Subject: APPEALS Court SLAMS IRS & TREASURY DEPT.
Three "little mice" got their wishes against J.W.!! YEA! More favored ULS
------------------------------
From: vjohnson
From: "Judicial Watch" <info@judicialwatch.org>
MAJOR JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY!
APPEALS COURT SLAMS IRS AND TREASURY DEPARTMENT
Landmark Freedom of Information Act Ruling Chides Government for Wrongly* Withholding Documents
Criminal Conflict-of-Interest Investigation Goes Forward (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that it won a major victory when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in the matter of Judicial Watch v. Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service and Department of Treasury (No.01-CV-01612).
Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests with thenternal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury(Treasury) on June 6, 2001, seeking information about former Clinton IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti's relationship with American Management Systems, Inc., a company Rossotti founded and in which he held stock; the company's contracts with the IRS; and Rossotti's receipt of a controversial, conflict-of-interest waiver from the Treasury. Judicial Watch was forced to file a lawsuit when the IRS and Treasury failed to produce documents pursuant to FOIA laws. In an attempt to not abide by FOIA laws, the IRS and Treasury argued that greater specificity was required in Judicial Watch's document requests. Judge Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, as was former IRS Commissioner Rossotti, ruled in their favor.
Judicial Watch appealed the District Court ruling, and was vindicated by the three-judge Appeals Court panel of Justices Sentelle, Henderson and Tatel, when they wrote in their opinion that: "We cannot imagine what else Judicial Watch could have said to satisfy the government's appetite for specificity." The justices also agreed with Judicial Watch's "public interest" role in its request, asking: "What could be more important to the public's understanding of IRS operations than knowing whether its commissioner awarded a contract to a company he co-founded and in which he held stock?"
The Court also added that: "At oral argument, counsel for Judicial Watch [Larry Klayman] asserted that the government's response to its waiver request amounted to just the sort of 'roadblock and technicality' that led Congress to liberalize the fee waiver provision. 132 Cong. Rec. 31,415(1986) (Sen. Leahy).
We cannot disagree."
ICE - Investigating Curious Evidence
E-mail: ice@iresist.com