+menu-


  • Category Archives IRS Exempt From Contempt?
  • VA Conspiracy to Defraud?

    923 18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

    House hears evidence VA cooked books on claims backlog

    May 9, 2014 – A whistleblower who worked at two Texas VA facilities claims he was “coached” on how to “cook the books” to conceal long wait times for …

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    —————————————————————————-

    THIS IS THE LAW

    923 18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

    Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:

    TO CONSPIRE TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

    Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

    The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute.” United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

    The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff’d, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

    Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants’ actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission’s reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

    The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant’s activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest”), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

    ———————————————————————————————————————————

    THIS IS THE LAW

    18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact

    accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    ARE THESE LAWS IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN JUSTICE?

    WHAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

    WHO IS IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS?

    ERIC HOLDER- FAST AND FURIOUS

    LOIS LERNER – IRS TARGETING

    WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    ERIC HOLDER

    HOW MANY AMERICAN SCANDALS DO THESE LAWS  DEFINE?

    THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DISASTER

    BENGHAZI

    IRS TARGETING

    THE AFFORDABLE  HEALTH CARE ACT

    FAST AND FURIOUS

    WHAT IS AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT?

    —————————————————————————-

    House hears evidence VA cooked books on claims backlog

    Furthermore, the VA then “lost control” of the provisional ratings cases, which were pushed further to the back burner, where they were ignored. Some veterans might never have received final rating decisions if not for the IG investigation, according to Halliday.

    Miller showed internal VA emails from last year showing managers told employees that the method of dealing with the oldest cases might go against their professional values but that “there will be no negative consequences for you the employees.”

    The only negative effects would come from not meeting VA goals of reducing the backlog, according to excerpts from the emails.

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    Report: $8.8 million in taxpayer-funded bonuses at seven accused VA facilities since 2011

    “If you look at recent VA preventable deaths, patient safety incidents and backlog increases, department senior executives who presided over negligence and mismanagement are more likely to have received a bonus or glowing performance review than any sort of punishment,” says a description of the bill on the website of the House Veteran Affairs Committee.

    —————————————————————————————-

    VA Cooking the Books….

    May 27, 2014 – “Cooking the books” at VA hospitals has exploded into public view since allegations arose that up to 40 patients may have died at the Phoenix …

    May 9, 2014 – A whistleblower who worked at two Texas VA facilities claims he was “coached” on how to “cook the books” to conceal long wait times for …

    18 U.S. Code 286 -Conspiracy to Defraud the Government

    www.law.cornell.edu › … Part 1>Chapter 15› Legal Information Institute

    Whoever enters into any agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the United States, or any department or agency thereof, by obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or allowance of any false, fictitious or fraudulent claim, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    PENAL CODE

    TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

    CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

    Sec. 19.01.  TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.  (a)  A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

    (b)  Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 19.04.  MANSLAUGHTER.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

    (b)  An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.04 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 307, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.05 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 19.05.  CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

    (b)  An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.06 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.07 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    ——————————————————————————————

    VA Gave Out Bonuses for Criminally Negligent Homicide

    May 19, 2014

    If reports are true, the VA is a hotbed of corruption which lets dozens or hundreds of veterans die waiting for help. It’s no less than criminally negligent homicide at the hands of self-serving bureaucrats.

    Two whistleblowers have said that many veterans were deliberately delayed or never seen at all. Veterans were kept on separate lists so DC wouldn’t find out about the delays. At risk were employee bonuses.

    The problems at Veterans Affairs might be systemic and they have been well-known for a long time. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden knew in 2008.

    How many, if any, veterans deaths are the result of criminally negligent homicide is unclear and will remain that way because the DOJ is refusing to investigate at this point, but don’t worry Barack Obama and Eric Shinseki are “mad as hell”.

    According to a report issued by the VA last year,  22 soldiers a day kill themselves. Could their lives have been saved with prompt intervention?

    After what our military men and women have sacrificed for us, we have thanked them by giving them horrendous healthcare services. Don’t worry, we will all soon suffer the same fate under Obamacare. Look to the veterans for your future healthcare and weep. Obamacare will provide bonuses to those who let Grandma die.

    In some VA hospitals, our military healthcare officials appear to be waiting for our veterans to die and all our leaders can do is say they are mad as hell?

    Did you know that the VA has been shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars in financial settlements because of negligence? The settlements amounted to $845 million in the last decade alone.

    An investigation by the Dayton Daily News found 167 cases since 2001 in which the VA delayed treatment, delays which resulted in voluntary and court-ordered claims totaling $36.4 million.

