NEW: Depositions of Obama IRS Officials
Detail Knowledge of Tea Party Targeting
We have been at the forefront in uncovering the Obama IRS scandal that
showed the agency’s abuse of conservative Americans and organizations in
the run-up to the 2012 election. We’re still learning the details of
their conspiracy.
We have just received previously sealed court documents, including
depositions of IRS officials Lois Lerner, the former director of the Exempt
Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Holly Paz,
her top aide and former IRS director of Office of Rulings and Agreements,
which show they knew most Tea Party organizations were legally entitled to
tax-exempt status.
The release comes in the December 2017 amicus
curiae brief (friend of the court) we filed in NorCal
Tea Party Patriots, et al. v. The Internal Revenue Service, et al.
(No. 1:13-cv-00341). We argued that the documents we sought may shed light
on government misconduct, and the shielding of internal government
deliberations does not serve the public’s interest.
Lerner’s and Paz’s depositions were
sealed by Judge Barrett in April 2017, after Lerner’s and Paz’s
lawyers claimed the two officials were receiving threats. The court finally
ordered
the unsealing of the depositions four years after the plaintiffs requested
the depositions be unsealed and only after the plaintiffs filed for a writ
of mandamus to force action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.
The sworn depositions were given in 2017 by Lerner and Paz. In the newly
unsealed deposition transcripts, the two IRS officials repeatedly have
memory lapses and regularly plead ignorance of the fundamental matters in
question.
The unsealed Lerner and Paz deposition transcripts reveal through sworn
testimony the bureaucratic tangle created by the Obama IRS to single out,
delay and deny the processing of conservative, especially Tea Party
non-profit groups’ applications for tax-exempt status and to disclose
their donors’ names. At the same time, Paz admits under questioning that
she
knew from the beginning there was not sufficient legal basis to deny
most of the targeted groups tax exempt status:
Q: [T]he organizations had filed applications representing …what they
were organized for and what they have done and also their intended
activities, and you thought that … for the majority of those applications
that that would warrant the recognition of exemption?
***
The Witness [Paz]: My recollection is that
at the time, my thinking was that the majority of the (c)(4) applications,
while they may have indicated some amount of political activity, that we
would not have enough basis to make a determination that that would be
their primary activity and deny them exempt status.
Q: And, therefore, they would receive an approval or recognition of
exemption?
A: Correct.
The records also include an unsealed court filing by NorCal Tea Party
Patriots that provides a detailed description of the ordinary
process by which the IRS determines whether to grant an organization
tax exempt status and how the process under Lerner deviated from that norm
after the IRS brought Tea Party groups under special scrutiny following the
Citizens’
United Supreme Court decision. (The Citizens United
decision held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from
restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by
corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other
associations.)
The NorCal Tea Party Patriots filing
details:
Lerner expressed strong feelings about the Supreme Court’s 2010
Citizens United v. FEC decision. In a June 1, 2012, email exchange
with [redacted], Lerner wrote that “Citizens United is by far
the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.” Later in the
same email exchange, Lerner expanded on her views of Citizens
United:
We are witnessing the end of “America.” There has always been the
struggle between the capitalistic ideals and the humanistic ideals.
Religion has usually tempered the selfishness of capitalism, but the rabid,
hellfire piece of religion has hijacked the game and in the end, we will
all lose out. It’s all tied together— money can buy the Congress and
the Presidency, so in turn, money packs the SCt. and the court backs the
money—the “old boys” still win.”
Lerner sought to reverse the impact of Citizens United. In a June
11, 2012, email exchange with Robert Stern [former chair of the Council on
Governmental Ethics Laws] about Stern’s report discussing states’
responses to Citizens United, Lerner wrote:
I like it! Very easy to find specific information, as well as get the big
picture— you done good! Now, if you can only fix the darn law!”
***
In a February 13, 2012, email exchange among Lerner and various of her
subordinates about [proposed] federal legislation that would require
tax-exempt organizations to disclose their donors, Lerner wrote:
“Wouldn’t that be great? And I won’t hold my breath.”
The NorCal Tea Party Patriots filing also describes Lerner’s targeting
Tea Party groups after Citizens’ United:
Lerner began to worry that applicants for exemption would rely on
Citizens United to challenge the IRS’s regulations on political
activities by (c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations.
