Feds won't purse contempt charges against Lerner for not testifying before House

The Justice Department has declined to pursue contempt of Congress charges against Lois Lerner for refusing to testify about her role at the IRS in the targeting of conservative groups.

The department announced the decision in a letter Tuesday to House Speaker John Boehner, whose Republican-controlled chamber made the request to prosecute, after holding Lerner in contempt for refusing to testify at committee hearings.

"Once again, the Obama administration has tried to sweep IRS targeting of taxpayers for their political beliefs under the rug, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told FoxNews.com.

Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege, which allows people to not testify against themselves, during a May 2013 hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and then again at a March 2014 hearing.

However, House Republicans argued Lerner waived the privilege with an opening statement she made before the committee in the May 2013 appearance. All the chambers Republican members and six Democrats officially voted in May 2014 to hold Lerner in contempt.

Ron Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said in the seven-page letter that federal prosecutors concluded Lerner did not waive her privilege because she made only general claims of innocence during the opening statement.

Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense should be prosecuted for her refusal to testify, wrote Machen, who was appointed to the U.S. attorney post by President Obama and left for private practice Wednesday, one day after sending the letter.

He also said he will not refer the case to a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute.

Lerner ran the IRSs exempt organizations unit when Tea Party and other nonprofit groups with conservative names applying for tax-exempt status were targeted for additional auditing from April 2010 to April 2012.

She was placed on administrative leave in May 2013 and retired four months later.

Read the original:

Feds won't purse contempt charges against Lerner for not testifying before House

Justice Dept.: No contempt charges for Lois Lerner

SAM HANANEL, Associated Press 5:33 p.m. EDT April 1, 2015

Lois Lerner, ex-director of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division at the IRS, declines to answer questions from Rep. Darrell Issa.(Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (AP) The Justice Department won't seek criminal contempt charges against Lois Lerner, the former IRS official at the center of a controversy over how the agency treated conservative political groups.

Ronald Machen, the outgoing U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, announced the decision in a March 31 letter to House Speaker John Boehner that was made public on Wednesday.

The GOP-controlled House had referred the case to federal prosecutors after lawmakers voted last year to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress for her refusal to testify before a pair of committee hearings.

Lerner directed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. She set off a political firestorm in 2013 when she disclosed that agents had improperly singled out applications from tea party and other conservative groups for extra, sometimes burdensome scrutiny.

An inspector general's report found no evidence of a political conspiracy, instead blaming poor management at the agency. But many Republicans in Congress remain skeptical.

Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions at a hearing before the House Oversight Committee. But House Republicans claim she waived her constitutional right by delivering an opening statement in which she declared her innocence.

In his letter, Machen said a team of "experienced career prosecutors" determined that Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights by making "general claims of innocence."

Machen, whose last day in office was Wednesday, said prosecutors concluded that it would not be appropriate to send contempt charges to a grand jury because the Constitution protects her.

Read the original here:

Justice Dept.: No contempt charges for Lois Lerner

DOJ: No contempt charges for former IRS official Lerner

AP Photo

She is still under investigation for a separate tea party targeting matter.

By John Bresnahan and Rachael Bade

4/1/15 2:16 PM EDT

Updated 4/1/15 5:09 PM EDT

The Justice Department will not seek criminal contempt charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner, the central figure in a scandal that erupted over whether the tax agency improperly targeted conservative political groups.

Ronald Machen, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a seven-page letter this week that he would not bring a criminal case to a grand jury over Lerners refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. The House approved a criminal contempt resolution against Lerner in May 2014, and Machens office has been reviewing the issue since then.

Story Continued Below

Lerner and other IRS officials, however, are still under investigation by the FBI for the tea party targeting matter which is a separate probe entirely.

Lerner cited her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself during congressional testimony on March 5, 2014, although then-Oversight Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said she had waived that right by giving an opening statement at a hearing 10 months earlier when she asserted her innocence. Issa wanted her charged by the Justice Department with criminal contempt of Congress for failing to answer questions about her role in the scandal.

