JULY 11, 2014
Judicial Watch Wins Major Court Victory Against Obama IRS – Federal Judge Demands Answers!
If there is a case study which perhaps best describes why Judicial
Watch is so important and how we are different from any other
organization, it is the record of success we have achieved in exposing
the Obama Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal, in which that powerful
federal agency was used to target and harass conservative
organizations.
And that success continued this week in federal court, before U.S.
District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who held a hearing about the
supposedly missing emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials, which
were the subject of longstanding Judicial Watch Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests and a lawsuit (
Judicial Watch v. IRS(No. 1:13-cv–1559)).
The emails Judicial Watch has sought since May 2013 cover portions of
the same period for which the IRS on June 13, 2014, notified the House
Committee on Ways and Means were lost or destroyed. Yet the IRS failed
to notify either Judicial Watch or the court concerning the “lost”
emails.
You’ll be pleased to know that Judge Sullivan, like Judicial Watch,
demanded answers and accountability. The lawyer for the IRS, Geoffrey
Klimas, suggested that it would be “appropriate” to wait until its own
investigation by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
(TIGTA) concluded before Judicial Watch or the court get any answers
through discovery. Judge Sullivan was skeptical (you can review the
hearing transcript
here):
THE COURT: More appropriate for whom,
though, for the department or the public? I mean, this is an action
filed by an organization that seeks documents under the theory that the
public likes to know what its government is doing, so appropriate for
whom? How would delaying discovery assist this plaintiff [Judicial
Watch] and the public in learning what happened here?
MR. KLIMAS: I would submit that letting
the Inspector General conclude his investigation serves the public
interest. The Inspector General is –
THE COURT: First of all, we don’t know
who this Inspector General is; secondly, we don’t know whether his or
her report is going to be public, right, right?
MR. KLIMAS: That’s correct.
THE COURT: So what’s — so let’s just stop there. Whose interest does that benefit, other than the IRS and not the public?
Judge Sullivan was not persuaded and demanded answers, under oath,
from the IRS within 30 days. Here’s a squib from his court order, which
you can read in its entirety
here:
“For the reasons stated by the Court on the record during the status
hearing on July 10, 2014, Defendant IRS is hereby ORDERED to file a
sworn Declaration, by an official with the authority to speak under oath
for the Agency, by no later than August 11, 2014.”
As reported by the
The National Law Journal,
the content of that declaration involves the “Lois Lerner email issue,”
with the judge saying he would “leave that category broad.” Judge
Sullivan also said the declaration “should also include how the
government could recover information contained in the lost emails.”
Judge Sullivan appointed Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola to manage
and assist in discussions between Judicial Watch and the IRS about how
to obtain any missing records from sources. Magistrate Facciola is an
expert in e-discovery.
Judge Sullivan also authorized Judicial Watch to submit a request for
limited discovery into the missing IRS records by September 24.
Folks, this is a huge victory for Judicial Watch and its members and
supporters. This extraordinary court ruling is a key step in unraveling
the Obama IRS’s ongoing cover-up of its abuses against critics of this
administration.
Thanks to our lawsuit, the IRS will be forced provide answers under
oath to a federal judge regarding the scandal and cover-up. It is our
hope that we can finally get some answers regarding these so-called
“lost” emails, which could provide critical information about the Obama
IRS effort to suppress conservatives and Tea Party organizations across
the land.
Were these emails retained? Were they “lost” forever when Lerner’s
hard drive “crashed”? These are the questions at the center of JW’s
investigation. And according to new records uncovered by Judicial Watch,
we’re not the only investigative agency who asked for them.
On the day of our court hearing, JW released new
IRS documents
including an email from the TIGTA seeking a missing May 2010 IRS
internal email ordering the targeting of Tea Party applications. The
TIGTA email also questioned the IRS “retention and backup policy
regarding emails.”
In the January 24, 2013,
email from Troy Paterson of the TIGTA office to Holly Paz, the
former director of the Office of Rulings and Agreements, Paterson wrote:
During a recent briefing, I mentioned
that we do not have the original e-mail from May 2010 stating that “Tea
Party” applications should be forwarded to a specific group for
additional review. After thinking it through, I was wondering about the
IRS’s retention or backup policy regarding e-mails. Do you know who I
could contact to find out if this e-mail may have been retained?
On January 31, 2013,
Paz responded to Paterson
apologizing for apparently failing to meet with the TIGTA official and
diverting his request for the missing May 2010 email to IRS legal
counsel:
I’m sorry we won’t get to see you today.
We have reached out to determine the appropriate contact regarding your
question below and have been told that, if this data request is part of
e-Discovery, the coordination needs to go through Chief Counsel.
