Lois Lerner of The IRS Is Now Officially Busted!

If anyone decides to visit my other thread it is chock full of information. But I decided that this juicy tidbit should stand alone. Here, I have a letter signed by Lois Lerner herself. Pages 4 and 5 contain the detailed targeting information she is requesting. She can take the fifth all she likes because she is BUSTED!!!!! What do you say folks, time to take her paid vacation away?

Click this link to open the PDF file with the proof:
Lois Lerner Is Busted By This SIGNED Letter That She Sent

We now know that Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations for the Internal Revenue Service - who refused to testify before a House committee by invoking the Fifth Amendment - has a paper trail that reveals her direct involvement in sending intrusive and harassing questionnaires to Tea Party groups in 2012.

Consider the timeline. We now know through her own testimony and from the Inspector General's report that Lerner was briefed about this unlawful targeting scheme in June 2011. But nine months later, beginning in March 2012, she sent cover letters to many of our clients - demanding additional information and forwarding intrusive questionnaires. In fact, in March and April of 2012, Lerner sent 15 letters to 15 different clients (including those who were approved after lengthy delays and those who are still pending).

Letters of Intimidation to Tea Party Groups from Lois Lerner - IRS Director of Exempt Organizations

Here is the link to my other thread. In it you will find 100% proof of IRS targeting as late as May 6, 2013 in the form of a letter in PDF format from the IRS. There you will also find a 42 page PDF file that contains even more interesting evidence some that even implicates the Washington branch. You will find this in the next post, below the one that I have linked you to.

Proof! The Whitehouse Lied! IRS Targeting Continued 1 Year Past Investigation Cessation

I don't know much about this and she probably is guilty by way of '' top of the ladder '' concepts.

but in offices, signatures like that are merely a mouse click away for an assistant, or setup in templates.

If your implying she signed the document with a pen in her hand there's a good chance she didn't.

its an automatic feature in Microsoft Office!

Great research and a fact finding mission.

But, she will walk away with a 6 or 7 digit retirement or just be awarded another government position under Obama (Think Monsanto Execs) and will disappear into obscurity with even more of your tax payer money to fund her retirement.

Remember...any govt. found guilty are simply reassigned or retired...with pay and without prosecution.

And what will the people do? Absolutely nothing.

Peace

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I don't know much about this and she probably is guilty by way of '' top of the ladder '' concepts.

but in offices, signatures like that are merely a mouse click away for an assistant, or setup in templates.

If your implying she signed the document with a pen in her hand there's a good chance she didn't.

its an automatic feature in Microsoft Office!

Signed personally or not, the letter is "signed" by lois herself. And actually there are 15 other such letters in evidence from just 2 months alone.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I don't know much about this and she probably is guilty by way of '' top of the ladder '' concepts.

but in offices, signatures like that are merely a mouse click away for an assistant, or setup in templates.

If your implying she signed the document with a pen in her hand there's a good chance she didn't.

its an automatic feature in Microsoft Office!

Right....

And if you were in her position you would never check anything that required YOUR signature.

And the robo signers had all the control over the mortgage scams.

She knew what was signed as well as the bankers in the mortgage scams. But they get away with it because people state such things as "If your implying she signed the document with a pen in her hand there's a good chance she didn't." and they have automatically given their acceptance of the crime.

Yeah, they are all innocent because of "an automatic feature in Microsoft Office"

Shame on you.

Peace

Hmmmm, seems to me that if an automatic signature is legal and binding if you do your taxes on-line, then the same should apply to an IRS employee who sends official letters on behalf of the IRS. Just more legal BS and loopholes designed to protect illegal activity.

If you or I pleaded the 5th in a dispute with the IRS you can bet we won't be spared the "embarrassment" and punishment of any perceived wrong doing, and without an expensive lawyer, your going down baby! Makes me furious.....

Anyone who works for the PEOPLE and is PAID by the PEOPLE should be willing to submit to a lie detector test on demand, otherwise they must resign with no pension.......drug tests too.......that is what is expected of the average person to even work at Walmart.......

