My Second Motion to Compel: Clarification of FTB Policies and Procedures

*Note: This post is in the middle of being reformatted. Please excuse the odd appearance.

In this Motion to Compel, I prove that FTB committed 8 counts of perjury: three counts by Chelsea Hubbard and five counts by Keith Swank. I also laid out in detail why it appears that obfuscation and conflicting information about FTB’s policies and the laws on which these policies and procedures are based is because FTB knows these policies and procedures are unlawful. Here are pages 1 – 18, 19 – 36, 37 – 54, and 55 – 72.

The last paragraph of page 3, all of pages 4, 5 and 6, and the first paragraph of page 7 are important to read in full because they contain the overview of the assorted questionable business practices that are detailed in the rest of the document. I did not highlight those pages because every word would be highlighted! The rest of the document is repetitive and tedious, so I have highlighted the important stuff for you.

Not all the exhibits referenced have been redacted and uploaded to this site yet, but here are the some that have been: Memorandum of Points and Authorities (list of laws cited), Exhibit 2: chart of payments made, Motion to Compel Further Documents that was filed December 2020, Exhibit 48: the original questions/evidence that are the basis of this Motion to Compel Further Information, Exhibit 49: Proof of accounting irregularities, Exhibit 52: More proof of irregularities in both accounting and policy/procedure, Exhibit 53: CA Supreme Court Accusation against FTB employee Eric Yadao, Exhibit 56: Letter from CA Auditor’s Office confirming an investigation has been opened, and Exhibit 57: proof FTB does not credit taxes collected from secondary employers on NPAs.

These exhibits were submitted as evidence to support the First Motion to Compel.

Exhibit #	Description	Pages
39	Deposition Request (Demand) for Documents	3
40	Response to Requests for Production of Documents	16
41	Documents Set One (1)	33
42	Meet and Confer Letter	10
43	2009 accounting ledger	1
44	Emails between Grab and Barsegyan dated 12/1 and 12/2, 2020	6
45	Meet and Confer Response Letter	4
46	Emails between Grab and Barsegyan dated 12/9/2020	4
47	Notice of Proposed Assessments 2011, 2013 and 2014	5

These exhibits were submitted as evidence to support the Second Motion to Compel.

2	Chart of Payments Made (updated)	1
48	Plaintiff’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set #001	32
49	Plaintiff’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set #002	53
50	Defendant’s Response to Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set #001	23
51	Defendant’s Response to Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set #002	49
52	Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set #001	46
53	CA Supreme Court Accusation Against Eric Allen Yadao	46
54	Defendant’s Amended Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set #2	7
55	Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set #001	13
56	Letter from CA Auditor’s Office	1
57	2005 W2s and Notice of Proposed Assessment for Christine	3
58	Plaintiff’s Meet and Confer for Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set #001	54
59	Emails Between Barsegyan and Grab dated May 12, 2021	3

Below are a few excerpts from the document that I believe will be useful for other people who are currently fighting FTB. Please scrutinize your own case for similar irregularities and deceptive statements:

Special Interrogatory NO. 3C: Is it possible for a taxpayer to file a Protest to a NPA on the basis that FTB has underreported the amount of payments FTB has collected? 

FTB Response to Special Interrogatory No. 3C: …Additionally, the FTB properly imposed a collection cost recovery (also at issue in this case) resulting from Plaintiff’s failure to make full payment of the liability after issuance of a notice for payment. Once properly imposed, there is no provision in the Revenue and Taxation Code which would excuse FTB from imposing the collection cost recovery fee for any circumstances, including reasonable cause. (Rev. & Tax Code §19254.) Therefore, any protest on the ground that FTB did not include the prepayments or credits is not supported by legal authority.

Argument for Compelling Response to Interrogatory No. 3C:

Issue 1: I believe that this sentence “Therefore, any protest on the ground that FTB did not include the prepayments or credits is not supported by legal authority” is an admission that FTB’s policies and procedures are that taxpayers are not allowed to dispute a NPA on the basis that FTB did not fully credit all of the payments that were paid by the taxpayer or on the taxpayer’s behalf. However, the statement is muddy and unclear. I believe that further clarification is necessary…  

…Issue 4: Mr. Swank made a second false statement:

“Additionally, the FTB properly imposed a collection cost recovery (also at issue in this case) resulting from Plaintiff’s failure to make full payment of the liability after issuance of a notice for payment.” (emphasis added for clarity on which part of the statement is false)

As we have documented in the exhibits 2 and 8, as FTB’s attorney Eric Yadao confirmed in our OTA case that was the predecessor to this case, and as Ms. Hubbard confirmed in her Response to Demand for Documents, set #001, we had paid this liability in full via credit elect. 

I alleged in my Complaint and Motion to Compel Further Documents that FTB unlawfully withheld this credit elect payment from our account. Ms. Hubbard denied this allegation, stating that the payment had been applied on 04-15-2011 (Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Further Documents, page 6).

