinning instead of shearing. Get it over with.

So, attorneys, which of you would be willing to sign off on substantive motions or amicus curiae briefs? I certainly would. And I'll help with the research and writing the briefs. I don't know when, but nothing else is more important. Which of you would be willing to go toe to toe with someone half your intellect? I'll help frame the cross and the exhibits needed to nail to the false "witness" even if it means other things go undone.

Organizations, which of you would sponsor, lend your name to, an amicus curiae brief?

Venting hasn't made me feel any better, but it has made me feel tired, so I'm going to try to get some sleep.

Best to all of you and thanks for putting up with me.

Tom


Where did this "forwarded message" come from ?

Brandybuck

Re: Cryer loses it. Or comes close to losing it...

Postby Brandybuck » Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:39 pm

...and eventually we'll find a judge with enough integrity to stand up for the rule of law.


I think my brain knotted up a bit when I read that.


Return to “Public Archives -- Read Only”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest