Citizens Plan On Filing a Civil Suit Against Internal Revenue Service

[Still_Small_Voice]

Citizens Plan On Filing a Civil Suit Against Internal Revenue Service

Earlier this morning, several members of the Kentucky 9/12 Project, the Richmond Tea Party, and Ohio Liberty met with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) in Washington, DC, to discuss plans for civil suits against the IRS for the admitted intimidation and targeting they received after applying for tax exempt status.

TheBlaze has been in contact with Kentucky 9/12 leader Eric Wilson as well as Richmond Tea Party’s Executive Director Larry Nordvig today. According to our sources, as many as 20 groups are currently assembling to consider filing lawsuits. Because some of the groups have had their non-profit status approved, while others are still waiting, and some just gave up the fight — there may need to be different kinds of legal action filed.

That action could take the form of either individual civil suits seeking damages or a class action suit that would allow many of the estimated 500 groups who may have been targeted by the IRS for intrusive questioning.

Eric Wilson of the Kentucky 9/12 group told TheBlaze that no formal suit as been drafted just yet, but plans are to file a suit as early as next week.

Also happening this morning, a joint press conference with members of the House and Senate where some of those considering action will be present. From the release:

Washington, D.C. – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Mike Lee, and Senator Ted Cruz will join Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06), members of Congress, and Tea Party leaders for a press confernce today at 9:30AM at the House Triangle to discuss the IRS targeting Tea Party groups.

TheBlaze is in contact with Rep. Bachmann’s office and will add any additional reports as we receive them.

Following the Press conference, this story will be updated.

Some Conservatives Targeted by IRS Say They Plan on Filing Civil Suit Against IRS | TheBlaze.com

[Windseeker]

"Unfortunately you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all of our problems. Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

-IRS inappropriately targeting conservative groups

-DOJ secretly monitoring multiple personal and work phone line of Associated Press reporters

-Kathleen Sebelius extorting money from companies she regulates to fund ObamaCare

-Benghazi

[Guest]

The IRS is auditing both of my sisters and their business. The reason they were getting is that neither of them has a college degree so they can't really be running a business right.

That would be one thing, but they audited one of my sisters a few years ago and dragged it on for 5 years. She felt harassed. They never found any wrongdoing on her part and never apologized.

[selek]

Over the last two days, we've also discovered that:

- the AP investigation over which the records were seized was triggered by the press's failure to sit on a story that the Administration was bragging about just a day later.

The "national security issue" about which the Administration was so concerned was that the Administration wanted to break the story and spin it as an achievement and resented being scooped.

- As part of this alleged "crisis", the DoJ seized phone records from (and is alleged to have wire-tapped) the United States Congress (a clear breach of separation of powers, among all the other crimes).

Senior Administration officials have known about the targeting of conservative groups as far back as 2010- but waited until AFTER the election to make the rules changes to "ensure it never happens again".

- The IRS has stolen and compiled 60 million health records (predominantly from California) without cause or legal justification for doing so.

My only question is: Why are you so surprised?

We knew what Obama was during his first campaign. We knew what he was during his second campaign.

We knew about the billions of dollars of foreign funny money being dumped into his campaign war chest in direct and explicit violation of the law.

We knew about the rampant voter fraud being perpetrated by his campaign and allies- we knew because they bragged about it.

We knew about the transparently illegal coordination between the White House, the Obama campaign, and ostensibly "independent" Super-PACs all along.

We heard the lies, the vitriol, the demonization, and the character-assassination that they used to avoid anything approaching accountability.

We heard his rhetoric about treating conservative (and indeed ANY group that failed to toe his ideological line) as the enemy.

We saw the FOIA requests being stonewalled and the "independent" investigators being thwarted with bogus "confidentiality" claims.

We SAW the DoJ engaging in blatant racist discrimination, cover-ups, and jury-tampering.

So why are you surprised that the "most transparent" administration in history now makes Richard Nixon look like George Washington?

[Still_Small_Voice]

The IRS is auditing both of my sisters and their business. The reason they were getting is that neither of them has a college degree so they can't really be running a business right.

That would be one thing, but they audited one of my sisters a few years ago and dragged it on for 5 years. She felt harassed. They never found any wrongdoing on her part and never apologized.

I hope the lawsuit against the I.R.S. is successful.

The United States tax code is so ambiguous in so many places that anyone could be found in violation. The entire tax code needs to be thrown out and replaced with something that is simple and works. I liked the proposal that a 15 to 17 percent flat income tax be implemented on households that had an income of $50,000 per year or more.

The Internal Revenue Service is now only gaining more power with access to peoples' medical records. Like someone else said, did the President not lie about anything in Obamacare?

[Just_A_Guy]

Over the last two days, we've also discovered that:

- the AP investigation over which the records were seized was triggered by the press's failure to sit on a story that the Administration was bragging about just a day later.

The "national security issue" about which the Administration was so concerned was that the Administration wanted to break the story and spin it as an achievement and resented being scooped.

In fairness, my understanding is that the story went public within a couple of days of when the scheme was foiled. It's entirely possible that we still had assets under cover and not yet removed to a safe zone when the story broke; though if anyone got hurt I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now.