Link:

DOJ: No contempt charges for former IRS official Lerner

Feds won't pursue contempt charges against Lerner for not testifying before House – VIDEO: DOJ: No contempt charges …

The Justice Department has declined to pursue contempt of Congress charges against Lois Lerner for refusing to testify about her role at the IRS in the targeting of conservative groups.

The department announced the decision in a letter Tuesday to House Speaker John Boehner, whose Republican-controlled chamber made the request to prosecute, after holding Lerner in contempt for refusing to testify at committee hearings.

"Once again, the Obama administration has tried to sweep IRS targeting of taxpayers for their political beliefs under the rug, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told FoxNews.com.

Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege, which allows people to not testify against themselves, during a May 2013 hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and then again at a March 2014 hearing.

However, House Republicans argued Lerner waived the privilege with an opening statement she made before the committee in the May 2013 appearance. All the chambers Republican members and six Democrats officially voted in May 2014 to hold Lerner in contempt.

Ron Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said in the seven-page letter that federal prosecutors concluded Lerner did not waive her privilege because she made only general claims of innocence during the opening statement.

Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense should be prosecuted for her refusal to testify, wrote Machen, who was appointed to the U.S. attorney post by President Obama and left for private practice Wednesday, one day after sending the letter.

He also said he will not refer the case to a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute.

Lerner ran the IRSs exempt organizations unit when Tea Party and other nonprofit groups with conservative names applying for tax-exempt status were targeted for additional auditing from April 2010 to April 2012.

She was placed on administrative leave in May 2013 and retired four months later.

Excerpt from:

Feds won't pursue contempt charges against Lerner for not testifying before House - VIDEO: DOJ: No contempt charges ...

Second Amendment : Pictures , Videos, Breaking News

The approach suggested here initially may seem counter-intuitive: to help college women, we need to help college men.

Karen Gross

Former President, Southern Vermont College; Former Senior Policy Advisor, US Dept. ED

America doesn't care that having armed security guards at school doesn't do a single thing to make me feel safe in a place where I'm supposed to walk into a classroom ready to learn.

Isabel Song

18-year-old high school senior in Colorado Springs

Gun people cannot have it both ways -- stifling data collection and data disclosure concerning firearms use, while at the same time grandstanding about demographic trends in gun ownership based purely on anecdote and speculation.

The real challenge in social media is not reaching the folks who are already committed to what you believe; it's reaching the folks who can become committed because they like the way you say it, and this video says it better than it's ever been said.

Continue reading here:

Second Amendment : Pictures , Videos, Breaking News

District Drops Appeal Of SAF Concealed Carry Victory

BELLEVUE, Wash., April 2, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation will continue fighting the District of Columbia's new concealed carry law, while notching a small victory with today's decision by the city to drop its appeal of SAF's victory in the Palmer case that forced the city to adopt a carry permitting structure.

"While we're happy to see the city drop their appeal of our earlier victory," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "we were eager to face them in court, as there was no possible way they could have successfully argued in favor of continuing an outright ban on carry in the District.

"This is one more criticalSecond Amendment Foundation victory for gun rights," he added. "But we will continue to keep suing the city of Washington, D.C.over their new carry law that is still an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment rights."

Under the District's newly-adopted law, permit applicants must still provide a good reason for carrying a protective firearm outside the home, and the police chief gets to decide whether that reason is valid. So far, only a handful of applicants have been approved, and Gottlieb said that shows a fundamental flaw in such a discretionary permitting scheme.

"No public official should enjoy that kind of sway over a citizen's right to bear arms," Gottlieb stated. "It creates a manifestly unfair system that is wide open to abuse and favoritism, as we've seen in New York, California and elsewhere that insiders and elitists can get permits, but average citizens are routinely given second-class consideration, or no consideration at all."

This is not the end of the Palmer case, however. SAF still has outstanding enforcement motions pending before U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., who handed down the initial Palmer ruling. His rulings on those motions could produce further appeals, SAF attorney Alan Gura explained. SAF has already filed a lawsuit challenging the District's current highly-restrictive "good reason" requirement.

"Our intent is to continue our battle for the right to bear arms on behalf of all the citizens, not just a privileged few," Gottlieb concluded.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

RELATED LINKS http://www.saf.org

The rest is here:

District Drops Appeal Of SAF Concealed Carry Victory

SCLC president suspended after comments regarding 2nd Amendment

ATLANTA (CBS46) -

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference has suspended Georgia President Rev. Sam Mosteller over comments he made at a news conference on Tuesday.

Mosteller said it's time for African-Americans to change how they deal with police.

I am going to advocate at this point that all African-Americans advocate their Second Amendment rights, Mosteller said.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Despite his statement about the Second Amendment, Mosteller said he's not encouraging African-Americans to arm themselves.

I said the Second Amendment right. I didn't say pack weapons, Mosteller said.

Mosteller said the fatal police shooting of Anthony Hill in DeKalb County and Nick Thomas in Cobb County, both of whom were unarmed, is a wake up call.

"When one is killed senselessly, that one is too many," Mostellar said. "These killings are reminiscent of the days of old when African-Americans did not have to provoke an officer to become harmed and be endangered species. Black men -- no matter the age -- are indeed endangered species today, and we must come together with the police community to determine what can be done to stop their violence!"

National SCLC president, Dr. Charles Steele, Jr., issued the following statement. It reads in part:

Visit link:

SCLC president suspended after comments regarding 2nd Amendment

Monkey Cage: Businesses First Amendment rights dont extend to their employees

By Bruce Barry April 2 at 10:45 AM

A lot of ink has been spilled in recent days over Indianas new religious objection law. Some business owners say they need to safeguard First Amendment rights to religious expression, while opponents vilify it as a pretext for discrimination. Rather fewer people pay attention to the rights of business employees to express their beliefs. What happened recently to Shanna Tippen of Pine Bluff, Ark. reminds us that most American workers dont have a right to express themselves without being fired.

Tippen, a minimum wage motel employee at a Days Inn in Pine Bluff, agreed to be interviewed for a Washington Post story in mid-February about Arkansas newly enacted 25-cent minimum wage hike and its effect on the working poor. Tippen shared some details of her challenging household economics with The Posts Chico Harland, and also mentioned that she was one of the many who signed petitions to get the minimum wage hike on the Arkansas ballot last year.

This week brought a dispiriting follow-up story: Tippen called Harlan to share the news that she was fired by the owner of the motel for talking to The Post. Realizing that journalists often run the risk of unintentionally influencing events in a story they cover, Harlan lamented that writing about Tippens plight may have made her situation worse.

[After a story is published, a minimum wage worker loses her job]

Harlan heard a different story from the Days Inns general manager Herry Patel, who claims that Tippen wasnt fired, but instead walked out after a disagreement. However, Patel had also called Tippen stupid for talking to The Post, had told Harlan that he thought the wage hike was bad for Arkansas because everybody wants free money in Pine Bluff, and subsequently threatened Harlan with a lawsuit if the story ran. Even if the general managers story is as he claims it is, the more important point about American law is that he could have fired Tippen for talking to The Post, with no legal repercussions.

Many people assume that First Amendment rights to free expression should insulate them from punishment by their employer for speech off the job that has little or nothing to do with work. In one national survey, 96 percent said firing a worker for expressing political views with which the employer disagrees with is unacceptable. Unfortunately, many workers mistakenly assume that unacceptable equals protection: in that same survey, 80 percent said (incorrectly) that its illegal to fire someone for expressing contrary political views.

The employment-at-will system that dominates labor law in the U.S. lets an employer fire a worker for just about any reason (or no reason) without legal liability. There are several exceptions, most notably bans on discrimination, as well as employment contracts that limit causes for termination. There is also a public policy exceptionwhich suggests that workers should not be subject to a punitive action by an employer that would be an affront to public interest. For example, workers should not be fired for refusing to commit perjury at their employers request or for taking time off for jury duty. It would violate the public interest if employees could be fired for doing these things.

