Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Famspear »

A big wackadooster get-together scheduled in Austin, Texas, for Saturday, December 15 & Sunday, December 16, 2012.

La Quinta Inns and Suites, 7625 E. Ben White Avenue.

Some of our favorites are scheduled to be there....

Lowell ("Larry") Becraft
Steve Hempfling, Director of "Free Enterprise Society"

From the advertisement:
Attorney Larry Becraft: Constitutional Lawyer from Huntsville, Alabama, Represented Attorney Tommy Cryer in the BIG win against the IRS. Expert in Income Tax history. He will show the origin of the Income Tax, Who it applies to, Jurisdiction, What is income, Debt money vs. Honest money, Importance of the US Statutes at Large, and more!

√ Is There a Law That Requires an Individual to File an Income Tax Return? We Can’t
Find One.

√ A Plan to Get Rid of the IRS That You Can All Help Achieve.

√ Are You Tired of the Income Tax? Want to Know the Truth? Then this Meeting is For You!

Kill Your Fear of the Government and the IRS with Knowledge!
http://www.welcome.freeenterprisesociet ... 2-2012.pdf

Boy, I wish I could attend.....

:roll:
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6107
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

WHAT "big win against the IRS" is he talking about...?

:roll: :roll: :roll:
"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
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Famspear »

According to Bob Hurt's web site, Joe Banister and "Sheriff Richard Mack" will be there.

I don't recall the name "Sheriff Richard Mack."

EDIT: Wikipedia article on him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mack
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by wserra »

As we discussed, there's a permanent injunction against Hempfling. How does this conference (not to mention his current catalog) not violate it?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Prof
El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: East of the Pecos

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Prof »

Perhaps someone can attend. Unfortuntely, I have bee called to Louisiana to deal with a significant problem -- excess migratory waterfowel.
"My Health is Better in November."
Thule
Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:57 am
Location: 71 degrees north

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Thule »

Pottapaug1938 wrote:WHAT "big win against the IRS" is he talking about...?
"Yer Honor. My client is just to dumb to understand the law. "

Or perhaps the old "Die before the case comes up" defense :twisted:
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Kestrel »

Pottapaug1938 wrote:WHAT "big win against the IRS" is he talking about...?

:roll: :roll: :roll:
The one where Cryer was acquitted on criminal charges. Here's a good run-down.
Our hero has taken $848,806.00 in taxes and incurred $870,630.71 in penalties, for a total of $1,719,436.71 due and owing, but he has not been thrown in jail, so it is a great victory. A few more victories like this and he could owe real money.
The US Tax Court civil case, however, lives on. Case number is 8118-09. Even though Cryer himself departed the scene permanently months ago, trial was still held October 22nd. Opening Briefs are due this week. Since Cryer was proceeding pro se and no substitution has been docketed, I'm watching to see what, if any, kinds of brief is filed on the plaintiff's side.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1088
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by ASITStands »

Kestrel wrote:
Pottapaug1938 wrote: The US Tax Court civil case, however, lives on. Case number is 8118-09. Even though Cryer himself departed the scene permanently months ago, trial was still held October 22nd. Opening Briefs are due this week. Since Cryer was proceeding pro se and no substitution has been docketed, I'm watching to see what, if any, kinds of brief is filed on the plaintiff's side.
I'm sure it's just confusion on my part ...

How does the case continue 'pro se' when he's dead? Who is representing the estate?
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Famspear »

ASITStands wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
Pottapaug1938 wrote: The US Tax Court civil case, however, lives on. Case number is 8118-09. Even though Cryer himself departed the scene permanently months ago, trial was still held October 22nd. Opening Briefs are due this week. Since Cryer was proceeding pro se and no substitution has been docketed, I'm watching to see what, if any, kinds of brief is filed on the plaintiff's side.
I'm sure it's just confusion on my part ...

How does the case continue 'pro se' when he's dead? Who is representing the estate?
Good question. It might be that the administrator or executor of his Estate is appearing for the Estate.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Arthur Rubin »

Famspear wrote:Good question. It might be that the administrator or executor of his Estate is appearing for the Estate.
As I understand it, in some jurisdictions, an estate may be represented by the "personal representative". However, in others, the estate may not be represented by the "personal reporesentative" pro se, as the interests of the estate are presumed to be the interests of the beneficiaries, rather than that of the "personal representative".
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95
rogfulton
Caveat Venditor
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:08 am
Location: No longer behind the satellite dish, second door along - in fact, not even in the same building.

