I have for many years now had a loathing for people who preach "tolerance" as they seem to do so as a means of advancing their own brand of intolerance.
Earlier today, the CEO of Mozilla was essentially forced to resign because he contributed in support of California's PROP 8.
The contributor list was illegally provided to the "Human Rights Campaign" by someone at the I.R.S.
I remember many a left wing opponent of the Iraq War declaring that "dissent is patriotic". It certainly is American if not strictly patriotic, but tell me why is dissent on same sex marriage not similarly patriotic? Unfortunately, the agents of "tolerance" only apply this precept when it provides cover for their words or actions all the while trying to strip those same protections from those on the flip side.
It seems that the contradictions in applying the patriotic merits of individual dissent, rather than being uniquely American is far more reminiscent of Maoist efforts at re education, summarily dispensing with those who resist being assimilated by the collective politically correct.
In modern America dissent is no longer patriotic, it is now hateful,racist and phobic. If you oppose you are now out of a job. Take whatever position you like but there was a time when we did not seek to make indigent those with whom we differed. Times are changing, but intolerance remains in a new form by those who preach it loudest. The more things change the more they remain the same.
Showing posts with label I.R.S.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I.R.S.. Show all posts
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Monday, June 10, 2013
IRS Caught on Tape Telling Nonprofit: “Keep Your Faith to Yourself”
FRom: Life News
The IRS scandal is deepening as a new tape has been released today showing a disturbing phone call the Internal Revenue Service placed to a non-profit organization.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal group, made the audio available today of IRS officials telling a group that provides support to women in abusive pregnancy situations to keep its faith to itself. In the recorded phone conversation, an IRS agent lectures the president of the organization about forcing its religion and beliefs on others and inaccurately explains that the group must remain neutral on issues such as abortion.
ADF is providing legal representation for the group — which did not receive its tax-exempt status until last week after waiting nearly two and a half years after applying for it.
“The IRS is a tax collector; it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The current scandal isn’t new but has merely exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.”
ADF tells LifeNews that, in January 2011, Pro-Life Revolution, which operates from Texas under all three purposes for whcih religious groups can obtain nonprofit status, filed an application for tax-exempt status with the IRS. Four months later, the IRS sent a letter requesting “more information” and an explanation of how the organization’s activities are educational or charitable even though IRS rules specify that an organization need only operate for “one or more” of the three exempt purposes.
President of Pro-Life Revolution Ania Joseph nonetheless replied and answered the IRS’s questions.
ADF indicates Joseph received a call from IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan in March 2012.
Wan told her that, in order to obtain a tax exemption, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else…. You have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs.”
In February of this year, the IRS requested additional information in another letter and attempted to apply a standard for tax exemption to Pro-Life Revolution that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held to be unconstitutional in 1980. Alliance Defending Freedom pointed this out in a letter responding to the IRS, which finally granted tax-exempt status to the organization in a letter received Thursday.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” added Stanley. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We cannot allow the IRS to ruthlessly dictate against legitimate non-profits simply because it does not approve of the organization’s mission. It must be held accountable.”
“The IRS has approved applications for tax exemption for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and Life and Liberty for Women,” ADF said.
The IRS scandal is deepening as a new tape has been released today showing a disturbing phone call the Internal Revenue Service placed to a non-profit organization.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal group, made the audio available today of IRS officials telling a group that provides support to women in abusive pregnancy situations to keep its faith to itself. In the recorded phone conversation, an IRS agent lectures the president of the organization about forcing its religion and beliefs on others and inaccurately explains that the group must remain neutral on issues such as abortion.
ADF is providing legal representation for the group — which did not receive its tax-exempt status until last week after waiting nearly two and a half years after applying for it.
“The IRS is a tax collector; it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The current scandal isn’t new but has merely exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.”
ADF tells LifeNews that, in January 2011, Pro-Life Revolution, which operates from Texas under all three purposes for whcih religious groups can obtain nonprofit status, filed an application for tax-exempt status with the IRS. Four months later, the IRS sent a letter requesting “more information” and an explanation of how the organization’s activities are educational or charitable even though IRS rules specify that an organization need only operate for “one or more” of the three exempt purposes.
President of Pro-Life Revolution Ania Joseph nonetheless replied and answered the IRS’s questions.
ADF indicates Joseph received a call from IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan in March 2012.
Wan told her that, in order to obtain a tax exemption, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else…. You have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs.”
