Republicans Overseas in Israel files High Court petition against FATCA agreement
Republicans Overseas in Israel, which can legitimately purport to represent 85% of American voters living in Israel (based on the results of the last elections) has filed a petition with Israel's High Court of Justice seeking to stop Israel's banks from transferring required information to the Internal Revenue Service under FATCA. FATCA requires foreign financial institutions to disclose to Lois Lerner's IRS the value of all foreign accounts held by US citizens. US citizens who actually live abroad are up in arms about this because it means that we have to go through two regulatory systems in all of our dealings with local banks (example: I had to fill out a W-9 to show that I have a US social security number in order to get a car loan from an Israeli bank for my car in Israel last year).
If you're a US citizen who lives in the US you no longer have any foreign bank accounts - at least in Israel where long before the Bank of Israel signed an agreement with the IRS, the local banks forced all non-Israeli residents to close their accounts. That means that this is almost entirely about people who live in Israel by any definition.
ROI’s petition claimed that the new information sharing process is not
only beyond government officials’ discretionary authority absent Knesset
legislation, but also in violation of the Basic Laws which create
certain property and privacy rights defending against an automatic
transfer of personal data absent a reasonable chance to object
(currently there is no chance to object.)
In courts in many
countries, including now Israel, the argument is, that the FATCA law and
how foreign countries are implementing, means it functions as a dragnet
of massive amounts of private information which could be misused and
where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Zell explained that “we
are not saying the Israeli tax authorities are prohibited from
transferring information to the IRS or other foreign tax authority…where
there is a reasonable basis to suspect tax evasion.”
He said
that Israel can already do this under existing conventions and that the
problem is to “collect and transfer such data to foreign governments
without a showing of cause and without allowing the affected taxpayers
an opportunity to be heard before the information is transferred.”
The
equal treatment issue is that only dual US citizens are being treated
this way by the Israeli government, and not persons who are
dual-citizens of any other countries, let alone most Israelis who are
solely Israeli citizens.
The application is most “absurd” said Zell with cases of persons who merely have an American greed card.
But
so far other litigation against FATCA and its consequences have had
mixed results, with lawsuits in the US and Canada being initially
dismissed and currently pending appeal.
...
“If the Court addresses the merits of the case, I believe our chances
are quite good… The action of the Bank of Israel is highly problematic,
given that there was absolutely no statutory basis for its action…. The
Government Decision…directly infringe[s] upon fundamental rights and no
attempt was made to mitigate the damage,” stated Zell.
He also
said treating American-Israelis differently is “clearly
discriminatory…There is no easy answer to that... the Government simply
disregarded the privacy interests of the affected class, signed what is
effectively an adhesion [coercive] contract and paid no attention
whatsoever to the fact that the US Government…does not provide adequate
protection for private information,” confirmed he said by the European
Court of Justice and Israel’s Justice Ministry.
As Zell said,
“taxpayers have a fundamental right of privacy protected by Basic Law
and statutory law. The Government sought to nullify these rights with
the wave of a hand and the Knesset thus far has said no. We hope the
High Court of Justice will agree.”
President Cruz's first day in office: Bye-bye Iranian sellout
Ted Cruz made a speech at the RedState conference in which he laid out five actions he would take on his first day in office.
During this speech, Cruz laid out five actions that he would take on his first day in office. The Daily Signal reports:
The first action would be to “rescind every illegal executive action taken by Barack Obama,” including his “executive amnesty.”
Next, he would “instruct the Department of Justice to open an
investigation into Planned Parenthood” and to prosecute any criminal
conduct uncovered.
Then he would instruct the Department of Justice and the Internal
Revenue Service to “cease persecuting” individuals seeking to practice
their faith in their workplace.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, he said, “would receive a letter in
the mail that their case has been dismissed.” He said they would also
receive “an invitation to the White House to tell their story to the
world.”
Then he would “end the catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.”
Cruz argued that by lifting economic sanctions on Iran, the Obama
administration had become “the leading global financier of radical
Islamic terrorism.”
Finally, he would “begin the process to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.”
Moving the embassy to Israel’s “eternal capital,” he said, would send “a message to the world that we stand with our allies.”
Unlike promises to stop the oceans from rising and to heal the planet, these promises seem reasonable and in line with Cruz’s campaign message.
Cruz assured the RedState audience, and by extension all of us, that
he’s the one GOP presidential candidate who will keep his word.