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by rogfulton »

Actually, I am available to go but, darn the luck, I plan on spending the amount they are asking for admission on something a bit more enjoyable - dinner out with my very significant other. :D

Maybe if the entertainment value were raised by the possibility of Q&A without waiting until after lunch, I might be tempted.

Maybe a call to the hotel to ask about Mr Hempfling is in order?? :whistle:
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6107
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

Arthur Rubin wrote:
Famspear wrote:Good question. It might be that the administrator or executor of his Estate is appearing for the Estate.
As I understand it, in some jurisdictions, an estate may be represented by the "personal representative". However, in others, the estate may not be represented by the "personal reporesentative" pro se, as the interests of the estate are presumed to be the interests of the beneficiaries, rather than that of the "personal representative".
The "personal representative" can also represent only him/herself in a "pro se" capacity. This reminds me of a temp job I had, back in the 80s, when a nearby community was revaluing their real estate, and giving people the chance to contest their new assessments. Many people came in, waving their deeds in which they had cleverly deeded their property to themselves as Trustees of the Such-and-Such Trust, and demanded to know why they were not being given the residential exemption on their tax bills, since they lived in the trust property within the town.

They were politely informed that while they indeed lived within the town, the Such-and-Such Trust was not a resident of the town; and thus no residential exemption was possible for them.
"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
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by LPC »

Arthur Rubin wrote:
Famspear wrote:Good question. It might be that the administrator or executor of his Estate is appearing for the Estate.
As I understand it, in some jurisdictions, an estate may be represented by the "personal representative". However, in others, the estate may not be represented by the "personal reporesentative" pro se, as the interests of the estate are presumed to be the interests of the beneficiaries, rather than that of the "personal representative".
I believe that in Tax Court, the beneficiaries of an estate may appear pro se, and may litigate on behalf of the estate in which they have a financial interest.

However, a personal representative (i.e., the executor or administrator) of the estate must have counsel.

Similarly, a trustee may not appear "pro se," but a beneficiary of a trust may, and has standing in Tax Court.

I consider these to be peculiar rules.
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: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Famspear »

I believe the executor or administrator of the estate of a decedent is qualified to represent the estate in U.S. Tax Court. Rule 24(b):
(b) Personal Representation Without Counsel: In the absence of appearance by counsel, a party will be deemed to appear on the party’s own behalf. An individual party may represent himself or herself. A corporation or an unincorporated association may be represented by an authorized officer of the corporation or by an authorized member of the association. An estate or trust may be represented by a fiduciary thereof. Any such person shall state, in the initial pleading or other paper filed by or for the party, such person’s name, address, and telephone number, and thereafter shall promptly notify the Clerk in writing, in duplicate for each docket number involving that party, of any change in that information.
---Rule 24(b), Rules of Practice and Procedure, U.S. Tax Court (italics added) (as amended May 5, 2011).

EDIT: Corrected typo. Rule 24(b), not Rule 24(c).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1088
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by ASITStands »

Famspear wrote:I believe the executor or administrator of the estate of a decedent is qualified to represent the estate in U.S. Tax Court. Rule 24(b)
ok, I am still confused ...

(1) How can a Petitioner continue Pro Se when he's DEAD?

There has been no indication on the docket of anyone representing the estate.

Granted, the estate has an interest in the outcome of the petition for redetermination (that's what it was if I remember correctly) (Notice of Deficiency, assessment and not a collection action)

Logically, IF the Petitioner dies, the case should be closed incomplete (and a new one opened)

(2) Why has there been no notice posted to the docket or entrance of counsel?

For that matter, trial was held before Judge Goeke at New Orleans, LA on October 22, 2012 four months AFTER death! How does that happen? Who represented the Petitioner?

I realize none of us have the answer (yet), and maybe the briefs will give us a hint (maybe not) Maybe an explanation will be posted later by way of an order or counsel making an appearance.

Anyway, I'm still confused!
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Famspear »

ASITStands wrote:
Famspear wrote:I believe the executor or administrator of the estate of a decedent is qualified to represent the estate in U.S. Tax Court. Rule 24(b)
ok, I am still confused ...

(1) How can a Petitioner continue Pro Se when he's DEAD?

There has been no indication on the docket of anyone representing the estate.

