Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Sunday, January 21, 2024

News bit 'n chunk: Clarence Thomas investigation??; Tax data leaker gets whacked


From the Snowball’s Chance Files: Raw Story reports:
“Highly unusual”: Body that governs federal courts 
hints at Clarence Thomas investigation

At the behest of an anti-corruption watchdog group, the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS) has issued a report suggesting that it may be conducting a rare investigation into Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

Earlier this week, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) issued an update on its request to the JCUS to publish its Report of the Proceedings from its September 2023 meeting, arguing that “public interest” necessitated information on efforts to have Justice Thomas referred to the Department of Justice for alleged violations of financial disclosure laws. The JCUS’ report only said there was an “ongoing review of public written allegations of errors or omissions in a filer’s financial disclosure reports,” but the CLC viewed that as a significant development.  
Even though the JCUS — whose membership consists of the chief justice of each federal circuit court, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade and a US district judge from each circuit — is charged with regulating judicial ethics, it’s unable to impeach judges or remove them from the bench. However, it does have the power to refer judges to the DOJ for investigation that can potentially lead to civil penalties.
The statistical analysis division of my minions have analyzed this matter upon my polite request (at gunpoint). The supercomputer worked the equations. It barfed up a result indicating that that any meaningful action against Thomas The Corrupt Grifter and Fibbing Liar from CLC, JCUS and/or the DoJ is in the Snowball’s Chance in Hell category, i.e., less than 0.1%.


________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________


DOJ: Ex-IRS employee who leaked Trump's tax returns 
intentionally got job to disclose records

A former Internal Revenue Service contractor, who leaked tax information about Donald Trump and other wealthy individuals to news organizations, got his job to intentionally to spread the confidential records, according to Justice Department prosecutors.

Charles Edward Littlejohn, 38, of Washington, pleaded guilty in October to unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information. U.S. District Judge Ana Reye scheduled sentencing for Jan. 29. Prosecutors recommended Tuesday he receive the maximum sentence of five years in prison.

Littlejohn evaded IRS protocols to detect and prevent large downloads from government computers and then saved the tax returns on multiple devices, including an iPod, according to court records. He also obstructed the investigation by deleting and destroying evidence of his disclosures, according to court records.

ProPublica reported in 2021 on a trove of tax-return data about the wealthiest Americans. It found the 25 richest people legally pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than many ordinary workers do.

“And the human impact of Defendant's crimes is enormous,” prosecutors wrote. “Many victims have come forward, expressing anger and embarrassment about the exposure of their personal financial information. Worse, it appears that the harm may continue indefinitely” because stories continue to be published.
According to the IRS, on April 5, 1870, IRS Commissioner Delano forbade tax assessors from furnishing lists of taxpayers for publication. On July 14, 1870, Congress passed a revenue act stating, “no collector … shall permit to be published in any manner such income returns or any part thereof, except such general statistics …” Thus, up until 1870, tax returns were public records.

Some history according to Professor Pomp (his real name) about the the debate and law surrounding public access to individual tax returns: 
To fund the Civil War, the Revenue Act of 1862 imposed an income tax on individuals. At a time which predated reliable mail, the public was notified of their tax liabilities through newspaper advertisements.

In 1870, when the income tax had become unpopular, Congress prohibited the publication of tax returns. Public disclosure was revisited in 1913; by 1918 the public was permitted to view lists of individual taxpayers, though this information was not allowed to be published.

Fueled by corruption concerns, the Revenue Act of 1924 required the disclosure of names, addresses, and tax liabilities. The New York Times published the taxes paid by thousands of persons. In 1926, however, the law was changed due to privacy concerns and the failure of the disclosures to uncover tax evasion. Only the taxpayer’s name and address, but not their tax liability, could be published.

A resurgence in favor of disclosure emerged in 1934, during the Great Depression. The tax liability (as well as name, address, gross income, deductions, net income, and credits) of taxpayers was made public in an attempt to deter tax evasion. But critics of this approach, concerned that compromised taxpayers would be targeted by criminals and con artists, managed to repeal the law.

The law remained unchanged until, in the aftermath of Watergate, Congress enacted IRC section 6103.

Qs: So, is Littlejohn a patriotic hero or a socialist scumbag? Should tax returns once again be made public records, at least for people having a net worth of, say, $10 million?

What!!?? That incompetent 
jackass makes how much??


PS: On some reflection, I vote for making tax returns public once again, just to kill off some of the rot.

No comments:

Post a Comment