What followed TIGTA’s request was a frenzied email exchange between
Lerner and Paz that revealed three interesting facts (you can read the
emails
here):
First, Lerner specifically referenced the email sought by TIGTA
directing the path of “Tea Party applications,” suggesting it in fact
did exist (a fact she later denied to Paterson). Second, the IRS staff
was not cooperating with the inspector general. And, third, IRS staff
was “freaked out” by the exploding scandal.
This all started in May 2013, when Judicial Watch submitted four
separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for IRS
communications concerning the review process for organizations seeking
tax exempt status.
One of the FOIA requests specifically sought Lerner’s communications
with other IRS employees and with any government or private entity
outside the IRS regarding the review and approval process for 501(c)(4)
applicants from January 1, 2010, to the present. A second request sought
communications for the same timeframe between the IRS and members of
Congress and other government agencies, as well as any office of the
Executive Branch.
After the IRS failed to provide the information, Judicial Watch filed
a FOIA lawsuit on October 9, 2013. And it was this FOIA lawsuit that
ultimately led to the discovery of the “lost” emails disclosed to
Congress.
I don’t think it is any stretch to say that our discoveries have
broken the IRS scandal wide open, while also helping to achieve a
measure of accountability for Lerner, who was held in contempt by
Congress and
referred to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution by the House Ways and Means Committee.
Judicial Watch has forced the release of government records that even
Congress could not acquire, including the bombshell discovery that
Lerner communicated with the Department of Justice seeking guidance on
criminally prosecuting conservative organizations that allegedly “lied” on tax-exempt applications.
JW also
uncovered records
proving that Lerner unlawfully provided confidential tax information to
the Federal Election Commission and forced the release of IRS documents
showing, contrary to what President Obama has said, the delay of Tea
Party applications was directed out of the agency’s headquarters in
Washington, DC. (The documents also show extensive pressure on the IRS
by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) to shut down conservative-leaning
tax-exempt organizations.)
Of course, our efforts to uncover the truth about the Lerner IRS
witch-hunt would be a whole lot easier if the Obama administration would
simply be forthcoming. But this is clearly too much to ask, which is
why a federal judge hauled the IRS into court and ordered them to talk.
And to further confirm that Ms. Lerner and the IRS engaged in a
cover-up, Congressman Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) investigative committee
released the following information on July 9:
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today released
new e-mailsat
a hearing with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen showing former Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner leading an IRS effort to hide
information from Congressional inquiries.
From the April 9, 2013, email
exchange among Lerner, an IRS technology employee (Maria Hooke), and the
agency’s Director for Exempt Organizations Exam Unit Manager Nanette
Downing who led audits:
I had a question today about OCS
[Microsoft Office Communications Server].I was cautioning folks about
email and how we have several occasions where Congress has asked for
emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails –
sowe need to be cautious about what we say in emails. Someone asked if
OCS conversations were also searchable – I don’t know, but told them I
would get back to them. Do you know?
Lerner’s April 2013 e-mail exchanges came
just twelve days after the IRS Inspector General shared a draft copy of
its targeting audit with the IRS that Lerner would leak at a bar
association speech only weeks before the scandal became public.
In e-mails withheld from the Committee
until only last week, Lerner was apparently concerned that IRS
conversations taking place within the agency’s instant messenger program
could end up in the hands of Congress along with requested e-mails. An
IRS technology employees responded that “OCS messages are not set to
automatically save” but cautioned that “parties involved in an OCS
conversation can copy and save the contents of the conversation to an
email or file.” Lerner responded, “Perfect.”
When Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio,
raised
the e-mail to Commissioner Koskinen’s attention, Koskinen said he had
never seen the e-mail and was unfamiliar with the OCS communication
system.
To be clear, Judicial Watch has yet to receive any texts from this
“OCS” system as it should have in our FOIA lawsuit. You can bet we’ll
be raising this issue in federal court as well.
It’s long past time for these games to end. Stay tuned. There is
little doubt additional discoveries regarding this scandal and its
cover-up are forthcoming. And there is no doubt JW will behind the
effort to uncover them. At this point, our FOIA lawsuit seems the best
vehicle to get to the bottom of this IRS scandal.
Border Security Now “Existential” Threat to U.S. Says Marine General, Combat Veteran
How do you know when your border security policy has reached a “Code Red?”
When a decorated and battle-tested Marine General, who led troops in
an Iraq combat zone for years, says the situation on the border has
become an “existential threat” to the United States. And then he asks
for help.
