41 More Groups In Federal Lawsuit Against IRS

The American Center for Law and Justice today filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. – adding an additional 16 Tea Party and conservative organizations, including a pro-life group, to the complaint – bringing to 41 the total number of organizations represented in the court challenge. On May 29, 2013, the ACLJ filed the initial lawsuit on behalf of 25 organizations arguing top Obama Administration officials – including those at the Internal Revenue Service – violated the constitutional rights of the groups by secretly targeting these organizations because of their political beliefs.

"The floodgates opened after we filed our initial lawsuit," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "We have been contacted by many additional organizations that have been unlawfully targeted by the IRS – revealing that this unconstitutional scheme was pervasive and damaging to our clients. As Congress continues its investigation, and as we expand our federal lawsuit, we're confident that the truth will be revealed and important questions answered: How did this targeting scheme begin? Who ordered it? How could the White House counsel and White House chief of staff know about this tactic but the President did not? We remain dedicated to ensuring that those responsible for this unconscionable scheme are held accountable."

The amended complaint, which adds 16 organizations to the original list of 25 groups, argues that IRS officials "working in offices from California to Washington, D.C., pulled applications from conservative organizations, delayed processing those applications for sometimes well over a year, then made probing and unconstitutional requests for additional information that often required applicants to disclose, among other things, donor lists, direct and indirect communications with members of legislative bodies, Internet passwords and usernames, copies of social media and other Internet postings, and even the political and charitable activities of family members."

Among the organizations added to the complaint is a pro-life group singled out because of its opposition to abortion.

The ACLJ contends the group, AMEN (Abortion Must End Now) – based in Yuma, AZ – was singled out because of its name and because the group is "focused on defending the Sanctity of Life and to put an end to abortion once and for all" and intends to "provide education . . . about the effects of abortion and to present pro-life brochures." The group applied for 501(c)(3) status in 2010 and its application is still pending.

In a letter dated October 20, 2010 to AMEN, an IRS specialist in the Cincinnati office questioned the appropriateness of the organization's goal to provide education and awareness about its beliefs that human life must be protected. In fact, the letter stated that IRS policy draws a bright line – classifying certain activities as political rather than educational – even questioning the organization's communication strategy and content.

The IRS letter to the pro-life group stated that the communication method used by the group "will not be considered educational . . . if it fails to provide a development from the relevant facts that would materially aid a listener or reader in a learning process." The IRS letter also cautioned against using what it termed as "strong emotional feelings" in an organization's messaging.

"This is outrageous," said Sekulow. "Now we have evidence that the IRS is somehow uniquely qualified to make a determination about content and regulate how a pro-life organization can explain its mission and beliefs. Imagine the outcry if Planned Parenthood or NARAL was subjected to this abuse. This is another blatant example of an IRS out of control – an agency that embraces unlawful and unconstitutional conduct."

The ACLJ also argues that another organization – the Arlington Tea Party of Arlington, TX – received harassing and invasive questions from the IRS. In a letter dated February 16, 2012, an IRS specialist demanded that the group provide "a temporary Username and Password that we could use to review your organization's website." The IRS also demanded "hardcopy printouts" of its social media pages, copies of all solicitations and documents concerning the organization's fundraising activities "in an election year and non-election year," and "copies of handouts to the audience" and "workshop materials that instructors will use" at the organization's public events. The Arlington Tea Party applied for 501(c)(4) status in 2011 and the case is still pending.

The amended lawsuit, posted here, urges the court to find that the Obama Administration overstepped its authority and violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as the IRS's own rules and regulations. The lawsuit requests a declaratory judgment that the Defendants unlawfully delayed and obstructed the organizations' applications for a determination of tax-exempt status by means of conduct that was based on unconstitutional criteria and impermissibly disparate treatment of the groups.

The suit also seeks injunctive relief to protect our clients – and their officers and directors – from further IRS abuse or retaliation. Further, the lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive monetary damages to be determined at trial at a later date.

According to the complaint: "The IRS scheme had a dramatic impact on targeted groups, causing many to curtail lawful activities, expend considerable unnecessary funds, lose donor support, and devote countless hours of time to responding to onerous and targeted IRS information requests that were outside the scope of legitimate inquiry."

The ACLJ now represents a total of 41 organizations in 22 states in the lawsuit. The names of the organizations represented are available here. Of the 41 groups, 19 organizations received tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, 17 are still pending, and 5 withdrew applications because of frustration with the IRS process.

The IRS contends that the targeting scheme originated with a couple of rogue IRS agents out of the Cincinnati, Ohio office and contends the abusive conduct has been halted. However, the ACLJ has correspondence showing this tactic was used not only in the Cincinnati office, but also from two offices in California – El Monte and Laguna Niguel – as well as the national office in Washington, D.C. In fact, the Washington office sent a letter to one of our clients as recently as April 2013.

Furthermore, the ACLJ has letters signed by Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations, suggesting her personal involvement in sending invasive questionnaires to 15 of our clients in March 2012 - some nine months after she was told about the scheme and promised to stop it.

The ACLJ has heard from nearly 120,000 Americans calling on President Obama and members of Congress to end the IRS abuse.

