Tag: Lawsuit

Leftist Judge Says Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer Can Go Forward

Connecticut Judge: Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer Can Go Forward – The Blaze

.

.
A Connecticut Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that a lawsuit against the maker of a rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings can go forward.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers are generally not able to be held liable for crimes committed with their products.

However, Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the PLCAA does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.

More from the Hartford Courant:
.

The lawsuit accuses the Remington Arms Co. and other defendants of negligently selling to civilians a weapon the plaintiffs claim is suitable only for the military and law enforcement. At a hearing in February, Bridgeport lawyer Josh Koskoff argued against dismissing the case, saying the lawsuit’s claim of “negligent entrustment” is an exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

.
Bellis agreed with the plaintiffs that she has the jurisdiction to continue with the case, but she did not rule whether or not the PLCAA actually blocks the plaintiffs and their attorneys from pursing their lawsuit.

“At this juncture, the court need not and will not consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment theory,” Bellis wrote.

Koskoff, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, was happy with the decision.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” he said in a statement, according to Newsweek. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”

Fortunately for Koskoff, they won’t have to wait long. The two sides are due back in court Tuesday.

.

.

It Begins…

Cruz’s ‘Natural-Born Citizen’ Status Tested In Birther Suit – Bloomberg

.

.
Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz should be disqualified from the race because he isn’t a “natural-born citizen,” a fellow Texan claims in a “birther” challenge filed against the senator in a U.S. court.

The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz – who was born in Canada to an American mother – can or can’t serve if elected.

“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. said in his 28-page complaint. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”

Claiming that “time is of the essence” because of the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, Schwartz asked that the case be expedited for resolution by the nation’s highest court as soon as possible.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump pressed the issue during a televised candidate debate Thursday evening in South Carolina, saying he’s bringing up Cruz’s Canadian birthplace “because now he’s doing a little bit better” in the polls. Trump insisted that Cruz receive a judgment from the courts because it would be bad for Republicans to have the issue hanging over their presidential or vice-presidential nominee.

“There is a big overhang. A big question mark on your head,” Trump told Cruz. “You can’t do that to the party.”
Cruz Chuckled

Cruz chuckled when asked to respond to Trump’s taunts and swatted them away deftly. Trump, on the other end of the exchange, faced many boos from the crowd.

“There’s nothing to this birther issue,” Cruz said during the debate, noting that Trump said last fall that he was a natural-born citizen. “Since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed. But the poll numbers have. I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law are really clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen abroad is a natural born citizen.”

Schwartz, 85, said in a phone interview he isn’t connected to any particular campaign, though he personally “probably” supports Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination.

“Honestly, I was watching C-SPAN one night when Donald Trump was talking about it and I couldn’t believe no one had thought to just file something with the court,” said Schwartz, a practicing trial attorney and self-described news junkie.

‘Simple Procedure’

“It’s such a simple procedure – I’m amazed no one did it,” Schwartz said. “Senator Cruz should have filed it himself to avoid the question.”

Asked about the lawsuit, Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the Cruz campaign, said: “I’d refer you to the debate exchange on the issue.”

Schwartz said he filed the paperwork himself with no one else advising him and he said he does not have an opinion for which way the court should rule.

“The country will be in chaos if he’s elected president or vice president and this goes to trial then,” Schwartz said. “I can see both sides of this argument.”

The attorney added that he’s got “nothing against” Cruz.

“If he gets cleared, he gets cleared,” Schwartz said. “Let’s just get this thing settled before the primaries and the convention and the election.”

The case is Schwartz v. Cruz, 4:16-cv-00106, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

.

.

Family Files $9M Lawsuit Against PETA For Stealing And Murdering Their Pet Chihuahua

PETA Gets Sued For Stealing, Then Murdering, A Family Dog – Daily Caller

.
…………….

.
A family is suing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for $9 million after two senior employees stole their pet Chihuahua Maya off their porch and had the dog killed.

The family captured video on their home surveillance system of two PETA employees, Victoria Carey and Jennifer Woods chasing Maya down, taking her off the family’s porch and shoving the dog into a white van. PETA admitted four months later it euthanized Maya later that day.

Victoria Carey was a contract worker for PETA and had been the organization’s human resources director. Jennifer Woods is PETA’s senior communications administrator. Carey’s contract with PETA has been terminatied, but Woods remains employed.

State law requires that animals be held for five days before they are euthanized to allow people to recover their animals in situations like this. An investigation by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services founded PETA violated the law and imposed the largest fine it could, $500.

The family says the two PETA workers apologized by giving the family a fruit basket.

PETA euthanized 2,454 of the 3,369 cats, dogs and other animals it took in in 2014. Only 23 dogs and 16 cats taken in by PETA were adopted. A PETA press release claims the organization offered “free euthanasia services for 2,454 dogs, cats, and other animals in just one area of the United States.”

A statement by PETA to a local news channel on Maya’s death claims the incident “was extremely upsetting, therefore, to discover that in the course of doing something helpful and good, something bad had happened.”

.

.

Fraternity Files $25M Lawsuit Against Rolling Stone Magazine Over Fake Gang Rape Story

Fraternity Defamed By Rolling Stone Rape Story Files $25M Lawsuit Against ‘Magazine’ – Weasel Zippers

.

.
We may finally find out who the real “Jackie” is thanks to this lawsuit.

Via Houston Chronicle:
.

The fraternity that was the focus of a debunked Rolling Stone article about a gang rape filed a $25 million lawsuit against the magazine Monday, saying the piece made the frat and its members “the object of an avalanche of condemnation worldwide.”

The complaint, filed in Charlottesville Circuit Court, also names Sabrina Rubin Erdely as a defendant. It is the third filed in response to the November 2014 article entitled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.”

Three individual fraternity members and recent graduates are suing for at least $225,000 each, and a university associate dean who claims she was portrayed as the “chief villain” is suing the magazine for more than $7.5 million.

Keep reading

.

.

Tea Partiers Gear Up For Class-Action Lawsuit As Federal Judge Orders IRS To Turn Over List Of Targeted Groups

Federal Judge Orders IRS To Release List Of Tea Party Groups Targeted For Scrutiny – Washington Times

.
…………

.
A federal judge ordered the IRS this week to turn over the list of 298 groups it targeted for intrusive scrutiny as the agency defends against a potential class-action lawsuit by tea party groups who claim their constitutional rights were violated.

The IRS had argued it shouldn’t have to release the names because doing so would violate privacy laws, but Judge Susan J. Dlott, who sits in the Southern District of Ohio, rejected that claim and ordered the tax agency to turn over any lists or spreadsheets detailing the groups that were targeted and when they filed their applications.