In February of this year, the IRS requested additional information in another letter and attempted to apply a standard for tax exemption to Pro-Life Revolution that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held to be unconstitutional in 1980. Alliance Defending Freedom pointed this out in a letter responding to the IRS, which finally granted tax-exempt status to the organization in a letter received Thursday.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” added Stanley. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We cannot allow the IRS to ruthlessly dictate against legitimate non-profits simply because it does not approve of the organization’s mission. It must be held accountable.”
“The IRS has approved applications for tax exemption for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and Life and Liberty for Women,” ADF said.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
NBC NEWS: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups
From: NBC News
Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.
Jay Sekulow, an attorney representing 27 conservative political advocacy organizations that applied to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, provided some of the letters to NBC News. He said the groups’ contacts with the IRS prove that the practices went beyond a few “front line” employees in the Cincinnati office, as the IRS has maintained.
“We've dealt with 15 agents, including tax law specialists -- that's lawyers -- from four different offices, including (the) Treasury (Department) in Washington, D.C.,” Sekulow said. “So the idea that this is a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati is not correct.”
Among the letters were several that bore return IRS addresses other than Cincinnati, including IRS headquarters in Washington, and the signatures of IRS officials higher up the chain. Lerner’s signature, which appeared to be a stamp rather than an actual signature, appeared on a letter requesting additional information from the Ohio Liberty Council Corp.
Lerner has become one of the public faces of the controversy after refusing to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last Wednesday, citing her Constitutional Fifth Amendment rights after reading a brief statement: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, violated IRS regulations or provided false information to this or any other committee.”
She was put on administrative leave at the end of last week after reportedly refusing to resign at Obama administration’s request. She is continuing to collect federal paychecks on her almost $180,000 annual salary, though at least one Republican senator, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, is urging the agency to speed up the process and fire her.
In the two weeks since the IRS acknowledged it targeted conservative organizations seeking status as tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations for additional scrutiny, many Republicans have sought to link the agency’s actions to the White House. In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post on May 22, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote that “the administration has been extremely creative in employing throughout the federal government the sorts of intimidation tactics that were used at the IRS.”
The White House has dismissed suggestions it was aware of the targeting, saying President Barack Obama only learned of the issue when it broke in the news on May 10. White House spokesman Jay Carney has since deflected most questions about the scandal, saying it would be inappropriate to comment until an FBI inquiry into the agency’s actions – one of five separate government investigations -- is concluded.
For its part, the IRS has declined additional comment beyond its congressional testimony -- including former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller's testimony that IRS employees didn’t have partisan motives and only made "foolish mistakes ... trying to be more efficient” -- and other previously released public statements, including its response to a Treasury inspector general (see pages 49-51) and a Q&A on 501 (c) groups it published on its website.
But attorneys for some of the targeted groups’ provided documentation and two IRS employees in the Cincinnati office made statements to NBC News that call into question parts of the official explanation Americans have heard from the IRS so far.
Sekulow, who worked with the office of the chief counsel of the IRS in the early 1980s as a trial lawyer representing the IRS on tax-exempt cases, said the number of groups he’s heard from, and the scope of the requests for information the IRS sent them, persuaded him “that this was not something that was just created at an agent level, that this was certainly higher up.”
After reviewing all the IRS communications his clients received, Sekulow said he believes the IRS was engaged in a coordinated and deliberate attempt to silence, or at least stifle conservative organizations, he told NBC News.
Sekulow also said the practices continued well after May 2012, when the IRS has claimed they had stopped. Sekulow said 10 of the organizations he represents still have not received determinations from the IRS on their applications for tax-exempt status as 501 C (1)(4) organizations. He provided NBC News with a letter the IRS sent to one of his clients on May 6 requesting more information.
'Decisions ... made in Washington'
Cleta Mitchell, another attorney representing conservative groups that allege they were targeted, said an IRS agent in Cincinnati told her a “task force” IRS office in Washington, D.C., was making the decisions about the processing of applications, and that she subsequently dealt with IRS representatives there.
“(The IRS agent in Cincinnati) told me that in fact the case would be transferred to a special task force out of Washington, and that he was told – he was the originally assigned agent – that he wasn't allowed to make decisions, the decisions were all going to be made in Washington,” Mitchell said. “I know that this process was going on in Washington because I've dealt with those people.”
