Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The FFRF IRC 107 Complaint: The Feds Answer!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Coincidence? ... The Justice Department, in my opinion and as previously noted here, misrepresents the Court s observation in Flowers. More importantly is the
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 1, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Coincidence?

      In its Answer to the FFRF IRC 107 Complaint, the Justice Department, amidst its 63 page effort to justify its motion to dismiss the Complaint and show that IRC 107 is constitutional, mentions on pages 35 & 36 the TCU case of Ron Flowers and the "integral agency" issue as follows,(this is an expansion of the reference previously noted here):

      > At least one court has held that the
      > administration of section 107 does not
      > give rise to excessive entanglement
      > with religion.

      > Flowers v. United States, 49 A.F.T.R.2d
      > (RIA) 438 (N.D. Tex. 1981)

      > ("The Court finds that the requirements
      > of section 107 do not create the substantial
      > entanglement of the kind which the Supreme
      > Court was referring to in Walz").

      > Nonetheless, Plaintiffs allege that the
      > procedures used to administer section 107
      > implicate "sensitive, fact-intensive,
      > intrusive, and subjective determinations"
      > that "result in `excessive entanglement'
      > between church and state contrary to the
      > Establishment Clause."

      > Complaint, paragraph 35.

      > Plaintiffs do not allege any facts that
      > could support the inference that such
      > entanglement exists, let alone that it
      > is excessive. Plaintiffs merely recite the
      > statute and allege insufficient conclusions
      > of law to support their contention that
      > the administration of section 107 gives
      > rise to excessive entanglement. Therefore,
      > their conclusory allegations need not be
      > accepted as true.

      The Justice Department, in my opinion and as previously noted here, misrepresents the Court's observation in Flowers.

      More importantly is the indication that the Justice Department might be, in effect, asking for me to come forward, with reference to the Complaint's paragraph #35 noted above, and testify as to just what the facts (e.g., related to Flowers & 70-549) are that show the administration of IRC 107 involves/involved unconstitutional/excessive entanglements.

      HMMMM?

      Wonder when I might be getting that subpeona?

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ---------------Previous Message-----------------

      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010
      Subject: Re: The FFRF IRC 107 Complaint: The Feds Answer!



      While the government's Answer is impressive as to form, the more I review it the less substance I see in favor of obfuscation of both the "standing" issue as well as the merits of the FFRF constitutional issue.

      Here is what I think is an example of a remarkable claim by the government, from page 39 of its Answer:

      > (T)he requirement that a minister
      > perform religious services or perform
      > services for a religious entity
      > prevents abuse of ยง 107 by ensuring
      > that the employer is a religious
      > organization, or is sufficiently
      > related to a religious organization...

      The abuse, it may be argued, is in allowing someone who registers as a minister to do anything and still qualify for the exclusion simply because his employer can get the government to bestow "religious" character to the employer or, with some political clout (e.g., that Bush/Burleson IRS deal with ACU), get the government to decree that there is a "sufficient" relationship between the employer and some organization that has received government sanction as "religious".

      Hopefully, the FFRF will be able to successfully rebut the government's misleading representations and the Court will grant standing so that the actual merits of the FFRF Complaint can be properly and judicially reviewed and decided.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ---------------------------------
      ---------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.