Judge Dlott also ordered the IRS to say whether a partial list of targeted groups reported by USA Today is authentic as a number of tea party groups try to win certification for a class action lawsuit against the IRS.

“The return information sought is directly related to the issue of class certification in this federal court proceeding,” the judge said. “The names of the putative class member organizations and their control dates – the date which the putative class member organizations submitted their applications for tax exempt status to the IRS – are directly related to the issue of class certification.”

The judge has not yet certified the tea party groups as a class, and the information that they’ve obtained so far through depositions remains under seal. But backers say if they can be certified, then they will begin to try to pry loose some of the key information about how the IRS chose which groups it went after in its targeting.

“We’re at the precipice,” said Mark Meckler, a member of one of the tea party groups suing, and also president of Citizens for Self-Governance, which is funding the litigation.

The Ohio lawsuit is the only major legal jeopardy still remaining in the courts for the IRS — though the agency is still facing an FBI investigation, according to documents obtained by True the Vote, a tea party group, under the Freedom of Information Act.

Earlier this week the deporting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. informed House Speaker John A. Boehner he would not prosecute Lois G. Lerner, the former senior executive who’s at the center of the targeting scandal, for contempt of Congress. The prosecutor said Ms. Lerner didn’t waiver her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when she delivered an opening statement at a congressional hearing but then refused follow-up questions.

The scandal developed after the IRS acknowledged it singled out tea party groups for special scrutiny, and asked intrusive questions that agency executives later said were inappropriate. The IRS’s inspector general concluded that 298 groups were targeted, with all but a handful of them leaning toward the conservative side.

But the IRS has resisted releasing the official list, arguing that is private information.

“The Internal Revenue Service cannot disclose the identities of the potential class members because that is return information protected,” the administration said in its court filings.

The judge disagreed, saying exemptions in law apply to a case like this.

Several other cases had been filed in Washington, D.C., by tea party groups trying to force a judge to proactively halt any future targeting. The judge tossed those cases, saying that the IRS insists the targeting has ended, so there is no further action needed.

But some groups are still awaiting approval, including one that’s been pending for more than five years, which their lawyers argue means the IRS is still targeting despite its insistence that its program has ended.

Commissioner John Koskinen has said groups that are still waiting could take a deal, promising to limit their political activities to 40 percent of their business, but the groups argue that would mean giving up rights since they believe under current law politicking can be almost 50 percent of their activities.

.

.

Conservative Group Freedom Watch Files Racketeering Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

Clinton Hit With Racketeering Lawsuit Over Emails – The Hill

.

.
The conservative group Freedom Watch has filed a racketeering lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that accuses her of failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The civil suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, argues that Clinton used her private emails to sell access to other officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

It alleges that, during her tenure, Clinton withheld documents requested under FOIA regarding State Department waivers given to businesses or individuals doing business with Iran, possibly undermining U.S.-imposed sanctions.

The complaint, which lists Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation as defendants, alleges the Clintons sold access to other U.S. government officials in return for donations to their organization, which they concealed, allegedly, by using a private computer server for her emails operated from their home in Chappaqua, New York.

Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, launched dozens of lawsuits against former President Bill Clinton’s administration.

In the new lawsuit, he alleges that, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department “clearly leaked” information to New York Times reporter David Sanger on U.S. and Israeli efforts to counteract Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

“Public reports about plans to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons development programs undermined the effectiveness of those plans by revealing them to Iran and other terrorist organizations and states,” the complaint states.

The civil suit alleges the Clintons “systematically and continuously… conducted a corrupt enterprise” over more than 10 years, allegedly in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, which deals with abuse and misuse of organizations or businesses.

In a statement, Klayman cast his lawsuit as “the first and only hard-hitting case to address the growing email scandal.”

“What Hillary Clinton, her husband, and their foundation have done is nothing new. It is simply part of a criminal enterprise which dates back at least 10 years, all designed to enrich themselves personally at the expense of the American people and our nation. It’s time, however, that they finally be held legally accountable,” Klayman said.

Clinton acknowledged the private server earlier this month, explaining that she deleted more than 30,000 emails her aides deemed personal, and turned over the rest to the State Department for archiving.

The House select committee investigating the deadly 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, has asked Clinton to turn over her server to an independent arbiter. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has also demanded Clinton turn over the server but has so far not directed House Republicans to subpoena her records.

.

.

The Lawyers Behind The Lawsuit Against Obama (Ian Tuttle)

The Lawyers Behind The Lawsuit Against Obama – Ian Tuttle

.

.
For some time now, Elizabeth Foley and David Rivkin have had two questions about the 44th president: “How is he getting away with this? And why isn’t someone doing something about this?” Foley, a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law, and Rivkin, lead outside counsel of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of three Obamacare challenges that ended up before the Supreme Court in 2012, are doing something. They are the architects of the House of Representatives’ likely lawsuit against President Obama, which would challenge the president’s selective suspension of various laws as violations of his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, and as violations of the constitutionally prescribed separation of powers.

“It began,” Foley tells National Review Online, “with utter fascination,” a reaction that should be universal, Foley adds, among constitutional lawyers observing the current executive. Foley and Rivkin have a list of questionable executive actions, going back to the president’s first term, that range from little-reported executive orders to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to controversial, large-scale actions, such as the multiple suspensions of Obamacare provisions and the unilateral implementation of the DREAM Act. “Over a period of time, the president has taken increasingly bold actions that defy the congressional actions that preceded them,” Foley says. “With every step, he gets more aggressive.” Foley and Rivkin corresponded frequently and pondered various legal possibilities – “but we kept coming back to the problem of standing.”

The pair first outlined a potential solution in a January 15 Politico article, “Can Obama’s Legal End-Run Around Congress Be Stopped?” That article spurred an invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, which had been searching for an answer to the same question. In December 2013, the committee had heard testimony from four legal experts on “the constitutional concerns raised by recent non-enforcement policies and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of the United States,” as Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor (and self-avowed liberal), put it in his testimony. Foley appeared before the committee in late February 2014 and elaborated on the points she and Rivkin had first outlined in Politico. “I knew the committee was looking for information about standing, so I saw it as an opportunity to give Congress and that committee a roadmap” to addressing executive overreach. Her testimony occasioned several conversations with House Judiciary Committee staff members, which rapidly led to meetings with House leadership and the consolidation of a legal strategy that has, in their view “a likelihood of success.”