I wish he would add to the IRS item that he will order the IRS to cease denying tax exemptions on political grounds.
I also wonder whether he could even find all of Obama's illegal executive orders in just one day.
Justice Department lawyer in Z Street case a potential witness
The Wall Street Journal reports that the lawyer who until recently was representing the Justice Department in the Z Street lawsuit is a potential witness due to his tenure in the IRS working under Lois Lerner.
From
August 2008 until August 2010, Mr. Strelka was a presidential
management fellow assigned to the IRS Exempt Organizations division.
That's the same period that Z Street says it was told by an IRS agent
that its application had been singled out for special scrutiny to see if
it comported with Administration policies. Mr. Strelka was thus both
Justice's lawyer on the case and potentially a witness.
We say "was" because recently Mr.
Strelka was withdrawn as the Justice Department's counsel of record on
the Z Street case. A review of court dockets showed that he has also
withdrawn from two other cases involving tax-exempt groups, including
Judicial Watch's suit against the IRS.
Mr.
Strelka confirmed to us that he was off the Z Street case but said he
couldn't discuss pending litigation. A Justice Department spokesman said
"it is not unusual for attorney assignments to change during the course
of litigation" but declined further comment.
Cleta Mitchell,
who represents conservative groups who saw their applications for
tax-exempt status slow-tracked, says she talked to Mr. Strelka when he
was at the IRS starting in June and July of 2010 about a client whose
tax-exempt application was delayed. After applying for 501(c)(4) status
in October 2009, the client heard nothing until June 2010, when Mr.
Strelka asked to see ads the group had run that were critical of
Administration health-care policy.
This
means Mr. Strelka was directly engaged in the policies at the Exempt
Organizations Unit that led to the lawsuits charging the agency with
viewpoint discrimination. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct,
barring special exceptions, "A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a
trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness."
Z
Street founder
Lori Lowenthal Marcus
says the group intends to depose Mr. Strelka during discovery—if
it ever happens. The IRS recently filed an appeal of a judge's denial of
the agency's motion to dismiss the Z Street case, indefinitely delaying
discovery and running out the clock on this Administration.
If
Mr. Strelka had personal knowledge of the processing of tax-exempt
applications for groups like Z Street while he was assigned to the IRS,
he should have recused himself from handling the case at Justice.
Judicial
Watch President
Tom Fitton
says there is "nothing usual about the way Justice handled this
and if the goal [of Mr. Strelka's recent withdrawal] was to inspire
confidence in the process, it is likely to have the opposite effect." We
look forward to learning what Mr. Strelka knows.
It's a pity that so much of this administration's corruption is likely to remain repressed until long after Hussein Obama retires to become a full-time golfer.
I have discussed Z Street and how it was denied tax exempt status by Obama's IRS many times on this blog. Now, it turns out that Z Street may yet be the key to the IRS scandal.
The IRS's political agenda isn't just about the Tea Party
In the ongoing imbroglio over the Internal Revenue Service, it's the IRS's treatment of the Tea Party that has grabbed most of the headlines. But I have shown in the past, as have others, that the IRS also discriminated against organizations that opposed President Hussein Obama's Middle East policies. The most blatant case where that happened was the denial of tax exempt status to Z Street, an organization based in Philadelphia that seeks to help Jews in Judea and Samaria. The IRS claims that conservative organizations like Z Street were 'stuck' in the bureaucracy, and that's why their applications took so long to process. But the Wall Street Journal reports this morning that emails from the IRS (at least those that were not erased) show that the dragged out process that Z Street (specifically) faced was deliberate.
In
2009 the Pennsylvania group Z Street applied for tax-exempt status for
its mission of educating people about Israel-related issues. In 2010 an
IRS agent told Z Street that its application was delayed because the tax
agency's Washington, D.C. office was giving special scrutiny to groups
whose missions might conflict with Administration policies. The IRS's
"Be On the Lookout" list that November also included red flags for
groups referring to "disputed territories."
Z
Street sued in August 2010 for viewpoint discrimination and its case is
headed for discovery in federal court. Now emails uncovered by the
House Ways and Means Committee show that the IRS and State Department
were conferring in 2009 about pro-Israel groups like Z Street and
considering arguments to deny their tax-exempt applications.
In
an April 16, 2009 email, Treasury attache to the U.S. Embassy in
Jerusalem Katherine Bauer sent IRS and Treasury colleagues a 1997 JTA
News article sent to her by State Department foreign service officer
Breeann McCusker. The subject was whether 501(c) groups buying land in
Israel's disputed territories were engaged in "possible violations of
U.S. tax laws." The article chronicles the controversy and whether
"ideological activity" can "legally be financed with the help of U.S.