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
should be willing to submit to a lie detector test on demand,

Well, if they ever invent a "lie detector" then they may do this, but currently no such device exists....

Just ask Ames!

To anyone stating, well she didn't know what she was signing,
i posit this question, why does she have a job? if her job is to
know what is going on in her offices and that dept. of the IRS
then why did she not? even if that were simply the case then
there is the issue that she has not been doing her job and has
allowed criminal activity to be carried out in her name and
authority, so yes she is guilty either way...... they do not get
the proverbial well i didn't know! excuse, most parents are
well familiar with that particular tactic of blame shifting.......

If they want the responsibility of these jobs then they better
darn well start living up to it or what is the point, we could
just have a machine there that does the same thing, if no
creative honest thought goes into the job then a machine is
at the very least much better at repetitive things than humans
are.

reply to post by jude11


for crying out loud, yes I said she's probably guilty.

what im saying is that people are going to take this at face value.

her with a pen signing this document when in fact its probably not the case.

In offices places its common for peoples names to be automatically attached either through admin assistants or aides. did she know? probably. BUT, its a part of life in administrations that people probably dont know every single document there name is signed too. How can they? can you imagine how much time people in her position would be wasting if they actually read and signed every single document out of their office.

is she to blame, YES!

ahh forget it!

What am I missing? I see a standard form letter requesting more information.
What's wrong with that?

reply to post by Kali74


Kali, something I wrote in another thread but I think it applies here as well.

Just a wee commentary.

Often, we talk about bills being presented in the American political arena. The "Save The Children and Puppies and Baskets of Kittens Act", for example.

Many of us look at the bill and see not how it will be used, but how it can abuse. Defenders say, "But you must hate children and puppies and baskets of kittens if you are against it!"
Opponents will say, "Sure children and puppies and kittens are fine, but this bill also enables the government to attack unicorns and faeries, and angels and sunshine!"

Defenders will say, "It does not say anything about attacking unicorns or faeries or angels or sunshine!"

So we wait.
The bill passes.
Becomes a law.

And all of a sudden, unicorns and faeries and angels and sunshine are attacked. Defenders will say, "Wow. We didn't know. We had no idea. Because we only wanted to protect children and puppies and kittens."

Yet all along, we knew that the real target was unicorns, faeries, angels and sunshine.

American politics 101.

reply to post by beezzer


I get your metaphor perhaps much better than many do. I'm not seeing it's application here though. In 2010 baskets full of Super-Pacs and Citizens for this, that, and the other popped up in unprecedented numbers... many applied for 501(c)(4) status and many were denied and/or scrutinized... I'm just not seeing anything out of the ordinary here, I think the ratio is simply explained by the fact that not only was it a presidential election year but every seat in the House was up for grabs... and Democrats had the Executive, had Republicans had the Executive I would expect the ratio to be flip flopped. That's just how I see it. Not to worry though, all the people that throw money into politics have figured out Donors Trusts. I doubt we'll see that many applying for 501c4 ever again.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

I get your metaphor perhaps much better than many do. I'm not seeing it's application here though. In 2010 baskets full of Super-Pacs and Citizens for this, that, and the other popped up in unprecedented numbers... many applied for 501(c)(4) status and many were denied and/or scrutinized... I'm just not seeing anything out of the ordinary here, I think the ratio is simply explained by the fact that not only was it a presidential election year but every seat in the House was up for grabs... and Democrats had the Executive, had Republicans had the Executive I would expect the ratio to be flip flopped. That's just how I see it. Not to worry though, all the people that throw money into politics have figured out Donors Trusts. I doubt we'll see that many applying for 501c4 ever again.

edit on 27-5-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

And did you actually read the letter? Did you notice that this was a continuation of the never ending requests for intrusive information that must be sent in two weeks time? And then after this, the groups would experience a long period of silence from the IRS. This long period could be a year or more. And this also proves that Lois was involved in this when she stated that she wasn't. Also, Ohio For Liberty's appliation was stalled for two years, grata of folks like Lois. What they couldn't figure out that they were eligible after the first month or so like they treated liberal groups? Are you saying that crooks are reserved to conservatives only?