The strategy depends on successfully establishing that the House of Representatives has “standing” to sue the president. Only one criterion is provided by the Constitution: identification of an injury-in-fact, in this case the apparent nullification of Congress’s institutional power. Showing this, Foley and Rivkin say, is the easy part. But they suggest that the courts have identified three additional factors that, if met, would strengthen the claim that the House has standing. They are not constitutionally necessary, but they are “‘plus’ factors that will take the lawsuit over the finish line in terms of standing,” Foley notes.

“The idea,” Rivkin tells me, “is to create the perfect combination of all relevant factors to create the perfectly configured legislative-standing case.”

The first plus-factor criterion is to demonstrate the lack of a private plaintiff. In Foley’s and Rivkin’s characterization, the president’s actions are “benevolent” suspensions of law — that is, they are specially intended to assist particular groups (young immigrants or small businesses, for example). Because assisting certain people was the president’s aim, no individuals have suffered sufficient injury to have standing to sue. “No one can challenge benevolent suspensions in court except Congress, because they constitute an institutional injury to Congress qua Congress,” Foley explains. The offense is not against private citizens; it is against the powers that the Constitution guarantees to Congress as a body.

Along with demonstrating the impossibility of a private plaintiff, the House should explicitly authorize the lawsuit, they say, through either a formal resolution or the use of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a standing group of House members that is authorized by House rules to represent that chamber in the courts. This would count as a plus factor because institutional-standing cases do not require formal authorization from the institution. The House members could therefore file on behalf of the House without getting the body’s formal approval, but such approval would probably help the case.

The House should also show that no political remedy (“self-help”) for the situation is available. This third element is a point of contention among legal theorists on the right. Opponents of the House lawsuit contend that the Constitution provides the House with two obvious remedies, neither of which it has exercised: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment. Foley and Rivkin counter that these are not “proportionate remedies” to the problem at hand. With regard to impeachment, Foley asks: “What do you do when the president’s own party controls one of the chambers of Congress?” Moreover, “impeachment is overkill for this particular transgression,” she says. “All Congress wants is for the president to faithfully execute the law. This does not mean that they think he should be kicked out of office.” The second option, cutting funds, “creates major distortions in political accountability, which is the genesis, the heart, of the notion of the separation of powers.” Congress, says Foley, should not be blamed for the president’s misdeeds – but that is just what will happen if the House has no recourse but to penalize innocent organizations as a means of punishing the president. Political self-help is important, Foley observes, “but only when proportionate and related to the transgression.”

If the House can establish standing by fulfilling these four criteria – the establishment of injury-in-fact, as required by the Constitution, and the three “plus” factors – they will have the opportunity to make their case to the courts that the president has flouted his constitutional mandate. While they believe there are a number of transgressions to choose from, Foley and Rivkin plan to present only the strongest infraction in court. They are mum about which one that might be. There is a mindset in both Washington and legal academia that this case is doomed because of the question of standing. The answer, Foley and Rivkin counter, is “creativity” – and their auspicious pairing. “David has been around D.C. a long time; he’s an old-school neocon, very Article II,” Foley says, referring to the portion of the U.S. Constitution that addresses the executive branch. “I’m more libertarian, more focused on individual rights. It’s important to have those differences.”

The pair is adamant that this is not their lawsuit: “It’s the House of Representatives’ lawsuit.” But they are equally adamant about the stakes: “The president is taking actions that are directly contrary to congressional instructions,” Foley says. “The constitution is clear: He has a duty to faithfully execute the laws. Congress needs to preserve its lawmaking prerogative.”

“It is incredible brazenness,” Rivkin adds. “And he continues in part because he’s gotten away with it.”

With any luck, Foley and Rivkin hope, not for long.

.

.

Pro-Israel Group Wins Ruling In Harassment Lawsuit Against Obama’s Corrupt IRS (Video)

Z-Street Wins Ruling Against IRS; Was Targeted By Obama Officials Because Of It’s Pro-Israel Views – Gateway Pundit

Z Street representative Lori Lowenthal Marcus spoke out in March 2013 about the harassment the pro-Israel group received from the Obama IRS:

“They told us terrorism happens in Israel. Therefore, they had to look into our organization because they thought we might be funding terrorism. We’re a purely educational entity. We didn’t fund anybody. We barely funded ourselves.”

Remember: This is the same administration that wouldn’t call the Benghazi massacre a terrorist attack but accused a pro-Israel group of supporting terror.

Via On the Record:

.

.
Z-Street was told by the IRS that their application would be delayed because their pro-Israel views contradicted the views of the Obama administration.

This week a federal judge ruled in favor of Z-Street. The ruling will force the IRS to disclose procedures it used to target the pro-Israel group.

Jonathan Tobin at Commentary reported:

Interest in the Internal Revenue Service’s outrageous practice of subjecting politically conservative groups to discriminatory treatment has died down a bit since the revelations about this scandal first hit the news a year ago. But a court decision that was handed down earlier this week about a similar instance of potential government misconduct may shed more light on the way the Tea Party and other right-wing organizations were given the business by Lois Lerner and the rest of what appears to be a highly politicized bureaucracy at the heart of our tax collection system.

On Tuesday, Federal Judge Ketanje Brown Jackson issued the first substantive ruling in any suit that challenged the IRS’s pose of political neutrality under the Obama administration. The case concerns Z Street, a Philadelphia area-based pro-Israel organization that filed for tax-exempt status in December 2009 because of its role in educating the public about Israel and the Middle East conflict. The group’s founder Lori Lowenthal Marcus wrote in the Jewish Press this week about what followed:

On July 19, 2010, when counsel for Z STREET spoke with the IRS agent to whom the organization’s application had been assigned, that agent said that a determination on Z STREET’s application may be further delayed because the IRS gave “special scrutiny” to organizations connected to Israel and especially to those whose views “contradict those of the administration’s.”

Z Street subsequently sued the government and rightly argued that its constitutional rights had been violated because of the “viewpoint discrimination” that the IRS agent had openly displayed. Now after years of delays, Judge Jackson has ruled that by asserting that Z Street had no right to sue, the government had tried to “transform a lawsuit that clearly challenges the constitutionality of the process… into a dispute over tax liability.” She similarly dismissed the government’s claims of sovereign immunity.

What has this got to do with the Tea Party and its complaints? Plenty.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial page noted yesterday:

This ruling will force the IRS to open its books on the procedures it used and decisions it made reviewing Z Street’s tax-exempt application, procedures it has tried to keep shrouded. As the case proceeds, Z Street’s attorneys can seek depositions from many who have been part of the larger attempt to sit on similar applications by other conservative groups.