[tax] dollars."
"Thought
you might find the below article of interest—looks like we've been down
this road before," Ms. Bauer wrote. "Although I believe you've said you
can't speak to on-going investigations, I thought it was worth flagging
the 1997 investigation mentioned below for you if it can be of any use
internally when looking for precedence [sic] for the current cases." A
Treasury spokesman declined comment on Ms. Bauer's behalf.
The
"current cases" would have been applications like Z Street's in which
Israel-related activity was apparently being scrutinized for its
ideological and policy content. The government says Z Street got special
scrutiny because it was focused in a region with a higher risk of
terrorism, which is hard to believe and in any case doesn't explain all
of the IRS's behavior.
It
doesn't cover, for instance, why one questionnaire we've seen from the
IRS to another Jewish group applying for tax-exempt status asked, "Does
your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?" and
"Describe your organization's religious belief system toward the land of
Israel." No matter the answers, they should not affect the processing
of an application for 501(c) status. The State-IRS emails reveal a
political motivation for IRS scrutiny that gives Z Street powerful
evidence for its suit charging IRS bias.
On Monday
the IRS filed an appeal of the judge's decision denying its motion to
dismiss Z Street's case. The government says the action stops all
discovery while the appeal is pending, a process that could take months
or even years. By filing the appeal on the last possible day, the
Justice Department is running out the clock on discovery during the
remainder of the Administration.
It's a pity that by the time this case is decided, it may no longer be possible to sanction the Obama administration. If I were representing Z Street, I would do everything I could to expedite a decision.
Jeff Dunetz explains why President Obama got left behind in the line-up to make a call of support to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
President Obama has drawn much criticism for not calling Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as Israel has been defending herself from the onslaught of rockets from the terrorist Hamas.
Before yesterday afternoon leaders from almost all of Israel's friends called Netanyahu, heck even France, and even the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the anti-Israel Ban Ki-moon called Bibi during this crisis but the leader of the United States, Israel's very, very, "bestest" friend didn't call. Finally yesterday evening Jerusalem time the president called.
I would suggest that we are not being fair to President Obama. He had a very good reason not to call America's best friend in the Middle East. You see Israel reminds him of some of his Administrations scandals.
Trust: 71% believe Obama's IRS destroyed emails to hide guilt
What do you call a country where the public believes the taxman plays politics? The United States of America. A Rasmussen poll finds that 71% of the American public believes that the IRS destroyed its emails to hide its guilt in targeting pro-Israel and tea party groups (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Most voters think it’s likely the IRS deliberately destroyed e-mails
about its investigations of Tea Party and other conservative groups to
hide its criminal behavior. Two-out-of-three now believe IRS employees
involved in these investigations should be jailed or fired, and most
suspect the agency of targeting other political opponents of the Obama
administration.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of
Likely U.S. Voters believe that the Internal Revenue Service broke the
law when it targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups. That’s up
from 49% earlier this year
and back to the level seen last September.
Little changed from the early surveys are the 22% who think the IRS did
not break the law. Slightly more (25%) are not sure. (To see survey
question wording, click here.)
When citizens cannot trust independent agencies to be independent, they are more likely to try to defy the laws that those agencies are meant to enforce. I don't know of anyone famous who said that, but intuitively, it's correct.
Z Street is a pro-Israel organization whose application for a tax exemption was denied in 2009 after it was asked whether it supports the 'occupation.' Z Street sued the IRS (never cross a couple where both spouses are lawyers :-), and now finds itself at the center of a major scandal in the US involving 'lost' IRS emails.
In 2009 a pro-Israel group called Z Street applied to the IRS for
tax-exempt status. When the process was delayed, an IRS agent told the
group that its application was undergoing special review because "these
cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine
whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's
public policies." In August 2010 Z Street sued the IRS on grounds that
this selective processing of its application amounted to viewpoint
discrimination.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and legal precedent, once the suit was filed the IRS was required to
preserve all evidence relevant to the viewpoint-discrimination charge.
That means that no matter what dog ate Lois Lerner's hard drive or what
the IRS habit was of recycling the tapes used to back up its email
records of taxpayer information, it had a legal duty not to destroy the
evidence in ongoing litigation.
