Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If they were targeting specific groups and abusing their positions then it could be argued they were out of the scope of their position, not sure if that'd be a viable suit... but it's possible.

In the UK you could have a claim for tortuous misfeasance of a public office, or you could sue the person rather than the organisation if they were operating so far outside their remit that vicarious liability would not cover them (i.e. that their employer could not be liable)

The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records," it continued.

 kronk wrote:
Why the hell would the IRS take health records?

Edit: For proving/dis-proving claimed medical expenses on people's taxes, maybe?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Why do UK legal terms sound like punishments doled out in Middle Earth?

 whembly wrote:
Damn... just saw this...

The IRS is getting clobbered:
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/irs-face-lawsuit-over-theft-60-million-patient-health-records

The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records," it continued.

I'm face palming so hard here...

 kronk wrote:
Why the hell would the IRS take health records?

Edit: For proving/dis-proving claimed medical expenses on people's taxes, maybe?

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search.

 Grey Templar wrote:
In the words of Ricky, 'You got some splainin to do"

 whembly wrote:
Damn... just saw this...

The IRS is getting clobbered:
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/irs-face-lawsuit-over-theft-60-million-patient-health-records

The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records," it continued.

I'm face palming so hard here...

 kronk wrote:
Why the hell would the IRS take health records?

Edit: For proving/dis-proving claimed medical expenses on people's taxes, maybe?

 Grey Templar wrote:
This could be the worst government scandal ever, and certainly the one with the biggest real effect.

The director of the Internal Revenue Service division under fire for singling out conservative groups sent a 2012 letter under her name to one such group, POLITICO has learned. The March 2012 letter was sent to the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess (American PAGE) under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division...at the time of the letter, the group was in the midst of the application process for tax-exempt nonprofit status — a process that would stretch for nearly three years and involve queries for detailed information on its social media activity, its organizational set-up, bylaws, membership and interactions with political officials. The letter threatened to close American PAGE’s case file unless additional information was received within 60 days.
.snip.
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't worry. Two employees have been found. I'm sure they did all this-across multiple offices- with no oversight. And I'm sure its not a problem that there was no oversight.

 whembly wrote:
Reportedly, it's not just "low-level employee":

The director of the Internal Revenue Service division under fire for singling out conservative groups sent a 2012 letter under her name to one such group, POLITICO has learned. The March 2012 letter was sent to the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess (American PAGE) under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division...at the time of the letter, the group was in the midst of the application process for tax-exempt nonprofit status — a process that would stretch for nearly three years and involve queries for detailed information on its social media activity, its organizational set-up, bylaws, membership and interactions with political officials. The letter threatened to close American PAGE’s case file unless additional information was received within 60 days.
.snip.
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

 whembly wrote:
Ahem... Obama's brother's charity got the exemption in record time.

It is also not clear what the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does. Its website claims the organization has built a madrassa and was building a imam’s house but there is no other evidence that the nonprofit was actually helping poor Kenyan children.

“The Obama Foundation raised money on its web page by falsely claiming to be a tax deductible. This bogus charity run by Malik had not even applied and yet subsequently got retroactive tax-deductible status,” Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, told The Daily Caller. Boehm described Malik Obama’s attempt to raise money as constituting “common law fraud and potentially even federal mail fraud.”

Boehm doubted that the charity is doing what it says it’s doing and wondered why the charity was given tax-exempt status so quickly after the evidence of wrongdoing came to light.

Grey Templar wrote:This could be the worst government scandal ever,

Gret Templar wrote:and certainly the one with the biggest real effect.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I just think the hyperbole should be kept to a minimum during the speculation stage so as to not cloud the facts with emotion.

Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

CEI reviewed Freedom of Information Act requests sent between January 2012 and this spring from several environmental groups friendly to the EPA’s mission, and several conservative groups, to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy for media and watchdog groups. Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups disseminating information for public benefit.

“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said CEI fellow Chris Horner.