In other words, this case may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back of the IRS’s politically prejudicial policies. If an IRS agent can reject or stall a pro-Israel group’s application on the grounds that “these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies,” then no group, no matter what its political orientation or cause is safe from being subjected to a political litmus test designed by any administration of either political party.

Read the rest here.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Enough! Patriot Lawsuit Demands Money From IRS

Enough! Patriot Lawsuit Demands Money From IRS – WorldNetDaily

.

.
Just imagine sending to the Internal Revenue Service a bill for:

Actual damages for violating the Privacy Act.

The costs of complying with additional demands for information about an application.

Loss of donors.

Loss of membership fees.

Damages for the violation of constitutional rights.

Damages for loss of the benefit of tax-exempt status.

Damages for impairment of constitutionally protected rights.

Punitive damages.

Litigation costs.

Attorneys’ fees.

And more.

A case of that kind has been filed, with a request to make it class action. A key proponent explained Friday to WND that the ultimate goal is to uncover what former IRS official Lois Lerner wanted to do and did.

It also seeks to uncover what other “responsible parties” were up to regarding the IRS attacks on tea party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt. Evidence has been presented that the discrimination was coordinated to hinder the effectiveness of the groups when Barack Obama was pursuing re-election in 2012.

The legal action was filed in Ohio by an organization called Sue the IRS, which was established under the direction of Mark Meckler.

Meckler formerly was with Tea Party Patriots but now is with Citizens for Self-Governance. Its mission is to restore self-governance to America by connecting “warriors in order to take power away from big government and the big money that influences it… and return the power to its rightful owners, the people.”

That will happen, the group says, through shared values, incumbent accountability, dispersed power and engaged citizens.

“The grassroots must be in the town hall, the public square, or the village green to gather Americans who hunger to regain control of their government and their lives,” the group explains.

Meckler said the government has been trying to get rid of the case.

“The interesting thing to me is the federal government… making allegations that Americans have no right of recourse when government targets them and tries to prevent them from speaking,” he said.

That, he said, is absolutely fundamental to what American is about.

The case is pending on behalf of the Norcal Tea Party Patriots, Faith and Freedom Coalition of Ohio, Simi Valley Moorpark Tea Party, Tampa 9-12 project, South Dakota Citizens for Liberty, Texas Patriots Tea Party, Americans Against Oppressive Laws, San Angelo Tea Party, Prescott Tea Party, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and others.

It wasted no time getting to the point. In paragraph two, it states: “Elements within the executive branch of the federal government, including defendants, brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the administration.

“In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.”

Specifically, the IRS and individuals involved “employed an array of tactics, including extra scrutiny, intimidation, harassment, invasion of privacy, discriminatory audits, disclosure of private information,and years of delay.”

The result was predictable: “A chilling and muzzling of free speech and association.”

The case seeks damages for violations of the federal law, damages against individuals, and injunctive and declaratory relief against the IRS and Treasury Department. Named individually are ex-IRS official Lois Lerner, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, Chief IRS Counsel William Wilkins, Sarah Hall Ingram of the Tax-Exempt Unit and others.

The case is in the discovery phase in which evidence is being obtained and reviewed.

Some of the facts of the IRS targeting are well known: the agency’s identification of organizations likely to oppose Obama’s policies and the years of delays for the paperwork to be processed. There also were invasive questions, such as the content of prayers.

“The IRS’s knowledge that this discrimination was illegal is evidenced by their scheme to keep the people’s duly elected representatives in the dark about it. When members of Congress asked IRS officials… whether the IRS was targeting certain groups for different treatment, the IRS officials provided misleading and deceptive responses,” the case notes.

Conversely, “there is no evidence that liberal or ‘progressive’ political groups or groups supporting the re-election of President Barack Obama or the election of Democrats were targeted for similar delay.”

Even the IRS referred to the process for “tea party cases,” the lawsuit alleges.

The invasive questions included, in the case of the NorCal Tea Party, details about the board of directors and its activities, copies of all corporate minutes, titles, duties, work hours, names of board members or officers who might run for public office.

The IRS repeatedly demanded information, threatening frequently that if there was no response, “we will assume you no longer want us to consider your application.”

“This conduct has caused irreparable harm to plaintiffs, and there is no other adequate remedy at law. This court may grant declaratory and injunctive relief against the IRS and Treasury Department, …declaring that the defendants’ discriminatory conduct is unlawful and enjoining them from using tax exemption applicants’ political viewpoints to target them.”

Among the questions posed: How did the scheme originate? Who ordered it? Who was involved?

The leadership of Sue the IRS said they intend to “bring those involved in this government overreach and abuse… to light.”

Also in the plan is to recover damages for organizations that were harmed.

And the campaign plans to shine light on the wrongdoing to “deter the IRS and other government agencies from engaging in illegal behavior without the fear of being caught, exposed and brought to justice.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Rand Paul Leads 350,000 Plaintiffs In Federal Lawsuit Against Obama Regime Over NSA Surveillance

‘Rand Paul v. Barack Obama’ Lawsuit Hits Federal Court With 350,000 Plaintiffs, As U.S. Senator Sues White House And Intelligence Chiefs Over NSA Surveillance – Daily Mail

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is making good on his promise to sue the Obama administration over what he calls ‘precisely the kind of overreach we fought a revolution over.’ His targets are the National Security Agency, the FBI and other federal government offices that snoop on private communications at home and abroad.

With former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli as his lead attorney, Paul is filing suit Wednesday morning in Washington, D.C. federal court along with the conservative FreedomWorks organization.

The legal action, officially titled ‘Rand Paul v. Barack Obama,’ will hit the court running with at least 350,000 plaintiffs, according to a source close to the process. Paul is aiming for 10 million, judging from a message on two websites run by his political staff.

‘When we learned that the NSA was collecting the phone data of every American last year,’ the senator said in a video message Tuesday night to supporters, ‘it posed a serious Constitutional question: Do we no longer have a Fourth Amendment?’

.

.

.

.
The lawsuit will argue that the president ‘has publicly refused to stop a clear and continuing violation of the Fourth Amendment,’ Paul said in a statement from his political action committee. ‘I expect this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court and I predict the American people will win.’

President Obama is named as a defendant, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of the National Security Agency Gen. Keith Alexander, and FBI Director James Comey.

A White House National Security Council Staff spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

But Obama said during a lengthy January 17 speech about U.S. signals intelligence gathering – an oration that might be a preview of the government’s courtroom defense – that ‘the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people.’

