Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The Supreme Court's reckless, myopic fiat legislation and the 2013 IRS PHONY SCANDAL

From: David G. Jeep
 To: Whom it may concern
 Re:      The Supreme Court's reckless, myopic fiat legislation and the 2013 IRS PHONY SCANDAL

 The PHONIEST part of the PHONY IRS scandal is the assertion that it originated in the Obama Administration. 

The IRS issue arose out of the VOID - the reckless myopic fiat legislation of the Supreme Court created in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (January 21, 2010).  The SUPREME Court's reckless myopic fiat legislation changed the playing field for political donations without addressing all the issues and regulations the prior FEC/PAC/Super Pac legislation (26 U.S. Code § 527 - Political organizations) had, primarily that is to say their donors via § 527 reliance on FEC compliance.  Congress had defined how the tax status of Political Action Organizations (PAC)[1] and Super PACS[2] were to be handled based on LIMITS nullified by the Supreme Court. 

Now what the shadowy assertion PHONY SCANDAL of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Chairman Darrell Issa, (R-Calif.), on page 2 of their interim report, dated September 17, 2013:

"The Internal Revenue Code allows a group organized as tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) to engage in unlimited issue advocacy and some campaign intervention, as long as the group's primary purpose is "social welfare."

Now that statement's assertion is shadowy because of its self-contradictory conclusion.  The "unlimited issue advocacy and some campaign intervention" is OBVIOUSLY limited by "the group's primary purpose "social welfare."  Social welfare is not political advocacy.  "Social welfare" maybe an issue for political advocacy but Social Welfare by definition is not POLITICAL. Social Welfare as defined by the tax codes is above and beyond JUST political activity. 

Now President Obama and others, mostly Democrat, but some Republican, made this an issue.  The Issues were brought to the attention of the IRS from both major political parties. 

In response to the President's and others assertions on September 24, 2102 the IRS and Lois Lerner, Internal Revenue Service Director of the Exempt Organizations Division announced that it was looking into 501(c)(4) rules[3] acknowledging its use in the last elections.   THERE IS NO SMOKING GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  This issue has been OUT IN THE OPEN from its inception as result of the SUPREME COURTS shadowy ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (January 21, 2010).  There was nothing clandestine or HIDDEN about Lois Lerner's  or the IRS's actions!!!!  There was a VOID in IRS rules that had been clearly exploited by BOTH parties. 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Chairman Darrell Issa, (R-Calif.) selected, subpoenaed and subsequently, via his staff, interrogated 39 witnesses. NONE of the WITNESS testified to anything CRIMINAL or to any White House involvement.  But because they FOUND NOTHING, Chairman Issa wants to continue the ill advised witch hunt into White house involvement. 

Some examples of the 39 witness statements, selected and subpoenaed and interrogated by Chairman Darrell Issa and his staff from inside the IRS, outside the IRS, Republican, Democrat, none of whom asserted any wrong doing or White House involvement as documented by "DEMOCRATIC STAFF REPORT, PREPARED FOR RANKING MEMBER ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, dated MAY 6, 2014:
·         The Committee has now identified the specific Screening Agent in Cincinnati who first developed the search terms that were later identified by the Inspector General as "inappropriate." He explained to the Committee that he has no political affiliation, he specifically rejected any "outside influence by the White House," and he denied that "anyone at the IRS" that he worked with referred Tea Party cases for additional scrutiny "out of political bias."
·         The Screening Agent's supervisor, a self-identified "conservative Republican" Screening Group Manager in Cincinnati, told the Committee that his subordinate flagged the first Tea Party case, and that he did not learn for about a year that his Screening Agent was using inappropriate criteria to screen similar cases. He explained: "I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development."
In conclusion:
"These, 39, first-hand witness accounts are consistent with the findings of the Inspector General, who testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means on May 17, 2013. In response to a question from Ranking Member Sander Levin about whether he had found "any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exempt applicants," the Inspector General answered, "We did not, sir."
These witness accounts are also consistent with a review of more than 5,000 IRS employee email conducted by the Deputy Inspector General for Investigations, who concluded:
"There was no indication that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated. The e-mail traffic indicated there were unclear processing directions and the group wanted to make sure they had guidance on processing the applications so they pulled them."
Ranking Member Cummings continues to believe that the Committee should release the full transcripts of all 39 interviews to Members of Congress and the American people in order to provide the most complete account of the Committee's work. "
On Monday (June 23, 2114), IRS Commissioner John Koskinen appeared at a rare evening hearing before Issa's committee to answer questions about the lost emails. The hearing was contentious, with Koskinen brushing aside accusations that the IRS has obstructed the political group targeting investigations.
"I have the ability to say I have seen no evidence of any crime," Koskinen said.
Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, scoffed at Koskinen's assertion.
"I have always believed that what happened in your agency with Lois Lerner is a crime,"
Turner, however, acknowledged he has no evidence to back up his belief.
            In 2011, the IRS had a policy of backing up emails on computer tapes, but the tapes were recycled every six months, Koskinen said. He said Lerner's hard drive was recycled and presumably destroyed.
            The IRS was able to generate 24,000 Lerner emails from the 2009 to 2011 period because she had copied in other IRS employees. Overall, the IRS said it is producing a total of 67,000 emails to and from Lerner, covering the period from 2009 to 2013.
The IRS inspector general is investigating the lost emails, Koskinen said.