Lerner particularly worried that Tea Party groups would seek to challenge
IRS regulations. In an email exchange concerning the February 1, 2011, SCR
[ Sensitive
Case Report], Lerner told Paz and others: “Tea Party Matter very
dangerous…This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of
whether Citizen’s United [sic] overturning the ban on corporate
spending applies to tax exempt rules. Counsel and Judy Kindell need to be
in on this one please needs to be in this. Cincy should probably NOT have
these cases—Holly please see what exactly they have please.’
Later in that exchange, Lerner directed her subordinates to find a reason
other than political activity to deny the Tea Party applicants exemption
under § 501(c)(3) to prevent them from challenging the exemption rules
based on Citizens United.
Thanks—even if we go with a 4 on the Tea Party cases, they may want to
argue they should be 3s, so it would be great if we can get there without
saying the only reason they don’t get a 3 is political activity.
These new transcripts expose how the Obama IRS intentionally suppressed the
Tea Party movement during the 2012 presidential campaign. These documents
show how the Obama administration easily used the IRS to suppress an entire
political movement threatening his reelection. The Obama IRS abuse is the
epitome of election interference. Given this largely unchecked abuse by the
IRS, the Biden administration’s massive new expansion of the IRS should
concern all Americans.
Lois Lerner retired
with full federal benefits in September 2013.
The original NorCal Tea Party Patriots lawsuit
in which Lerner and Paz gave depositions was a class-action lawsuit against
the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury and named
individual officials claiming that:
Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government, including
Defendants, brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and
crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only
wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the
Administration. In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon
their political viewpoints.
The lawsuit was settled
in 2017 when the Justice Department awarded the plaintiffs over $3.5
million for “attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and incentive
awards.” In settling the case, the DOJ admitted the IRS abused its power
and the criteria it used to screen applications for 501(c) status was
inappropriate. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated:
The IRS’ use of these criteria as a basis for heightened scrutiny was
wrong and should never have occurred. It is improper for the IRS to single
out groups for different treatment based on their names or ideological
positions. Any entitlement to tax exemption should be based on the
activities of the organization and whether they fulfill requirements of the
law, not the policy positions adopted by members or the name chosen to
reflect those views.
Despite these admissions
of wrongdoing, the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no
criminal charges.
We uncovered troves of documents about the Obama IRS scandal (see, for
example, here
and here).
And we filed at least nine FOIA lawsuits about the IRS scandal. Much of
what is known about the scandal resulted from our litigation and
investigations.
Here is a partial summary of our disclosures:
- In September 2014, our FOIA lawsuit forced
the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and
maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups.
IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was
not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being used
for a “secret research project.”
- In April 2015, we released court ordered IRS
documents that included an
email from Lerner asking that a program be set up to “put together
some training points to help them [IRS staffers] understand the potential
pitfalls” of revealing too much information to Congress. The
documents also contain a Lerner email from 2013 in which she says she is willing
to take the blame on some aspects of the scandal. She also
indicates that she “understands why the IRS criteria” leading to the
targeting of Tea Party and other opponents of the President Obama “might
raise questions.”
- In July 2015, records
showed the IRS scandal also included the Justice Department and FBI as
well. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch under court order,
in an October 2010 meeting, Lerner, Justice Department officials and the
FBI planned for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit
organizations for alleged illegal political activity. As part of that
effort, the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25
million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 non-profit,
501(c)(4) social welfare groups as part of its prosecution effort.
According to a letter
from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS
Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS
– including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by
transmitting this information to the Justice Department …”
- Also in July
2015, we released Obama IRS documents
confirming that the agency used donor lists of tax-exempt organizations to
target those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials
specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under
“high scrutiny” from the IRS.
- In July 2016, we, through a federal court
order in one of our FOIA lawsuits
(Judicial
Watch v Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-01239)), obtained FBI
“302” documents, which contain detailed narratives of FBI agent
investigations, revealing that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois
Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting
“Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before
disclosing it to Congress and the public.
The FBI 302 documents also confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration (TIGTA) 2013
report that said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were
targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.”
Lerner did not reveal
the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an
American Bar Association conference. The documents reveal that then-acting
IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response, where
she admits:
They [IRS staff] used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected
cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That
was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and
inappropriate.
