Question for DU lawyers

[StarfishSaver]

Since the House Ways and Means Committee filed it's lawsuit today asking the Federal District Court to order the Treasury Department to turn over Trump's tax returns, numerous DUers have harshly criticized the committee for "taking too long" and for not suing earlier. Several lawyers on and off DU (including Joyce Vance) have said the committee has handled this correctly and tried to explain why the committee has proceeded the way they have, only to have our explanations rejected.

I'm curious if there are any DU attorneys who believe that the Ways and Means Committee erred in taking the time they have to lay the groundwork for the lawsuit filed today and that the committee should instead have filed this lawsuit immediately upon the Democrats taking over the House in January as several DUers have suggested.

[fescuerescue]

1. So the explanations were rejected....

So what.

Unless the rejectors are the judges, doesn't really mean anything.

[elleng]

2. Joyce Vance explained it properly.

Living under the law demands respecting process, as frustrating as it may seem.

[EffieBlack]

3. I don't think any lawyer who understands litigation would claim they should have sued before

they’d established a record. And I’d be highly suspect of any lawyer (or someone who claimed to be a lawyer) who tried to argue otherwise.

[RandySF]

4. Taking the time was part of their due diligence.

They can truthfully tell the court that they exercised every other remedy before filing.

[EffieBlack]

5. They also established, among other things, the administration's total lack of good faith

[Gothmog]

13. By building the case carefully, it is clear that trump and company have not been in good faith

The bogus legal opinion advanced is so weak that it was sad. I am glad that the House Ways & Means Committee took the time to build a good case

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Anybody who's worked in the legal system understands that things don't move very quickly,

and that's often frustrating - for the litigants and the lawyers, maybe even more so than for the impatient onlookers who aren't familiar with the processes but enjoy giving advice or making demands from the sidelines. Joyce Vance made the excellent and absolutely accurate point that "lawsuits aren't on an instant gratification timeline, which is frustrating but important to understand.” The committee is not comprised of fools, amateurs or rookies. They know what they're doing and how to do it right.

[2naSalit]

10. +1

[jberryhill]

7. Opinions. Everyone's got one.

What you present is a choice between (a) “litigating straightaway in January”, and (b) having done (or not done) everything that has brought us to July.

While, as noted above, litigation is a “hurry up and wait” exercise, we aren’t even into the litigation yet.

So, if the question is whether there was a path to establishing an adequate record and tightening the bolts on anticipated procedural objections before now? No, I don’t believe six months was required.

[StarfishSaver]

9. How much time do you think it should have taken?

Do you have an opinion on whiçh step(s) in their process of establishing a sufficient record the committee could have completed sooner and how much time that would have saved, enabling them to bring this lawsuit earlier?

FYI - I brought up the option of filing the lawsuit in January because several people castigated the committee for not doing that.

[Gothmog]

8. It takes time to build the record for a case like this

I agree with Joyce Vance. You have to build a strong record up front to win a case like this

The petition was fun to read. The lawyers in this case have carefully built a strong case

[2naSalit]

11. +1

[Gothmog]

12. This is a well done petition and includes a really amusing cause of action/claim for relief

There is a cause of action in this petition for ultra vires (which is a corporate law concept) that made me smile https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/95ce180a-f07f-46a0-ac53-1c609608d589/note/1deef6dc-e461-4128-af12-5a61b5206c92.pdf#page=1

NON-STATUTORY REVIEW OF ULTRA VIRES ACTION BY DEFENDANTS
136. The Committee incorporates by reference and re-alleges the preceding
paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
137. The Committee has a non-statutory right of action to enjoin and declare unlawful
official action that is ultra vires.
138. Section 6103(f) establishes a non-discretionary duty on the part of Defendants to
the Committee, namely, to provide tax return and related information upon written request by the
Committee.
139. Defendants’ refusal to provide the requested information patently violates Section
6103(f).
140. As a result, the Committee has been, and will continue to be, injured by
Defendants’ action.

Basically, the IRS and Dept of Treasury are acting without any legal authority or power in denying the House Ways and Means Committee access to the trump tax returns. This is a fun application of the concept of ultra vires https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=3KIbXdOFDpa-tQby7q2wCw&q=definition+ultra+vires&oq=definition+ultra+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l2j0i10j0l3j0i22i30l2j0i22i10i30j0i22i30.2899.9049..12244...2.0..0.238.2089.11j6j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..35i39j0i131i67j0i131j0i67j35i39i70i249.9kaHpyz-q5A

ul·tra vi·res
/ˌəltrə ˈvīrēz/
LAW
adjective
1.
acting or done beyond one's legal power or authority.
"at one point they argue that the legislation is ultras vires"
adverb
1.
beyond one's legal power or authority.
"he will take action against any body acting ultra vires"

This is a good petition but I am corporate lawyer who only occasionally tries cases.

[pnwmom]

14. Thanks for posting this, Gothmog! n/t

[Gothmog]

15. It is rare to see the concept of ultra vires used in the real world

[pnwmom]

16. But is that document the real world?

[Gothmog]

17. This petition is very real