One of Mitchell’s clients, Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, a conservative elections monitoring organization, applied for tax-exempt status for the group in July 2010. She said that when she asked the IRS two years later why it was taking so long to get a decision, agents told her Washington was to blame.
“We’ve dealt with four separate analysts and their explanation for the way our case has been handled runs the gamut from their not having another organization like True the Vote to compare to – so they had to develop new questions and new criteria -- all the way through to the fact that they were taking their orders from Washington and were waiting for Washington’s direction as to what steps to take next,” she said. “They were caught up in a process that seemed to be much bigger than Cincinnati and bigger than any single individual.”
Mitchell, Engelbrecht’s attorney, said Engelbrecht’s case also raised questions about whether the IRS had subjected some applicants to other federal government scrutiny and action, beyond their IRS application.
Engelbrecht told NBC News that soon after she filed for tax-exempt status for True the Vote, the IRS audited her personal and business taxes for the first time, and her manufacturing business was visited by two other federal agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Her tax-exempt application still hasn't been approved after three years. She's now suing the IRS.
Sekulow said he also is preparing to sue the IRS in federal court this week, on behalf of the 16 groups he represents.
“The only way to get this resolved is to go to federal court,” Sekulow said, “because that's the only thing that's going to compel the IRS to comply with the law.”
Two IRS Cincinnati employees who have talked to NBC News dispute one part of the IRS’ explanation, saying that application of inappropriate selection criteria and the extra scrutiny for Tea Party and other conservative political advocacy organizations was not the work of a few low-level “rogue” employees.
But they also have told NBC News that they believe there was no political or partisan motivation for the targeting or scrutiny.
"We're outstanding public servants, dedicated to our craft and to the public we serve,” said one current IRS Cincinnati employee contacted at home over the weekend, who agreed to speak to NBC News on the condition of anonymity. “To suggest that we're 'rogue' should be considered slander.”
Asked about the motivations for the targeting, the employee said, “I trust my management team."
Bonnie Esrig, a 38-year IRS veteran and a manager in the Cincinnati office until she retired from the IRS in January, also has told NBC News that decisions about how to handle cases came from management, and that all employees were subjected to considerable oversight. She also said that she believes there was no political or partisan motivation for the added scrutiny.
Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.
“We've dealt with 15 agents, including tax law specialists -- that's lawyers -- from four different offices, including (the) Treasury (Department) in Washington, D.C.,” Sekulow said. “So the idea that this is a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati is not correct.”
Among the letters were several that bore return IRS addresses other than Cincinnati, including IRS headquarters in Washington, and the signatures of IRS officials higher up the chain. Lerner’s signature, which appeared to be a stamp rather than an actual signature, appeared on a letter requesting additional information from the Ohio Liberty Council Corp.
Lerner has become one of the public faces of the controversy after refusing to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last Wednesday, citing her Constitutional Fifth Amendment rights after reading a brief statement: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, violated IRS regulations or provided false information to this or any other committee.”
She was put on administrative leave at the end of last week after reportedly refusing to resign at Obama administration’s request. She is continuing to collect federal paychecks on her almost $180,000 annual salary, though at least one Republican senator, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, is urging the agency to speed up the process and fire her.
In the two weeks since the IRS acknowledged it targeted conservative organizations seeking status as tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations for additional scrutiny, many Republicans have sought to link the agency’s actions to the White House. In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post on May 22, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote that “the administration has been extremely creative in employing throughout the federal government the sorts of intimidation tactics that were used at the IRS.”
The White House has dismissed suggestions it was aware of the targeting, saying President Barack Obama only learned of the issue when it broke in the news on May 10. White House spokesman Jay Carney has since deflected most questions about the scandal, saying it would be inappropriate to comment until an FBI inquiry into the agency’s actions – one of five separate government investigations -- is concluded.
For its part, the IRS has declined additional comment beyond its congressional testimony -- including former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller's testimony that IRS employees didn’t have partisan motives and only made "foolish mistakes ... trying to be more efficient” -- and other previously released public statements, including its response to a Treasury inspector general (see pages 49-51) and a Q&A on 501 (c) groups it published on its website.
But attorneys for some of the targeted groups’ provided documentation and two IRS employees in the Cincinnati office made statements to NBC News that call into question parts of the official explanation Americans have heard from the IRS so far.
Sekulow, who worked with the office of the chief counsel of the IRS in the early 1980s as a trial lawyer representing the IRS on tax-exempt cases, said the number of groups he’s heard from, and the scope of the requests for information the IRS sent them, persuaded him “that this was not something that was just created at an agent level, that this was certainly higher up.”
