| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/18/2002 10:49:16 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
For Immediate Release
Apr 18, 2002
Press Office: 202-646-5172
JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT
IRS OFFICIAL ADMITS: “WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU SUE THE PRESIDENT?”
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the non-profit educational foundation that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it was fighting in court an audit attempt instituted by the Clinton IRS in retaliation for Judicial Watch’s litigation against President Clinton. Judicial Watch first received notice of an attempted IRS audit on October 9, 1998, a few days after its “Interim Impeachment Report,” which called for Bill Clinton’s impeachment for misuse of the IRS, was officially made part of the Congressional record. The IRS’s initial audit letter demanded that Judicial Watch “[p]rovide the names and addresses of the directors and their relationship to any political party or political groups.” In January, 1999, an IRS official admitted to Judicial Watch representatives, in the context of the propriety of the audit, “What do you expect when you sue the President?” Another IRS official admitted in June, 1999, that the political affiliations of Judicial Watch’s directors is a factor in any IRS audit.
After Judicial Watch scored legal victories against the Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch received audit notices and warnings from the IRS. For instance, immediately following its uncovering of the Clinton-Gore White House e-mail scandal in February, 2000, Judicial Watch lawyers received a call from an IRS official to inform them that Judicial Watch was still on the IRS’s “radar screen.” The IRS finally agreed to defer on deciding whether to audit Judicial Watch until after the Clinton Administration ended. Despite this agreement, in one of the last acts of the Clinton Administration, the IRS sent Judicial Watch another audit notice on January 8, 2001. The IRS also sent new audit notices throughout 2001 after Judicial Watch criticized IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti. Rossotti is a Clinton appointee who “inexplicably” continues to serve under President Bush. In addition to presiding over the audits of perceived critics of the Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch requested criminal and civil investigations of Rossotti for his criminal conflict of interest in holding stock in a company he founded, AMS, while it did business with the IRS.
Judicial Watch now is fighting the attempted audit in federal courts in the District of Columbia and Maryland. As Robert Novak reports in his April 18th column, despite repeated requests to Attorney General Ashcroft to investigate, his Bush Justice Department has thus far refused to do so. (See Judicial Watch's letter to Attorney General John Aschroft) Instead, in the context of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the Cheney Energy Task Force, a Bush Administration official told Novak, “I don't know what we are going to do with this Klayman.” A copy of Judicial Watch’s complaint against IRS officials is available by clicking here.
“Judicial Watch has no objection to IRS audits at the proper time and place, under correct, non-political circumstances. We have nothing to hide. But when we were told that we were being audited because we sued Bill Clinton, we had no choice but to stand up and fight in court. Now, for its own reasons, the Bush Administration is content to let Clinton appointee Rossotti continue to harass Judicial Watch. Our lawsuits in response are intended not only to protect Judicial Watch, but are for the good of all Americans,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
© Copyright 1997-2002, Judicial Watch, Inc.
Well, we do not know that since the IRS does not publish their standards on who gets audited and who doesn't. Does that seem like Equal Protection under the Law to you?
ROFLMAO........you just totally exposed yourself. You just admitted that you are a supporter of a lawyer who files lawsuits even when he isn't SURE they have merit and has to let a judge decide.
Does it matter to you that so MOST of his lawsuits are thrown out of court just for that reason, no merit? Does it bother you that he uses the shotgun approach? "Maybe SOMETHING will stick?"
Does it bother you that he doesn't SAY that in his fund raising material, that MOST of the suits he files MAY NOT HAVE MERIT.
And the point of the above statement, which obviously you haven't learned yet in "college," is that you can damn well SAY and FILE LAWSUITS about most anything these days, including smearing people with unproven, undocumented facts.
And apparently you can make a good living while doing it, whether your cases have merit or not. But that wouldn't bother you, would it?
Child, that is what Larry Klayman does EVERY SINGLE DAY with every single press release and/or lawsuit he releases/files.
--that is grounds for a civil lawsuit for malicious slander and libel.
I'd be delighted if he'd sue me. But he won't; discovery is hell, you know.
However, to intervene in a planned audit and cancel it would be politically motivated itself, unless there was evidence that the planned audit WAS politically motivated.
Do you think Chernoff wouldn't go after this if there were evidence? Some audits are audits, just like some plane crashes are accidents.
Just out of curiosity, who says they are stonewalling? If they are, fine. But who said they were? It appears to me that Chertoff dealt with it appropriately.
Also swiftly visited with audits were Clinton accusers Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, former travel office chief Billy Dale, and even Katherine Prudhomme, who once bothered Vice President Al Gore by asking about Broaddrick--plus assorted conservative organizations.
If there was corruption within the IRS, it is likely still there. That is a bad thing. I want our government to clean it up, not turn a blind eye.
As for your other personal attacks against me, I suggest that you read up about my school before you dismiss my education as being inadequate and I am not a "child."
I bet there's a LOT of paperwork to back up that $23,000,000 spent on fund raising and other expenses.....LOL.
There needs to be some clarification here. Judicial Watch is more asking the Justice Department to do something about this blatantly Unequal Protection under the Law that the IRS is propogating.
And I'll tell you something that I have learned from twenty plus years sitting in a courtroom.
Reputable attorneys do NOT file lawsuits that do not have merit.
Judicial Watch is probably eager to provide the Government with access to all of its files, but it just doesn't seem fair to do an audit "right in the middle" of all the litigation that's going on.
Why can't the Government just postpone its audit until Judicial Watch quits filing lawsuits against the Government?
Well, call it what you wish. Novak uses the term, but clearly there is reason to believe that these people were chosen for audit other than by random selection. If so, if there is corruption within the IRS, and I think many of us here thought there was prior to January 20, 2001, we should want it cleaned up. All evidence suggests that the current DOJ, Chertoff included, has chosen to turn a blind eye.
I think that is not good. Well, at least you may enjoy Novak's characterization of Klayman in this article
More than an obnoxious, litigious lawyer is at stake
Ha! You assume a lot.
As for your latest comment, by Unequal Protection, I mean, why your sister and why Larry Klayman? What kind of standards does the IRS use to target people? By targeting some people for audits and not others and not disclosing publically why, does not seem like equal treatment under the law to me.
Well, you put college in quotation marks. What is that supposed to mean?
Had you asked me that a year and a half ago, I would have agreed without hesitation. Now, I don't know, which is kinda sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.