As part of this alleged "crisis", the DoJ seized phone records from (and is alleged to have wire-tapped) the United States Congress (a clear breach of separation of powers, among all the other crimes).

The Congressman speaking with Hugh Hewett misspoke, and later clarified: it isn't that Congressmen were deliberately bugged; it's that congressmen who were speaking to specific members of the AP who were in turn under surveillance, were probably overheard. Still not a good situation; but the difference is at least worth noting.

But otherwise . . . Yep. There was no reason that the corruption of this administration could not have been foreseen by reasonably interested voters in the last election.

We voted for Obamaism and we're getting it - good and hard. Drink the dregs, my Obama-voting friends. Drink. The. Dregs.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[selek]

In fairness, my understanding is that the story went public within a couple of days of when the scheme was foiled. It's entirely possible that we still had assets under cover and not yet removed to a safe zone when the story broke; though if anyone got hurt I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now.

Not according to the CIA and AP personnel involved.

The Administration was planning on breaking the story the next day.

Some question whether AP leak on al-Qaeda plot put U.S. at risk - The Washington Post

The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.

AP balked and proceeded to publish that Monday afternoon. Its May 2012 report is now at the center of a controversial and broad seizure of phone records of AP reporters’ home, office and cellphone lines.

Emphasis Mine.

"In fairness", there's simply no way that this can be spun as anything even approaching credible or responsible behavior on the part of the Administration.

Sometimes fairness requires that you call a toad "a toad" even if he insists he's really a prince bespelled by a wicked sorceror.

The Congressman speaking with Hugh Hewett misspoke, and later clarified: it isn't that Congressmen were deliberately bugged; it's that congressmen who were speaking to specific members of the AP who were in turn under surveillance, were probably overheard. Still not a good situation; but the difference is at least worth noting.

Yeah- that defense will last about fifteen seconds in a court of law, let alone an impeachment hearing.

"Sorry Senator (or Judge), I wasn't eavesdropping on you, I was merely conducting an illegal, unwarranted, and overly broad surveillance of someone without anything even approaching probable cause or evidence of wrongdoing. My bad!

No, of course not! There's absolutely NO WAY we would deliberately and methodically abuse the public trust, the power of our High Officer, or the Constitutional Rights of American citizens in pursuit of partisan political advantage! That would be unethical!"

But otherwise . . . Yep. There was no reason that the corruption of this administration could not have been foreseen by reasonably interested voters in the last election.

We voted for Obamaism and we're getting it - good and hard. Drink the dregs, my Obama-voting friends. Drink. The. Dregs.

The Lord causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

America (aided and abetted by a campaign of intimidation, fraud, and corruption) chose the latter by the thinnest of margins- and now we all have to sip from that bitter cup.

Edited May 17, 2013 by selek

[selek]

LOL selek, I know, it's easy to become upset by it. I personally don't follow every little horrifying detail anymore because it just makes me too mad. If it's time to vote, or there is something that I can personally do, then I will do it - but if it involves just sitting and stewing, that doesn't help anyone, so there's no point in it.

True- which is why the efforts to educate voters is so important and why, in turn, the Obama ideologues were specifically targetting operations designed to do just that.

And before any of the hysterics accuse me of painting with too broad a brush, one hundred percent of the traceable donations made by emplyees in the Cincinatti office (where the scandal allegedly began and was concentrated) went to Obama a/o the Democrat candidate in Ohio.

All of the supervisors in that office (and the accused employees insist they were just following orders) are registered Democrats who voted for Obama.

Don't let it get you down! We're all just getting closer to the second coming :)

There is truth in this: but the Atonement and discipleship of Christ are not suicide pacts.

We are not required to lie down or look the other way while Babylon rages- in fact, we are commissioned to do precisely the opposite, proclaiming truth, virtue, honesty, integrity, and honor in all our dealings.

[selek]

More good news:

The corrupt autocrat who did nothing for two years while political dissent was being harassed and intimidated by government thugs is now responsible for your compliance with the most aggressive government over-reach since forced-sterilizations (thank you Margaret Sanger).

Unreal: IRS Official Who Oversaw Targeting Scandal Now In Charge of Obamacare Division - Guy Benson

[MorningStar]

The IRS is auditing both of my sisters and their business. The reason they were getting is that neither of them has a college degree so they can't really be running a business right.

That would be one thing, but they audited one of my sisters a few years ago and dragged it on for 5 years. She felt harassed. They never found any wrongdoing on her part and never apologized.

Wow. That's awful!

[annewandering]

I am glad to see this attention to political groups as non profits. Maybe it will result in the law being followed where no political interest groups are allowed to be untaxed as was intended. Its good to see the conservatives are happy to push for the law being followed as written not as has been applied since hm was it 1958 when 100% was changed to mostly then to ok at least some.

[Just_A_Guy]

Annewandering, you do know that while the IRS was demanding printouts of these groups' founders' Facebook profiles and demanding that anti-abortion groups promise (under penalty of perjury) never, ever to picket Planned Parenthood offices, they were also fast-tracking the approval of progressive political action groups--right?