After reviewing all the IRS communications his clients received, Sekulow said he believes the IRS was engaged in a coordinated and deliberate attempt to silence, or at least stifle conservative organizations, he told NBC News.
Sekulow also said the practices continued well after May 2012, when the IRS has claimed they had stopped. Sekulow said 10 of the organizations he represents still have not received determinations from the IRS on their applications for tax-exempt status as 501 C (1)(4) organizations. He provided NBC News with a letter the IRS sent to one of his clients on May 6 requesting more information.
'Decisions ... made in Washington'
Cleta Mitchell, another attorney representing conservative groups that allege they were targeted, said an IRS agent in Cincinnati told her a “task force” IRS office in Washington, D.C., was making the decisions about the processing of applications, and that she subsequently dealt with IRS representatives there.
“(The IRS agent in Cincinnati) told me that in fact the case would be transferred to a special task force out of Washington, and that he was told – he was the originally assigned agent – that he wasn't allowed to make decisions, the decisions were all going to be made in Washington,” Mitchell said. “I know that this process was going on in Washington because I've dealt with those people.”
One of Mitchell’s clients, Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, a conservative elections monitoring organization, applied for tax-exempt status for the group in July 2010. She said that when she asked the IRS two years later why it was taking so long to get a decision, agents told her Washington was to blame.
“We’ve dealt with four separate analysts and their explanation for the way our case has been handled runs the gamut from their not having another organization like True the Vote to compare to – so they had to develop new questions and new criteria -- all the way through to the fact that they were taking their orders from Washington and were waiting for Washington’s direction as to what steps to take next,” she said. “They were caught up in a process that seemed to be much bigger than Cincinnati and bigger than any single individual.”
Mitchell, Engelbrecht’s attorney, said Engelbrecht’s case also raised questions about whether the IRS had subjected some applicants to other federal government scrutiny and action, beyond their IRS application.
Engelbrecht told NBC News that soon after she filed for tax-exempt status for True the Vote, the IRS audited her personal and business taxes for the first time, and her manufacturing business was visited by two other federal agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Her tax-exempt application still hasn't been approved after three years. She's now suing the IRS.
Sekulow said he also is preparing to sue the IRS in federal court this week, on behalf of the 16 groups he represents.
“The only way to get this resolved is to go to federal court,” Sekulow said, “because that's the only thing that's going to compel the IRS to comply with the law.”
Two IRS Cincinnati employees who have talked to NBC News dispute one part of the IRS’ explanation, saying that application of inappropriate selection criteria and the extra scrutiny for Tea Party and other conservative political advocacy organizations was not the work of a few low-level “rogue” employees.
But they also have told NBC News that they believe there was no political or partisan motivation for the targeting or scrutiny.
"We're outstanding public servants, dedicated to our craft and to the public we serve,” said one current IRS Cincinnati employee contacted at home over the weekend, who agreed to speak to NBC News on the condition of anonymity. “To suggest that we're 'rogue' should be considered slander.”
Asked about the motivations for the targeting, the employee said, “I trust my management team."
Bonnie Esrig, a 38-year IRS veteran and a manager in the Cincinnati office until she retired from the IRS in January, also has told NBC News that decisions about how to handle cases came from management, and that all employees were subjected to considerable oversight. She also said that she believes there was no political or partisan motivation for the added scrutiny.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
IRS Hasn’t Reprimanded a Single Staffer For Targeting Pro-Life Groups
From: Life News
Americans believe the targeting of pro-life groups and conservatives by the Internal Revenue service was a deliberate act. However, the agency hasn’t officially reprimanded a single staffer over it.
As Politico reports today:
“A key Obama Administration official has just asserted her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The IRS scandal has reached a new phase. The Obama Administration unlawfully targeted conservative groups and has been caught,” he told LifeNews.
“We are just days away from filing one of the largest lawsuits we have ever filed. I am leading our team of ACLJ attorneys in directly taking on the unlimited resources of the IRS – to end this abuse and harassment once and for all,” he said. “Over the past 18 months, the ACLJ has represented 27 of these targeted groups from 17 states.”
With the scandal concerning the IRS and its targeting of pro-life and conservative groups growing, national conservative activists held nationwide rallies today at IRS offices across the country.