Granted, the estate has an interest in the outcome of the petition for redetermination (that's what it was if I remember correctly) (Notice of Deficiency, assessment and not a collection action)

Logically, IF the Petitioner dies, the case should be closed incomplete (and a new one opened)

(2) Why has there been no notice posted to the docket or entrance of counsel?

For that matter, trial was held before Judge Goeke at New Orleans, LA on October 22, 2012 four months AFTER death! How does that happen? Who represented the Petitioner?

I realize none of us have the answer (yet), and maybe the briefs will give us a hint (maybe not) Maybe an explanation will be posted later by way of an order or counsel making an appearance.

Anyway, I'm still confused!
Very good questions.

The simple answer is that the party that is proceeding pro se is now the Estate. The Estate (or the fiduciary of the Estate) is now the "proper party." It's just that no one has gotten around to filing the proper motion to formally recognize that point.

Rule 63(a) of the Tax Court rules:
If a petitioner dies, the Court, on motion of a party or the decedent’s successor or representative or on its own initiative, may order substitution of the proper parties.
Thus, there would be no need to close the case. Just obtain an order for the substitution.

Hang tight. The wheels of justice grind s-l-o-w-l-y.

:)

As far as the October 22 trial, who was present, who represented the petitioner, etc., I don't know.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by notorial dissent »

This is what is know as a disaster waiting to grow up to be a catastrophe.

Whatever the IRS interests were in the ex-parrot, are now transferred to the estate of the aforementioned ex-parot, as well as any estate taxes now due. I think the IRS is at the front of the line regardless but not 100% sure. He still owes all the taxes plus any new ones that will accrue. That, of course, always presumes there will be anything done when the IRS gets done with round one. I haven't read the original tax case in a while, and am not bored enough to go back and do so now, but I seem to remember that he got nailed with all sorts of penalties when he was playing shell games with the funds he was playing with as well as the ones he hadn't been paying taxes on, and I am pretty sure they won't go away either. I haven't seen any figures yet, but I am betting that the putative state will most likely be expressed in unfunded liabilities. I just don't see this ending well for the estate or residuaries, I think that is a word....

I have a feeling this is going to be what we called a stone estate, as in stone on PR's desk with sign, "If you want something, feel free", in red pointing at the stone.
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.
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Kestrel »

In a nut-shell, from knowing him personally:

He didn't file returns for some 20 years. He didn't get W-2s, since his whole income came from his law practice. In later years he probably got some 1099s, if he accepted any non-TP clients who were likely to issue 1099s. Once the IRS realized he existed and was a big-mouthed TP, they went looking for everyone who paid him settlement money. It's entirely possible that a lot of that Gross Income money was comprised of funds which flowed through to clients, leaving him with a modest Net Income after paying clients and office rent and utilities and his secretary. But since he was such a clever boy and refused to produce the records showing that he had businesses expenses, the IRS got to declare that his Net Income equalled his Gross Income, slap him with a massive tax bill and just as massive penalties, then charge interest on the lot. What a clever boy he was. Arrogant, too. Verrryyyyy arrogant. I really despised his self-righteous attitude and clever twisting of reality.

As to the rest of it, he did everything possible to be a typical judgment-proof jerk with nothing in his pockets weightier than dryer lint. He made sure that the only asset in his name was his house. Maybe his car too, I'm not sure. But that's it. I'm told that his wife dutifully filed returns every year, Married Filing Separately, so she wouldn't get barbecued. Of course, Louisiana is a community property state, so she could still be suspended over the cookfire for her community share of his tax debt before this is all over. Who knows. The only thing she's got going for her in that department is that she is his second wife, so her marriage doesn't cover all the years under investigation.

Now about that trial October 22nd. My guess is that Cryer's heirs and/or representative(s) were no-shows. The IRS counsel unceremoniously firmed up the date and time on the docket with an order the week prior; I'm not accustomed to such orders, but the wording on that sounds a little curious. With the high visibility of the TP, his big mouth, and the size of the tax bill, the IRS probably didn't want to dismiss outright. So it seems they're going through the motions to have a default judgment entered.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1088
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by ASITStands »

Good answers, guys! Thanks.
Famspear wrote: Very good questions.

The simple answer is that the party that is proceeding pro se is now the Estate. The Estate (or the fiduciary of the Estate) is now the "proper party." It's just that no one has gotten around to filing the proper motion to formally recognize that point.

Rule 63(a) of the Tax Court rules:
If a petitioner dies, the Court, on motion of a party or the decedent’s successor or representative or on its own initiative, may order substitution of the proper parties.
Thus, there would be no need to close the case. Just obtain an order for the substitution.

