Mediaboss Marketing

BENSALEM A federal judge said Tuesday that Bensalem's mayor and police chief had not invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions stemming from a lawsuit against them - and he demanded a written explanation from the attorney who claimed that they did.

U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson said the lawyer, Brian K. Wiley, "acted improperly" when he wrote in a court filing early this year that Mayor Joseph DiGirolamo and head of police Fred Harran, as well as two other township officials, invoked their right against self-incrimination and declined to answer questions related to a lawsuit brought by former township Fire Chief David Jerri Sr.

During a hearing on the matter, Baylson said that Wiley may have incorrectly used language from a previous court filing to jump to that conclusion, and that Wiley "had reason to know that was not true."

Wiley was not in court Tuesday, but Baylson - who said he initially believed Wiley's claim - ordered that he file an affidavit explaining his behavior within 10 days.

Christopher Garrell, who represented Jerri on Tuesday, said he was not with the firm when Wiley made the claim, and could not comment.

Harran, who was in court Tuesday, called the case "a big joke."

"They're grasping at straws because they have no case," he said.

The suit was filed last year by Jerri and his son, David Jr., a former township firefighter.

See the rest here:
Judge: Bensalem officials didn't invoke the Fifth

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

View original post here:
Ex-IRS official held in contempt

The 231-187 contempt vote came three days shy of the date when Lerner apologized at a legal conference last year for actions the IRS took against organizations with tea party and patriot in their names. Her comments marked the first time the agency officially acknowledged using inappropriate screening techniques toward conservative groups.

Days after the event, an inspector general released a report saying the IRS inappropriately targeted tax-exemption applicants for extra scrutiny based on their names and policy positions.

The House voted 250-168 in favor of the measure calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who pushed for the move last week, has said the IRSs actions are too serious a matter to leave to the discretion of partisan political appointees.

The contempt resolution asks the Justice Department to seek criminal prosecution against Lerner.

Now the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia can consider referring the matter to a grand jury for further review. It is unclear how the Justice Department will proceed.

Lerners attorney, William Taylor, has repeatedly denied that his client did anything wrong. Todays vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law, he said in a statement. Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS conspiracy alive through the midterm elections.

Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the matter, have argued that Congress cannot legally hold Lerner, who retired from the IRS in September, in contempt because the panel never explicitly overruled her Fifth Amendment assertion or clearly directed her to testify with the threat of contempt.

Republicans counter that the committee effectively overruled Lerners refusal to testify when it voted in favor of a resolution saying she waived her Fifth Amendment right by declaring innocence during the first hearing. They say the committee also warned her that she could face contempt charges for refusing to answer questions at a follow-up hearing in March.

Before Wednesdays vote, the House oversight committees top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), urged GOP lawmakers to allow a hearing to discuss the contempt matter with independent legal experts. He said in a statement Wednesday that Republicans took a step backwards in their duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution by voting to strip an American citizen of her Fifth Amendment rights.

The panels chairman, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), described Wednesdays contempt vote as a step toward a level of accountability that the Obama administration has been unwilling to take.

Read more:
House votes to hold ex-IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress

Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

"Today's vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law," Taylor wrote. "Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS "conspiracy" alive through the midterm elections. Ms. Lerner has not committed contempt of Congress. She did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights by proclaiming her innocence."

Go here to see the original:
House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt

(CNN) -

Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

See the article here:
231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines