"It is absolutely not illegal" says former IRS head

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:No,Seaoat.You're not twisting it around w/ your bullshit. I said it was not illegal.Chrissy said it was. You came on w/ your long tirade of insults of "legally blonde" and lack of understanding crap and said she was "dead cinch correct" and I should apologize to her. Oh ,let's not forget your borderline accusations. Now you're still trying to circumvent the issue by throwing in red herrings w/ your equal protections clause crap. You were wrong and if you had any integrity you would apologize to me. My bet is you really don't have any.

discrimination in this instance is illegal. it ill be determined. however im sure it will be passed over by this admin. now had this happened to liberal groups you would be agreeing.

the IRS is supposed to be a non bias organization.

were targeted, and now heads the IRS’s Obamacare office which oversees implementation.

The letter, sent by Webster, Chamberlain & Bean, LLP, is available here: www.teapartypatriots.org/irs-letter/

“It is clear the IRS discriminated against citizens of this country and violated their basic Constitutional rights as corroborated by the Inspector General Report. Sarah Hall Ingram allowed and possibly encouraged the outrageous and discriminatory tactics toward Tea Party Patriots based on political ideology, clearly violating her supposedly unbiased office,” said Jenny Beth Martin, Co-Founder and National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. “We do not trust the IRS to implement the Affordable Care Act in a fair and equal manner and further do not trust anyone who was involved in targeting tea party groups to administer the Affordable Health Care Act in a fair and equal manner. Discrimination while making those decisions would not only impact Constitutional rights but could very well impact life and death decisions for all Americans

Im not sure how you can defend this action but im not surprised. your integrity is that of a maggot on a jackasses ass. because you really don't think, you just base every answer on the simple mentality of "protect the (D)'s at any cost.http://www.teapartypatriots.org/2013/05/tpp-demands-tax-exempt-official-be-terminated-all-documents-emails-be-preserved/

I think we will find out.

Complete and TOTAL BS...there was no partisanship. There was a concerted effort to gain tax-exempt status and nondisclosure by these entities, of which a large number were associated with the Tea Party and the GOP...this was a method...nothing more...to weed out the non-profits from the political tax dodgers...the IRS doing its job.

Audit them all.

2seaoat wrote:if this shit doesn't get taken care of, all I can say is when the repubs get back in office, they should get even.

get back in office? Who do you think controls the House Ways and Means committee where the mistakes were made?

Nekochan wrote:We know that lawyers are always truthful.

Markle wrote:

If everything is so innocent at the Internal Revenue Service, why has Lois Lerner, a top IRS Official retained a CRIMINAL ATTORNEY and will be pleading the Fifth Amendment at her hearings?

Sal wrote:

Markle wrote:

If everything is so innocent at the Internal Revenue Service, why has Lois Lerner, a top IRS Official retained a CRIMINAL ATTORNEY and will be pleading the Fifth Amendment at her hearings?

Because she's smart, dumbass.

When you have the Speaker of the House declaring he wants to know who's going to jail before a second of testimony is heard, it's time to lawyer up.

The Republicans are looking for scalps.

2seaoat wrote:You're a dumbass. It's not a protected class so therefore not illegal.

No actually folks can violate the equal protection clause, and the victims can in fact not be in a protected class. However, conceptually it would require a great deal more reading and understanding for me even to try to correct you again. So calling Chrissy a dumbasz may make you feel good, but you are simply without the educational background to understand how wrong your post is...........now five minutes of how Seaoat is full of BS.....hell any sophomore in a college government class understands how the equal protection clause is applied, and it does not only apply to protected classes.

Here is a simple primer which might allow you to learn how it works. It is plain written and without a great deal of legalese. You will see after reading this and comprehending how equality of law is achieved, that it is not limited to protected groups.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

2seaoat wrote:What does this say,Seaoat? Do you see any political class mentioned there?

This is really hard. I will only try to give you examples of how a government classification or enforcement of law can be illegal, and have nothing to do with a protected class. Let us say that the government had a chief of an audit division which was in charge of agricultural enforcement. The IRS did a random sample and determined that two groups were overstating their tax deductions on the random study. The field office had 100 agents allocated to audit pig farmers and sheep farmers. The sheep farmers were shown to have an 70% over statement of expenses on returns but only represented about 10 million of uncollected taxes. The pig farmers were shown to have a 60% over statement of expenses on returns but the total tax lost in this overstatement was getting near 1 billion dollars.

