Z Street: The Case Which Could Blow Open The IRS Scandal

[Valin]

Hot Air:

Jeff Dunetz

July 19, 2014

 

In August of 2010, almost three years before Lois Lerner announced at a law conference that the IRS had indeed targeted certain groups, Z Street filed a lawsuit contending they were being targeted by the IRS because they disagreed with the President’s policy on Israel. In fact Z Street filed their suit against the IRS after an agent allegedly told them his direction was to “give special scrutiny to organizations connected to Israel,” and that the files of some of those “organizations were sent to a special unit in Washington, D.C. to determine whether the activities of the organization contradicted the public policies of the administration.”

 

Z Street was created as a non-profit organization with the purpose of “educating the public about Zionism; about the facts relating to the Middle East and to the existence of Israel as a Jewish State; and about Israel’s right to refuse to negotiate with, make concessions to, or appease terrorists.”

 

In its lawsuit against the IRS, Z Street alleges that the IRS violated the First Amendment when it implemented a policy that subjected Israel-related organizations applying for tax-exempt status to more rigorous review procedures than other organizations applying for that same status. They call this viewpoint discrimination.

 

Ironically Z Street’s case received a boost last summer when Democrats tried to defend the administration and prove the IRS was not just engaging in viewpoint discrimination against politically conservative groups. As part of its defense, the Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee and Senator Sander Levin (D-MI)​ released 14 IRS documents indicating the IRS created a category for review it labeled “progressive.”

 

(Snip)

[SrWoodchuck]

@Valin! Lower link of your post does not work, but there is another link, lower in the article that does.

[Valin]

@Valin! Lower link of your post does not work, but there is another link, lower in the article that does.

 

 

Thanks!

[Cyber_Liberty]

FTA:

 

That’s the real sad part the case with the most potential to blow the IRS scandal wide open is being ignored by the people trying to blow the scandal wide open.

There's the real problem. There are no people "trying to blow the scandal wide open." There are only GOPe politicians pretending to try. Issa, Boehner and company don't really want to stop the IRS because they hate the TEA Party (and Z-Street) more than they hate Rats.

[SrWoodchuck]

FTA:

 

That’s the real sad part the case with the most potential to blow the IRS scandal wide open is being ignored by the people trying to blow the scandal wide open.

There's the real problem. There are no people "trying to blow the scandal wide open." There are only GOPe politicians pretending to try. Issa, Boehner and company don't really want to stop the IRS because they hate the TEA Party (and Z-Street) more than they hate Rats.

 

@Cyber_Liberty! I only like your post....not the reality of it's truth.

[Valin]

Defending the IRS

A man who once worked for Lois Lerner is representing the agency in court.

Eliana Johnson

7/22/14

 

 

(Snip)

 

Defending IRS commissioner John Koskinen against the claims of the pro-Israel group Z Street is Andrew Strelka and before joining the Department of Justices civil-trial section, Strelka worked at the IRS for Lois Lerner, who was then the agencys head of exempt organizations. As it happens, this is the very IRS division at which the mistreatment of Z Street is alleged to have occurred and Strelka worked there at the very time Z Streets application for tax-exempt status was being considered.

 

Scott Coffina, a partner at the Washington, D.C. law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath and a former Justice Department prosecutor says Strelkas representation could violate Washington, D.C.s rules of professional conduct for lawyers in several ways, in particular the rule that prohibits a lawyer from representing a client in a matter where The lawyers professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by his personal interests. If Mr. Strelka was involved in the targeting of conservative groups, Coffina says, it is hard to imagine that he can give dispassionate advice. He would have a tough time evaluating the merits of the plaintiffs case and advising his client on strategies in the litigation. He seems to have a personal conflict of interest.

 

Another rule proscribes attorneys from participating in cases in which they might be called as witnesses, though Coffina explains that to be called as a witness and Strelkas testimony would have to be necessary to the case. The government might be able to get around it and keep the lawyer in place in there is another IRS employee available to testify on what the lawyer might testify to himself, he says.

 

(Snip)