| 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.
Any idea how the court ruled on this case?
"But Feinberg has refused to part with the money, Klayman alleges in court filings"
Now, let me find a like article in the Washington Times - I'll also go to C-Span now...and have to find the original tape. I'll have the url later today.
(Had it coming????)
Yep, and folks many folks here like sinkspur and Howlhollaring do this all the time! HUH Howlhollaring!
This is a letter to The Hill News, written by Klayman himself. In it, he does explain the lawsuit with his mother.
Click here for the article: David Keen Column Full of Cheap Shots
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Klayman: Keene column full of ‘cheap shots’
To the Editor:
I was disappointed to read David Keene’s April 18 column in The Hill (“Clinton-basher Klayman targets Bush, GOP”). This article contains a number of cheap shots against Judicial Watch and me, but more importantly it suggests that to be a conservative one must be a slavishly loyal Republican.
While in this instance, Keene’s organization, the American Conservative Union, has become a cheerleader for the Republican Party, Judicial Watch remains not only conservative but staunchly nonpartisan.
Indeed, respect for ethics, morality and the rule of law are conservative virtues, and when a political party that professes to be conservative sends out solicitations to donors asking for political campaign contributions in exchange for meetings on tax policy with Bush administration officials, “principled conservatives” have no choice but to act.
In the words of Bill O’Reilly, Dick Morris and many others, including some key Republican congressmen and senators, the recent solicitations by Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) are exactly what the Clinton administration did illegally when it sold seats on trade missions, overnight stays in the White House and rides on Air Force One, to name just a few similar transgressions. (The New York Times reported last week that Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson met with Republican donors in his government office as part of a massive Republican fundraising push.)
Are conservatives to look the other way when individuals and political parties within their ranks commit the same crimes that the Clintons committed?
In addition to forsaking conservative values, your article goes on to level several cheap shots against me and my colleagues at Judicial Watch.
First, you raised the issue of the lawsuit against my mother, which resulted when she and my stepfather misappropriated all of my grandmother’s savings and abandoned her after a severe hip injury which left her in a state which ultimately led to her death.
My wife and I stepped in to care for my grandmother, but she needed her savings for her extensive medical care. The lawsuit against my mother was intended only to recuperate my grandmother’s moneys. Are you suggesting that conservatives should look the other way and allow the elderly to be abused and left to die?
Second, you make reference to an alleged dispute between Judicial Watch and the NRCC, which the NRCC has falsely and dishonestly claimed was the motivation for our legal actions concerning the illegal DeLay/Hastert/Republican fundraising solicitations. There was no dispute with the NRCC and Judicial Watch took its actions based on principle.
Third, you suggest that conservatives may no longer want to donate to Judicial Watch because we have decided to hold the Bush administration to the same legal standards as the Clinton administration. If this is what the American Conservative Union stands for, then perhaps conservatives should reconsider donating to your group — which, if your article is to be read at face value, stands for little other than being the “yes man” of the Republican Party. Ironically, Judicial Watch has supported your group in the past.
I am very disappointed by your columnist’s concept of conservatism. “Principled conservatives” do not run interference for lawlessness. They believe that “no one is above the law.”
Larry Klayman
Chairman and general counsel
Judicial Watch
Honestly, this is getting really old. Please knock it off. The childishness stops soon one way or another though.
Apparently, the suit against his mother was based upon the Larry's claim that his grandmother had given money to his mother for the grandmother's medical care and Larry wanted that money.
Larry's mother provided a different account under oath:
"I did not in March 1997, promise Larry Klayman that I would pay him for any medical or other expenses he might incur on behalf of my mother Yetta Goldberg. On the contrary, on that occasion, Larry Klayman was verbally abusive to me and to my aunt (Yetta Goldberg's sister), which forced us to leave his house and go to a hotel for the night. Moreover, on this occasion, Larry Klayman's wife, Stephanie Klayman, was crying while Larry Klayman was screaming at my aunt and me."
Obviously, this matter causes me a great deal of concern. What else should I know about this case?
This man makes a living off stories of lawsuits and fund-raising for lawsuits.
Just as others have exploited that percentage of people that are never happy, Klayman has a rapt audience.
It doesn't matter to them whether he delivers or not; so long as he threatens to "get 'em". It tickles their ears and makes them feel like a member of the posse. The only problem is that they never make the catch.
I wonder how long they will continue to pull out their checkbooks with nothing to show for it. Some people always have to learn the hard, painful way.
No doubt Larry's laughing all the way to the bank.
I've now seen that, thank you.
Just tell me one more thing.
Larry didn't cave in and settle that case against his mother, did he?
Oh, wait, one more item since you're here - you didn't comment about "her" posting to me -
"FREAK"...and other personal attacks, just curious as to why you didn't admonish these other personal attacks?
deport, how many times do I have to say this.
Larry will not cave in.
Nothing will come between Larry Klayman and justice.
This is a man who is unafraid to sue his own mother.
He is unafraid of prison.
There will be no settlement in this matter. The IRS and the courts that do the IRS's bidding can pound sand.
This thread is about eggregious abuse of government power by the most corrupt administration in United States history.
To spew a bunch of irrelevant crud about a family spat to undermine the credibility of an individual who illuminated a small measure of clinton's vile and destructive criminality is to serve as a useful idiot to those who would enslave you and I and every other American citizen.
For shame!
clinton took money from the red chinese, who received the Panama Canal, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, our most advanced nuclear technology, and the missile technology needed to deliver nuclear hell to American cities.
clinton took money from the riady family and they received a ban on development of low sulfur coal deposits which could have provided us with energy independence.
clinton corrupted the interior department with politicized pseudo scientists who treat the Scientific Method like toilet paper to fraudulently deprive America citizens from access to public lands and community resources. Klamath Basin farmers were ruined by the thousands by a specious claim that irrigation was a danger to sucker fish. green hacks planted bogus evidence time and again to try to bar access to millions of acres of western public lands. USFWS officials installed by reichs chancellor clinton took monies from a trust fund for wildlife management and used it to reintroduce alpha predators in the West, destroying herds of elk and deer and guaranteeing massive losses to Western farmers and ranchers. And inevitably people will die because these liberal pinheads and their filthy gaia worshiping syncophants have no respect for human life, except their own worthless tofu sucking carcasses.
clinton destroyed the ability of the CIA to protect us, and destroyed the INS's ability to protect us form foreign aggression, while coddling and abetting al qaida, even as his display of craven cowadice in Somalia encouraged those fanatics to mount an attack on American soil. Thousands died in New York and Washington due to clinton's spectacularly moronic leftist governance.
Like his nazi and communist fellow travellers, because all collectivist, statist, tyrranical oppressors are cut from the same cloth, clinton used government power as a scourge to crush dissenting people. Intolerant, inhuman freedom hating bigots like clinton and hitler and stalin, the list goes on, all have the same MO.
Oh, but the Judicial Watch guy who revealed a small fraction of the hideous damage done by the filthy criminal scumbag we suffered with for eight years, this fellow had a squabble with his mommy.
Yeah, that's what we need to focus on, right, yeah, sure, correct, you're a thinker.
Not.
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.