    At least 23 people have died because of delayed care according to the VA.

    Our transparent government pretended that Robert Petzel, undersecretary for health care at the VA, was forced to resign. As it happens, he was scheduled to retire. It was another lie to give the impression that they were being tough. Even if it were a forced resignation, and the poor man had to settle back and live off his fat government pension, how is that an appropriate response to potential cases of criminally negligent homicide?

    Agency head Eric Shinseki and Barack Obama are “mad as Hell” but the DOJ has announced they are not looking into any of the claims, they are monitoring.

    Government workers should NOT be getting bonuses.  The government is offering incentives for people to lie and cheat.

    The U.S. Government Accountability Office in December 2012 released a review of the Dayton VA Medical center as well as VA hospitals in Montana, California and Washington, D.C. It found errors by schedulers at every hospital.

    “During our site visits, staff at some clinics told us they change medical appointment desired dates to show clinic wait times within VHA’s performance goals,” the report says.

    Veterans Affairs officials warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the department shouldn’t trust the wait times that its facilities were reporting.

    “This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data; it affects quality of care by delaying — and potentially denying — deserving veterans timely care,” the officials wrote.

    The briefing materials, obtained by The Washington Times through the Freedom of Information Act, make clear that the problems existed well before Mr. Obama took office, dating back at least to the Bush administration. But the materials raise questions about what actions the department took since 2009 to remedy the problems.

    An April 9 GAO report issued after a review of select VA centers across the country noted that approximately 2 million outpatient referrals were unresolved for more than 90 days in 2012.

    At one medical center, veterans waited 140 to 210 days. Four of 10 physical therapy referrals at another medical center took 108 to 152 days “with no apparent action taken to schedule an appointment for the veteran.”

    Ohio’s six VA medical centers had a combined 54 malpractice payouts related to deaths since 2001. The Dayton VA Medical Center had the most, though Cleveland’s two medical centers had 22 combined. One case settled in 2003 for $200,000 involved hospitals in both Dayton and Cleveland.

    The VA paid $91.2 million last year in financial settlements and awards in response to malpractice claims. A nationwide Cox Media Group investigation in November found that payouts peaked in 2012 and totaled $845 million over the past decade.

    U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said he expects the House this month to consider the VA Management Accountability Act, which would give Shinseki — who Boehner is not calling on to resign — authority to remove senior executives.

    “If you look at recent VA preventable deaths, patient safety incidents and backlog increases, department senior executives who presided over negligence and mismanagement are more likely to have received a bonus or glowing performance review than any sort of punishment,” says a description of the bill on the website of the House Veteran Affairs Committee.

    We give bonuses to the people who should be fired.

    ———————————————————————————

    keep reading if you are interested

    Defrauding the government

    18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

    The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense “[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

    The operative language is the so-called “defraud clause,” that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the “offense clause” in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

    Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of “defraud” provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

    The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.

    Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:

    To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

    Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

    The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute.” United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

    The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff’d, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

    Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants’ actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission’s reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

    The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant’s activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest”), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

    In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that:

    the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false.

    18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact

    accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

    Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section3571 fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

     


  • We Have a “Careless” President

    Indeed, “We the People” have a “Careless ” President

    His proclamation to “We the People”

    I could “Careless “ about your elected representation

    I could “Careless “ about THE BALANCE OF POWER

    I’ve Got a Pen, and I’ve Got a Phone

    I’VE GOT THE POWER…… “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions … and I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life”

    I’ve Got the POWER of the EXECUTIVE ORDER GRANTED TO ME  under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution

    In times of EMERGENCY, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power.

    —————————————————————-

    I’ve got MY OWN APPOINTED  government agencies , THEY HAVE THEIR JOB DESCRIPTIONS, THEY SHALL, SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL, THEY SHALL (take the 5th)

    ————————————————————————————

    Does America really have a “Careless ” President? (you decide)

    His  “Careless ” attitude to “We the People”?

     I could CARE LESS about  Democracy

    I could CARE LESS about the BALANCE OF POWER

    I could CARE LESS about  CONGRESS

    I could care less about elected representation

    I could care less about Justice

    I could care less about veterans

    I could care less about illegal immigration

    I could care less Benghazi

    I could care less the IRS scandal

    I could care less about The U.S. Constitution

    I could care less about The Declaration of Independence

    I could care less about The Bill of Rights

    I could care less about Privacy

    I could care less about freedom

    I could care less about Domestic Tranquility

    I could care less about the American Dream

    ————————————————————

    I’ve Got a Pen, and I’ve Got a Phone AND, I’ve Got the POWER……“And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions … and I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life,”

    HAS MUCH POWER  HAS THIS “CARELESS” PRESIDENT USED? GOT?

    almost limitless power.