Reports indicate President Barack Obama’s top attorney knew in April that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting pro-life and conservative groups. The reports show Obama’s top lawyer was notified in April that the Treasury Department’s inspector general had finished an audit of the IRS over the allegations.
The IRS will soon face more than controversy and Congressional hearings over its discrimination of pro-life and conservative groups. The federal agency will soon find itself in court.
The news comes as a report shows James Dobson, the pro-life family advocate, disclosed that he was a victim of IRS discrimination because he spoke out against pro-abortion President Barack Obama.
Obama addressed the massive IRS scandal and promised it would never happen again.
“I’ll do everything in my power to make sure this never happens again,” he promised.
The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced he will hold a hearing on the IRS scandal this week. The federal agency has targeted pro-life groups as well as conservative and religious organizations.
In one case LifeNews has profiled, a pro-life group was told it had to promote abortion. A top pro-life legal group also informed LifeNews that cases it handled support mounting accusations that demonstrate the agency’s abuse of pro-life organizations.
Americans believe the targeting of pro-life groups and conservatives by the Internal Revenue service was a deliberate act. However, the agency hasn’t officially reprimanded a single staffer over it.
As Politico reports today:
Lawmakers pressing for more heads to roll at the Internal Revenue Service are going to be disappointed.Why is disciplining IRS staffers over the targeting so difficult?
“Why weren’t more people fired?” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) demanded at a hearing Tuesday on the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, channeling the frustration of his colleagues.
Turns out it’s not so easy.
In fact, it appears that no one has been formally reprimanded and a spokesperson for the union representing IRS workers said it hasn’t been called to help any employees yet. Most employees involved in the targeting program are covered by protections for federal workers that could drag out the termination process.
The incoming acting IRS Commissioner, Daniel Werfel, could try to clean house — but he’d have to be prepared for a lengthy appeals process.Jay Sekulow of the pro-life legal group ACLJ talked about what this scandal means and its significance.
Under federal rules, a fired government worker has the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. He or she can challenge the decision, argue that their actions don’t meet the threshold for termination and ask to be reinstated — especially if there was no warning of trouble in past performance reviews.
The incoming acting IRS Commissioner, Daniel Werfel, could try to clean house — but he’d have to be prepared for a lengthy appeals process.
Under federal rules, a fired government worker has the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. He or she can challenge the decision, argue that their actions don’t meet the threshold for termination and ask to be reinstated — especially if there was no warning of trouble in past performance reviews.
“A key Obama Administration official has just asserted her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The IRS scandal has reached a new phase. The Obama Administration unlawfully targeted conservative groups and has been caught,” he told LifeNews.
“We are just days away from filing one of the largest lawsuits we have ever filed. I am leading our team of ACLJ attorneys in directly taking on the unlimited resources of the IRS – to end this abuse and harassment once and for all,” he said. “Over the past 18 months, the ACLJ has represented 27 of these targeted groups from 17 states.”
With the scandal concerning the IRS and its targeting of pro-life and conservative groups growing, national conservative activists held nationwide rallies today at IRS offices across the country.
Reports indicate President Barack Obama’s top attorney knew in April that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting pro-life and conservative groups. The reports show Obama’s top lawyer was notified in April that the Treasury Department’s inspector general had finished an audit of the IRS over the allegations.
The IRS will soon face more than controversy and Congressional hearings over its discrimination of pro-life and conservative groups. The federal agency will soon find itself in court.
The news comes as a report shows James Dobson, the pro-life family advocate, disclosed that he was a victim of IRS discrimination because he spoke out against pro-abortion President Barack Obama.
Obama addressed the massive IRS scandal and promised it would never happen again.
“I’ll do everything in my power to make sure this never happens again,” he promised.
The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced he will hold a hearing on the IRS scandal this week. The federal agency has targeted pro-life groups as well as conservative and religious organizations.
In one case LifeNews has profiled, a pro-life group was told it had to promote abortion. A top pro-life legal group also informed LifeNews that cases it handled support mounting accusations that demonstrate the agency’s abuse of pro-life organizations.
Darrell Issa says Lois Lerner lost her 5th Amendment Rights
From: POLITICO.com
Lois Lerner might win the legal battle but she’s prolonging the political war.
Instead of simply taking the scorn of lawmakers for a day, repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination, and then moving on, she chose defiance.
Now, he plans to haul the director of the IRS’s tax-exempt department back to the committee for questioning.