And if the IRS thought they were doing something good and noble, then why did they deliberately conceal the truth about their activities during the 2012 elections? This bit about the "law not being followed" is facially incorrect. The terms "501©(3) status" and "527 organization" come from Title 26, United States Code, sections 501©(3) and 527 respectively.

To some degree all of us--on both sides of the aisle--have been led down the primrose path of "anything goes, as long as it's only hurting my political adversaries". The events of the past two weeks are an opportunity for us to step out of that mindset; and if we don't take it--there's no clear end to where that mentality might lead us. All that is needful are politicians whose primary objective is keeping power, a few influential columnists/bloggers (along with a smattering of lawyers, law professors, and judges) willing to lay the requisite intellectual foundation, and a populace willing to be swayed by said columnists/bloggers. The fact that American citizens are now acting as apologists for the IRS' blatant thuggery and the DoJ's spying on the AP based on a "they-had-it-coming-to-them-anyways" argument, indicate to me that all of those pieces are now in place.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

501©(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[35] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[36]

501©(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[37] and, unlike 501©(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[38] The tax exemption for 501©(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[39] 501©(4) organizations are not permitted direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.[36]

How many political lobbying organizations honestly adhere to these exclusive rules?

[Vort]

501©(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[35] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[36]

501©(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[37] and, unlike 501©(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[38] The tax exemption for 501©(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[39] 501©(4) organizations are not permitted direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.[36]

How many political lobbying organizations honestly adhere to these exclusive rules?

Seriously?

Your point is...? They deserved it?

[Just_A_Guy]

501©(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[35] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[36]

501©(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[37] and, unlike 501©(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[38] The tax exemption for 501©(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[39] 501©(4) organizations are not permitted direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.[36]

How many political lobbying organizations honestly adhere to these exclusive rules?

"Only the leftish ones".

Seriously--is that what you wanted me to say?

[annewandering]

"Only the leftish ones".

Seriously--is that what you wanted me to say?

Not at all. It looks to me like its been misused by pretty much everyone. Time to clean up the mess and make it right.

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps; but that should be done by the legislative process--not by a bureaucracy whose employee base is 75% registered Democrat and currently answers only to the President.

[Windseeker]

Not at all. It looks to me like its been misused by pretty much everyone. Time to clean up the mess and make it right.

But you see, the mess starts with a governent that abuses it's power by targeting and suppressing it's out of power political opposition.

I shouldn't be too suprised I guess...can always reference that Chavez thread to remember tyranny will continue to be allowed to thrive becuase "good" people agree with it.

[annewandering]

But you see, the mess starts with a governent that abuses it's power by targeting and suppressing it's out of power political opposition.

I shouldn't be too suprised I guess...can always reference that Chavez thread to remember tyranny will continue to be allowed to thrive becuase "good" people agree with it.

Who says it is right to do that? Not me. I say lets clean up the mess so it doesnt happen again and lets fix that policy of ignoring the law on special interests on ALL sides.

[Just_A_Guy]

With all due respect, Annewandering, that argument as a response to the current situation is the public-policy equivalent of saying that a woman wouldn't have gotten raped if she hadn't been smoking weed at that frat house.

These IRS flunkies were not good citizens trying to clean up a corrupt system; they were partisans who applied their power in a Nixonian attempt to maintain their party's stranglehold on the public apparatus.

If it is true that "power corrupts", then the only way to make sure "it doesn't happen again" is to focus on ways to limit that power.

[Windseeker]

Who says it is right to do that? Not me. I say lets clean up the mess so it doesnt happen again and lets fix that policy of ignoring the law on special interests on ALL sides.

Then perhaps I'm missing something.

Were any of these organizations under the weight of politically motivated government scrutiny found guilty of violating the law?

[annewandering]

Then perhaps I'm missing something.

Were any of these organizations under the weight of politically motivated government scrutiny found guilty of violating the law?

Many organizations have been give tax free status that shouldnt have been on both sides since about 1958 when the law that specifically says 'exclusively' for the social welfare was interpreted as meaning mostly or at least some. In other words they have been given tax free status when they shouldnt have been. Since no one wanted their particular organizations to be taxed they have pretty much ignored the situation.

Truth is those groups should have been scrutinized, along with all the rest. None should have been exempt. Complain but complain that all havent been scrutinized, and many should have been denied exemption that werent, all along as the law stipulates.

[Just_A_Guy]

Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers.

. . . quoth the mighty and powerful Internal Revenue Service.

[bytor2112]

Awesome quote from Congressman Mike Kelly:

R

EP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?

My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?

You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one **** thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans.

[bytebear]

Who says it is right to do that? Not me. I say lets clean up the mess so it doesnt happen again and lets fix that policy of ignoring the law on special interests on ALL sides.

So, why didn't they say that until AFTER the election? It was clearly and obviously an attempt to protect Obama's re-election, both in the original actions and in the cover up. And just as what was brought up in the hearings, this is not an isolated incident, but a trend and pattern with this particular administration.

Seriously, watch the hearings. It's disgusting.