For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Waterkeeper Alliance, Greenpeace, Southern Environmental Law Center and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities.” Similarly, requests from conservative groups Judicial Watch and National Center for Public Policy Research were approved half the time, and all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied. “Their practice is to take care of their friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information,” said Horner. Freedom of Information Act requests from CEI forced the EPA to release emails under the the “Richard Windsor” alias former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson used to conduct government business. CEI has also filed FOIA requests for emails, text messages and instant messages from Jackson and EPA nominee Gina McCarthy. Horner said he believes the EPA has denied CEI’s requests because his think tank is the most active group seeking to hold the agency accountable. “This is a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly,” he said. “The left hand of big government reaches out to give a boost to its far-left hand at every turn. Argue against more of the same, however, and prepare to be treated as if you have fewer rights.” Update: An earlier version incorrectly called the Natural Resources Defense Council the “National Resources Defense Council.”

WASHINGTON. D.C. – Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, today released a report: "A New Era of Openness? How and Why Political staff at DHS Interfered with the FOIA Process." The report details the committee's findings about inappropriate interference by Obama Administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security FOIA process as well as efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to obstruct the committee's investigation.
"There is a significant divide between what President Obama has directed agencies to do on FOIA and what political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security are actually doing," said Chairman Issa. "Political appointees do not have a right to stop or delay releases of information through FOIA because they find them embarrassing, inconvenient, or politically sensitive. There is no place for this kind of interference in a process designed to create transparency and accountability in government.
The report's findings include:
Senior Political Appointees reviewed and approved responses.

By the end of September 2009, copies of all significant FOIA requests were required to be forwarded to the Secretary's political staff for review. The career staff in the FOIA Office was not permitted to release responses to these requests without approval from political staff.
Political appointees do not acknowledge the approval process.

Political appointees refused to acknowledge that approval from the Secretary's political staff was required to release a response to a significant FOIA request as of September 29, 2009. Their position during transcribed interviews was that the policy was implemented for awareness purposes only. Documents show this position is indefensible.
Political appointees conduct their own searches.

Documents and witness testimony show political appointees run weak and incomplete searches for their own documents. They were allowed to choose their own search terms despite lacking basic understanding of the statute.
The Department abused the (b)(5) exception.

Original versions of documents that were heavily redacted before being released to the Associated Press show the Office of General Counsel relied on exception (b)(5) – normally meant to protect pre-decisional records– to prevent the release of embarrassing records.
The Secretary's political staff stopped using e-mail.

Political appointees stopped using e-mail to clear response packages in the second quarter of 2010. Instead, they contacted the career staff in the FOIA Office by telephone.
The Secretary's political staff marginalized and mismanaged the career FOIA staff.

The intrusion of the political staff into the FOIA process wasted the time and resources of the Privacy Office. The deterioration of the relationship between the Front Office and the FOIA Office was accelerated by constant changes to the significant FOIA response process. The constantly-evolving process and burdensome questions from the Secretary's political staff delayed responses.
The report also explains how lawyers of the Department's Office of the General Counsel worked to obstruct the committee's investigation. For example:
- On January 14, 2011, Chairman Issa requested documents from DHS no later than January 29. While the Department pledged to cooperate with the investigation and did not indicate it would not meet the January 29 deadline, the committee subsequently obtained an e-mail dated January 20, 2011, from the Department's General Counsel's office instructing staff not to search for responsive documents.
- Department lawyers did not negotiate the terms of witness interviews in good faith. Over three weeks of negotiation, the Department did not communicate to witnesses that the choice to appear was theirs to make, despite representing to the Committee that they would do so. Additionally, DHS Office of General Counsel representatives pressured one witness to allow them to participate in the planning of, and be present during, her interview.
- After a witness interview on March 4, 2011, a Department lawyer attempted to remove Committee documents from the interview room. DHS Attorney Reid Cox attempted to leave the room with the Committee's exhibits in his bag. Committee staff asked Cox if he had the exhibits in his bag, and he confirmed that he did. Cox was admonished by Republican and Democratic staff that he was not permitted to leave with the exhibits. Democratic staff advised Cox that the exhibits are Committee documents and as such, they are the property of the Committee and cannot be removed without permission. Cox explained that the Department disagreed with that position and he moved toward the door. Republican staff advised Cox to leave the exhibits and contact the Committee to discuss the matter. Cox had a counter-proposal: "How about I take the exhibits, and you call me?" While Cox ultimately left the documents, any attempt to steal Committee documents is a serious matter. If the motive for stealing Committee documents is to use them to conduct a forensic investigation to identify a Committee source, it creates an extremely sensitive situation.
Chairman Issa made the following statement about the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to obstruct the investigation:
"For over two months, this committee has seen Administration representatives at DHS give lip service to cooperating with Congressional oversight while simultaneously using deceitful and underhanded tactics to undermine it. The Department of Homeland Security's bad faith in this matter will affect how the committee approaches future oversight efforts of an Administration that sorely needs it."