“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”
Lerner shocked the committee room in the opening moments of Wednesday’s hearing by delivering an opening statement denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.
“I have not done anything wrong,” said Lerner, who triggered the IRS scandal on May 10 by acknowledging that the agency had singled out conservative groups applying for tax exemptions. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”
Beyond that, she refused to answer the committee’s questions, immediately triggering a debate among panel members over whether she had just voided her Fifth Amendment rights.
At the very least, Lerner’s speech prolonged the process. She’s almost certain to be back on Issa’s turf when Congress returns in June from the Memorial Day recess. If she refuses to talk then, the committee could ultimately pursue a contempt charge.
Issa said late Wednesday that he’s consulting the House parliamentarian and outside counsel to determine how to proceed.
Legal experts, however, say Issa’s argument that Lerner has waived her Fifth Amendment rights might not be as strong as he suggests.
“I don’t think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983.
For one, this is Congress, not a courtroom, says James Duane, a professor at Regent University School of Law.
“[T]his woman was not the defendant,” he said, rejecting comparisons between the committee room and a court room. “This is not a trial.”
Instead of simply taking the scorn of lawmakers for a day, repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination, and then moving on, she chose defiance.
And her bravado has prompted House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to say she has waived her constitutional right to not comment.
Now, he plans to haul the director of the IRS’s tax-exempt department back to the committee for questioning.
“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”
Lerner shocked the committee room in the opening moments of Wednesday’s hearing by delivering an opening statement denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.
“I have not done anything wrong,” said Lerner, who triggered the IRS scandal on May 10 by acknowledging that the agency had singled out conservative groups applying for tax exemptions. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”
Beyond that, she refused to answer the committee’s questions, immediately triggering a debate among panel members over whether she had just voided her Fifth Amendment rights.
At the very least, Lerner’s speech prolonged the process. She’s almost certain to be back on Issa’s turf when Congress returns in June from the Memorial Day recess. If she refuses to talk then, the committee could ultimately pursue a contempt charge.
Issa said late Wednesday that he’s consulting the House parliamentarian and outside counsel to determine how to proceed.
Legal experts, however, say Issa’s argument that Lerner has waived her Fifth Amendment rights might not be as strong as he suggests.
“I don’t think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983.
For one, this is Congress, not a courtroom, says James Duane, a professor at Regent University School of Law.
“[T]his woman was not the defendant,” he said, rejecting comparisons between the committee room and a court room. “This is not a trial.”
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Darrell Issa slams IRS watchdog
From: POLITICO.com
IRS inspector general J. Russell George is one of the few people to emerge from the agency’s scandal looking good thanks to his just-the-facts report on the controversial practice of targeting conservative groups.
Until now.
“Despite numerous requests from the committee for information and updates, including an Aug. 3 letter, the request for the inspector general to inform Congress about serious problem … the inspector general failed to do that,” the California Republican said at the hearing today.
Issa called his failure to inform lawmakers the “greatest failing of an otherwise well regarded inspector” and implied that he didn’t live up to what is expected of such watchdogs in the law.
“You have a responsibility to keep us continually, and according to statue, equally informed,” Issa said. “In this case, it appears you did not. Would you agree with that?”
“No actually,” George answered, explaining that he should not brief Congress until all the information had been analyzed and a solid, correct conclusion has been made. “There are established procedures for conducting an audit. … It would be impractical to give you partial information which might not be accurate. It would be counterproductive, sir, if we were to do that.”
But Issa said, “That is not the statute.”
Issa is referring to part of the Inspector General Act that requires watchdogs to report serious problems to Congress through the head of an agency within seven days. It’s known as the “seven-day rule” — but it’s often used sparingly.
The Oversight Committee asked the inspector general about conservative group targeting a number of times, and Issa read some of the emails in the hearing Wednesday.
George also raised concerns that incremental information provided to lawmakers would ultimately leak to the public.
“That is not fair to the people we are investigating,” George said.
Issa responded that the White House is the source of plenty of leaks as well.
Meanwhile, Rep. Stephen Lynch warned IRS officials that a special prosecutor might be named if the IRS keeps “stonewalling” investigations.
“There will be hell to pay,” he said.
IRS inspector general J. Russell George is one of the few people to emerge from the agency’s scandal looking good thanks to his just-the-facts report on the controversial practice of targeting conservative groups.
