| 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.
There seems to be some information missing there, doesn't it? Likes names. Seems like if that was true, he'd print who said it.
However, I agree with you about politically motivated audits; Western Case is a prime example, IMO.
Politics aside, I still think JW should publish their BofD and who donates to them.
Didn't see it and will read it later.
Not required, but appreciated, as you are one of the more rational and temperate Bush defenders.
Sorry about the AC. I don't disagree with you regarding JW.
That being said, I do trust Michael Chertoff.
The four directors and their salaries per the 2000 form 990 filing.....
Larry E Klayman.....$250,000+
Paul J Orfandes...... $155,214+
Thomas Fitton.... $128,646+
John Marnua..... $0.....
Heck it used to be that Judicial Watch even paid his law firm Klayman and Associates over $300,000 for rent and supplies, etc. Ethics where art thou..... Now it's reversed and Klayman and Associates is paying "fair value" to JW for the same....
Heck if they are above board and nothing wrong then an audit shouldn't be feared.... it would only boast their claim of being the "eWW"....
The IRS isn't even a Constitutionally valid entity.
Howlin, if Klayman is hiding his financial statements, then I would like you to show me the law that requires him to publish this information publically.
I'd also like to know how it is that it only costs him less than two million dollars to keep "all" these lawsuits going, and why he doesn't spend the OTHER twenty-three million he gets on lawsuits; perhaps he'd win some then. Most of us that you call Klayman bashers would shut up if he could justify that that money isn't going to a coporation he or somebody he knows runs and is legit.
Of course, you do realize, don't you, that EVERYBODY that gets audited thinks it's political.
Deport, it is clear that the IRS is attempting to silence Judicial Watch's political speech by threatening to audit them. We aren't debating about the validity of an audit, but rather the intent behind the audit. The IRS has become the unofficial gestapo unit of the Federal Government and one that clearly needs to be abolished.
The IRS is an undemocratic institution in that it is not accountable to the American people. Furthermore, they deny American citizens Equal Protection Under the Law by picking and choosing who they audit without proof of criminal wrongdoing and without any publically published standard of guidelines regarding who gets audited and who doesn't.
The Judicial Watch basher's defense of the IRS is unpardonable and incomprehensible to me.
I have come to the conclusion recently that the government doesn't need to forcibly take away our rights, they just need people like you to throw them away.
Question: Does the 14th Amendment mean anything to you?
Until that law is changed, you can THINK all you want to, it's still the law.
If Bush intervened, THAT would be politically motivated, wouldn't it?
Tough luck, Larry. My sister got audited. My dad was audited twice. Why do you think you are better than my dad or sister? What do you have to hide?
Where is all that money coming from? My bet is Hillary and Terry McAuliffe.
Like I said before, the IRS is an undemocratic institution in that it is not accountable to the American people at all. You are using bad logic by assuming that I believe the 14th Amendment says that we shouldn't have to obey the law; I did not say or mean this. The intent of the law however, should be greatly scrutinized and questioned, especially when entities such as the IRS hide behind the law as an exuse to use gestapo tactics to silence political organization's free speech.
Miss Marple, do you not believe that you have the right to know why certain people get targed for IRS audits? Especially when the IRS does not have any proof of criminal wrong doing and does not publish standards on who gets audited and who doesn't? This doesn't seem like equal treatment under the law to me and this certainly leaves room for biased leeway in the law. I am surprised that you are not questioning the IRS more.
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.