Two recent matters involving administrative state searches without the Fourth Amendment’s before-the-fact protocol of warrants issued by neutral judges illustrate that legislatures and the courts have gone too far in believing they can ignore or even override the Fourth Amendment.
Mark J. Fitzgibbons | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Mark J. Fitzgibbons
Mark is one of the country’s leading experts in fundraising law and policy. According to The NonProfit Times, “When it comes to giving fundraisers unfettered access to donors and use of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for charitable speech, there are two words that make regulators recoil – Mark Fitzgibbons.” Senate Conservative Fund President and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says, “Mark is a one-man legal and political SWAT team.” He has litigated constitutional cases, and has engaged extensively in legislative and administrative legal matters shaping favorable policy and law in the nonprofit fundraising industry.
Mark’s written commentaries have appeared in The NonProfit Times, Chronicle of Philanthropy, National Law Journal, Politico, The Washington Times, The Philanthropy Monthly, FoxNews.com, HumanEvents.com, and WND.com. He is a contributor at Washington Examiner, CNSNews, and American Thinker. He’s a frequent guest on various talk radio shows. He teaches on the legal aspects of forming nonprofits and fundraising. Mr. Fitzgibbons is a member of the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia Bars. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th and 10th Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the District of Columbia and Virginia. He has an AV-Preeminent (highest) rating from Martindale. He is a member of the Free Speech Coalition, McLean, Virginia, and The Federalist Society.
Lachlan Markay at The Daily Beast recently uncovered the names of “35 individuals and organizations that provided at least $5,000 to Project Veritas from 2011 to 2013.” The immediate reaction in some corners was, there goes the IRS leaking confidential tax information of conservatives again.
Progressive state attorneys general under their umbrella group the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) have been aggressively spamming recently about the Trump agenda. In doing so, they have also violated standards of fraud they themselves have set in their positions as charity regulators for their respective states.
In the spring of 2016 after meeting with Al Gore and other leaders of the climate exaggeration movement, a group of left-wing state attorneys general calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power” entered into a secrecy pact called a common interest agreement.
A federal judge recently denied the opportunity for an open trial against liberal New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman about his licensing scheme used to coerce nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors to him and his office.
Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker recently issued an administrative subpoena to the nonprofit Competitive Enterprise Institute demanding research, op-eds, speeches, and publications about Climate Change. The First Amendment protects speech and publication, and attacks on the content of speech have long been considered among its most pernicious violations.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris had a full schedule last week. To quell heady rumors, she told the anxious press that she does not wish to be considered for nomination by her ideological twin President Obama to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Then Ms. Harris officially filed papers to run for Senate after campaigning and raising millions for the race since January last year, and was endorsed Saturday by her state’s Democrat Party.
Following revelations in the Watergate investigations that Richard Nixon and his staff used tax return information of individuals for political purposes such as auditing his “enemies,” Congress amended the tax code to strengthen protections of tax information privacy to prevent “potential and actual disclosure” among government officials and employees.
Members of Congress and many privacy advocates are busy selling the public on the Email Privacy Act by rightly claiming that government bureaucrats must first get warrants from neutral judges before they may obtain and read our emails.