Until now.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa slammed George on Wednesday for not alerting Congress to the targeting of conservative groups earlier. It’s the toughest swing anyone has taken at George over the course of three congressional hearings probing the IRS scandal.
Issa called his failure to inform lawmakers the “greatest failing of an otherwise well regarded inspector” and implied that he didn’t live up to what is expected of such watchdogs in the law.
“You have a responsibility to keep us continually, and according to statue, equally informed,” Issa said. “In this case, it appears you did not. Would you agree with that?”
“No actually,” George answered, explaining that he should not brief Congress until all the information had been analyzed and a solid, correct conclusion has been made. “There are established procedures for conducting an audit. … It would be impractical to give you partial information which might not be accurate. It would be counterproductive, sir, if we were to do that.”
But Issa said, “That is not the statute.”
Issa is referring to part of the Inspector General Act that requires watchdogs to report serious problems to Congress through the head of an agency within seven days. It’s known as the “seven-day rule” — but it’s often used sparingly.
The Oversight Committee asked the inspector general about conservative group targeting a number of times, and Issa read some of the emails in the hearing Wednesday.
George also raised concerns that incremental information provided to lawmakers would ultimately leak to the public.
“That is not fair to the people we are investigating,” George said.
Issa responded that the White House is the source of plenty of leaks as well.
Meanwhile, Rep. Stephen Lynch warned IRS officials that a special prosecutor might be named if the IRS keeps “stonewalling” investigations.
“There will be hell to pay,” he said.
Grassley: IRS Told Pro-Life Group to Swear It Would Not Protest Planned Parenthood
From: CNS
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said Tuesday that a pro-life group in Iowa was told by an IRS agent that its application would not be approved until the group’s board of directors swore it would not protest Planned Parenthood. “This comes directly from Iowa, one of my constituents attempted to establish 501(c)(3) charity called Coalition for Life of Iowa. She told my staff that an IRS agent told her ‘Your application’s ready to go. However, it will not be approved until you send a letter signed by your entire board under penalty of perjury saying that you will not protest at Planned Parenthood,’” Grassley said at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.
Grassley called it “outrageous” that the statement would even be “made by anybody in government that somehow you’ve got to compromise your First Amendment rights.”
In addition to the order that the group promise not to protest Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, Grassley’s constituent received a letter from the IRS with “several invasive questions, including the details of the group’s prayer meeting,” he said.
“Now stop to think about it – the government getting involved in somebody having a prayer meeting. It appears that the IRS essentially offered this group a quid pro quo – You can become a charity if you don’t protest in front of a Planned Parenthood, generally speaking so you don’t have to worry about 6103,” Grassley said.
Section 6103 of the Criminal Tax Manual refers to the confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information.
He asked outgoing IRS Acting Commission Steven Miller if it was “appropriate even for an IRS employee to offer quid pro quo in the example like this.”
“The answer’s no,” Miller said. “We shouldn’t be trading,” he continued before Grassley interrupted him.
“Okay, let’s move on. That’s a good answer, because that’s the answer you ought to give, but how on earth could you let something like this happen under your leadership and do either of you feel any responsibility or remorse for treating American citizens this way?” Grassley asked.
“I think I started my public statement with an apology, sir, and I would continue that,” Miller said.
“I don’t know what happened in your given case, and as you well are aware, I can’t speak to it under the 6103 rules, but I do apologize for the treatment of folks, and look, there are two things that happened with these cases,” he continued.
“First was the selection, and the selection criteria was bad. Second was their treatment once they were in that group, and that too was bad, sir. It was. I don’t know whether this particular organization was inside or outside of that group, but the service that folks got was not the service that we should be providing anyone. There’s no question about that,” Miller concluded.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said Tuesday that a pro-life group in Iowa was told by an IRS agent that its application would not be approved until the group’s board of directors swore it would not protest Planned Parenthood. “This comes directly from Iowa, one of my constituents attempted to establish 501(c)(3) charity called Coalition for Life of Iowa. She told my staff that an IRS agent told her ‘Your application’s ready to go. However, it will not be approved until you send a letter signed by your entire board under penalty of perjury saying that you will not protest at Planned Parenthood,’” Grassley said at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.
Grassley called it “outrageous” that the statement would even be “made by anybody in government that somehow you’ve got to compromise your First Amendment rights.”
In addition to the order that the group promise not to protest Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, Grassley’s constituent received a letter from the IRS with “several invasive questions, including the details of the group’s prayer meeting,” he said.
