Full Disclosure Network

Los Angeles, CA. What kind of political power could force the Internal Revenue Service to eat their own words?

A nine (9) minute Full Disclosure Networkvideo blog reveals how, big lawfirms, political connections and $Billions in state and local bond funds persuaded the IRS to back down from their scathing indictment of the Los Angeles Unified School District for illegal use of non-voter approved, tax exempt bonds call Certificates of Participation (COPs).

$92 million of these COP Bonds were used to build the LAUSD Belmont Learning Center. In December of 2004 the brand new and never occupied campus was partially demolished and is now being rebuilt, with costs estimated by experts to be exceeding half a billion dollars and rising.

The Full Disclosure Network discovered a series of letters sent by the Internal Revenue Service to the LAUSD in 2001 and 2002 regarding the illegal use of the $92 million in COPs (non-voter approved, tax-exempt bonds,) issued in 1997 to build the controversial Belmont Learning Center for a retail development to be located underneath the school.

• The first IRS multi-page letter dated 2001 cited the school district for multiple violations.
• The second letter dated 2002 authorized serious penalties for “a deliberate attempt(by the LAUSD) to provide misleading valuations and statements that could be considered in addressing any issuer liability for IRC penalties”.
• A third letter surprisingly reversed the first two letters, subject to further reporting.

Featured on this 9 minute video blog are:

Anthony Patchett, former head of the DA’s Belmont Task Force explains how influential lawyers employed by LAUSD have the ability to sway even the most powerful federal agencies.

Dominick Shambra: Director of Planning & Development for LAUSD Belmont project describes the IRS correspondence with the LAUSD.

David Cartwright, Sr. Partner, O’Melveny & Myers, outside legal counsel to LAUSD claims the IRS found no wrong doing in the Belmont project.

Edwin Meese, III former U. S. Attorney General defines large conglomerate law firms and impact on government and public policies.