IRS Sued for improperly seizing medical records of 10 mill Americans

[koshergrl]

Does anyone remember when we, those who opposed Obama as a tyrant and a marxist, and who maintained that the health mandate would essentially extend the powers of the IRS to allow them to not only monitor our taxes, but over our health, our jobs, and pretty much all aspects of our lives?

I remember it. And I remember the leftist loons calling us paranoid, crazy, extremist, and on and on...

"

“[E]ven though defendants knew that the records they were seizing were not included within the scope of the search warrant, the defendants nonetheless searched and seized the records without making any attempt to segregate the files from those that could possibly be related to the search warrant,” it adds. “In fact, no effort was made at all to even try maintaining the illusion of legitimacy and legality.”

The complaint, as quoted by Courthouse News, further alleges that the agents used the company’s facilities to watch basketball, order pizza and Coca Cola “illustrating their complete disregard of the court’s order and the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/i...ecords-of-10-million-americans/#ixzz2TUQo9BkP​

"

 

[yidnar]

Obumer care !!! Obama has been exposed !! it's over !! and for all you commie libbs that want to defend him ......you are pathetic !!bwaaa haaa haaa haaa !!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Tis those who choose ignorance, shall live in ignorance. Those who avail themselves of reality will make known the fictitious lives they lead.



"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Mahatma Gandhi

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"John Doe Company"?

Since the lawyer hasn't even released the name of his clients yet, I think I'll wait till more information comes out about this before forming an opinion.

 

[koshergrl]

That's because you're a leftist scumbag.

 

[koshergrl]

Keep covering for those good old boys:

"IRS’s rationale for scrutinizing tea partiers debunked by nonprofit application data..."

Oops: IRS?s rationale for scrutinizing tea partiers debunked by nonprofit application data « Hot Air

" "But between 2010 and 2012 we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012. So we saw a big increase in these kind of applications, many of which indicated that they were going to be involved in advocacy work." (Lois Lerner)

"That kinda sorta made sense the day she said it, because at the time we thought the IRS hadn’t started scrutinizing tea partiers until 2012. Then we found out they were doing it in 2011, and then we found out they were doing it in 2010. The further back you push the timeline, the less coherent the “big application surge between 2010 and 2012″ defense becomes."

"The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration…" http://philanthropy.com/article/IRS-Rationale-for-Tea-Party/139277/

 

[TemplarKormac]

"John Doe Company"?

Since the lawyer hasn't even released the name of his clients yet, I think I'll wait till more information comes out about this before forming an opinion.

Might it occur to you that this company would rather remain anonymous? You know, to prevent reprisals from the government, say a lien or a garnishment out of thin air?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's because you're a leftist scumbag.

Of course that's it.


It's my fault that you got so excited by the headline of your story that you didn't bother to check it out.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"John Doe Company"?

Since the lawyer hasn't even released the name of his clients yet, I think I'll wait till more information comes out about this before forming an opinion.

Might it occur to you that this company would rather remain anonymous? You know, to prevent reprisals from the government, say a lien or a garnishment out of thin air?

This is from the Daily Caller's source article:

Plaintiff's attorney Robert E. Barnes declined to elaborate on the complaint's allegations, saying he will have more information "in a few months."
"I had to file to protect against the statute of limitations being an issue, but am still investigating all facts," Barnes told Courthouse News in an email.

Courthouse News Service

So, the attorney for the plaintiff is still "investigating all the facts". Do you know more than the lawyer bringing the suit does?

 

[koshergrl]

That's because you're a leftist scumbag.

Of course that's it.


It's my fault that you got so excited by the headline of your story that you didn't bother to check it out.

I have a very, very good hunch about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"John Doe Company"?

Since the lawyer hasn't even released the name of his clients yet, I think I'll wait till more information comes out about this before forming an opinion.

Might it occur to you that this company would rather remain anonymous? You know, to prevent reprisals from the government, say a lien or a garnishment out of thin air?

This is from the Daily Caller's source article:

Plaintiff's attorney Robert E. Barnes declined to elaborate on the complaint's allegations, saying he will have more information "in a few months."
"I had to file to protect against the statute of limitations being an issue, but am still investigating all facts," Barnes told Courthouse News in an email.

Courthouse News Service

So, the attorney for the plaintiff is still "investigating all the facts". Do you know more than the lawyer bringing the suit does?

Since I'm studying to be a Paralegal, I have more of a gist yes. You don't simply "file to protect against the statute of limitations being an issue." Anonymity can be used to protect against reprisals from accused parties, namely the Government in this case. I know, I'm guiding a friend of mine in a in drawing up a suit in Wisconsin, for which I will not go into detail about.

 

[tooAlive]

"John Doe Company"?