Arkansas is an employment-at-will state, along with every other state except (oddly) Montana. Shanna Tippen, like most American workers is employed at-will, which means that she can be fired for expressing an opinion to a reporter or to a friend or a stranger or a brick wall for that matter. She would have some protectionand possibly a wrongful termination claimif she had a public sector job. In the private sector, however, First Amendment rights for individual workers to keep their jobs dont exist.

The most plausible reason that most Americans disapprove of firing people for their political views and indeed believe that it is illegal is that they think that free expression is in the public interest. Healthy democracy should allow people to engage in politics and say what they like without fearing that they will lose their jobs for saying something that their employer doesnt like. There are a few states where political activity does get some protection from an employers wrath, even in the private sector. California, for instance, bars employers from restricting or controlling workers political activity off the job. A few states have broad-based lifestyle discrimination statutes preventing employers for penalizing workers for anything they do off the job that is legal, as long as it doesnt create a conflict of interest or hamper the employees ability to do the job. Unfortunately, Tippen doesnt live in one of those states, so if she was fired for talking to a reporter about her life on the minimum wage and her views on the law, she has no recourse.

See the article here:

Monkey Cage: Businesses First Amendment rights dont extend to their employees

DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin Law for Developers l James Gatto & Marco Santori, Pillsbury – Video


DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin Law for Developers l James Gatto Marco Santori, Pillsbury
DevCore is a series of workshops set to host around the world for all developers interested in deepening their technical expertise to support the future development of Bitcoin Core. DevCore...

By: Bitcoin Foundation

Continued here:

DevCore Boston 2015 l Bitcoin Law for Developers l James Gatto & Marco Santori, Pillsbury - Video

SoulConfiscator 006 Prophecy Club History of NWO Matrix SciFi Bitcoin Truth Bible Freedom Conspiracy – Video


SoulConfiscator 006 Prophecy Club History of NWO Matrix SciFi Bitcoin Truth Bible Freedom Conspiracy
http://www.twitter.com/VanosEnigmA http://www.facebook.com/VanosEnigma http://www.twitter.com/CryptoEEV Thank you mucho meow for your donation: Bitcoin Address: 1FJ9ZZcnKqhiiYWNhbpBaqy9QQHTBSmsP8 ...

By: VanosEnigmA Enigmaisland

Original post:

SoulConfiscator 006 Prophecy Club History of NWO Matrix SciFi Bitcoin Truth Bible Freedom Conspiracy - Video

Oliver Flaskmper von Bitcoin.de – 2015 Inside Bitcoins Berlin (Interview in german) – Video


Oliver Flaskmper von Bitcoin.de - 2015 Inside Bitcoins Berlin (Interview in german)
Ich habe auf der 2015 Inside Bitcoins Konferenz in Berlin mit Oliver vom Online-Marktplatz bitcoin.de ber die Zusammenarbeit mit der Fidor Bank gesprochen. Get in touch with Anna on Twitter...

By: World Crypto Network

Visit link:

Oliver Flaskmper von Bitcoin.de - 2015 Inside Bitcoins Berlin (Interview in german) - Video

FTC Insider with Morgan Rockwell, CEO of Bitcoin Kinetics: Science, Bitcoin, Government, Tech & More – Video


FTC Insider with Morgan Rockwell, CEO of Bitcoin Kinetics: Science, Bitcoin, Government, Tech More
A conversation exploring new perspectives on Bitcoin, freedom, mushrooms, nature, machines, math, intent, centralization, BitSwitch, Bitpay, Google, artificial intelligence and tech. Like...

By: Follow The Coin

See the article here:

FTC Insider with Morgan Rockwell, CEO of Bitcoin Kinetics: Science, Bitcoin, Government, Tech & More - Video