"They haven't done a damn thing to get to the truth of what happened," House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday (6/24/14).
That statement by Boehner is without FOUNDATION!!!  The IRS has not FOUND any information to back up the politically based UNFOUNDED accusation of the House Speaker.  

Boehner needs to acknowledge that he has no evidence to back up his belief.

Article III Judicial Power is defined and limited by We the People’s Congress. It does not require a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.  It is time that “We the People” assert our control, via congress, of the Supreme Court: “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" (Article III, Section. 2, § 2) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"

 David G. Jeep

cc:  My Blog - Tuesday, July 01, 2014, 11:03:17 AM


[1] In 1971, United States Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1974, Amendments to FECA defined how a PAC could operate and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the nation's campaign finance laws. The 1974 amendments also restricted the amount of money that could be given directly to a Congressional campaign, spurring a boom in the creation of PACs as campaigns shifted how they raised money.
[2] Super PACs are a new kind of political action committee created in July 2010 following the outcome of a federal court case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.
Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super PAC's choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!


It is not about a police state.  It is not about Citizens United, Rove v. Wade or Hobby Lobby v. Obamacare.  It is not about corporate greed.   


It is not about Police gear. It is not about Michael Brown or Eric Garner.  It is not necessarily about race, the self-serving-supreme-court is much more subtle.

IT IS NECESSARILY ABOUT JUSTICE.


TODAY, “We the People” are ruled by the unwritten absolutely immune self-serving MARTIAL LAW of JUDICIAL RULE in the Jane Crow Era and the World War on Drugs that NEGATES all our supposedly inalienable constitutional rights. 


I realize it sounds almost ridiculous but "We the People" “to establish Justice” need a Constitutional Amendment:

“Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence ARE NOT and never have been covered by ANY grant of immunity, under color of CONSTITUTIONAL law.”

You don’t believe me READ their precedent.

To hear the supreme court sophistry[1] tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the “King can do no WRONG” for the of the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the “malicious or corrupt” judges (Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),  the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),  corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)  and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of “all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))   acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION  of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.

We need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence



THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




[1] “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.” (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!


It is not about a police state.  It is not about Citizens United, Rove v. Wade or Hobby Lobby v. Obamacare.  It is not about corporate greed.   


It is not about Police gear. It is not about Michael Brown or Eric Garner.  It is not necessarily about race, the self-serving-supreme-court is much more subtle.

IT IS NECESSARILY ABOUT JUSTICE.


TODAY, “We the People” are ruled by the unwritten absolutely immune self-serving MARTIAL LAW of JUDICIAL RULE in the Jane Crow Era and the World War on Drugs that NEGATES all our supposedly inalienable constitutional rights. 


I realize it sounds almost ridiculous but "We the People" “to establish Justice” need a Constitutional Amendment:

“Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence ARE NOT and never have been covered by ANY grant of immunity, under color of CONSTITUTIONAL law.”

You don’t believe me READ their precedent.

To hear the supreme court sophistry[1] tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the “King can do no WRONG” for the of the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the “malicious or corrupt” judges (Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),  the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),  corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)  and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of “all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))   acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION  of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.

We need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence



THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


[1] “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.” (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)--
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999
Post a Comment