Posted on 07/23/2002 12:38:06 PM PDT by wcdukenfield
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, July 23, 2002
Contact: Eric Christensen
703-689-2370
(Herndon, Virginia) Landmark Legal Foundation filed a formal complaint today with the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) requesting an immediate investigation into the conduct of the government lawyers responsible for disclosing the identities of scores of taxpayers in public court filings. (United States v. KPMG LLP.) Landmark contends that the Tax Division attorneys responsible for the release of the taxpayers identities did so in contravention of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, relevant IRS regulations, and Justice Department guidelines.
Among the taxpayers identified by the Tax Division attorneys is William E. Simon, Jr., the Republican gubernatorial candidate in California. The lead Tax Division attorney challenging KPMGs tax shelter advice is Stuart D. Gibson -- a Democratic Party activist in Virginia.
Mark R. Levin, Landmarks president, declared: The IRS is disputing KPMGs tax advice to certain of its clients. The public release of the taxpayers identities was not only gratuitous, but likely unlawful. Its critical that the IRS and Justice Department keep taxpayer information confidential and avoid even the appearance of political partisanship. OPR must take immediate steps to reassure the public that it will comply with taxpayer privacy rights.
Landmark litigated against the IRS for 5 years for information about politically motivated audits against non-profit organizations. The IRS and the Tax Division insisted in that litigation that federal law prohibited the release of any tax return information, including the identity of third parties requesting audits of non-profit organizations and the identity of the targeted organizations.
Levin added: The IRS cant have it both ways. Either there are broad protections of privacy or there are not. It is not free to abuse those protections when it serves its purposes and to intimidate taxpayers.
Landmark is a public interest legal group with offices in Herndon, Virginia and Kansas City, Missouri.
Landmarks OPR complaint is posted on its website:www.landmarklegal.org. Landmark is a public interest legal group with offices in Herndon, Virginia and Kansas City, Missouri.
Once we get our whole paycheck with no federal deductions, we'll NEVER go back to withholding or any income tax.
Semantics.. they are your specialty, aren't they? These people work for Ashcroft, who works for Bush. Period. Ashcroft can tell them what to do and what not to do. Period. Notice, however that Bush and Ashcroft still allow the bureucratic left free reign. What's up with that, HMMMMMM?!
PS: Lame attempts to cite union protections, etc won't fly.
No, I think he is responsible for selecting cases with a better chance of successful completion.
Tell that to the innocent shareholder(s) who were scammed by big corporations like Loral or Halliburton, who are all too used to be held unaccountable for their irresponsible actions.
By the way, it's nice seeing you around.
Last time I heard, Linda Tripp wasn't doing so well.
Tell that to the innocent shareholder(s) who were scammed by big corporations like Loral or Halliburton, who are all too used to be held unaccountable for their irresponsible actions.
I have serious doubts whether Klayman will hold those executives accountable, and there is no shortage of lawyers willing to take a winnable case for a shareholders' suit. So far, it looks to me like most people Klayman prosecutes get to skate.
These are career bureaucrats, at least one of whom is a Democrat activist. Because of civil service protection, which you apparently cherish, the Bush Administration couldn't have replaced these people if they tried, at least not until they broke the rules here.
Trying to blame Bush and Ashcroft for their actions, when they obviously would have disapproved of it had they known about it, is absurd.
Find something else to bash Bush over, because this one isn't it.
They damn well CAN do something. If bureaucratic protection is so strong, why didn't conservative bureaucrats stick it to Bill and Hill? Because they knew there are ways around the roadblocks, that's why. Self-protection was their agenda and protecting America should be Bush's agenda. Apparently, Bush thinks nothing is worth fighting for.
Spell out the policy and instruct the lawyers to adhere to it. Wow, that was hard! If he has to go through the agency head, so be it. It can still be his call. The worst they could do to fight back is tie it up with some red tape that any "master strategist" of Bush's caliber could easily unravel.
Or perhaps maybe it is because Landmark Legal takes on totally different cases than Judicial Watch does.
Landmark Legal has taken on a lot of cases concerning public schools and vouchers lately, which is a subject that does not fall under the mission of Judicial Watch.
Judicial Watch will take on any case concerning government corruption and fraud, regardless of party affiliation--and that is what I appreciate about them and Klayman.
The fact is, that because Judicial Watch has challenged some of the unethical tactics of the Bush Administration lately, Judicial Watch has become an anathema to you people. This just proves that both major parties are full of hypocrites and that Judicial Watch is being as non-partisan as they have always claimed to be.
Mark Levin has more integrity in his little finger than Klayman has in his whole body!
Next time I need a homing device for integrity, I will just call on you.
Well the good thing about this current Judicial Watch civil suit, is that the SEC is investigating Halliburton too. If the SEC finds Halliburton guilty of any sort of financial fraud, it will only further legitimize Judicial Watch's case in court.
Klayman is being smart with the planning of this case and this further illustrates his legal expertise.
Didn't Bill Clinton fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he came to office?
Seems to me that I remember Bob Barr ranting and raving over this one.
With the types of high-profile cases that Judicial Watch takes on, these cases will not be solved in a matter of months.
Didn't this article state that it took Landmark Legal 5 years to get this done? Well, that is a lot less time that people here will give Klayman, mainly because Klayman is holding the Bush Administration to the sams standard as the Clinton Administration.
People in general, do not like either accountability or consistency.
I really don't know. Some people have assumed that I'm Mark Levin (F. Lee Levin, according to Rush), but I'm not him...
Mark (a different Mark L.)
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.