As reported by
DefenseOne.com:
A top United States general in charge of
protecting the southern border says he’s been unable to combat the
steady flow of illegal drugs, weapons and people from Central America,
and is looking to Congress for urgent help.
Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commander
of U.S. Southern Command, has asked Congress this year for more money,
drones and ships for his mission – a request unlikely to be met. Since
October, an influx of nearly 100,000 migrants has made the dangerous
journey north from Latin America to the United States border. Most are
children, and three-quarters of the unaccompanied minors have traveled
thousands of miles from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
“In comparison to other global threats,
the near collapse of societies in the hemisphere with the associated
drug and [undocumented immigrant] flow are frequently viewed to be of
low importance,” Kelly told Defense One. “Many argue these threats are
not existential and do not challenge our national security. I disagree.”
Last year, General Kelly said his task force was flat-out unable to
respond to 75% of illicit activity occurring on the border. “I simply
sit and watch it go by,” said General Kelly, who once led Marines who
reduced terrorist activity in Baghdad by 80% over a six month period.
What’s happening on the border today, said General Kelly, is a
“crime-terror convergence,” a gaping hole in our security that creates
opportunities for drug cartels and terrorists and leaves U.S. citizens
vulnerable.
This warning is not coming from a man prone to exaggerating threats. This is coming from a man who was once asked by a
Los Angeles Times
reporter if he ever contemplated defeat in the face of superior forces
in Iraq, and replied (as detailed in a speech he gave in 2007):
My response to the reporter was something
like: “hell these are Marines. Men like them held Guadalcanal and took
Iwo Jima, Baghdad ain’t [expletive].” This same sentiment could, and
does, apply to any American serviceman or woman. We who serve, who are
sent to fight wars and have nothing whatsoever to do with starting them,
have never known defeat on the battlefield. When we have lost, we lost
at home, and others declared defeat – not us.
Baghdad “aint [expletive],” General Kelly said. But our border
represents an “existential threat.” Could it be any clearer how
dangerous the situation has become under the current Commander-in-Chief?
That we are, without a doubt, “losing at home?”
President Obama has correctly labeled the situation on the border a humanitarian crisis. It is indeed. As our own
Corruption Chronicles
blogger pointed out in her most recent installment, “The hordes of
illegal immigrant minors entering the U.S. are bringing serious
diseases—including swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and
tuberculosis—that present a danger to the American public as well as the
Border Patrol agents forced to care for the kids…”
But it is much more than a humanitarian concern. This is about crime,
terrorism, and disease all wrapped up in one “perfect storm” that
appears to be the greatest threat facing our homeland at the moment, if
you believe the combat Marine in charge of fixing the problem. (We are
devoting significant resources to the ongoing border crisis, so watch
future
Weekly Update emails and our website at
www.judicialwatch.org for news.)
And the president’s response to this perfect storm is telling.
President Obama has requested $3.7 billion in supplemental funding to
address the humanitarian issues, with only 5% of the budget allocated to
boots on the ground. General Kelly’s request, meanwhile, is “unlikely
to be met,” according to Defense One.
Senator Ted Cruz
issued a statement
on the president’s funding request that seems more accurate with each
passing moment – that it is an admission that the influx of illegal
alien youths will continue and that the president has “no intention of
solving this problem.”
This, of course, raises the question: Why would the president
intentionally allow the border crisis to spiral out of control even
while admitting the situation has reached a crisis level?
Read on.
Judicial Watch, AEF File Brief Supporting Arizona, Kansas Efforts to Stop Voter Fraud
Of course one of the many negative down-stream consequences of
illegal aliens flooding across the border is the increased possibility
of voter fraud. Obama and his leftist allies are committed to thwarting
any effort by states to protect the integrity of the voting process
that would prevent illegal aliens and other ineligible individuals from
voting.
That’s where we come in. As you know, Judicial Watch has launched a
nationwide effort to support election integrity. And that effort
continued this week, as we once again joined forces with the Allied
Educational Foundation (AEF) to file an
amicus curiae brief
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in
support of Arizona’s and Kansas’ efforts to add proof of citizenship
requirements to a federal voter registration form.
And who is behind this legal challenge to the common-sense effort to
make sure all votes cast are legitimate? A leftist radical special
interest group? Well, yes and no. It’s the Federal Election Assistance
Commission (EAC), run by leftists in the Obama administration, which is
appealing a lower court order requiring the EAC to allow the states to
add the proof of citizenship requirements.
Before getting to the legal arguments we articulate in our brief, I
just want to take a moment to put this legal battle in context (with a
little help from the Center for Immigration Studies and its excellent
report
Allowing Non-Citizens to Vote in the United States? Why Not.).