‘They’re not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your emails,’ the president insisted.

His press secretary, Jay Carney, followed up ten days later with assurance during a daily briefing that ‘to the extent that the NSA collects information, it is focused on valid foreign intelligence targets and not the information of ordinary Americans.’

‘Look,’ he told reporters, ‘I mean, terrorists, proliferators, other bad actors use the same communication tools that others use.’

.

.

.

.

.

.
Sen. Paul’s objection focuses on the so-called bulk phone-record ‘metadata’ that the NSA gathers routinely. The data includes phone numbers, dates, times, and the durations of calls.

National security analysts say the massive tranches of data can be helpful when terrorism suspects are identified, because they allow investigators to establish who they have been talking to – and when.

Paul’s legal advisers thought about filing suit in a Kentucky federal court, MailOnline’s source said, but decided on Washington, D.C. because its judges are accustomed to sifting through the thorny issues surrounding whether a class-action group deserves to be ‘certified’–if, that is, its members have standing to sue.

He plans a press conference in front of the federal courthouse on Wednesday morning to boast that he’s protecting the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment from the White House’s national security apparatus.

‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,’ that Amendment reads in part.

The senator first forecast his legal action in late December, and told the Fox News Channel that since the Obama administration ‘has used the IRS to go after people… we wonder if they would use the NSA that way.’

‘Everybody who has a cellphone would be eligible’ to become a plaintiff, he said.

That interview came on the same day the NSA convinced a top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judge to green-light its metadata collection for a new 90-day period.

That program, the subject of worldwide leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, has won reauthorization at least 36 times during the past seven years.

Paul’s odd mix of libertarian crusade and conservative button-pushing isn’t new, and it might become the norm on the right as more Republicans try to find common ground between what amount to warring cousins.

.

.
‘Libertarian, or liberty, doesn’t mean libertine,’ the GOP presidential hopeful told a red-meat right-wing crowd at a D.C. gala last week.

‘To many of us,’ he said, playing deftly to a room full of social conservatives, ‘Libertarian means freedom and liberty. But we also see freedom needs tradition.’

The speech came an hour after a lobbyist was heard introducing him to friends during a pre-dinner reception as a ‘Libertarian rock star.’

But Paul cautioned that ‘I don’t see libertarianism as, “you can do whatever you want”.’

Now the federal legislator is applying that message to the executive branch of government, and hoping the judicial branch will see things his way.

But while his lawsuit percolates, Freedomworks president Matt Kibbe will manage the plaintiff-lists and turn them into a political mobilizing tool.

‘If you use a phone, you should care about this case,’ Kibbe said Tuesday, adding that his group’s 6 million members stand behind the legal effort.

Names are initially collected on websites run by PaulPAC, the Kentucky senator’s Political Action Committee, and by his political campaign – presumably one now engaged in planning for the 2016 presidential race.

Both websites ask Web surfers to ‘sign below and join my class-action lawsuit and help stop the government’s outrageous spying program on the American people.’

They also ask for donations.

‘After you sign up, please make a generous donation to help rally up to ten million Americans to support my lawsuit to stop Big Brother,’ a message reads.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Federal Judge Suddenly Green-Lights Lawsuit That Could Stop Obamacare In Its Tracks

Bombshell: Federal Judge Suddenly Green-Lights Lawsuit That Could Stop Obamacare In Its Tracks – Daily Mail

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law.

The Affordable Care Act forbids the federal government from enforcing the law in any state that opted out of setting up its own health care exchange, according to a group of small businesses whose lawsuit got a key hearing Monday in federal court.

The Obama administration, according to their lawsuit, has ignored that language in the law, enforcing all of its provisions even in states where the federal government is operating the insurance marketplaces on the error-plagued Healthcare.gov website.

Thirty-six states chose not to set up their exchanges, a move that effectively froze Washington, D.C. out of the authority to pay subsidies and other pot-sweeteners to convince citizens in those states to buy medical insurance.

But the IRS overstepped its authority by paying subsidies in those states anyway, say the businesses and their lawyers.

.

.

The subsidies serve as a trigger that determines who has to comply with the now-famous individual and employer mandates. So, the lawsuit claims, the Obama administration illegally enforced the Affordable Care Act – suddenly making millions of taxpayers and small employers subject to paying fines if they don’t play ball.

The Affordable Care Act authorizes subsidies only for policies purchased ‘through an Exchange established by the State.’

A different section of the law empowers the federal government to set up its own exchanges for each state that chose not establish one.

But government lawyers have argued that ‘Congress made clear that an exchange established by the federal government stands in the shoes of the exchange that a state chooses not to establish.’

The Treasury Department, they contend, ‘has reasonably interpreted the Act to provide for eligibility for the premium tax credits for individuals in every state, regardless of which entity operates the exchange.’

But that amounts to the federal government ignoring the letter of the law, lawyer Sam Kazman says.

And ‘without those subsidies, the employer mandate isn’t triggered,’ he told MailOnline.

And that could make the entire Obamacare system unsustainable.

.

.

Kazman is general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank that is coordinating the case.

‘The IRS cannot rewrite the law that Congress passed,’ said Tom Miller, resident fellow at another think, the tank American Enterprise Institute.

‘Its regulation expressly flouts the statutory text of the Affordable Care Act, the intent of Congress and the reasoned choices of [36] states.’

‘The fiscal impact’ of denying the Obamacare system millions of dollars in lost fines, ‘while sizable, wouldn’t be large enough to bring down the house,’ Kazman added. The poltical one, however, is.’

‘You’d have 34 “refusenik” states exempting their employers and many of their citizens from the employer mandate and portions of the individual mandate,’ he explained.

‘You’d have companies in participating states considering whether to move their operations’ to states where they don’t have to obey the Affordable Care Act. ‘And you might even have some of those states seeking to undo their choice to participate.’

.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute said in a statement that the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services have pushed regulations that Congress didn’t authorize, forcing some employers ‘to cut back employees’ hours’ in order to dodge Obamacare’s more economically challenging requirements, ‘even though they are located in states that have refused to set up their own insurance exchanges.’

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman refused to dismiss the case, as the government requested, but also denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the IRS and HHS from granting subsidies in what lawyer Kazman calls ‘refusenik’ states.

Judge Friedman said Tuesday that he will rule on the merits of the case by February 15.

By then the Obamacare law will be in full swing, nearing the end of its open enrollment period and providing health care services to Americans who sign up for coverage by December 15.

Kazman said his organization would ‘take an immediate appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals’ in order to get a re-hearing on the motion for an injunction to stop the clock on Obamacare while the larger legal issues are worked out.