The supervisors decided to focus on collecting the most tax revenue and put 90% of their agents on pig farm audits. Either decision would be supported by the rational basis test and neither group is a protected group. However, if it was shown that the random audit was not done fairly, and the pig lobby illegally influenced the random sample, and an agent took the 90 agents and flip flopped them.......and the sheep farmers filed an action seeking to find the acts of those government agents who unfairly targeted sheep farmers, and that the criteria for the same was wrongfully determined and had no rational basis to the decision, the courts would find that the unprotected class of sheep farmers had their equal protection rights violated and the audits would be found to have been illegal. This is about playing the game fairly under the rules. The strict scrutiny test and the need to have a compelling state interest is not the only equal protection violation which will be a violation of the law. Again, do some reading, and understand how the different test and levels of proof are not limited to protected classes. So a political party may not have the protected class protection for the compelling state interest standard, but where corruption or selection did not allow that political group to get treated fairly, the government could be found to have denied equal protection of the law. Unlawful behavior is a spectrum which starts with constitutional rights, but can include criminal statutes. Unlawful is not limited to just criminal statute violations. Reading and learning is fun....it does not have to be confrontational, but when opinions are stated without understanding the concepts, it really only takes a little reading to comprehend these rather elementary concepts.

2seaoat wrote:if the rational basis scrutiny is applied the Govt. will always win.

Well not exactly, but a much better reasoned post, and you are correct on damages.

2seaoat wrote:You can be convincing though to the dimwits.

Was I convincing? Please take the time to show my post which said it was illegal. You need to distinguish between the evidence, and the tests which apply to that evidence in determining illegality. Chrissy was responding to your incorrect post that the due process clause would not apply to a political group because they were not a protected class.....you were incorrect, and yes......Chrissy was correct.........I am glad you were convinced, but I am still a bit skeptical, because you consistently are challenged by legal concepts, but since reading a bit, your concepts are better formed.

2seaoat wrote: The court reviewing the classification will make a declaration that the classification does not meet the standard and is a violation of the law.

What part of court review do you not understand. You simply have cognitive limitations with other factors compounding your lack of education. Chrissy most certainly was right in telling you that to determine if the equal protection clause is violated, does not only apply to protected classes. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now......no big deal to me because after a couple threads it is obvious where your deficiencies are, and most people learn to quietly take a step back when putting their foot in their mouth.......I love your tenacity.......but we may have to find a podiatrist who has a dental practice to have the expertise for foot removal on a regular basis.

2seaoat wrote:discrimination in this instance is illegal. it ill be determined. however im sure it will be passed over by this admin. now had this happened to liberal groups you would be agreeing.

the IRS is supposed to be a non bias organization.


Chrissy wrote this. She confirmed that the illegality had to be determined and that the IRS should be fair and non biased.

She also in this thread clearly told you that your were incorrect in your misguided and uneducated position that the due process clause when dealing with equal protection questions only applies to protected groups.

you are a funny girl.....you entertain me, but please do not eat your hat........I am sure it is a really big hat.........

Nekochan wrote:Seaoat is pretty much always right when it comes to legal issues.
I think he's a damn lawyer.

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat is pretty much always right when it comes to legal issues.
I think he's a damn lawyer. Twisted Evil


I was going to teach most of what we discuss 40 years ago.....a college professor.....but I made a career change, and never stopped reading and keeping abreast with constitutional and legal issues. I am very kind with Dreams. She is often very correct on an issue, but other times she lacks prerequisite knowledge and makes incredible blunders in concepts. I admit I do not have the time to keep up as much as I did 35 years ago, but I do read Supreme Court cases, and I am a real fan of L. Tribe, a constitutional scholar who taught President Obama.....a brilliant man who I loved his books which are still some of the most insightful. If Dreams would do more reading and less pretending on some issues, she would have more credibility......and I am not always right, because a lot of things have changed from forty years ago....and on some issues I need to brush up.