Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!caip!ut-sally!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.legal,net.taxes Subject: Re: IRS (was: bad signatures on checks) (leaking Congresscritters' tax returns) Message-ID: <931@kontron.UUCP> Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 12:45:36 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.931 Posted: Mon Jul 21 12:45:36 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jul-86 01:13:03 EDT References: <1344@felix.UUCP> <5774@alice.uUCp> <1287@lsuc.UUCP> <918@kontron.UUCP> <1294@lsuc.UUCP> <927@kontron.UUCP> <1070@ttrdc.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA Lines: 118 Xref: mnetor net.consumers:3824 net.legal:2616 net.taxes:500 > 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? Orwellian. Remember the "memory hole"? > 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 Both. > 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. > You asked for it: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Book barred from publishing judicial opinion New York Times Service WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department has obtained a highly unusual temporary order from a federal appeals court barring a law book company from publishing an opinion by a federal district judge in Colorado that was critical of the department. Glenn L. Archer Jr., the head of the department's tax division, said in an interview that the prior restraint on publication was necessary because the "slanderous" judicial opinion unfairly charged three of his prosecutors with misconduct in a grand jury investigation in Denver into suspected tax fraud. Lawyers involved in the case and other legal experts said they knew of no previous instance in which a private publisher had been barred, on pain of contempt of court, from publishing a judicial opinion. It is not unusual, on the other hand, for courts to designate certain of their own opinions as having no precedential value and thus unsuited for publication, or for law book companies to refrain voluntarily from publishing those opinions. James C. Goodale, a New York lawyer who has represented news organizations in First Amendment cases, said in an interview that the order could not "have withstood the mildest breeze from the First Amendment" and was "frightening" in its implications. "If legal opinions can be as easily enjoined as this, any kind of publication would be fair game for court injunction," Goodale said. The brief censorship order was issued Jan. 3 by Judges William J. Holloway Jr. and Stephanie K. Seymour of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and Federal District Judge Luther L. Bohannon, who was sitting specially on the appellate court. The court has its headquarters at Denver, but these three judges sit in Oklahoma. The order required the West Publishing Co. of St. Paul, Minn., "to delay temporarily" publishing the Aug. 25 opinion by Federal District Judge Fred M. Winner of Denver in the permanent bound volumes of West's series, Federal Supplement, pending further consideration of the matter by the appellate court. The order is still in effect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The article appeared in the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, sometime in 1983 or 1984. Note that it is a wire service story -- should be readily locatable. > 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. > Even a simon-pure tax record can appear embarrassing -- especially if you leak information selectively. > > > >Newspaper articles NEVER tell you the section number under which someone > >is charged. > > > > Maybe that is an example of Big-Botherism :-). > No. It's usually not relevant. > >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 Clayton E. Cramer