As CIS points out. Every single state in the United States legally
bars non-citizens from voting in national or state elections. The
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
signed into law by President Clinton, made it a crime for any
non-citizen to vote in a federal election.
This is a fact so basic and so well-documented, says CIS, that 94% of
fourth graders tested on the question of whether or not non-citizens
could vote got the question correct.
So why are leftists inside the Obama administration in the bottom 6%
of a fourth grade class? It’s certainly not because they don’t
understand the law. They understand it perfectly well. It’s because they
don’t agree with the law, want to change it, and know they would not
have a snowball’s chance in you-know-where driving that kind of
legislation through Congress. So they do what they always do. Ignore the
law, go to court, and hope judges allow them to get away with the
lawlessness.
By the way, you should know that the campaign to allow non-citizens to vote is a national effort that has already borne fruit.
Per CIS:
“there are several municipalities in the United States that currently
allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Moreover, legislation to
allow non-citizens to vote has been introduced in a number of states and
localities including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and New York
City.”
Kansas and Arizona, however, were not willing to “play ball” with
leftists who boldly court non-citizen voting. And that’s why they (and
we) are active in court.
In August 2013, the states of Kansas and Arizona filed a complaint
against the EAC asking the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas to force the agency to require proof of citizenship in the
state-specific instructions on the National Mail Voter Registration Form
(the Federal Form).
And they won – albeit temporarily. On March 19, 2014, the District Court
ruled
that the EAC must change the federal registration form to allow the
states to require documentary proof. The EAC, along with the other
interveners, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, and on May 19, the Tenth Circuit
stayed the District Court’s order.
In our
amicus brief, Judicial Watch and AEF argue that if
granted, the appeal “would have a chilling effect on voter confidence in
the integrity of elections in Kansas and Arizona, as well as
nationwide.” The
amicus contends, “The U.S. Election Assistance
Commission – apparently uninterested in federal law enforcement – now
seeks to prevent states from enforcing their own lawfully enacted
statutes designed to ensure that voter-qualification laws are followed.”
Here are our legal arguments per the
amicus brief:
- The NVRA Protects Election Integrity, Which is Necessary for
the Nation to Have Confidence in the Legitimacy of its Elected Leaders
The NVRA is not a statute solely focused
on ballot access, as the EAC wrongly implies throughout its decision.
Rather, the NVRA reflects a compromise designed both to increase lawful
voter registration and to increase the integrity of elections by
ensuring that voter rolls are accurate and contain only eligible voters …
It is necessary for states to restore the American public’s confidence
that elections are honest by enforcing election integrity laws … A poll
from August of 2013 reported that only 39% of Americans believe
elections are fair.
- The EAC’s Decision Ignores the Election Integrity Language and Purpose of the NVRA
The EAC barely considers the NVRA’s
emphasis on election integrity and voter confidence, using the words
“integrity” and “confidence” only once each in its entire 46-page
opinion … By ignoring the other purposes of the statute, the EAC adopts a
lopsided approach that treats disenfranchisement by fraud and the loss
of public confidence in elections as irrelevant.
- Even Low Levels of Noncitizen Registration and Voting Disenfranchise U.S. Voters and Can Alter the Outcome of Elections
According to a report from U.S. Census
Bureau, in 2012 there were approximately 22 million noncitizens (both
lawfully and unlawfully present) in the U.S. out of a total population
of 311 million. This means that roughly 6 percent of the U.S. population
lacks citizenship – or about 1 in 17 people. It is well established,
moreover, that Arizona has one of the highest non-citizen populations in
the United States, and Kansas, in part due to particular industries in
the south-western part of the state, also has a sizable noncitizen
population. In light of these facts, for the EAC to deem these states’
precautions as “unnecessary” strains the meaning of the word.
Once again, states are being forced to fight the Obama administration
in order to insure the integrity of the electoral process. Supreme
Court, in its
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona decision,
has already ruled that states are free to petition the EAC to add the
proof of citizenship requirement. But, as usual, the Obama
administration would bully states from protecting election integrity
rather than abide by the law. Given the current border crisis, proof of
citizenship to vote is an issue that is more relevant than ever.
By way of background, The Allied Educational Foundation is a
charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality
of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation
has engaged in a number of projects which include, but are not limited
to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has
frequently partnered with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption.
JW and AEF have always been on the right side of the law when filing
these briefs, and many times we’ve been on the right side of a court
decision. (See our joint
amicus curiae brief over President Obama’s
National Labor Relations Board
appointments recently ruled unconstitutional as one example.) Let’s
hope for the sake of the integrity of our electoral process, we find
success once again.
Until next week…