    —————————————

    OBAMA’S “I’VE GOT THE POWER” TRIP?

     I’ve got the most powerful government in the world

    I’ve got  control over 191 governments

    I’ve got US Military bases in 63 countries

    I’ve got U.S. military “is in 130 countries.

    I’ve got 900 bases around the world.

    I’ve gotU.S. has military personnel in 130 nations

    I’ve got  900 overseas bases. (per Ron Paul)

    I’ve got  294 US Embassies and Consulates around the world

    I’ve got MY foreign POLICY (known around the world)

    I do not negotiate with terrorists.  Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe catch one terrorist let five go

    I’ve got MY U.S. diplomats far exceeding  10,000 today.

    I’ve got foreign Allies around the world

    I’ve got the most open and Transparent Government in the world.

    More transparency may make the government more accountable, because

    I’ve got the National Security Administration

    I’ve got NSA spy in the Sky

    I’ve got your phone tapped

    I’ve got the Dept of Defense (DOD)

    I got the EPA spy in the Sky

    I’ve got the CIA

    I’ve got the FBI

    I’ve got the DRONES

    I’ve got Homeland Security

     

    ——————————————————————————————

    OOPS? a couple more presidential I’VE GOT…..

    I’VE GOT GLOBAL PROBLEMS with ISIS…. in the ENTIRE middle east..

    Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, the downing of flight 17 with 298 victims, Russia, Putin, ETC.

     

    I’VE GOT AMERICAN PROBLEMS TOO, IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PROTESTING AMERICAN’S INTERFERING WITH MY POLITICAL FUND RAISERS, GOLF, POOL GAMES,  ETC.,

     

    I’VE GOT A FEW AMERICAN PROBLEMS,  Legal American’s PROTESTING   my (57,000 illegal’s) $3.7 BILLION DOLLAR dream immigration act, the cover-up and killing of American veterans by the Veteran Administration, wild fires consuming hundreds of American homes,  floods drowning out thousands, The snoopy persistent US Senate, IRS Investigations , Benghazi EXPOSED (maintaining an UNPROTECTED, understaffed embassy can send a negative signal , in some cases causing more damage than opening no embassy at all) , Obama care LASH BACK, etc.

     

    I’ve Got NO WORRIES AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BECAUSE….

     

    I’ve Got a Pen, and I’ve Got a Phone

     

    AND, I’ve Got the POWER

     

    ———————————————————————————-

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS SO LIBERATING

    EXERTING THE POWER OF “WE THE PEOPLE” COULD BE LIBERATING


  • Part (1) What is a Tax Exempt NGO?

    Why do we have Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the United States?

    According to the U.S. Department of State  2012-01-12

    Fact Sheet: Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the United States

    THE UNITED STATES FIRMLY BELIEVES THAT A ROBUST CIVIL SOCIETY INDEPENDENT OF STATE CONTROL OR GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IS NECESSARY FOR DEMOCRACY TO THRIVE. From the earliest days of U.S. history, civil society organizations have played a key role in protecting human rights, human dignity, and human progress.

    Why bother with a Tax Exempt NGO?

    IF AN NGO WANTS TO RECEIVE EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAXATION FROM THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE NGO APPLIES TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

    ACCORDINGLY, THOSE NGO’S APPLIED  to Lois Lerner IRS Director of Exempt Organizations.

    Accordingly, U.S. regulations that impact civil society organizations are designed to facilitate and support—not to discourage—the formation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

    U.S. REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID MAKING JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE VALUE OR WORK OF ANY GIVEN NGO.

    THIS APPROACH REMOVES THE RISK THAT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL MIGHT ABUSE HIS OR HER POWER IN DETERMINING WHICH ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXIST OR NOT.

    IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS DO NOT JUDGE THE VALUE OF AN ORGANIZATION’S SPECIFIC ACTIVITY OR MISSION IN DETERMINING THAT THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    Did you know the IRS sifted through the tax applications of Americans and looked for key words?  TEA PARTY, CHRISTIAN AND PATRIOT.

    DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO IDENTIFY AND MAKE JUDGMENT ON THE VALUE OR WORK OF A GIVEN NGO.

