| 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.
Second, Judicial Watch's privacy rights should not be trampled without the proper Probable Cause. The only reason the IRS is targeting them is out of pure political motivation and not out of genuine reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
So now it's "very likely murdered, period", is it? So much for the murder case.
That's all that I've been trying to tell you. Klayman and Judicial Watch have changed their tune about the "demise" of Ron Brown. Today's "version" of the truth is not the same as yesterday's "version." They don't want to associate the word murder with his death now that Judicial Watch may have to disclose the identity of its contributors.
Has Judicial Watch destroyed all of its correspondence with the House Judiciary Committee?
Where do the rights of the American people fit into your your view of the necessity for concealment and obfuscation?
As for your other questions, I am not the proper person to ask. Why don't you give them a phone call yourself? That is, if you really wish to know the truth.
Don't you think we all have a right to be suspicious? Judicial Watch changes its story about Ron Brown's "demise" and Judicial Watch is now burying the names of its contributors.
Why don't you think that the American people deserve the truth?
BTW, are you claiming that the "bullet hole" is an entrance wound rather than an exit wound?
Well, now we've gone from "murdered" to "likely murdered" to "mysterious death." Are you next going to claim that he died of ringworm just to avoid telling the American people about the reasons for his suicide?
Why does Judicial Watch persist in hiding the truth about this matter? Is the truth about the contributors really so explosive that it can only be disclosed to the American people over Mr. Klayman's dead body?
Judicial Watch has never changed their story about Ron Brown's demise. I do not believe that they have ever claimed that he was actually murdered; I do know that they were always and still are suspicious about his death. Unless you can provide documentation showing that they have changed their stories, I will not believe you.
What is this about Judicial Watch now burying the names of their contributors? They have never made the names of their contributors public!
Very Obvious and Blatant Bias in...our... community- I'm back.
Freedom:
So good to have you back."
Thank you/wouldn't miss it for the world/got to be here to Continue ..praising JudicialWatch.org!/BTTT
Well, now that we've changed our tune about the "demise" of Ron Brown and reduced the charge of murder to mysterious death, let's talk about the cover-up of Judicial Watch's contributors. If Mr. Klayman wanted to come clean with the American people by posting on his website the names of all of his contributors, what part of the Constitution do you think would be violated?
What "version" of the Constitution is Judicial Watch trying to feed the American people with that story?
Judicial Watch will not post the names of their donors because no law is requiring them to do so. If the IRS ever tries to force Judicial Watch to make public their donor list, the IRS would be violating the donor's 4th Amendment privacy rights, because the donors would not have done anything wrong that would warrant the Federal Government to have the Probable Cause necessary to invade their zone of privacy. This would be grounds for a class action lawsuit on the grounds that the donor's 4th Amendment rights were infringed upon.
You might say that you "personally believe" that Ron Brown was murdered, but you also say (in fact you insist) that you don't know what you're talking about and that I should call Judicial Watch for details. That dishonest tactic is called diversion.
We know that Judicial Watch was and probably still is suspicious of his death. We also know that Judicial Watch has never come out and publically stated that Ron Brown was murdered. They haven't changed their tune and you have shown no documentation to proove otherwise.
And by your own admission, if I were to call Judicial Watch for details, I would learn that they have never called Ron Brown's death a murder. So your clever diversion is not only dishonest, but dilatory as well.
Judicial Watch will not post the names of their donors because no law is requiring them to do so. If the IRS ever tries to force Judicial Watch to make public their donor list, the IRS would be violating the donor's 4th Amendment privacy rights, because the donors would not have done anything wrong that would warrant the Federal Government to have the Probable Cause necessary to invade their zone of privacy. This would be grounds for a class action lawsuit on the grounds that the donor's 4th Amendment rights were infringed upon.
You have much to learn about the Fourth Amendment. There is nothing in that amendment which forbids one citizen from disclosing the identities of persons who provide him with money. I should think that just reading the amendment would tell you that much. The only amendment which would prevent the Government from forcing Mr. Klayman to come clean with the American people is the Fifth Amendment.
Is that what it call comes down to here? Is Judicial Watch going to take the Fifth?
Tell the truth for once: Why doesn't Judicial Watch want the American people to know the truth about Ron Brown's "mysterious death"?
I never said that there is an Amendment which would forbid Judicial Watch from disclosing their donor list to the public. Rather, I said that Judicial Watch won't because they respect the privacy of their donors.
I don't claim to know everything about the 4th Amendment, but I do know a little bit about it. If the government were to force Judicial Watch to disclose their donor list, how would this not be a violation of both Judicial Watch's and the donor's 4th Amendment Rights?
Because there simply is no constitutional right of privacy connected with the payment of money. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures and it has nothing to do with covering up the existence of transactions like the payment of money.
Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch need to come clean with the American people. The cover-up must end.
And I don't take Mr. Klayman's suicide threat ("over my dead body") seriously. I think that he would flee the country before he would take his own life.
Don't you?
Because of statutes regulating the business of banking and not because of the Fourth Amendment. On a regular basis, banks cooperate with the Government by giving financial information about their clients.
Why won't Judicial Watch cooperate with the Government or the American people? What is so explosive about the information that is being requested? Who is Judicial Watch protecting and why? Why the cover-up?
The Fourth Amendment will never be interpreted to forbid a custodian of medical records from disclosing their content to others. Any protections for medical records come from statutes.
But this horseplay with the Constitution seems like just another of the diversionary tactics employed by Judicial Watch spokespersons like yourself. The American people are not going to just move on this time. We want the truth and we expect the truth from Judicial Watch!
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.