In
private white-collar cases, companies facing a lawsuit routinely operate
under what is known as a "litigation hold," instructing employees to
affirmatively retain all documents related to the potential litigation. A
failure to do that and any resulting document loss amounts to what is
called "willful spoliation," or deliberate destruction of evidence if
any of the destroyed documents were potentially relevant to the
litigation.
At the IRS, that requirement
applied to all correspondence regarding Z Street, as well as to
information related to the vetting of conservative groups whose
applications for tax-exempt status were delayed during an election
season. Instead, and incredibly, the IRS cancelled its contract with
email-archiving firm Sonasoft shortly after Ms. Lerner's computer
"crash" in June 2011.
In the federal
District of Columbia circuit where Z Street's case is now pending, the
operating legal obligation is that "negligent or reckless spoliation of
evidence is an independent and actionable tort." In a 2011 case a D.C.
district court also noted that "Once a party reasonably anticipates
litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction
policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation
of relevant documents."
The
government's duty is equally pressing. "When the United States comes
into court as a party in a civil suit, it is subject to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as any other litigant," the Court of Federal
Claims ruled in 2007. The responsibility to preserve evidence should
have been a topic of conversation between the IRS chief counsel's office
and the Justice Department lawyers assigned to handle the Z Street
case.
As it happens, the IRS also had a
duty to notify Congress if it learned that discoverable evidence had
been lost or destroyed. We now know that the IRS has been aware of Lois
Lerner's lost emails since at least February, but IRS Commissioner
John Koskinen
failed to mention this in his congressional testimony on March
26, saying instead that the IRS was fully cooperating with congressional
requests.
...
Attorney General
Eric Holder
won't name a special prosecutor, but there's still plenty of room
for the judge in the Z Street case to force the IRS to explain and
answer for its "willful spoliation" of email evidence.
Oh my.... Here's betting that if they're prosecuted and convicted before January 2017, Obama will pardon them.
From time to time over the past four years, I have covered the IRS's refusal to grant tax-exempt status to Z Street, a pro-Israel organization. This week there was a breakthrough and the IRS will be forced to answer the charges against it.
On Tuesday, Federal Judge Ketanje Brown Jackson issued the first
substantive ruling in any suit that challenged the IRS’s pose of
political neutrality under the Obama administration. The case concerns Z
Street, a Philadelphia area-based pro-Israel organization that filed
for tax-exempt status in December 2009 because of its role in educating
the public about Israel and the Middle East conflict. The group’s
founder Lori Lowenthal Marcus wrote in the Jewish Press this week about what followed:
On July 19, 2010, when counsel for Z STREET spoke with the IRS agent
to whom the organization’s application had been assigned, that agent
said that a determination on Z STREET’s application may be further
delayed because the IRS gave “special scrutiny” to organizations
connected to Israel and especially to those whose views “contradict
those of the administration’s.”
Z Street subsequently sued the government and rightly argued that its
constitutional rights had been violated because of the “viewpoint
discrimination” that the IRS agent had openly displayed. Now after years
of delays, Judge Jackson has ruled that by asserting that Z Street had
no right to sue, the government had tried to “transform a lawsuit that
clearly challenges the constitutionality of the process … into a dispute
over tax liability.” She similarly dismissed the government’s claims of
sovereign immunity.
What has this got to do with the Tea Party and its complaints? Plenty.
This ruling will force the IRS to open its books on the procedures it
used and decisions it made reviewing Z Street’s tax-exempt application,
procedures it has tried to keep shrouded. As the case proceeds, Z
Street’s attorneys can seek depositions from many who have been part of
the larger attempt to sit on similar applications by other conservative
groups.
In other words, this case may be the straw that breaks the camel’s
back of the IRS’s politically prejudicial policies. If an IRS agent can
reject or stall a pro-Israel group’s application on the grounds that
“these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to
determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the
Administration’s public policies,” then no group, no matter what its
political orientation or cause is safe from being subjected to a
political litmus test designed by any administration of either political
party.
Bring it on. Too bad it's taken so long to reach trial that Obama's term will likely be over before we know what happened.
Bank of Israel implementing FATCA rather than waiting for data exchange agreement
Last week, I reportd that the Bank of Israel was going to enter into a data exchange agreement with the US Internal Revenue Service to spare the banks having to report information on US citizen accounts in Israel to the American authorities. Now, apparently stung by US investigations into the activities of the Swiss branches of Israeli banks, the Bank of Israel has decided to implement FATCA immediately.