Since the lawyer hasn't even released the name of his clients yet, I think I'll wait till more information comes out about this before forming an opinion.

When the chief of the IRS was fired immediately after word got out of their last scandal, this one doesn't seem too hard to believe.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Might it occur to you that this company would rather remain anonymous? You know, to prevent reprisals from the government, say a lien or a garnishment out of thin air?

This is from the Daily Caller's source article:

Plaintiff's attorney Robert E. Barnes declined to elaborate on the complaint's allegations, saying he will have more information "in a few months."
"I had to file to protect against the statute of limitations being an issue, but am still investigating all facts," Barnes told Courthouse News in an email.

Courthouse News Service

So, the attorney for the plaintiff is still "investigating all the facts". Do you know more than the lawyer bringing the suit does?

Since I'm studying to be a Paralegal, I have more of a gist yes. You don't simply "file to protect against the statute of limitations being an issue" anonymity can be used to protect against reprisals from accused parties, namely the Government in this case. I know, I'm guiding a friend of mine in a in drawing up a suit in Wisconsin, for which I will not go into detail about.

I understand why a company would sue anonymously, that's not my point.

Robert Barnes is a high-profile tax lawyer - he's the guy who defended Wesley Snipes.

He's a "court of public opinion" sort of lawyer, and he's trying to get you guys all outraged in advance of actually having to prove anything.

My point is that I'm going to chose to wait for any actual facts.

 

[koshergrl]

And the suit has been filed.

So the headline is perfectly accurate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"John Doe Company"?

Since the lawyer hasn't even released the name of his clients yet, I think I'll wait till more information comes out about this before forming an opinion.

When the chief of the IRS was fired immediately after word got out of their last scandal, this one doesn't seem too hard to believe.

This is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.

It feels true, so it must be.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, lefties always make it personal. There can't be a crime, because they don't like the victim. That sort of thing.

There can't be a crime, because the people who are doing it are cool.

There can't be a crime, because they believe some sort of smear about someone involved.

Heard it all before. Nothing to see here, folks, nobody gives a shit about these people, don't worry your pretty little heads...

 

[koshergrl]

"John Doe Company"?

Since the lawyer hasn't even released the name of his clients yet, I think I'll wait till more information comes out about this before forming an opinion.

When the chief of the IRS was fired immediately after word got out of their last scandal, this one doesn't seem too hard to believe.

This is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.

It feels true, so it must be.

Says the guy who questions it because the attorney represented Wesley Snipes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is from the Daily Caller's source article:



Courthouse News Service

So, the attorney for the plaintiff is still "investigating all the facts". Do you know more than the lawyer bringing the suit does?

Since I'm studying to be a Paralegal, I have more of a gist yes. You don't simply "file to protect against the statute of limitations being an issue" anonymity can be used to protect against reprisals from accused parties, namely the Government in this case. I know, I'm guiding a friend of mine in a in drawing up a suit in Wisconsin, for which I will not go into detail about.

I understand why a company would sue anonymously, that's not my point.

Robert Barnes is a high-profile tax lawyer - he's the guy who defended Wesley Snipes.

He's a "court of public opinion" sort of lawyer, and he's trying to get you guys all outraged in advance of actually having to prove anything.

My point is that I'm going to chose to wait for any actual facts.

Oh wow, do a little more research before you level those kinds of accusations. Saying that "he defended Wesley Snipes" suggests you have a bit of confirmation bias of your own. It's pretty admirable when you can get someone acquitted of tax fraud. All Snipes had to do was pay all the taxes he owed after the ruling.

At any rate.

IRS Agents Sued in Health Records Case - DataBreachToday

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When the chief of the IRS was fired immediately after word got out of their last scandal, this one doesn't seem too hard to believe.

This is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.

It feels true, so it must be.

Says the guy who questions it because the attorney represented Wesley Snipes.

The lawyer involved has nothing to do with why I'm "questioning" it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Since I'm studying to be a Paralegal, I have more of a gist yes. You don't simply "file to protect against the statute of limitations being an issue" anonymity can be used to protect against reprisals from accused parties, namely the Government in this case. I know, I'm guiding a friend of mine in a in drawing up a suit in Wisconsin, for which I will not go into detail about.

I understand why a company would sue anonymously, that's not my point.

Robert Barnes is a high-profile tax lawyer - he's the guy who defended Wesley Snipes.

He's a "court of public opinion" sort of lawyer, and he's trying to get you guys all outraged in advance of actually having to prove anything.

My point is that I'm going to chose to wait for any actual facts.

Oh wow, do a little more research before you level those kinds of accusations.

IRS Agents Sued in Health Records Case - DataBreachToday

"Accusations"? What are you talking about?

I'm not "accusing" Barnes of doing anything other than his job.