Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    IRS fears employees being “seized with spontaneous diarrhea”

    IRS fears employees being “seized with spontaneous diarrhea”

    That Legal Insurrection reader comment and another about “buggy whipping” used in court case to justify withholding IRS employee identities.

    Hey, remember the Reader Poll we did about whether it was okay to follow and try to interview Lois Lerner in her neighborhood?

    Do you approve of media confronting Lois Lerner in her neighborhood? (Reader Poll):

    Jason Mattera of the Daily Surge recently filmed an unannounced confrontation with former IRS employee Lois Lerner in her own neighborhood.

    Lerner fled his camera and tried (unsuccessfully) to seek refuge in a neighbor’s home:

    … This may seem invasive and inappropriate, but as Jason Mattera asks her in so many words, is it any more inappropriate than the way Lerner used her position at the IRS to target average Americans?

    So what do you think. After viewing the video, and considering how it must feel for any controversial public figure (do unto others?) to be confronted where s/he lives, was the questioning of Lerner a good thing?

    The result of the Reader Poll was overwhelming:

    Poll Results Lois Lerner Jason Mattera

    Just another Legal Insurrection fun time, right?

    Someone noticed the comments to the blog post.  The IRS.  And it’s not happy.

    In a federal FOIA lawsuit by Judicial Watch seeking records of Lerner emails and IRS efforts to retrieve the emails, the IRS used two of the comments to the Legal Insurrection Reader Poll post to justify the IRS no longer disclosing the identities of IRS personnel.

    Think about that. The IRS is reading our comments. Don’t they have anything better to do, like hassle conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status? On second thought, keep reading our comments and leave conservative groups alone.

    It’s all set forth in the IRS’s opposition to Judicial Watch’s Motion to Compel Discovery. You can read the whole thing here.

    The Legal Insurrection post is Exhibit D to the IRS affidavit.

    Judicial Watch v IRA - IRS Opposition to Discovery Motion - Afft Excerpt re Legal Insurrection

    Footnote No. 2 of the IRS brief explains why one of the comments constitutes a supposed threat to Lerner and IRS employees such that their names need to be kept private [note – the IRS mistakenly refers to the post as Exhibit C, but it’s really Exhibit D]

    Judicial Watch v IRA - IRS Opposition to Discovery Motion - Footnote 3 re Legal Insurrection

    Here’s the full comment by reader “Orwellington“:

    Legal Insurrection Lerner IRS Poll - Comment Orwellington

    And by “C. Lashawn“:

    Legal Insurrection Lerner IRS Poll - Comment C. Lashown

    Does the IRS really fear “public whipping with a buggy whip” and being in such fear its employees are “seized with spontaneous diarrhea”?

    Where does one even find a buggy whip these days?

    I think the commenters were just being snarky.  You know, internet.

    Now if they had wished to see Lerner hit over the head with a wet noodle resulting in spontaneous projectile vomiting, that would have had even me worried.

    (added)

    Judicial Watch v IRA – IRS Opposition to Discovery Motion – Exh D Legal Insurrection

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:
    ,

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    DaveGinOly | November 21, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    Wouldn’t granting the request have “chilling effect” on freedom of speech? If the government can hide its employees because of political speech practiced in anonymous comments on the Internet, won’t that have a tendency to prevent some from speaking their minds for fear of loss of transparency and accountability in government?


     
     0 
     
     1
    BierceAmbrose | November 21, 2014 at 7:03 pm

    Well, I for one am afraid of being abused by our current president, given the kind of rhetoric he has deployed consistently for at least 8 years in public, on record. For example, “… punch back twice as hard.”

    Of course with the current president there are the now infamous comments about having the IRS audit people he disagrees with.

    Thus, I will continue to withhold any identifying information about my humble self.

    While I’m at it, were should I sue? How about an inventory of these threats be attached to every single action regarding executive authority or action from now on, plus of course all surveillance and information gathering initiatives whatever the source. Of course I don’t want them knowing where to find me. Look at what they’ve said.

    (Don’t get me started on the rhetoric deployed by Madam Former Speaker, the departing Majority Leader, or various advisers, commissioners, assistants and sundry other there but not there members of the administration. Every time one of them calls me a “criminal” without the benefit of trial, or even charge, just conviction, I believe I am at risk of unlimited sanctions.

    At least an individual can only pummel you their own self, as an amateur, vs. the government deploying effectively unlimited numbers of trained, practiced pummellers at will.)


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend