Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!gatech!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.legal,net.taxes Subject: Re: IRS (was: bad signatures on checks) (leaking Congresscritters' tax returns) Message-ID: <1070@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 19-Jul-86 17:40:28 EDT Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1070 Posted: Sat Jul 19 17:40:28 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jul-86 07:41:57 EDT References: <1344@felix.UUCP> <5774@alice.uUCp> <1287@lsuc.UUCP> <918@kontron.UUCP> <1294@lsuc.UUCP> <927@kontron.UUCP> Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 49 Xref: utcs net.consumers:5683 net.legal:4053 net.taxes:1172 In article <927@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >There's a long history of IRS "leaking" tax returns of Congressmen >who start investigations into their practices -- they usually lose >the next election. If you are truly interested, mail to me, and >I will send you the text of a newspaper article reporting how IRS >obtained a prior restraint order prohibiting a legal publishing >house from publishing a judge's opinion which criticized the conduct >of Justice Department Tax Division lawyers in a tax fraud case. >No more articles have appeared anywhere I look about it, and law >students I no who have tried to locate the citation can't find it. >1984? Maybe. Is this referring to the Orwellian 1984 or the historical 1984? Also what citation is being looked for: the citation of the judge's opinion which supposedly criticized the tax lawyers, or the citation of the prior restraint order? Go ahead and please type in the article for all of us (name the newspaper and date, too, so that interested parties can write or call direct to the newspaper). This news group is well asbestos- lined and can stand the flames :-). Let's put our efforts where our mouths are; the people are the only safeguard against ANY government's misdeeds. While the allegation about IRS exposing the tax returns of Congresscritters which seek to defang the IRS smacks (the exposing) of foul play, it also seems to me that if a Congresscritter managed his/her financial affairs totally honorably and meticulously (is that congenitally impossible for a Congresscritter :-)?) that an exposed tax return or even the most intensive of audits would provide el zippo (zilch, none) ammunition for the IRS, and that any despicable behavior on the part of the IRS would provide that much more ammunition for the Congresscritter's case. Surely if the IRS is that naughty, there MUST be someone somewhere with a simon-pure tax record who would be willing to make that sacrifice as a member of Congress in order to correct those alleged KGB-like IRS abuses. > >Newspaper articles NEVER tell you the section number under which someone >is charged. > Maybe that is an example of Big-Botherism :-). >Clayton E. Cramer -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, go for it! allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy