NOM Tries To Bilk US Government For Hundreds Of Thousands In Legal Fees — Government Says No

The National Organization For Marriage is attempting to bill the U.S. Government nearly a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees after losing its case against the IRS. Today, the feds are fighting the attempt — in court.

In June, a federal judge ruled that the IRS had done nothing wrong when a clerk accidentally released an un-redacted copy on a 990 form filed by the National Organization For Marriage. After nearly two years of claiming they were part of the vast IRS conspiracy and even claiming President Barack Obama was somehow linked to the supposed scandal, NOM was forced to accept the court’s ruling that they had lost their case on all points — sans the reimbursement of legal fees.

In that ruling against NOM, the judge used terms like, “NOM has failed to produce a shred of proof,” NOM’s argument “misses the mark,” is “unconvincing,” “is unpersuasive,” and “[t]o find that NOM could prevail from this scintilla of evidence … is not appropriate.”

In court papers, NOM had initially said they should be reimbursed about $50,000 for legal fees and other costs associated with efforts they had to take in response to the accidental release of their private documents.

Those documents, ironically, requested in a Freedom of Information Act filing by an employee of a financial firm that had strong ties to Mitt Romney, revealed that a Romney PAC had donated $10,000 to NOM.

Now we learn, via court documents, that instead of charging the government $50,000 in legal fees, NOM requested “over $691,000.”

In a just-released motion filed last week, the federal government is in essence saying, “no way.”

“Despite losing all the significant issues in this case and settling a damages claim of hundreds of thousands of dollars for $50,000, the National Organization for Marriage, Inc. (“NOM”) now seeks over $691,000 in attorneys’ fees. The Court should deny NOM’s motion in its entirety,” the filing states.

The Court need not delve into NOM’s massive bills and complex algorithms to determine a reasonable attorney fee, because NOM is not the “prevailing party” — either with respect to the amount incontroversy or the most significant issue pled. Regarding the amount in controversy, NOM hascherry picked the actual damages it was claiming during the course of this suit and, in fact, received less than half of what it was claiming when all amounts are properly considered. Also, NOM’s view of the most significant issue is belied by the face of its sworn Verified Complaint. Under both analyses, therefore, NOM is not a prevailing party. The Court’s analysis should end there — NOM isnot entitled to any attorneys’ fees.

The motion goes on to attack NOM’s “over-pled and unproven complaint” and “baseless claims,” and notes that NOM “changed significantly” the dollar amounts it was asking for. 

The full 139-page filing can be found here, thanks to Equality Case Files:

 

Image by Fibonacci Blue via Flickr under a CC License
Hat tip: Equality Case Files