“Now stop to think about it – the government getting involved in somebody having a prayer meeting. It appears that the IRS essentially offered this group a quid pro quo – You can become a charity if you don’t protest in front of a Planned Parenthood, generally speaking so you don’t have to worry about 6103,” Grassley said.
Section 6103 of the Criminal Tax Manual refers to the confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information.
He asked outgoing IRS Acting Commission Steven Miller if it was “appropriate even for an IRS employee to offer quid pro quo in the example like this.”
“The answer’s no,” Miller said. “We shouldn’t be trading,” he continued before Grassley interrupted him.
“Okay, let’s move on. That’s a good answer, because that’s the answer you ought to give, but how on earth could you let something like this happen under your leadership and do either of you feel any responsibility or remorse for treating American citizens this way?” Grassley asked.
“I think I started my public statement with an apology, sir, and I would continue that,” Miller said.
“I don’t know what happened in your given case, and as you well are aware, I can’t speak to it under the 6103 rules, but I do apologize for the treatment of folks, and look, there are two things that happened with these cases,” he continued.
“First was the selection, and the selection criteria was bad. Second was their treatment once they were in that group, and that too was bad, sir. It was. I don’t know whether this particular organization was inside or outside of that group, but the service that folks got was not the service that we should be providing anyone. There’s no question about that,” Miller concluded.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Thursday, April 11, 2013
IRS: We can read emails without warrant
From: The Hill's Hillicon Valley
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people's emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, released the information on Wednesday.
In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users "do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications." A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.
Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, government officials only need a subpoena, issued without a judge's approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.
Privacy groups such as the ACLU argue that the Fourth Amendment provides greater privacy protections than the ECPA, and that officials should need a warrant to access all emails and other private messages.
Traditionally, the courts have ruled that people have limited privacy rights over information they share with third parties. Some law enforcement groups have argued that this means they only need a subpoena to compel email providers, Internet service companies and others to turn over their customers' sensitive content.
But in 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that police violated a man's constitutional rights when they read his emails without a warrant.
Despite the court decision, U.S. v. Warshak, the IRS kept its email search policy unchanged in a March 2011 update to its employee manual, according to the ACLU.
In an October 2011 memo obtained by the ACLU, an IRS attorney explained that the Warshak decision only applies in the Sixth Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.
But the attorney noted that if a service provider fought the search request, it would likely result in "protracted litigation," meaning that any leads from the emails would be "stale" if the IRS ever obtained them.
The IRS did not respond to a request to comment.
The ACLU also submitted requests for documents from the FBI and the Justice Department on their policies for emails searches, but has not received responses yet.
Lawmakers in both chambers are working on legislation that would update the ECPA to require a warrant for emails and other private online messages.
At a hearing last month, Elana Tyrangiel, the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, agreed that there is "no principled basis" for treating emails differently depending on how old they are.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people's emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, released the information on Wednesday.
In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users "do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications." A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.
Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, government officials only need a subpoena, issued without a judge's approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.
Privacy groups such as the ACLU argue that the Fourth Amendment provides greater privacy protections than the ECPA, and that officials should need a warrant to access all emails and other private messages.
Traditionally, the courts have ruled that people have limited privacy rights over information they share with third parties. Some law enforcement groups have argued that this means they only need a subpoena to compel email providers, Internet service companies and others to turn over their customers' sensitive content.
But in 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that police violated a man's constitutional rights when they read his emails without a warrant.
Despite the court decision, U.S. v. Warshak, the IRS kept its email search policy unchanged in a March 2011 update to its employee manual, according to the ACLU.
In an October 2011 memo obtained by the ACLU, an IRS attorney explained that the Warshak decision only applies in the Sixth Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.
But the attorney noted that if a service provider fought the search request, it would likely result in "protracted litigation," meaning that any leads from the emails would be "stale" if the IRS ever obtained them.
The IRS did not respond to a request to comment.
The ACLU also submitted requests for documents from the FBI and the Justice Department on their policies for emails searches, but has not received responses yet.
Lawmakers in both chambers are working on legislation that would update the ECPA to require a warrant for emails and other private online messages.
At a hearing last month, Elana Tyrangiel, the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, agreed that there is "no principled basis" for treating emails differently depending on how old they are.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Obama's IRS discouraging employees from investigating tax fraud by illegal immigrants
Bluegrass Pundit has a very good post about the title story with a link to FOX NEWS. A scandal to be sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