    Once it identified these groups, the IRS made unconstitutional and abusive inquiries, telling these law-abiding citizens they must answer “upon penalty of perjury.”

    IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID MAKING JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE VALUE OR WORK OF ANY GIVEN NGO.

    THIS APPROACH REMOVES THE RISK THAT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL MIGHT ABUSE HIS OR HER POWER IN DETERMINING WHICH ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXIST OR NOT.

    LOIS LERNER AND THE IRS BECAME The judge? The Jury? and the stay of execution? of approval of Tax Exempt Organizations?

    And, they have asked Lois Lerner, she took the 5th and is now in contempt of congress.

    About the good NGO? The bad NGO? and the ugly IRS?

    Lerner, former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations was an active participant in targeting of conservative groups by the IRS

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    Capitol Hill in Washington on June 23, 2014., The head of the IRS, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner John Koskinen, brushed aside accusations Monday that the agency has obstructed investigations into the targeting of tea party and other political groups, even as Republican lawmakers questioned his credibility.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-chief-says-no-obstruction-of-congress-in-probe/

    —————————————————————

    THE PRESIDENTS HAND- PICKED MAN TO RESTORE TRUST AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE IRS?

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner John Koskinen appears before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on “IRS Obstruction: Lois Lerner’s Missing E-Mails, Part I” on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 23, 2014.

    “I subpoenaed you here tonight because, frankly, I’m sick and tired of your game-playing in response to congressional oversight,” Issa told Koskinen. “You, commissioner, are the president’s hand-picked man to restore trust and accountability at the IRS. You testified under oath in March that you would produce all of Lois Lerner’s emails subpoenaed by this committee.”

    ———————————————————————————————–

    FRANKLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THE IRS GAME PLAYING

    The consensus is: it’s no accident. More than three-quarters of voters — 76 percent –– think the emails missing from the account of Lois Lerner, the ex-IRS official at the center of the scandal over targeting of conservative groups, were deliberately destroyed.

    That suspicion is shared across party lines, albeit to varying degrees. An overwhelming 90 percent of Republicans think the emails were intentionally destroyed, as do 74 percent of independents and 63 percent of Democrats.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/25/poll-76-percent-of-americans-believe-lost-irs-emails-were-deliberatly-destroyed-n1855482

    ————————————————————————–

    Why bother with TAX-EXEMPT STATUS?

    —————————-

    FACT SHEET: NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS) IN THE UNITED STATES

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 2012-01-12 (complete text)

    http://www.humanrights.gov/2012/01/12/fact-sheet-non-governmental-organizations-ngos-in-the-united-states/

    The United States firmly believes that a robust civil society—independent of state control or government involvement—is necessary for democracy to thrive. From the earliest days of U.S. history, civil society organizations have played a key role in protecting human rights, human dignity, and human progress. As Secretary Clinton has said, “civil society not only helped create our nation, it helped sustain and power our nation into the future.”

    Civil society in the United States encompasses a broad range of organizations that allow individuals to achieve their social, economic, and political aspirations through organizing themselves unhindered, according to their own interests, needs, and priorities. We are committed to the idea that the public interest is served best when private citizens and members of civil society are able to choose the aims, organizations, and causes they support.

    Accordingly, U.S. regulations that impact civil society organizations are designed to facilitate and support—not to discourage—the formation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). U.S. regulations are designed specifically to avoid making judgments about the value or work of any given NGO. U.S. and international NGOs represent virtually every conceivable ideology, political cause, religion, social issue, and interest group. Some are deeply engaged in the political process; others are nonpartisan, operate far from the political process, and are involved only in social issues.

    The following overview explains how NGOs operate in the United States, and how they are regulated.

    What is Civil Society?

    Civil society includes many forms of social organizations formed voluntarily by citizens to advance shared goals or interests. This includes independent public policy research organizations, advocacy organizations, organizations that defend human rights and promote democracy, humanitarian organizations, private foundations and funds, charitable trusts, societies, associations and non-profit corporations. It does not include political parties.

    Areas of Activity for NGOs in the United States

    Approximately 1.5 million NGOs operate in the United States. These NGOs undertake a wide array of activities, including political advocacy on issues such as foreign policy, elections, the environment, healthcare, women’s rights, economic development, and many other issues. Many NGOs in the United States also operate in fields that are not related to politics. These include volunteer organizations rooted in shared religious faith, labor unions, groups that help vulnerable people such as the poor or mentally ill, and groups that seek to empower youth or marginalized populations. Indeed, NGOs exist to represent virtually every cause imaginable. Their sources of finance include donations from private individuals (American or foreign), private sector for-profit companies, philanthropic foundations, or grants from federal, state, or local government. Sources of finance may also include foreign governments. There is no prohibition in U.S. law on foreign funding of NGOs, whether that foreign funding comes from governments or non-government sources.