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.

Really? Waving fees for one political bent but not another? I'm betting you're a hippy tree hugger.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.

I'm sorry but to me that fact that there is such a gross disparity in how groups with different political views are treated merits a sufficient explanation. If it turns out that the EPA were applying their rules fairly and without prejudice because of the groups concerned did not fill in the paperwork correctly then that should negate accusations of bad faith. Although it may call into question just how user friendly the paperwork is.

Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities

 djones520 wrote:
No more improper then when I pissed of an airline ticket counter clerk by making her have to do some work, and she decided to not un-flag me for the random full body inspection by the TSA, which is the standard procedure for active duty military.

She didn't technically do anything wrong, but it was still a dick move.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.

I'm sorry but to me that fact that there is such a gross disparity in how groups with different political views are treated merits a sufficient explanation. If it turns out that the EPA were applying their rules fairly and without prejudice because of the groups concerned did not fill in the paperwork correctly then that should negate accusations of bad faith. Although it may call into question just how user friendly the paperwork is.

This seems straightforward to me:

Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

No doubt you have been interpreting it. Just not in a way that could be considered objective, or in line with the facts.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Are you saying that your position is that on its face it is legal to single out right leaning groups applying for tax exempt status where there is no evidence of wrong doing?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Bearing in mind that there was also a significant increase in liberal leaning groups also claiming exempt status yet it appears that similar action was not taken against them.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Singling out groups, with no evidence of any actual wrong doing, based on nothing more than their political affiliation cannot by any objective standard be said to be either reasonable or an act of good faith.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So singling out groups for discriminatory treatment, breaching policy to harass them, asking them for details of social media activity and family members, passing their files onto outside parties is acceptable because no one was executed.
I think you've just outright showed your hand and can't even claim to be looking at the facts in anything approaching an objective manner.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
... are you still going to say with a straight face that what occurred was justifiable and not politically motivated?

 whembly wrote:
Well... The first head rolls: At Obama's press conference, he announces that Steve Miller, acting commissioner of the IRS and a man who’s known for more than a year about the agency’s targeting of conservatives, is out.

Worth noting, though: Miller wasn’t commissioner when most of the targeting occurred. That was Doug Shulman, who left in November.

 dogma wrote:
Well, I consider it objective and in line with the facts, so its certainly possible.

In fact I would argue that, at the beginning of this thread, you jumped to a conclusion in the Smykowski sense; proceeding to make up your mind on the basis of very little information.

 dogma wrote:
For review? Yes.

 dogma wrote:
It would also be legal to single out left-leaning groups, because the 501(c) section of the tax code is poorly written.

 dogma wrote:
It only appears as such? Do you have concrete evidence that liberal groups were reviewed at a lower rate?

 dogma wrote:
The IRS had just cause to do so because the 501(c) section of the tax code requires it to consider the political behavior of any given applicant**.

So that's "reasonable" and "lawful" accounted for. The only possible good faith violation is the extension of reviews regarding a certain group of applications vis a vis others.

 dogma wrote:
I explicitly stated that passing confidential information to third parties is unacceptable per the law, but that the rest is probably fine. And we don't even know if policy was actually breached.

 dogma wrote:
When did I say it wasn't politically motivated?
Its definitely justifiable, though.

But in an email to IRS employees, Miller claimed he would only be leaving next month because his assignment would be over.