ONE MORE TIME:
IT’S ABOUT P O W E R AND C O N T R O L!!
SIGN THE PETITION AT HTTP://WWW.VOTR.ORG. Then find out how you can do more to end American’s peculiar SPRING MADNESS.
| 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.
But, like everyone else, Judicial Watch is probably going to have to submit to the audit.
And I predict that, while some of the resulting disclosures may turn out to be somewhat embarrassing, they will find that the records reveal no illegal conduct.
Perhaps, but when they are both seeking the same legal treatment - that of the non-profit organization - some similarities have to apply.
ONE MORE TIME:
IT’S ABOUT P O W E R AND C O N T R O L!!
SIGN THE PETITION AT HTTP://WWW.VOTR.ORG. Then find out how you can do more to end American’s peculiar SPRING MADNESS.
When a man appears on national television and sinks to the level of hurling insults about his opponent's hair piece, his chances of convincing me he is a serious individual come to an abrupt halt.
Rodger Ailes probably pushed him to the edge. Besides, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You said:
I appreciate the fact that churchs and special interest organizations have tax-exempt status. I believe that this helps contribute to America being a "market place of ideas."
That was YOUR remark, not mine.
Then you said:
You may believe that it is unfair that Judicial Watch spends large amounts of their income on fundraising, but apparently, their supporters do not seem to mind.
Now I ask you again: what would the people in your father's congregation say if he only spent 4 percent of what he took in on preaching the gospel?
They're both non-profits, so to speak; they both "collect" money -- admittedly people give of their own volition -- but they do give for a stated purpose.
What would the congregation say if your father spent 96 percent of the donations to his church on something OTHER than preaching and spreading the gospel?
Yeah, right. I think it's his responsibility to represent himself and his organization well when he's in front of an audience - don't you? I can hardly believe the man has a law degree.
Poor Larry. The whole world against him.
I think you are correct in that assumption. But 'eww' likes to fling the ethics thing around so imo he should be out front in all his dealings so as to ensure he is occupying as ethical position as possible. He has a group with a BOD made up of three employees and one other. They are voting on the use of tax deductible contributions for their own salary, trips, cruises, etc. He needs to be up front about these things as ethics is more than laws or rules, imo. If he is truly doing great things then the contributors will continue to support him even knowing all the facts... JMO
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.