- In November 2016, after the IRS refused
to acknowledge its targeting of conservative groups, we forced the
release of IRS records revealing the agency used “inappropriate political
labels” to screen the tax-exempt applications of conservative
organizations. IRS agents were targeting organizations requesting
tax-exempt status based on “guilt
by association” and “party affiliation.” We brought to light that
the IRS was going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations to restrict
their alleged political activities in exchange for “expedited
consideration” of their tax-exempt applications. FBI “302” documents
we uncovered also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was
targeting conservative groups because of their ideology
and political affiliation in the summer of 2011.
- We also separately
uncovered in its lawsuit Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559) that
Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and
the Obama Justice Department and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the
IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner
admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political
activity.”
- In March 2017, we obtained IRS
documents through our FOIA lawsuit Judicial
Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220) that contain
admissions by IRS officials that the agency used “inappropriate political
labels” to screen the tax-exempt applications of conservative
organizations. Other records uncovered reveal that the IRS was going
to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations to restrict their alleged
political activities in exchange for “expedited consideration” of their
tax-exempt applications.
- In June 2018, we obtained internal
IRS documents through one of its FOIA lawsuits (Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559))
revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel
on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged
top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations Lois
Lerner, to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner
was appointed by President Trump as Special Counsel for the United
States Office of Special Counsel.
Also, in an echo of the Clinton email scandal and in response to our
litigation, the IRS initially claimed that emails belonging to Lerner were
supposedly
missing. Later, IRS officials conceded
that the “missing” emails were on IRS back-up systems.
The Obama IRS scandal serves as a warning – that keeping a watch on our
government is essential – as those in power are always willing
to abuse government power for political ends.
Boston Targeted COVID-Policy Protestors Outside Mayor’s
Home
When and how can citizens protest the rules imposed on them by their
elected officials? That is at issue in Boston, where an ordinance proposed
by the mayor and adopted by the city council led to the wrongful arrest of
a protestor.
We have an obvious interest in the case, and we stepped in, suing in August
under Massachusetts Public Records Law after the city failed to respond to
our April request for records concerning the enforcement of City of Boston
Ordinance Section 16-63 (An Ordinance Regarding Targeted Residential
Picketing) (Judicial
Watch, Inc. v City of Boston (No. 2284-cv-01782)). We are
represented in the case by attorney Ilya I. Feoktistov.
We received 525
pages of records from the City of Boston revealing the police
department specifying criminal complaints, as opposed to civil citations,
for protestors picketing outside of the home of Mayor Michelle Wu over her
COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates.
On January 15, 2022, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu began a program, B
Together, which required people to “show proof of COVID-19
vaccination to enter certain indoor spaces … including indoor dining,
fitness, and entertainment venues.” Protests began
outside of her home shortly thereafter. The Boston City Council then passed
an ordinance that prohibited – and enforced with civil fines – protests
outside residences during certain hours. On Monday, April
25, 2022, Shannon Llewellyn was arrested
outside the mayor’s home and criminally charged for violating the
ordinance that only allowed for civil enforcement such as fines.
On September 6, a Boston judge ruled that Llewellyn was “wrongfully
arrested.”
Among the newly obtained records is a
February letter to the city councilors from Mayor Wu proposing
restrictions on “residential picketing,” in which she declares that the
city is committed to protecting the right to protest.
On March
21, former Boston Police Captain Darrin
Greeley writes to members of the police department: “NEW POLICY
regarding Mayor's HOUSE. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT - HEARING - DISREGARD THE CIVIL
CITATION-THE COURT WANTS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT HEARING.” [Emphasis in
original]
On March 23, Lieutenant John
Flynn writes to Superintendent Gerard
Bailey with the subject line “municipal
law” regarding “city ordinances and rights of arrest.” Flynn
includes a November 2015 email he wrote explaining how civil ordinance
violations can be treated as misdemeanors.
On March 30, Ordinance
16-63 was adopted by the City Council, limiting protesting between 9
p.m. and 9 a.m. outside of a residence.
On April 1, Robert Burke is
cited for targeted residential picketing. On April 4, Burke was identified
again for the residential picketing, “willful violation of
ordinance” of criminal statute 16-63.
On April 4, five days after the ordinance was adopted, Greeley sends an
email to several officers with the subject line “Response for Protest
17 Augustus Ave Roslindale:”
POLICY regarding the Mayor's HOUSE.
COMPLAINT - Civil HEARING - DISREGARD THE
CIVIL CITATION-THE COURT WANTS CIVIL COMPLAINT HEARING. If second
subsequent time then add Mass 272.s 59 for Willful Violation of City
Ordinance.