At the lawsuit’s heart is a set of distinctions that Congress drew between the 14 states – 15 including the District of Columbia – that chose to establish health insurance exchanges and the 36 that opted out.

The plaintiffs, who all hail from ‘refusenik’ states, say the federal government has invalidated their state governments’ choices.

Kazman said that the Obamacare statute does not empower the IRS or HHS to ‘give subsidy funding to people in states not authorized by Congress to receive it. That move, he agreed, had he effect of ‘gutting a choice – to participate in the exchange program or not – that states were given by Congress.’

The government is ‘asking you to interpret “north” to mean “south,”‘ plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Carvin told Judge Friedman on Monday.

The White House referred questions about the lawsuit to the Health and Human Services Department, which declined requests for comment and passed the buck to the Justice Department. The DOJ didn’t respond to emails seeking a position on the lawsuit, which its lawyers are defending.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Key Names Added To ACLJ Lawsuit Against Infernal Revenue Service

Key Names Added To Lawsuit Against IRS – WorldNetDaily

Several Internal Revenue Service executives, those who wielded great authority and are now accused of targeting conservatives because of their faith and political perspectives, have been added to a lawsuit over the discrimination and harassment that resulted from their political use of the tax agency.

.

The announcement comes from the American Center for Law and Justice, which earlier sued the government on behalf of dozens of conservative organizations that applied for tax-status with the IRS, but saw those applications delayed and or denied because of their beliefs.

The key individuals within the IRS, those who allegedly used their authority in the campaign against the conservatives, include former IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins, former Tax Exempt Division chief Sarah Hall Ingram, Tax Exempt Division Commissioner Joseph Grant, acting manager Michael Seto and senior technical advisers Nikole Flax and Judith E. Kindell.

They are being sued as individuals, as well as in their official capacities.

The action brought by the ACLJ explains that the evidence shows there was a “politically motivated attack on conservative organizations by the IRS – a secret and illegal targeting campaign – aimed at the organizations because of their political beliefs.”

“The intimidation campaign conducted by the IRS is much more politically motivated and coordinated than previously thought,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

Its lawsuit is believed to be the largest of its kind against the IRS, involving 41 different organizations targeted by the IRS.

“We now know that President Obama through his public comments initiated actions that resulted in the unlawful targeting of our clients – a self-induced unconstitutional act. In addition to the president’s remarks, congressional Democrats along with the media created a climate of hostility – making it impossible for our clients to exercise their First Amendment freedoms,” Sekulow said.

“This hostile climate set the stage for the unprecedented illegal targeting by the IRS. The Obama administration and the IRS objected to the conservative message of our clients which resulted in the unlawful and unconstitutional scheme to keep our clients on the sidelines – out of the political debate. This filing strengthens our case and underscores our commitment to holding those responsible for this scheme accountable.”

Americans already hated the IRS, so how could anything damage its reputation? Read this special Whistleblower magazine issue to find out.

The lawsuit originally was filed in May and this amended complaint brings on as defendants those individuals who were in positions of authority over the Obama administration’s campaign against the conservative groups.

“The facts of this case reflect a course of conduct by a faction of the United States government that would make the Founders weep and which should outrage every American,” the complaint contends. “The defendants, acting in their official and/or individual capacities, have, based upon their constituencies or benefactors, obstructed other law abiding citizens from freely associating together and giving voice to their beliefs. This deprivation occurred solely and unconstitutionally based on the perceived beliefs of those citizens whose rights have been deprived.”

The amended complaint also adds an additional claim for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it blames the White House, congressional Democrats and the media for pressuring the IRS to attack conservatives.

It alleges as early as 2010, “Obama joined what the IRS and the Democrat members of Congress had already started: a relentless campaign to stifle the free speech of those protesting his and Democrats’ policies and the direction of the federal government.”

The IRS response was to engage “in a campaign of unlawful targeting.”

Of the 41 groups that are plaintiffs, 22 got tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, 12 still are pending and five gave up because of frustration over the IRS process. Two had their files closed by the IRS because they refused to answer unconstitutional demands for private information, the ACLJ said.

The IRS discrimination has been well-documented. One IRS official pleaded the Fifth and declined to respond to questions from Congress, but others in the agency have admitted to cases cited by conservative groups who were told, for example, they had to reveal the content of members’ prayers or make promises about what they would or would not say.

The attacks started before the 2012 presidential election and limited the effectiveness of nearly 500 activist organizations as Barack Obama and his liberal agenda rolled to victory.

The lawsuit against the IRS alleges that the Obama administration has been violating the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and breaking the Administrative Procedure Act in addition to violating various rules and regulations.

It asks that the court issue a declaratory judgment that the IRS “unlawfully delayed and obstructed the organizations’ applications” for tax status determinations.

And it alleges those actions were based on unconstitutional standards and “impermissibly disparate treatment.”

Further, the legal claim asks for an injunction to protect the groups and their officers and directors from further IRS abuse.

The IRS also has faced criticism over lavish spending at conventions, shady contracts, actual censorship of targeted groups, a real “enemies list” and the exposure of thousands of taxpayers’ personal Social Security numbers.

In an editorial headlined “Obama’s fingerprints all over IRS tea party scandal,” for Fox News, Sekulow charged, “A president singling out citizens groups for targeting and intrusive questioning merely because he dislikes their message and fears their political influence? Now that is a ‘threat to democracy.’”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Fired Employee Ben Kruidbos Slapping Zimmerman Prosecutors With Whistleblower Lawsuit

Fired Employee To Slap Zimmerman Prosecutors With Whistleblower Lawsuit – The Blaze

A former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey’s office will file a whistleblower lawsuit against the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial, Reuters reports. Zimmerman was recently acquitted of all charges in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

.

Ben Kruidbos, Corey’s former director of information technology, was fired after testifying at a June 6 pre-trial hearing that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially embarrassing evidence from Martin’s cell phone to the defense. Prosecutors are required to disclose such evidence to the defense under evidence-sharing laws.

“We will be filing a whistleblower action in (Florida’s Fourth Judicial District) Circuit Court,” Wesley White, Kruidbos’ attorney, told Reuters. He said the lawsuit will be filed within the next 30 days.

More from Reuters:

The action will put pressure on Corey, who already faces criticism from some legal experts for the unsuccessful prosecution of the case, which led to the acquittal of Zimmerman for shooting unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman’s defense has also called for sanctions against her and her prosecution team.

