His reasoning was similar in the second case, where 41 conservative groups banded together to sue the IRS for similar misconduct: “[T]he allegedly unconstitutional governmental conduct … is no longer impacting the plaintiffs. … Counts … are therefore moot.”Suing the IRS is like suing a king or a dictator.
The judge, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, also said the groups couldn’t receive monetary relief from individual IRS officials, such as ex-IRS official Lois Lerner, because of the chilling effect it would have on tax administration.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
"IRS beats tea party in court"
“After the plaintiff initiated this case, its application to the IRS for tax-exempt status was approved by the IRS. The allegedly unconstitutional governmental conduct, which delayed the processing of the plaintiff’s tax exempt application and brought about this litigation, is no longer impacting the plaintiff,” Walton said in his decision to throw out True the Vote’s lawsuit against the IRS.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
No damages resulting from the delayed processing? No attorneys' fees provision in the operative statute?
One more reason to limit the size, scope, and role of government. It's already tough to sue the government and tough to get the same award against a public entity versus a private entity (like, say, an insurer).
Now on top of those difficulties, there's precedent for despoiling the evidence, drawing out the proceedings, changing the rules, then moving to dismiss after retroactively revising the problem. Insurers face enormous penalties for "bad faith" conduct (and it still occurs). There is no similar parallel prohibitive penalty that might slow down the obese and corrupt bureaucracies of our government.
Walton did, however, demand the IRS within 14 days answer for two applications that have not yet been approved nor denied: applications for Patriots Educating Concerned Americans Now and Liberty Township Tea Party.
Would that be like suing a king, a dictator, or both?
When you come at the king you must kill the king.
The court seems to be saying is ok to do what the IRS as long as you promise not to do it again.
Just don't get caught next time.
Which leads me to conclude that when Nixon did it, it was ok too. That the furor was over ideological personality differences masquerading as protecting the American people and the rule of law.
They can audit anybody, after all.
The following post is mostly in French.
This judge is fucked up. The damage is done and the damage is extreme. Therefore the IRS needs prosecution, they need to be punished in the manner they punish, they need to FEEL the consequence of their crimes, their budget cut until they cough up the guilty parties, what they did is flatly unacceptable, and protecting them doubly so. This judge does not appreciate the extent of the crime committed, he does not know his his own role in extending this corruption, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, and what he does know of law has distorted his perception of what is balanced, right, and good, and legal, so then perfect for United States jurisprudence, I expect he'll be promoted.
And who give a shit who advanced this judge or their party anyway? They become free agents no matter the party of the president that advances them. Once enrobed something happens to their already distorted control freakish minds and they go even further off on their impenetrable imperturbable 'goddamnit, I am the brilliant country-reshaping decider' attitudes.
Fuck him.
I must see the responsible people in the IRS punished and I cannot be satisfied until it happens. Chaos, distrust, no cooperation, anarchy until order is brought to the IRS and to the courts that protect the criminals that malevolent Department harbors.
The judge is part of the problem, not resolver of the problem.
individual IRS officials could not be fined in their individual capacity for allowing such treatment because it could hurt future tax enforcement.
Ya think?
THAT is the crime, Jackass.
The judge imagines his brilliant judgement protects IRS future tax enforcement and not makes it more difficult, Dumbass.
I'm feeling misanthropy surging within me again. I am beginning to seriously dislike at least 50% of Americans based on their political views. My respect of U.S. courts and especially judges is nearly zero. I do hold their shit ass political views against them.
So, in other words, because those ideologically-corrupted individuals in the IRS backed off and granted the status requested by the plaintiff, the plaintiff no longer had standing to challenge those individuals who were actively, corruptly involved in granting IRS status in terms of ideology?
Talk about only half-blind justice and choices made via symbolism.
This one is for you, Lady Justice!
I don't believe in you.
This ain't over yet. IRS found a librul judge in D.C. circuit - I bet his ruling will be overturned unanimously on appeal and I ain't a lawyer.
Post a Comment