If we have protestors show up at the Mayor’s house the Patrol Supervisor
will respond. Please have Area E EDT’s [Emergency Deployment Team] every
morning and release if no protestors show up.
PUT ON BODY CAMERAS!
TARGETED PROTESTING 16.63 - 9:00 PM to 9:00 AM
The District 5 Patrol Supervisor will utilize the sound meter. There is a
brand new one in the District 5 DS office. VIOLATION IS ABOVE 70 decimals.
PLEASE MAKE SURE IT IS WELL ABOVE 70 decimals AND HAVE IT RECORDED ON
AN OFFICERS BODY CAMERA.
The Patrol Supervisor will notify protestors with Officers present with
their body cameras on and video the Patrol Supervisor give an oral warning
to protestors - READ CITY ORDINANCE TARGETED PROTESTING and to not use
amplified devices and if it is before 9:00 AM that it is in violation of
City Ordinance 16.63 for protesting before 9:00 AM. If the protestors
fail to comply with his oral warning to leave and to not use bull horns,
drums etc then please have the officers with their body cameras activated,
ask for the protestors identification. The COMPLAINT FORM will be FILLED
OUT, City Ordinance Violation - 16.63 Targeted residential picketing and
16.26.8 - loud amplification device in public space. The Civil
hearing will be at West Roxbury District Court. The Patrol Supervisor
will make sure the incident report has all elements of violation and tag
all body cameras and attempt to identify all suspects. We have a
master list of protesters that will help with identification.
If the protestors fail to give identification, then please have them on
body camera decline. We will identify through previous encounters and
booking photos etc.
West Roxbury Court will handle all civil complaints in Clerks Hearing and
issue fines, warnings etc. We will follow the policy and guidelines
of the Court and if an arrest is to be determined it will be by the Court
for violations of the ordinance.
On April 15, 2022, Officer Paul Joseph of the Internal Affairs Division emails
Officer John Ezekiel:
I'm reaching out to you because it is my understanding that you teach the
City Ordinance class at the academy. I'm interested in what your thoughts
are on if a person could be arrested for a willful violation of the
Ordinance regarding targeted residential picketing Chapter XVI Section
16-62: See attached document. Also what chapter and section grants that
power to arrest.
Further, regarding the use of an amplified device, what Law grants the
power of arrest for that city Ordinance violation.
On April 16, Joseph responds:
Any individual may be arrested for a City of Boston Ordinance violation if
they remain in wilful violation of that ordinance. I always recommend that
a citation (whether money or warning), report, FIO, be written as proof
that you have given the offender a warning. Once that is done and the
individual continues to violate that ordinance, they would be considered in
wilful violation. Typically you may see the violation again at a future
date and again the individual may be subject to arrest. I always talk about
reasonableness when deciding how long is too long between violations.
Generally a year is a good measuring point.
This particular ordinance allows for an ascending fine, so the officer may
use his/her discretion and continue to fine as opposed to making the
arrest. Please note that the ordinance must be in presence to cite and/or
arrest. That said the knowledge of one, knowledge of all applies. Example:
If the individual is cited for their first offence on Friday, April 15,
2022 by PO [police officer] Smith and then commits the same offence in the
presence of PO James on Monday, April 18, 2022, and PO James is aware that
PO Smith cited the individual on the 15th, then PO James may arrest for
this violation or continue to fine.
M.G.L 272 sec. 59 allows a police officer to make an arrest for an
ordinance violation.
On April 25, Sgt. Pete McCarthy sends an
email to fellow officers:
Gentlemen,
Just wanted to make sure that you were all aware that a protester was
arrested this morning outside the Mayor's house. Going forward anyone who
violates 272/ 59 (Wilful Violation of a City Ordinance) is going to be
subject to possible arrest. E-5 wanted us to make sure that the last half
and day EDT's [Emergency Deployment Teams] are aware that they will be
called out and will be there in a timely fashion.
Thanks,
Pete
These documents, which had to be forced out through a lawsuit, show that
Boston officials were, contrary to law, desperate to jail protestors
opposed to Mayor Wu’s draconian vaccine and mask mandates.
