| 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.
What.... being just an 'educator' just wouldn't be as ego satisfying. After all it's left up to only him to bring justice to this sordid world.... or so he says in the screed to 'freinds and supporters' ...quote....
I was just wondering whether the same management could continue to operate JW in the absence of law licenses if the purposes of the entity were limited to educational purposes.
Just a theoretical question, of course.
The latest example was in the Rick Ramirez case. JW actually has the proverbial "smoking gun" here (BTW, JW uncovered nothing, Rick came forward, had another attorney, then came to JW at the suggestion of his original attorney, JW is taking credit for things they did not do) and for once, it looks like they will get somewhere with this.
But Larry and JW proceeded to file a suit in civil court knowing full well that there were procedures that Rick had to follow internally FIRST, and that a civil suit could only be initiated after all internal venues for filing the complaint had been exhausted.
By filing the civil suit before following internal INS procedures first, JW guaranteed that the case would be dismissed, thus generating more "the corrupt, left-over Clinton Courts are stonewalling us again" mailers.
Luis, I wasn't attacking you personally, I was just stating the facts--that you called Larry Klayman a liar, which is simply not true. And I never started this insult war, if that's what you want to call it, you told me that "your ethics have no ethics"which was pretty insulting and made me suspicious of you right away.
Neither Bush, nor Ashcroft, had anything to do with this guy’s promotion,you said so yourself on this thread, yet you defended Larry’s statement by arguing that Bush and Ashcroft are responsible because they should have had competent people in places that would not allowed such a thing to happen.
Bush had been in office maybe six months when this guy got promoted, Ashcroft less than two.
There are 1.8 million Federal employees, hundreds of thousands of mid-level management.
It is utterly ridiculous to expect that the Bush administration could have been sufficiently organized coming out of their six-month in office, to have addressed, or even investigated the system to that level. Ashcroft had not even finished moving in when this happened.
Yet that’s what you expect…sound impossible to you too?
"As for Luis's comment saying that Judicial Watch filed suit knowing full well that there were other procedures that Ramirez should have taken first, I am not so sure about that. I am sure that Larry and JW would not do such a thing."
Well then, you should read the court docs, the Judge basically said "I hear you, but you have to go through the legally established procedures before I can do anything about this." That’s the system in place to handle ALL complaints.
Now, as an attorney, Larry should have known that. I don’t think that’s a very high standard to set for a law firm that pulled in close to twenty-six million dollars in donations last year. Do you?
Me neither.
BUSH/ASHCROFT REWARDED MIAMI INS DIRECTOR WITH PROMOTION TO REGIONAL DIRECTOR POSITION
That’s Larry’s press release headline.
"It is true that Bush and Ashcroft did not actually take part directly in the promotion of this guy..."
posted by FreedominJesusChrist.
I would like to point out that you yourself called Larry a liar on that thread.
One last thing:
"If only I could sue you for plagiarizing my own words, it would be quite an entertaining experience, I am sure."
Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t retain JW to do it.
Fundraising- No. Up to $10,000 of funds need not be claimed or reported.
Education- One doesn't need a license to educate private citizens if one invokes their religion. Now educating in any public school one does need a license. The difference is the former type of education teaches principles whereas the public education indoctrinates by dumbing down.
JW doesn't dumb-down the people.
NO they aren't.
Why would the government tamper with the evidence to hide a suicide from the Brown family? Why hide a suicide at all?
How do you explain the location of Brown's body post crash if he was in the cockpit forcing the pilot to crash the plane at the time it went down?
A murder where the plane is spoofed into flying into the ground where a clean up crew is waiting (as the facts in the case suggest) doesn't require anyone deal with the other passengers and crew. A suicide, as you allege, most certainly does.
And I'm sure I could come up with half a dozen more problems with your suicide DIVERSION if I tried ... but its not worth the trouble.
No, the real question is why you said, UNTRUTHFULLY, that Klayman called this a suicide? You LIED, didn't you?
Now wait a minute. I thought you claimed recently that you think the same way about Klayman that you always have. You mean to tell us you gave money to an organization that you despised back then? Why am I having trouble believing that, Howlin? Hey ... I know ... maybe you are getting yourself confused with those "others" you keep using as sources for your stated belief (and that's all it is) that Brown wasn't murdered?
Weren't you saying, oh maybe 1000 posts back, that your little college political group wanted to raise some money for JW because all the elected officials in your area were GOP already, the area was wealthy and the local GOP well-funded, and you thought JW was a worthy cause? (As if $25MM doesn't qualify as well-funded...)
The reason ChaseR and I put up with crap like this, is because we believe in exposing the truth and being vigilant about it.
What "crap"? Being caught and exposed when you behave badly, like mocking other posters on an unrelated thread?
If you and your good pal ChaseR want to "kid around" by making fun of or talking about others, you need to either invite the others to the fun-fest, or do it in FReepmail.
It's called manners.
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.