The banks must apply FATCA by mapping their US customers and having
them sign the appropriate forms. The Bank of Israel is ordering the
banks to appoint an officer responsible for the matter, establish work
procedures, and reporting processes to management. The banks will also
examine the need to sign an agreement with the US authorities and to set
procedures for handling uncooperative customers - including "the option
of refusing to provide banking services to a customer who does not
cooperate with the implementation of the provisions."
Most, if
not all, of Israel banks are ready to implement FATCA and have signed
their US customers on the forms. As a consequence, the banks have lost
quite a few customers, who decided to withdraw their money and close
their accounts. "Globes" has estimated that more than $4 billion have
been withdrawn from accounts in Israeli banks.
Last week, "Globes" reported that the Ministry of Finance
is in advanced talks with the US Department of the Treasury on an
agreement for the sharing of information on bank accounts held by
foreign residents, and that the economic social cabinet will discuss the
agreement soon.
The agreement will supersede the US government's
demand that Israeli banks will report directly to the US authorities.
Instead, the banks will send the information about US customers to the
Israel Tax Authority, which will send it to the IRS. Despite the
advanced stage of the talks, it is unclear whether an agreement will be
signed before FATCA comes into effect in July.
The Bank of Israel is
demanding that the banks prepare to implement FATCA whether or not the
agreement is signed. "A financial institution that does not cooperate
with the US authorities is liable to various sanctions, including a 30%
deduction from payments originating in the US," it says.
For the record, if you're a US citizen, you're a US customer. And that's making a lot of Americans give up their US citizenship.
Facing an increasingly out-of-control federal government
in Washington, D.C., record numbers of Americans are giving up their
U.S. citizenship in an effort to escape onerous requirements enforced by
the IRS — which apply no matter where in the world a citizen lives.
Because the IRS requirements have already become so bad, a growing
number of banks around the world are refusing to even accept American
customers in an effort to avoid U.S. government bullying and mountains
of regulations. Following a trend in recent times, with citizenship
renunciations continuing to hit new records, some members of Congress
are slowly starting to take notice.
According to official figures and experts cited by the Wall Street Journal,
almost 2,400 people so far this year have either given up their U.S.
citizenship or turned in their green cards. That means the numbers thus
far are up by at least 33 percent over 2011, when 1,781 did so, more
than twice as many as in preceding years. In 2012, meanwhile, almost
2,000 people reportedly decided to permanently sever Uncle Sam’s grip,
and experts say the real numbers are even higher. By comparison, just
742 renounced their citizenship in 2009.
The exodus is widely expected to continue or even accelerate —
especially among the wealthy and mobile — unless and until Congress
takes action to rein in the IRS and reduce the draconian burdens imposed
on Americans abroad. The U.S. government, of course, is almost unique
in the world in that it demands that citizens pay U.S. taxes and file
massive amounts of complex paperwork no matter where on the planet they
reside and work. According to reports, the only other government in the
world to seek tribute from citizens abroad is the one ruling Eritrea.
Does the American government want us to give up our citizenship? It sure feels that way.
The agreement will be an alternative to the provisions of the US
Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which requires non-US
financial institutions to sign the agreement directly with the US
authorities to send them information about American customers.
As
"Globes" has reported, the new agreement will be reciprocal. "The
agreement will include an option under which, subject to certain
conditions, information will be sent from the US tax authorities to the
Israeli tax authorities about the income of Israeli residents in the
US," states the document.
The document predicts that the
agreement will boost Israel's tax revenues, because the Tax Authority
will obtain information about Israelis' financial assets in the US. It
cautions, however, that the amount of these revenues cannot be
estimated.
It seems, however, that the sharing of information between Israel and
the US is not equitable. While the Israeli authorities will
automatically send the US all information about US persons, the US
authorities will only send information to Israel in special cases.
Israel is not the first country to sign such an agreement: the US has
similar agreements with the UK, Denmark, France, Japan, and Spain, and
more countries have expressed a willingness to sign such agreements in
the future. The agreement with Israel will include provisions for
protecting the information's confidentiality and for restricting its use
by the IRS, due to privacy concerns.
If you're a US citizen living in Israel, you have a choice. You can give up your American citizenship. There's been a lot of that since President Hussein Obama took office. But if you need to travel to the US for any reason, you may not want to give up that citizenship after all. There's recently been an 80% increase in rejections of applications from Israelis for US tourist visas.
