Skip to comments.National Organization for Marriage to sue IRS for leaks
Posted on 05/16/2013 3:11:36 PM PDT by Colofornian
NOM says IRS illegally leaked donor info...
(Excerpt) Read more at video.foxnews.com ...
John Eastman mentions unlawful disclosure of tax returns has been a felony since 1976...subject to $5,000 fine and five years in prison for each unlawful disclosure.
This is all related to an IRS leak of confidential tax returns releasing private donor info (Schedule B of tax return) to the Human Rights Campaign Web site.
Eastman mentions that the Obama national co-chairman for President also headed the Human Rights Campaign at the time.
Looks like Obama's national co-chair of his campaign or his underlings needs prison time -- along with the IRS leak sources.
Go for it!
It’ll never happen with Holder in charge. :(
Disclosing tax returns without authorization most definitely is a crime.
That’s okay: we’ve already won the election. :P
Now go pay your taxes, your government is broke. :)
Look for more groups to do just that, sue.
I recall some stories that said some of the Conservative organizations just gave up the fight ~
That's what you never want to do ~ all that means is you are substituting your judgment for what 'ought to be' for the specialist who knows what 'is'.
A later story today says the requests for member information came directly from Washington DC ~ and a couple of field offices in California. I can believe anything about California ~ those people were lucky if the analysts spoke English ~ but unless you've filed an appeal from a field action, or that of a regional headquarters operation or affiliate, you should never, ever receive anything from any Washington DC headquarters operation! That's when you consult a very special kind of lawyer.
I heard Eastman interviewed on John Gibson’s show today. They have proof that their actual returns were given to a leftist organization (they opened layers of PDFs to reveal IRS labels), but of course the IRS is refusing to name the identity of the leaker...citing the leaker’s right to privacy as a taxpayer!
The HRC (interesting initials for an organization focused on gays - snort) used the IRS-leaked donor lists to harass members of the National Organization for Marriage. Someone must do jail time for this.
Good. Sue the IRS and every employee therein.
§ 7213. Unauthorized disclosure of information.
(a) Returns and return information.
(1) Federal employees and other persons. It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or any person described in section 6103(n) [26 USCS § 6103(n)] (or an officer or employee of any such person), or any former officer or employee, willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b) [26 USCS § 6103(b)]). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $ 5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution, and if such offense is committed by any officer or employee of the United States, he shall, in addition to any other punishment, be dismissed from office or discharged from employment upon conviction for such offense.
Note that it is equally illegal to disclose "return information," which is a very expansively defined term. Basically, anything in an IRS file would be "return information."
Did the IRS leak Mitt Romney’s tax returns to Dingy Harry Reid?
Good Article. I appreciate that your focused on a real enemy.
Did you ever wonder why we populate Free Republic, since "it'll never happen?"
Thank goodness for the defeatists on FR, otherwise, there would be lots fewer hanging around, just waiting to suffer defeat at the hands of holder and obama, and misery loves company, dontchaknow.
Thank you for clonking that defeatist on the noggin, ROK. We need to do a lot more of that around here. It’s become a freaking epidemic.
You don't need to call those supplemental materials 'return information' since, in fact, they aren't 'return information' ~ which, BTW, is usually digitied and on a disk somewhere at IRS.
When the application is approved, that fact is PUBLIC INFORMATION and you can get it on the internet. None of the stuff Lerner was demanding shows up there.