    Legal Framework for NGOs in the United States

    Starting an NGO

    In general, any group of individuals may come together to form an informal organization in order to jointly discuss ideas or common interests, and they can do so without any government involvement or approval. If a group seeks particular legal benefits, such as exemption from federal and state taxation, it may choose to formally incorporate and register as an NGO under the laws of any of the 50 U.S. states.[1] Individuals do not need to be U.S. citizens to create a new NGO.

    Registration requirements, and forms of organization, vary from state to state, but are generally very simple, so that anyone can incorporate an NGO in just a few days at the state level. The process typically involves providing a short description of the organization, its mission, name, the address of an agent within the state, and paying a modest fee. Most states have a general incorporation statute that makes this process a routine matter, not subject to approval by the legislature or any other government official. THIS APPROACH REMOVES THE RISK THAT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL MIGHT ABUSE HIS OR HER POWER IN DETERMINING WHICH ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXIST OR NOT. In several states, certain NGOs formed for religious, educational and other charitable purposes must also register with a state charity official charged with protecting charitable assets and regulating the charitable solicitation of funds from the public.

    Tax-exempt Status

    Many NGOs in the United States are qualified as exempt from state and federal taxes. This legal status makes it easier for NGOs to operate as nonprofit organizations because they do not have to pay tax on the income (funding) they receive. IF AN NGO WANTS TO RECEIVE EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAXATION FROM THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE NGO APPLIES TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. There are many types of NGOs listed in the Internal Revenue Code that are eligible for tax-exempt status, and the type of benefits available depends on the type of NGO and the type of activities conducted. In general, NGOs organized exclusively for educational, religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary purposes, and certain sports, that are non-profit and do not play a partisan political role (e.g., by supporting candidates for election or attempting to influence legislation), can apply to receive exemption from federal income taxation on all income related to these purposes.

    NGOs organized for political purposes receive limited tax exemption only for income received from contributions solicited from the general public, membership dues, or fundraising events. State governments often use the same standards for applying state income tax laws. Organizations seeking exemption from state taxes generally must file applications for exemption with the state tax authorities.

    Another feature of tax-exempt status is that contributions to some of these organizations may be tax deductible for the donor. This provides an important incentive for citizens and corporations to donate funds to these groups.

    It is important to note that the federal and state governments do not judge the value of an organization’s specific activity or mission in determining that these organizations are eligible for tax-exempt status. The U.S. government generally does not seek to influence an organization’s mission, determine how an NGO is structured, approve who runs it or serves on its board, or direct its financial management. Instead, U.S. law generally regulates organizations by requiring regular public disclosure – through filing of information returns with the government – of an organization’s funding, activities, and leadership. The regulations do not allow government officials to revoke permission to operate or tax-exempt status based on judgments about the merits of an organization’s mission, activities, budget, or leadership.

    Freedom of Expression and Association in the United States

    There is generally very little restriction on the freedoms of expression and association of NGOs under U.S. law. Although NGOs engaged in political activities may not qualify for the most preferential tax-exempt status, the U.S. government thus does not prevent NGOs from undertaking advocacy for political issues or criticizing the government. The U.S. constitution provides for robust protections for freedom of expression, and leaves open space for debate that is necessary in democratic societies, including protecting ideas that offend, shock, or disturb.

    The United States has many laws and regulations on issues including immigration and visas, campaign finance and lobbying, terrorism financing, and money-laundering that may affect NGOs. However, these laws are applicable to everyone and to all organizations, not exclusively NGOs.[2]

    Foreign NGOs in the United States

    The United States hosts many foreign NGOs that do important and valuable work in our country. Foreign NGOs can register in the U.S. by filing a simple form as a non-profit entity. Some operate as non-partisan foundations, while others are affiliated with foreign political parties and operate as think tanks and liaisons to U.S. organizations concerned with foreign policy. These foundations organize programs for their respective politicians when they come to the United States, and organize conferences, youth exchanges, and fellowships/scholarships. They also provide funding to and conduct joint projects with American NGOs. Funded entirely by foreign governments, these foreign party institutes do not have special restrictions on their activities in the United States, can conduct meetings and publish materials freely, and are not required to provide reports to other U.S. federal government agencies, provided they register and file tax returns according to the requirements described below.