Lois Lerner takes the 5th and what it has to do with Israel
For those of you who think that this story has nothing to do with Israel, please keep in mind that we know of at least one pro-Israel organization that was denied tax-exempt status because it opposed the 'two-state solution.' And the IRS admitted it.
The second revelation was one made by Bloomberg News.
That media agency obtained IRS documents revealing that, in addition to
the terms Tea Party and 9/12, other terms were used in flagging
organizations seeking tax exempt status for additional scrutiny. While
the headline of the article, and what was the object of most media
attention, was that terms that suggested not just conservative groups,
but also liberal or progressive groups were given the IRS evil eye –
words such as “occupy” and “progressive” were allegedly triggers, as was
the word “Israel.”
But far down in a long article the Bloomberg reporter explains that, “Disputed Territories” was considered problematic. To wit:
‘Disputed Territories”
The November, 2010 [BOLO - Be On the Look Out] list also has terms
that could be related to Israel, looking for applications that ‘deal
with disputed territories in the Middle East’ and ‘may be inflammatory.’
Well, golly! What kind of a group calls a particular area of land
“disputed territories,” which the vast majority of people, either for
ideological or simply conformity refer to as the “West Bank?” Yes, that
would be strong Zionist groups such as Z STREET.
Good news for Americans abroad: Republican National Committee calls for repealing FATCA
At its annual meeting in Washington on Friday, the Republican National Committee backed a resolution that called for the repeal of the Federal Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), an act whose effective date has been delayed several times, and which has caused nightmares for American citizens residing abroad.
The 2010 law which goes into effect in July requires foreign
international financial institutions to provide the Internal Revenue
Service with information on U.S. citizens living abroad who hold more
than $50,000 in their accounts at the end of the year.
Congress
passed the law in an effort to crack down on Americans who evade paying
taxes by hiding financial assets overseas. But the law has been sharply
criticized by banks, libertarian groups, and Americans living in Canada
and overseas who say it's made it very difficult for them to open bank
accounts, obtain loans or conduct other financial transactions because
several foreign financial institutions won't take them on as clients
because they don't want to have to deal with the IRS.
Some U.S.
ex-patriot groups say the law is partially responsible for the increase
in the number of Americans renouncing their citizenship. That number has
grown from 742 in 2009 to more than 1,854 last year, according to State
Department figures.
By the way, I went to renew my US passport last week, and renouncing your American citizenship will set you back $450 (compared with $110 for renewing your passport). Just being informative....
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/25/215744/rnc-approves-fatca-repeal-resolution.html#storylink=cpy
New York Times presents Obama lies on Benghazi as 'news'
The New York Times has published a 'report' that claims that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was the result of an anti-Islam video that was posted on the internet.
How non-credible is this report?
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: David K).
You don't think that the Obama administration ordered this report, do you?
Consider this: The Democratic National Committee sent out emails on Saturday night, urging recipients to support Democrats in next fall's Congressional elections to keep the Republicans from impeaching President Obama (Hat Tip: Jack W).
The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America
supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts.
“What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring
quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele
Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake
Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for
one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.
The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”
“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give
President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC
email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a
majority.
The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.
Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi
terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative
groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the
American people when he told them that they could keep their existing
doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.
Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.
Not to mention that Obama is promoting the very dangerous agreement which will lead to a nuclear Iran, and are trying to pummel the United States' sole reliable ally in the Middle East into endangering its security....
American Studies Association tax exemption to be challenged?
In an earlier post, I reported on the American Studies Association's vote on whether to boycott Israel. The vote was to end at 11:59 pm on Sunday night, US eastern time. Professor William Jacobson of Cornell University has announced that in the event that the resolution passes, he will challenge the ASA's tax exempt status.
Voting on the resolution ends at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, December 15.
If the resolution passes, I intend on challenging ASA’s 501(c)(3) status
through IRS procedures.
To that end, I have retained one of the leading practitioners in the field of charitable organizations, Alan P. Dye, Esq.,
to file a challenge to ASA’s 501(c)(3) status if the resolution
passes. We expect to file the challenge prior to year end, if not
sooner.
ASA’s anti-Israel academic boycott resolution calls ASA’s 501(c)(3)
status into question for many reasons, including but not limited to the
act of engaging in an academic boycott not satisfying the requirements
of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that an organization must be
“organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable,…or
educational purposes…”
An academic boycott, which clearly is a
substantial activity of the ASA and will be for the coming years, does
not satisfy this test.