Corey and lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Corey referred Reuters to Kruidbos’ termination letter, previously made public, in which Corey’s office accused him of hacking confidential information from state computers.

The six-page letter, dated July 11, charges Kruidbos with “deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions” that make him untrustworthy and calls his questioning of de la Rionda’s actions regarding the cell phone evidence “a shallow, but obvious, attempt to cloak yourself in the protection of the whistleblower law.”

Corey told Reuters on Monday that her office “adhered to the highest standards of ethical behavior.”

“Trial law requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense attorneys, especially if it helps exonerate defendants. The requirement is known as the Brady disclosure,” the report adds.

Judge Debra Nelson has not ruled whether the Zimmerman prosecution committed any Brady violations by not handing over the evidence from Martin’s cellphone.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Agents Investigating The IRS For Targeting Conservatives Haven’t Bothered To Contact Any Of The Victims Yet

FBI Investigators Have Not Contacted Any Of The 41 Conservative Groups Involved In Class-Action IRS Lawsuit – Daily Caller

Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service investigators working on the federal government’s probe into the IRS targeting scandal have not contacted any of the conservative groups involved in a class-action lawsuit against the tax agency.

.

“No one from the FBI or the IRS investigative team has contacted any of the 41 conservative groups we represent or any of our attorneys,” American Center for Law and Justice spokesman Gene Kapp told The Daily Caller. ACLJ is representing tea party and other conservative groups in the lawsuit.

At least five different IRS offices in Cincinnati, Ohio; Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Laguna Niguel and El Monte, California; improperly demanded extensive information from conservative groups applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status between 2010 and 2012. The IRS demanded copies of training materials distributed by conservative groups, as well as personal information on college interns and even the contents of a religious group’s prayers.

FBI director Robert Mueller and acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel have both launched investigations into the matter, but have not contacted any of the conservative groups involved in the ACLJ’s class-action suit.

The IRS targeting scandal broke in the media in early May. Mueller was excoriated by Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio at a June 13 hearing for knowing very little about his own bureau’s investigation into IRS conduct.

“You’ve had a month now to investigate. This has been the biggest story in the country and you can’t even tell me who the lead investigator is. You can’t tell me the actions the inspector general took which are not typically how investigations are done. You can’t tell me if that’s appropriate or not. This is not speculation. This is what happened,” Jordan said to Mueller.

Acting IRS commissioner Werfel also garnered criticism from congressional investigators at a June 6 hearing for knowing little about the scandal he is investigating.

“I have been here for two weeks. There is a lot to cover. I am not ready to make assurances because I have not completed the review,” Werfel said at the hearing in response to a tough line of questioning from North Carolina congressman Mark Meadows.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Rand Paul To Challenge NSA Snooping In Supreme Court, Asks Phone And Internet Customers To Join Lawsuit

Rand Paul Tells Fox Viewers To Join Lawsuit Against NSA: ‘I’m Going To Challenge This At The Supreme Court’ – Mediaite

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul took to Fox News Sunday to declare his legal opposition to the NSA’s surveillance programs. “I’m going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level,” Paul said.

.

“I’m going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies: ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit,” Paul told host Chris Wallace. “If we get ten million Americans saying we don’t want our phone records looked at, then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington.”

Like many lawmakers, Paul drew a distinction between targeted surveillance and the blanket surveillance revealed this week.

“They are looking at a billion phone calls a day,” Paul said. “That doesn’t sound to me like a modest invasion of primary, it sounds like an extraordinary invasion of privacy.”

“I have no problem if you have probable cause, you target people who are terrorists, and you go after them,” Paul continued. “But we’re talking about trolling through billions of phone records… That is unconstitutional.”

Paul also said he would introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoriation Act, though he offered few details about the still-hypothetical legislation.

“If you talk to young people who use computers every day, they’re absolutely with me,” Paul said. “What I spend on my Visa each month, that’s my business, where I spend it, and whether I read conservative magazines, whether I subscribe to Fox News, or whether I subscribe to Yahoo or Google – what I do with my private life is my private life. If you suspect me of a crime, have probable cause.”

“So much of our life now is digitalized, that we have to protect it from a snooping government,” Paul said. “We’ve now got a government that appears to target people based on their political beliefs. I don’t want my phone records being given to an administration I can’t trust.”

Paul remembered that the public outrage against SOPA and PIPA legislation last year were somewhat successful in pushing back the laws, and predicted that if people reacted with similar severity to the current surveillance measures, they would be successful in repealing them.

Watch the interview here, via Fox News:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Lawsuit: Fed Bailing Out Europe

Lawsuit: Fed Bailing Out Europe – WorldNetDaily

A government watchdog in Washington says it wants to know how U.S. loans to the European Central Bank surged in December 2011 to some $95 billion within days of a statement from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that he did not have the intention or authority to use taxpayer dollars to bail out European banks.

The question from Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates government corruption and fights to bring to justice those involved, is contained in a lawsuit by the organization.

Judicial Watch officials said they have sued the Federal Reserve System’s board of governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, which is inside the Fed, over records about the billions in loans.

It is seeking records detailing the Fed’s taxpayer-funded bailouts of European banks in December 2011.

The filing explains that on Dec. 14, 2011, Bernanke told Republican senators he didn’t not have the intention or authority to use taxpayer dollars to bail out troubled banks in Europe.

According to a Bloomberg report on the meeting, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., confirmed Bernanke “made it ‘very clear’” that the central bank had no intention of rescuing those European institutions.

The report said the boundaries Bernanke set were beyond the existing currency-swap procedures that previously had been adopted. The report said those “currency-swap lines” were able to provide “indirect dollar funding to overseas banks.”

But Judicial Watch reported it was exactly that “currency swap” program that led to nearly “$95 billion in loans to the European Central Bank in December 2011 alone,” just as Bernanke was making the comments.

“Under what is known as a ‘temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap arrangement,’ the Fed lends U.S. dollars to foreign central banks which then auction these dollars off to their local banks,” Judicial Watch said. “The Fed’s stated intent for initiating the program was to ease lending for European Banks during the financial crisis. The Fed initiated the program in December 2007 and allowed it to expire in February 2010. In May 2010, the Fed rebooted the program and on November 30, 2011, extended it through February 1, 2013. This extension prompted a sharp increase from $400 million to $95 billion in loans in December 2011.”

Early this year, Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act sought records of communications among the Federal Reserve Board of governors, the FOMC, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the European Central Bank concerning the November 2011 currency swap extension.

“Judicial Watch also seeks access to records describing the justification for extending the currency swap program, as well as individual details regarding each swap transaction,” the watchdog reported.