Check out the other thread I shared in my first post here for an even juicier example of the information requested. A few post down, you will find a letter. Read section five of page 11. This entire half page section has a detailed question list about books that they read or may distribute in the future and the books authors. This is just one small example of the intrusive info requested from a massive two page list. How in gods name can you feel that this is totally acceptable and constitutional to boot?

reply to post by elouina

And did you actually read the letter?

I did.

Did you notice that this was a continuation of the never ending requests for intrusive information that must be sent in two weeks time?

Bureaucracy at it's finest. I don't see how this is too different from applying for anything else government related, it's all absolutely without rhyme and reason.

And then after this, the groups would experience a long period of silence from the IRS. This long period could be a year or more.

I had an aunt (no longer with us) who I've never seen a clearer cut case for needing SSDI. Her family owned a farm for decades, she worked in the chicken houses which made her extremely sick. She developed crippling RA, a degenerative eye disease and later, cancer of the blood. As she progressively got sicker her asshole of a husband left her and took half the farm (it was hers, passed down from my grandfather). At any rate she couldn't work the farm and couldn't work a regular job either... she was in application status with Social Security for 5 years, each time they needed something else, some other proof of ownership or lack of income etc, she of course had to sell as she couldn't have assets over 1,000 dollars to qualify. Bureaucracy at it's finest.

What they couldn't figure out that they were eligible after the first month or so like they treated liberal groups?

You know this for sure? I've seen articles about 'liberal' groups going through the same ordeal.

Are you saying that crooks are reserved to conservatives only?

Not at all, that would be quite a ridiculous thing to say.

Actually, I rounded up.. The liberal groups got their approvals in as little as 3 weeks not a month. I can find other such evidence, can I see yours?

Here is a particular case where a conservative went through years of hassles and just about gave up. He then got the bright idea to create a new group with a liberal sounding name. It was approved in three weeks.

Conservative group says IRS approved nonprofit status after applying with ‘liberal-sounding name

Now, the IRS has admitted that they targeted conservatives. What fantasyland do you live in that even an admission of guilt is not adequate?

And also, don't you think that the IRS’s policing power means that it should revoke a 501(c)(4) status following misconduct, not that it should presume guilt of organizations who are applying for tax-exempt status?

I can also find proof of this if you wish to put me through the effort (after my dinner). I have a very good memory of things that I have read. Previously before the delaying of conservatives applications (hundreds are still waiting by the way) all applications went through swiftly. I can get the correct amount of time, but it was fast and painless for all involved.

reply to post by elouina


What fantasy land do I live in? I live in reality where sometimes things aren't as bad as media, groups or individuals claim they are and where sometimes they are worse than claimed. I never said there wasn't an issue here, but how much of one? Should it be dealt with? Absolutely. Is it the end of the world? Nope.

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.
One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.
Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.
This doesn’t get the IRS off the hook, however. Legal experts tend to agree that the IRS should carefully scrutinize all would-be 501(c)(4)s that tread the line between “social welfare” and politics. But, they add, it’s important for the IRS to stay neutral and not appear like it’s putting an unfair focus on certain political views. That’s why the IRS Cincinnati office’s push to flag all Tea Party groups for review was deemed “inappropriate.”

Washington Post

That snippet is kind of where I'm at on this. I'm a firm believer in equal access and equal protection under the law and this certainly qualifies... but I think this has been blown out of proportion, then again maybe I'm just starting to yawn every time my eyes or ears send the word scandal to my brain.

I think that any wrong doing should be punished appropriately, I just honestly don't see that this is an issue worthy of the maelstrom it's created. And yes, I would absolutely feel the same if the positions were flip flopped.

Something to consider as well, it's not as if political groups from all sides haven't tried to exploit the the tax exempt/hidden donor status before. ALL applications should be scrutinized.