Read More.... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aclj-now-represents-41-conservative-groups-in-federal-lawsuit-against-irs-212975111.html

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Feds indict 4 in peanut butter salmonella outbreak, one the Company Owner....

Named in the indictment were company owner Stewart Parnell, his brother and company vice president Michael Parnell, Georgia plant manager Samuel Lightsey and Georgia plant quality assurance manager Mary Wilkerson.

                                                                     Stewart Parnell

A federal grand jury indicted four former employees of a peanut company linked to a 2009 salmonella outbreak that killed nine people and sickened hundreds, leading to one of the largest recalls in history.

The 76-count indictment was unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Georgia. It charged the former employees of Virginia-based Peanut Corp. of America with conspiracy, wire fraud, obstruction of justice and others offenses related to contaminated or misbranded food.

FDA inspectors found remarkably bad conditions inside Parnell's processing plant in Blakely, Ga., including mold and roaches, and the company went bankrupt after the recall.

"When those responsible for producing or supplying our food lie and cut corners, as alleged in the indictment, they put all of us at risk," Stuart F. Delery, who heads the Justice Department's Civil Division, said in a news release. "The Department of Justice will not hesitate to pursue any person whose criminal conduct risks the safety of Americans who have done nothing more than eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

The indictment accused the Parnells and Lightsey of conspiring to defraud customers and obtain money through false and fraudulent pretenses. Wilkerson was charged with obstruction of justice.

Parnell's attorneys said in a statement after the indictment was unsealed that they are disappointed that the government has decided to pursue the case after four years and charged that the Food and Drug Administration knew about the company's salmonella testing and had not objected.

"At this point, we will evaluate the charges that have been filed against Mr. Parnell and will prepare for a vigorous defense," said attorneys Bill Gust and Tom Bondurant in a statement. "There is little doubt that as the facts in this case are revealed, it will become apparent that the FDA was in regular contact with (Peanut Corporation of America) about its food handling policy and was well aware of its salmonella testing protocols."

"I'm glad it finally came out so we can get this cleared up and clear Sammy's name," he said. "We look forward to getting to a trial where we can finish the story."

The indictment alleged the conspiracy lasted from about June 2003 through February 2009 and that peanut products were shipped after testing positive for salmonella.

Stewart Parnell, who invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before Congress in February 2009, once directed employees to "turn them loose" after samples of peanuts had tested positive for salmonella and then were cleared in a second test, according to e-mail uncovered at the time by congressional investigators.

The indictment cited emails sent between defendants talking about contamination in the product.

A federal judge in 2010 approved a $12 million insurance settlement for more than 100 salmonella victims.

Read More... http://news.yahoo.com/feds-indict-4-peanut-butter-salmonella-outbreak-165317070.html

Courts upholds $28 million award in Skywalk case

A federal court on Monday dealt a blow to the business arm of a northern Arizona tribe that owns the Grand Canyon Skywalk by upholding a $28.5 million judgment in favor of a Las Vegas developer who invested the money to build the horseshoe-shaped glass bridge on tribal land.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge David Campbell rejected arguments by the Hualapai Tribe that the award isn't enforceable, calling one of the arguments "nonsensical" and another "odd." The American Arbitration Association had determined David Jin is owed the money, mostly for management fees that he was to receive under a 2003 contract with the tribe.

Mark Tratos, an attorney for Jin, said Monday the ruling shows U.S. citizens have recourse in contract disputes with American Indian tribes.

"Their idea is, 'We can do what we want to anyone we want, anytime we want because we're a sovereign,'" Tratos said.

The judgment applies to the Hualapai Tribe's business arm, Sa' Nyu Wa Inc., which had argued the arbitration association lacked jurisdiction and declined to participate in the final arbitration hearing. The tribe said proceeding with arbitration was unnecessary because it had already enforced eminent domain over the contract, taking sole control of the Skywalk.

Campbell said Sa' Nyu Wa could not take away the right of Jin's company to arbitrate its claims, and that the corporation failed to identify what public good would be served by doing so.

A spokesman for the tribe, Dave Cieslak, said Sa' Nyu Wa is reviewing its options.

The arbitrator found Sa' Nyu Wa and the tribe failed to keep adequate financial records or make those records available for Jin's company to audit. The arbitrator also found the corporation and tribe failed to pay management fees and the Skywalk operation's business expenses, which constituted a breach of contract.

The tribe has said it took over the contract last year because Jin never completed a visitors' center that people must pass through to access the Skywalk and did not finance the utilities. Cieslak said the tribe would pay Jin the fair market value for the Skywalk to "protect the rights of the tribe and end this painful dispute."

Sa' Nyu Wa had asked Campbell to reject the arbitration award by arguing that the tribe's 2003 agreement with Jin didn't allow for financial damages. The corporation also argued tribal members never voted to waive liabilities in excess of $250,000, and said the arbitrator exceeded his powers because only a federal court could order arbitration.

Campbell said the agreement makes no mention of a $250,000 limit and allows arbitration for any controversy, claim or dispute when either party sends such a notice to the other. Campbell found that Sa' Nyu Wa clearly waived it sovereign immunity with respect to financial damages awarded in arbitration that could be enforced in federal court.

"No other reading of the agreement is plausible," the judge said.

Read More... http://news.yahoo.com/courts-upholds-28-million-award-skywalk-case-001710127.html