JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT

Judicial Watch ^ | April 18, 2002

[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.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"It means you don't have any life experiences yet."

LOL! So I have been living on this earth for 20 years without having any life experiences yet? That is the funniest statement I have heard all day. Congradulations Howlin, you have given me the memorable quote and biggest laugh of the day for me.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Where is the evidence that says the current DOJ is turning a blind eye?"

With all of that life experience under your belt, you should be able to look around and see that it's happening.

[humbletheFiend]

What kind of standards does the IRS use to target people?

Can you think of any legitimate reasons for which the IRS might be uncomfortable about publishing the guidelines which will govern its future decisions to request audits?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

By their lack of action, it is obvious that whatever guidelines they use right now are unpublishable.

[RJCogburn]

Where is the evidence that says the current DOJ is turning a blind eye?

Hard to prove a negative, which is that DOJ is not investigating, pursuing, uncovering, looking, searching, seeking justice in this matter of multiple audits that certainly have the appearance of being motivated by political considerations.

I would say there is no reason to believe that they are looking. I would ask,

1. Do you believe there was something suspicious and probably corrupt about these people and groups being audited? No proof, just your gut feeling?

2. If there was something corrupt, or possibly corrupt, shouldn't the DOJ be looking into it?

3. Is there any evidence that they are?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

If there is corruption within the IRS, isn't it the Justice Department's job to look into it? If not, why so?

[Dog Gone]

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.

This is a frequent defense offered by the guilty. "But, Your Honor, I was only going as fast as the other traffic. It's unfair that I was ticketed for speeding!"

The only problem is that it's a lousy defense, and it never works.

The IRS can't audit everyone, and a traffic cop can't pull over everyone on the interstate who's speeding.

My company is audited every year. It has been for over 20 years now. I guess the government hates us. Why hasn't Larry come to our rescue?

[Miss Marple]

They did look into it in Klaymman's case. The letter said there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the IRS.

But because the results aren't what Klaymman wants, we are to now assume that Ashcroft and others are corrupt. Why can't it be that the audit was based on legitimate questions?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Your analogy is a good attempt, but is not accurate. Your analogy and the situation that Judicial Watch is in, are completely distinguishable from each other.

When a police officer pulls you over for speeding, it is a lawful stop because you were breaking the law, even if it was only 1 mile an hour over. The police officer will be able to defend himself to a judge if need be, because he clocked the defendent's speed with a radar gun--the law is the law.

It has not been proven that Judicial Watch has broken the law, but yet, the IRS still audits them without any proof of criminal wrong-doing and treats them as if they were guilty before it has been proven so. You should be up in arms about your business being audited all the time. If I were you, I would demand to know what gives the IRS the Probable Cause to give them the authority to audit your intimate financial records.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Klayman never stated in the press release that Ashcroft and the rest of the Justice Department is corrupt. He is merely questioning their lack of concern in these matters.

[deport]

It has not been proven that Judicial Watch has broken the law,

That's what an audit will determine...... How else will they know if 'eww' followed all procedures without examining the filing in detail..... Kinda like 'eww' filing a FOIA request to get additional details...

What portion of JW's filing is in question and being audited? Has 'eww' let that out yet?

[Miss Marple]

Well, if he is questioning their lack of concern, then it is just a difference of opinion, and after all, Ashcroft and Justice have other things to keep them busy, like HUNTING TERRORISTS.

So, if he is only questioning their lack of concern, what's the big deal?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

What has happened to Probable Cause in this Country? The Bill of Rights protects American citizens, not the entity of the government. When Judicial Watch requests disclosure from the Federal Government, it is their legal right to do so. There is no absolute right to privacy for the government.

[Dog Gone]

It has not been proven that Judicial Watch has broken the law, but yet, the IRS still audits them without any proof of criminal wrong-doing and treats them as if they were guilty before it has been proven so.

Yep, the tax laws are the only ones which basically require you to provide information which tends to incriminate you. It also requires you to do so without a showing of probable cause or with no warrant being issued for a search.

Each of these objections have been raised numerous times by any number of people. You and Judicial Watch are hardly the first.

But a word of warning--those objections are always rejected by the courts.

I don't think the IRS should ever audit anyone because of their politics. I don't think they should ever NOT audit because of politics, either. I think the Rainbow Coalition and Judicial Watch probably deserve a good auditing, because something doesn't look right based on what we know.

If JW was being audited because of its politics as alleged, that's wrong. But that does not equate to having a right NOT to be audited. I hope you can grasp the difference.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

The Justice Department cannot limit their domestic job to, as you would say, "hunt terrorists." Limiting their duties to hunting for terrorists, while forsaking their sacred duty to protect the civil rights of Americans, would just be another victory for the terrorists.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Judicial Watch probably deserve a good auditing, because something doesn't look right based on what we know."

And what exactly do you know?

[Dog Gone]

I know that very little of what Larry raises is spent on litigation.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

That is a matter of public record right now. They spend about $2 million a year on litigation.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

The law already requires that non-profits such as Judicial Watch disclose information on how their money is spent, publically.

[Howlin]

And who exactly says there is corruption in the IRS, except Larry Klayman?