In addition, the anti-Israel boycott arguably exceeds ASA’s legal purpose as set forth in its bylaws, among other places, used to obtain that tax exempt status:
The object of the association shall be the promotion of
the study of American culture through the encouragement of research,
teaching, publication, the strengthening of relations among persons and
institutions in this country and abroad devoted to such studies, and the
broadening of knowledge among the general public about American culture
in all its diversity and complexity.
The ASA boycott also arguably is unlawful under the NY State Human Rights law,
and possibly other anti-discrimination laws, in that it discriminates
on the basis of national original and religion. Indeed, a letter opposing the resolution signed by numerous ASA members including 7 past Presidents notes:
In no other context does the ASA discriminate on the
basis of national origin—and for good reason. This is discrimination
pure and simple. Worse, it is also discrimination that inevitably
diminishes the pursuit of knowledge, by discarding knowledge simply
because it is produced by a certain group of people.
Adopting an unlawful and/or discriminatory academic boycott
resolution and acting on that resolution calls ASA’s 501(c)(3) status
into question under IRS guidelines.
You won't find this news on big 3 US TV networks: IRS admits targeting groups with 'anti-Obama rhetoric'
USA Today reported on Wednesday that the IRS has admitted that it flagged political groups for 'anti-Obama rhetoric' (Hat Tip: Bad Blue). And the big 3 of US network television refuses to report it.
ABC, CBS and NBC have so far refused to report the latest bombshell in
the IRS scandal - a newly released list from the agency that showed it
flagged political groups for “anti-Obama rhetoric.” On September 18 the USA Today,
in a front page story, reported the following: “Newly uncovered IRS
documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content
of their literature, raising concerns specifically about ‘anti-Obama
rhetoric,’ inflammatory language and ‘emotional’ statements made by
non-profits seeking tax-exempt status.”
Not only have ABC, CBS and NBC not reported this story they’ve flat out
stopped covering the IRS scandal on their evening and morning shows.
It’s been 85 days since ABC last touched the story on June 26. NBC
hasn’t done a report for 84 days and CBS last mentioned the IRS scandal
56 days ago on July 24.
The article by Gregory Korte went on to report: “The internal 2011
documents, obtained by USA TODAY, list 162 groups by name, with comments
by Internal Revenue Service lawyers in Washington raising issues about
their political, lobbying and advocacy activities. In 21 cases, those
activities were characterized as ‘propaganda.’ The list provides the
most specific public accounting to date of which groups were targeted
for extra scrutiny and why. The IRS has not publicly identified the
groups, repeatedly citing a provision of the tax code prohibiting it
from releasing tax return information.”
I'm sorry folks, but I am becoming more and more convinced that US democracy just doesn't work anymore either.
This insistence by the IRS that Z STREET had a remedy for its legal
claim: it could be assured that the court would provide it with a
constitutionally valid process and given an up or down decision pursuant
to a Section 7824 ruling, ultimately brought the judge to ask the
Justice Department lawyer a critical question. She asked whether, in
the opinion of the IRS, there is any way for Z STREET to obtain the
relief that it – not the IRS’s mischaracterization of its claim - has
repeatedly stated in every court filing it wants. In other words, can Z
STREET find out whether the IRS violated its constitutional rights by
treating its application differently on the basis of its viewpoint.
No, according to the IRS, it can’t.
In other words, the IRS says you can get the little ticket that comes
out of the black box called “IRS Tax Exempt Determinations,” which will
say either “approved” or “denied,” but you cannot, no way, no how, lift
the lid off that black box and look inside.
But looking inside that black box is precisely what Z STREET wants.
It is the only way to determine whether the IRS violated the
constitutional rights of Z STREET and of any other organization which
complains, at any time, of a discriminatory process employed by the IRS
in making its determinations.
Judge Brown asked Z STREET’s lawyer, Jerome M. Marcus, whether the
organization could use the Freedom of Information Act to get at the
information it is seeking in its lawsuit.
Marcus pointed out that route would not be productive. There are
numerous FOIA exceptions which the IRS would certainly use as a shield
to prevent the black box from being opened. FOIA is not an option.
Nope, it’s either a court which will allow citizens who believe their
constitutional rights have been violated by the IRS to provide the
mechanism to find out, or the IRS will be, as so many Americans already
believe it to be, a rogue agency able to act with impunity, and able to
invoke immunity from prying eyes.