Record Amounts of Fentanyl Entering Via Mexico, 323% Spike in One
Region
Fentanyl overdoses have
become the No. 1 cause of death among U.S. adults aged 18-45. More
adults between 18 and 45 died of fentanyl overdoses in 2020 than COVID-19,
motor vehicle accidents, cancer and suicide.
Contributing to this is the tsunami amounts of this coming across our
unsecured southern border, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.
American federal agents have seized more than 10,500 pounds of the deadly
synthetic opioid fentanyl along the Mexican border this fiscal year with
one U.S. border region seeing an astounding 323%
increase in the last three years. The most recent Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) figures
also show that more than 148,000 pounds of methamphetamine, 54,000 pounds
of cocaine, and 1,500 pounds of heroin have also been seized this fiscal
year which ends in September. At this rate fentanyl is set to surpass last
year’s seizures of 11,203 pounds, a stark reminder that illegal
immigration is hardly the only threat along the southwest border.
CBP’s Air and Marine Operations (AMO) already shattered
last year’s fentanyl record, snatching 1,108 pounds compared to 786 in
all of 2021. The CBP division has about 1,800 federal agents, 240 aircraft
and 300 marine vessels. The maritime and aviation law enforcement branch
has also confiscated more than 151,000 pounds of cocaine, 51,000 pounds of
marijuana 7,300 pounds of methamphetamines and 373 pounds of heroin this
year. The record loads of fentanyl smuggled into the U.S. by Mexican drug
cartels are especially worrisome because the synthetic opioid is 50 times
more potent than heroin and 100 more potent than morphine, according to the
Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the federal agency of around 10,000
charged with enforcing the nation’s controlled substances laws and
regulations. “Fentanyl is the single deadliest drug threat our nation has
ever encountered,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said recently. “From
large cities to rural America, no community is safe from the presence of
fentanyl.”
The agency also warns that Mexican drug cartels are driving up addiction
among kids and young adults with “ rainbow
fentanyl,” pills and powder that come in bright colors and shapes
similar to candy and blocks that resemble sidewalk chalk. Just a few weeks
ago, federal agents in the Nogales, Arizona port of entry seized more than
15,000 colored fentanyl pills “ with
the appearance of candy.” CBP Nogales Director Michael Humphries said
the candy appearance is a trend that targets youth. Most of the nation’s
107,622 drug overdoses in 2021 involved synthetic opioids like fentanyl,
according to the Centers of Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC). The
DEA says the majority of fentanyl in the U.S. is supplied by Mexico’s
Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG).
Border crossings in San Diego take the prize, earning the region the title
of “national epicenter for fentanyl trafficking.” More deadly fentanyl
is being confiscated by border agents in the area than at any of the
nation’s more than 300 ports of entry, according to the Department of
Justice (DOJ). A few weeks ago the agency disclosed that in the first nine
months of fiscal year 2022 (October through June), CBP seized 5,091 pounds
of fentanyl, which at the time amounted to about 60% of the 8,425 pounds of
fentanyl seized around the entire U.S. The seizures involved ports of entry
in San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, Tecate Andrade, Calexico, Imperial Beach, Chula
Vista Brown Field El Cajon, Campo, Boulevard, San Clemente and Murietta.
The area’s top federal prosecutor said the “amount of fentanyl we are
seizing at the border is staggering,” and that the number of
fentanyl-related deaths in his district is unprecedented.
The U.S. government has long documented that Mexican drug cartels are the
greatest criminal threat to the country. Federal authorities classify them
as Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCO) and not even a global
pandemic could slow them down. Cartels found a way to adjust to
restrictions imposed by COVID-19 to flood the country with illicit drugs.
Huge loads still reached communities around the nation as deaths and
seizures rose sharply and Mexican TCO’s increased drug availability,
according to the DEA’s National
Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA). Nine Mexican TCOs have the greatest drug
trafficking impact on the U.S., according to the DEA. Among them are the
Sinaloa and Juárez cartels, Los Zetas, La Familia Michoacána, Los Rojos
and Guerreros Unidos. The TCOs maintain drug distribution cells in cities
across the U.S. that report to leaders in Mexico and dominate the
nation’s drug market. In a Homeland
Threat Assessment, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explains
that Mexican cartels pose the greatest threat to the U.S. because of their
ability to control territory and co-opt parts of government, particularly
at a state and local level. “They represent an acute and devastating
threat to public health and safety in the Homeland and a significant threat
to U.S. national security interests,” the DHS writes in the
document.
Until next week...
 |