Further, since so little information about those who got the money is available, the requests seek “any and all records identifying, describing, or setting forth the identity of any bank or financial institution and the collateral offered by the bank or financial institution” in that time frame.

Bloomberg also reported, “For all the transparency forced on the Federal Reserve by Congress and the courts, one of the central bank’s emergency-lending programs remains so secretive that names of borrowers may be hidden from the Fed itself. As part of a currency-swap plan active from 2007 to 2010 and revived to fight the European debt crisis, the Fed lends dollars to other central banks, which auction them to local commercial banks…While the transactions with other central banks are all disclosed, the Fed doesn’t track where the dollars ultimately end up, and European officials don’t share borrowers’ identities…”

Even a former vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Gerald O’Driscoll, has criticized the procedures.

Judicial Watch said officials acknowledged getting the records request, but simply didn’t response.

“Chairman Bernanke can dress it up in whatever language he chooses, but these ‘currency swaps’ are nothing more than massive bailouts of European banks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That we have to sue to get basic information about this massive bailout speaks volumes about the dubious nature of this under the radar program.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

It must suck to be so petty that you sue a Little-Leaguer

The Lonely Conservative is amazed, and appalled, as am I, by stories like these.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous lawsuits I’ve heard about. A woman was sitting at a picnic table during a Little League game. The catcher was warming up the pitcher and he missed his mark and hit this woman in the face with the ball.Now the woman is suing the boy – who was eleven years old at the time – and his family of half a million bucks. Listen to this lawyer telling Megyn Kelly that Little League should get involved and protect the mothers out there watching the games.

Good grief! What a whiny, “I am Entitled” person

Catcher Matthew Migliaccio was 11 years old at the time and was warming up a pitcher.
The lawsuit filed April 24 alleges Migliaccio’s errant throw was intentional and reckless, “assaulted and battered” Lloyd and caused “severe, painful and permanent” injuries.

A second count alleges Migliaccio’s actions were negligent and careless through “engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity” near Lloyd. She continues to suffer pain and anguish, incur medical expenses and has been unable to carry out her usual duties and activities, the lawsuit says.

And Lloyd’s husband, in a third count, is suing for the loss of “services, society and consortium” of his wife. They’ve demanded a jury trial.

Anthony Pagano, a lawyer for the Migliaccios, said the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit.

“I just think that it’s disgusting that you have people suing an 11-year-old kid for overthrowing his pitcher in the bullpen,” Pagano said. “It’s horrible this can actually happen and get this far. Ultimately, hopefully, justice will prevail.” (Read More)

Some things just make your head expode

John Travolta, Gay Sexual Predator? Or Victim of BS lawsuit?

We have heard the Gay rumors about Travolta before, but these are serious charges. Frankly, I do not trust anyone who seeks money from a famous person through a lawsuit, rather than filing criminal charges. Via Pat Dollard

Hollywood mega star, John Travolta is being sued by an unidentified male masseur for assault, sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, RadarOnline.com is reporting.

The explosive lawsuit alleges on January 16, 2012, Travolta picked up the masseur in a black Lexus SUV, which had “Trojan condoms in the console of the vehicle” and the duo went to a room at the Beverly Hills Hotel. According to the documents, the massage began in a bungalow at the famed hotel, and “Travolta appeared to be semi-erect.” The lawsuit goes on to claim that a chef brought in hamburgers during the massage and Travolta “touched Plaintiff’s scrotum, and this time the Plaintiff told Travolta to please not touch him again.” The lawsuit states that the actor promised not to, but “Travolta quickly tried to rub the head of Plaintiff’s penis as he tried to pull away.”

Travolta’s rep tells RadarOnline.com: “This lawsuit is a complete fiction and fabrication. None of the events claimed in the suit ever occurred. The plaintiff, who refuses to give their name, knows that the suit is a baseless lie. It is for that reason that the plaintiff hasn’t been identified with a name even though it is required to do so. On the date when plaintiff claims John met him, John was not in California and it can be proved that he was on the East Coast. Plaintiff’s attorney has filed this suit to try and get his 15 minutes of fame. John intends to get this case thrown out and then he will sue the attorney and Plaintiff for malicious prosecution.”

More graphic stuff at the link, I will leave it to you to read  a description of Travolta’s “little buddy” or not.

Your Blog Headline of the Day goes to Blazing Cat Fur

For this gem

A college student decided: “that it would be a good idea to shoot bottle rockets out of his anus”

Wanna bet there was alcohol involved? Let’s see

 HUNTINGTON, W.Va. (CN) – A college student claims he was injured when a fraternity member in a “drunken stupor” decided “that it would be a good idea to shoot bottle rockets out of his anus,” and did so, “but instead of launching, the bottle rocket blew up in the defendant’s rectum, and this startled the plaintiff and caused him to jump back,” and fall off the fraternity’s deck.

Two things of note. First this “explosive” story occurred in West Virginia. I believe the state motto of that state is “He y’all watch this”. Second, YES, there was alcohol involved, OF COURSE! This further proves my point that booze does not create stupidity, it reveals it!

Lawsuit: Obama Visit Caused $676K In Airport Damage; Feds Refuse To Pay

Lawsuit: Obama Visit Caused $676K In Airport Damage – Boston Business Journal

President Barack Obama’s entourage for a 2010 visit to Massachusetts caused $676,048 in damage to Marlborough Airport – and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has refused to compensate the company that runs the field, a suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court alleges.

……………………….

Obama landed at the field on April 1, 2010, so Obama could visit an emergency bunker in the state.

Marlborough Airport Properties Inc. states in its complaint that prior to the visit, the squadron that runs the Marine One helicopter – the designation given to any helicopter carrying the president – established that the aircraft would not damage the tarmac. Indeed, the suit states, the helicopter “did not cause any property damage to the runway.”

“However,” the suit continues, “ground vehicles brought onto the airport by or under the Secret Service, such as, but not limited to, a ‘foam truck,’ which weighs approximately 44,000 pounds, (were) negligently driven onto the airport and proximately caused property damage in an amount of $676,048.13.”

“Turf or grassed-in areas” also were “significantly damaged,” the suit states.

“As to ground vehicles, there was no clearance in advance,” the suit states.

The suit says the company asked the government for compensation and was denied.

“They stated we haven’t shown or proven any negligence,” Evans J. Carter, the lawyer for the airport operator, said in a telephone interview.

Marlborough Airport Properties is seeking a jury trial.

Obama has returned to the state several times since then.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story