Hang tight. The wheels of justice grind s-l-o-w-l-y.

:)
I guess I didn't look close enough at the rule. That answers it!
notorial dissent wrote: This is what is know as a disaster waiting to grow up to be a catastrophe.

Whatever the IRS interests were in the ex-parrot, are now transferred to the estate of the aforementioned ex-parot, as well as any estate taxes now due. I think the IRS is at the front of the line regardless but not 100% sure. He still owes all the taxes plus any new ones that will accrue. That, of course, always presumes there will be anything done when the IRS gets done with round one. I haven't read the original tax case in a while, and am not bored enough to go back and do so now, but I seem to remember that he got nailed with all sorts of penalties when he was playing shell games with the funds he was playing with as well as the ones he hadn't been paying taxes on, and I am pretty sure they won't go away either. I haven't seen any figures yet, but I am betting that the putative state will most likely be expressed in unfunded liabilities. I just don't see this ending well for the estate or residuaries, I think that is a word....

I have a feeling this is going to be what we called a stone estate, as in stone on PR's desk with sign, "If you want something, feel free", in red pointing at the stone.
I agree that Cryer STILL owed taxes even though he escaped criminal sanctions.

The tax deniers STILL do not understand that! And, I think a lot of the hot air has come from Cryer and Becraft trying to raise money to support Cryer's litigation costs (i.e., Becraft's fees)

And, I pretty well agree with your presumptions regarding the case. As I remember, he had placed his assets and income in trusts for the support of his incapacitated wife. Is that right?
Kestrel wrote:In a nut-shell, from knowing him personally:

He didn't file returns for some 20 years. He didn't get W-2s, since his whole income came from his law practice. In later years he probably got some 1099s, if he accepted any non-TP clients who were likely to issue 1099s. Once the IRS realized he existed and was a big-mouthed TP, they went looking for everyone who paid him settlement money. It's entirely possible that a lot of that Gross Income money was comprised of funds which flowed through to clients, leaving him with a modest Net Income after paying clients and office rent and utilities and his secretary. But since he was such a clever boy and refused to produce the records showing that he had businesses expenses, the IRS got to declare that his Net Income equalled his Gross Income, slap him with a massive tax bill and just as massive penalties, then charge interest on the lot. What a clever boy he was. Arrogant, too. Verrryyyyy arrogant. I really despised his self-righteous attitude and clever twisting of reality.

As to the rest of it, he did everything possible to be a typical judgment-proof jerk with nothing in his pockets weightier than dryer lint. He made sure that the only asset in his name was his house. Maybe his car too, I'm not sure. But that's it. I'm told that his wife dutifully filed returns every year, Married Filing Separately, so she wouldn't get barbecued. Of course, Louisiana is a community property state, so she could still be suspended over the cookfire for her community share of his tax debt before this is all over. Who knows. The only thing she's got going for her in that department is that she is his second wife, so her marriage doesn't cover all the years under investigation.

Now about that trial October 22nd. My guess is that Cryer's heirs and/or representative(s) were no-shows. The IRS counsel unceremoniously firmed up the date and time on the docket with an order the week prior; I'm not accustomed to such orders, but the wording on that sounds a little curious. With the high visibility of the TP, his big mouth, and the size of the tax bill, the IRS probably didn't want to dismiss outright. So it seems they're going through the motions to have a default judgment entered.
And, the default will be that his estate STILL owes the taxes? I suspect you're right otherwise.

Thanks for sharing your insights, guys. As I said, tax deniers are still citing Cryer as an example of how they're right about not being liable for the income tax, and they're SO wrong!

I remind them there's a difference between criminal and civil liabilities. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and the fat lady in this case doesn't sing for peanuts! She demands full compensation.
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Wackadooster get-together in Austin, Dec 15-16

Post by Kestrel »

Cryer's first wife was the one who'd had a stroke and was incapacitated. Cryer set up the trust so that, if he predeceased her, her estranged son would not get his hands on momma's inheritance. After she died, when he didn't file the proper tax returns regarding the trust, is when the shit hit the fan.

Cryer's second wife is the one who file her returns Married Filing Separately. She survived him.

Yes, I know their names. So far as I know, however, they did not take the spotlight alongside him in his TP efforts. Therefore out of courtesy I try not to mention the ladies by name.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein