Replies

There are a certain number of people who are audited every year. An audit does not require a suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. In both my sister and my father's cases, they had unusually large deductions which the IRS questioned. Once proof of the accuracy of those deductions was shown, no further action was taken by the IRS.

Do I like the IRS? No. BUT, the same rules apply to Larry Klayman as my sister and my father. He can show them his records and answer their questions, just like they did.

Nice try, but because I think that Larry has to submit to the laws that apply to the rest of us does NOT make me a cheerleader for the IRS. If Larry thinks this is politically motivated, then why is Ashcroft not intervening? But wait...if Ashcroft intervened, wouldn't THAT be politically motivated? I mean, he would be intervening to protect Larry, wouldn't he?

Too bad for Klaymman. I hope he hasn't got anything to hide...as in donations from the DNC.

I find it interesting that you think it is okay for a bureaucratic entity to look at one's intimate financial records without any proof of criminal wrong-doing. I also find it curious as to why you think this is Equal Protection Under the Law, even though we do not know exactly why some political organizations and individuals are audited and some aren't.

In both my sister and my father's cases, they had unusually large deductions which the IRS questioned.

Now, you know I do NOT do math, so I'll ask you.

Suppose you turned in your IRS forms and you reported taking in over $25,000,000 in donations for your "law firm."

Then you put down LESS than $2,000,000 for legal expenses.

Would that cause anybody to be suspicious?