So it comes down to this: Z STREET has alleged that the IRS employed a
constitutionally tainted process to evaluate certain applicants for tax
exempt status, while the IRS’s position is that there is no way for any
complainant to inquire about that process.
IRS First Post-Scandal Appearance in Court Reveals Effort to Run From Justice
The IRS has learned nothing from all its travails in Congress. It continues to behave as Obama's Gestapo.
As you might recall, Z Street is a Jewish organization that was set up in part to counter the pro-'Palestinian' J Street. Z Street sought exempt organization status as a 501(c)(3) corporation, but has not yet been able to get it because it is pro-Israel (or possibly because it disagrees with the Obama administration's position on Judea and Samaria). In other words, Z Street is the foreign policy alter-ego of the Tea Party organizations that have grabbed most of the headlines in the IRS scandal.
In 2010, Z Street sued the IRS. On Tuesday, the IRS sought (again) to dismiss that lawsuit. This press release was put out by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, the President of Z Street, in response.
IRS First Post-Scandal Appearance in Court Reveals Effort to Run From Justice
Yesterday
marked a new entry in an ongoing pattern of changing stories and
defenses to prevent the light of day from exposing egregiously
unconstitutional behavior by one of the most dreaded limbs of
government: the Internal Revenue Service.
“It is no surprise
that the IRS is desperately fighting to prevent anyone from learning
exactly how the IRS decided to categorize organizations on the basis of
their political, religious or other viewpoints, an issue from which the
government entity has been reeling for weeks, and with good reason,”
said Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of Z STREET.
Represented by
the Justice Department, the IRS filed a brief seeking to dismiss the
lawsuit against it brought by Z STREET, a staunchly pro-Israel
organization, which was filed in August, 2010.
That lawsuit was
the first public utterance that the IRS was discriminating against
certain organizations because of their viewpoints, rather than because
of a failure to follow the required guidelines of eligibility.
In
May, the admission - after years of denials - by the IRS itself that it
had engaged in categorizing politically conservative groups for
differing treatment touched off a flurry of congressional and media
attention. Most of the attention was focused on the treatment of “Tea
Party” and other politically or socially conservative groups.
Z
STREET brought its lawsuit nearly three years ago, after being told by
the IRS agent to whom its file had been assigned that the IRS had to
“give special scrutiny to organizations connected to Israel,” and that
the files of some of those “organizations were sent to a special unit in
Washington, D.C. to determine whether the activities of the
organization contradicted the public policies of the administration.”
Such treatment by the IRS constitutes bald-faced viewpoint
discrimination and is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The
IRS has defended itself in the lawsuit on several different grounds,
including the absurd notion that the government is immune from such a
lawsuit. (In fact, of course the Bill of Rights -- which begins with the
First Amendment, securing the right to free speech -- was created
specifically to protect citizens from unconstitutional behavior by the
government).
In particular, the government has repeatedly
denounced Z STREET for failing to wait the requisite number of days
before complaining and going to court for not receiving tax exempt
status. And as Z STREET explained in every single one of its own court
filings, the lawsuit was not brought because it had not been given (or
denied) tax exempt status within a particular time frame. The lawsuit
was brought because Z STREET believes, based upon what the IRS agent
herself said, that the IRS engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint
behavior. There is no requirement to wait a set period of time before
making such a claim.
However, in yesterday’s filing, the IRS
claimed - for the first time, not surprisingly, as it completely
contradicts every other court filing by the IRS in this case - that Z
STREET’s lawsuit should be dismissed because it failed to make out the
very claim the IRS had repeatedly insisted Z STREET was making - that it
qualifies for, and should have already been given, tax exempt status.
It bears noting that yesterday another set of significant documents was released by the IRS, via
the House Ways and Means Committee. These, in an apparent attempt to
prove that the IRS was not just engaging in viewpoint discrimination
against politically conservative groups, showed that the IRS had created
a category for review it labeled “progressive,” as if that made
everything kosher. But also included in the documents released was a
category labeled “occupied territory advocacy.” In other words, the IRS
was indeed singling out applications for tax exempt status on the basis
of a particular political viewpoint which is inconsistent with this
administration’s. And that is bald-faced viewpoint discrimination and
is the basis for Z STREET’s lawsuit against the IRS.
The first
hearing in Z STREET’s lawsuit against the IRS will be held on July 19 at
10:00 in Courtroom 17 before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the
Federal District Court of the District of Columbia.
And you thought the IRS acted unfairly to the Tea Party....
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