However, in the OTA case, Mr. Yadao confirmed my allegation in his Respondent’s Opening Brief (exhibit 4, page 11, footnote 21): The FTB properly imposed a collection cost recovery fee because “…payments are held in suspense and not applied to a tax year until a return is filed reporting tax liability…” 

Three different FTB employees have made three conflicting statements — all under penalty of perjury — about the same credit elect payment: Ms. Hubbard claimed the payment was made on 4-15-2011 and not withheld, Mr. Yadao claimed the payment was made on 11-15-2013 and withheld (exhibit 4, page 5, footnote 11 and page 11, footnote 21), and Mr. Swank denied the payment was made prior to 11-26-2013. All three of these statements were false.

Ms. Hubbard later stated that FTB does not maintain records of the actual dates that payments are applied to the taxpayer’s account; FTB only keeps records of effective dates. If Ms. Hubbard’s statement is true, then that means that Mr. Swank’s statement that we hadn’t paid in full prior to the imposition of the collection cost recovery fee was intentional perjury, as – per Ms. Hubbard — the records Mr. Swank looked at when making that statement said our account had been paid in full on 04-15-2011. 

I would like to ask Your Honor to keep in mind that this same credit elect payment “vanished” for nine months (from November 2013 to July 2014), and there are multiple accounting irregularities surrounding this payment (see attached exhibit 49, pages 10 – 12). FTB has refused to turn over the documents that would clarify the accounting irregularities surrounding this payment. 

Whether or not this practice of withholding estimated tax payments, then imposing penalties, fees and interest that would not have been imposed had the payment been timely applied is the heart of my case. The question for Your Honor to decide is: was it lawful for FTB to not timely apply the credit elect payment to our account, then impose a collection cost recovery fee that would not have been imposed had FTB credited the payment timely? 

            As I wrote in my Supreme Court Accusation that I filed against FTB employee Eric Yadao (exhibit 53), I believe that unlawfully placing money into a general fund when it had been designated to be applied to a taxpayer’s account qualifies as embezzlement per federal code 18 U.S. Code § 654. Officer or employee of United States converting property of another, which says: 

“Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongfully converts to his own use the money or property of another which comes into his possession or under his control in the execution of such office or employment, or under color or claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be fined under this title or not more than the value of the money and property thus embezzled or converted, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the sum embezzled is $1,000 or less, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

I also believe that imposing penalties and fees that would not have been imposed had the payments been applied in accordance with the law qualifies as racketeering, which is defined as a pattern of illegal activity carried out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by those who are engaged in the illegal activity. The definition derives from the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO), (18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq. [1970]). 

My understanding is that an otherwise legal organizations that derive some portion of their income through illicit activities may be subject to the RICO laws. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 87 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1985), upheld the constitutionality of the RICO Act and made clear that, unless amended by Congress, the RICO statutes must be interpreted broadly. 

My understanding is that, for a civil case, I only have to show that via a Preponderance of Evidence that it is more likely than not that the ongoing criminal enterprise occurred. 

The CA Supreme Court chose not to hear the case and gave no reason why. However, I did receive letter from the CA Auditor’s Investigation Unit indicating that they had opened an investigation into FTB based on my Accusation (see attached exhibit 56).

So far in this pending case, FTB has consistently refused to acknowledge the existence of these withholding practices, whether to confirm nor deny them. If FTB believed these practices were lawful, Mr. Swank would have responded to this question with a truthful answer. I believe that the fact that Mr. Swank perjured himself to evade disclosing that our credit elect payment had been withheld indicates that he is aware that this practice is unlawful. I believe that Mr. Swank has committed one count of colluding to cover up his employer’s embezzlement and racketeering schemes. 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4A: The protests that I sent in response to the Notice of Proposed Assessment were labeled in your system as “no responses.” Could you please explain FTB’s policies and procedures on when and why responses to NPAs are labeled as “no responses.” 

FTB Response to Special Interrogatory No. 4A: Defendant is unable to respond to this Request because Plaintiff does not describe the communication with the FTB in particular detail (i.e. communication date, tax years involved), and Defendant is unable to respond to this Request with the information provided.

My Argument for Compelling Response to No. 4A: FTB has already inadvertently answered this question via Defendant’s Requests for Admissions (attached exhibit 55, pages 2 – 5). In the Admissions Request, FTB asked me about three of the Responses that I had sent in on behalf of me and my husband. All three Responses had been misclassified, including the Protest to the NPA that my husband had filed. This NPA misclassification violated Revenue and Taxation Code section 19041, which states:

“Within 60 days after the mailing of each notice of proposed deficiency assessment the taxpayer may file with the Franchise Tax Board a written protest against the proposed deficiency assessment, specifying in the protest the grounds upon which it is based.

(b) Any protest filed with the Franchise Tax Board on or before the last date specified for filing that protest by the Franchise Tax Board in the notice of proposed deficiency assessment (according to Section 19034) shall be treated as timely filed.”

This misclassification also violated Revenue and Tax Code 19044(a), which states: 

“If a protest is filed, the Franchise Tax Board shall reconsider the assessment of the deficiency…”

This misclassification also violated our California Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which state: 

“If we receive your protest letter by the protest by date shown on the front of the notice, we review your facts and supporting information. After this review, we may request additional information or, at your request, we may schedule a hearing at one of our offices. At the conclusion of our protest review, we either withdraw, revise, or affirm the proposed assessment. We notify you of the results by sending you a formal Notice of Action.” 

Thanks to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, it now appears that the reason that all of our Protests were labeled as “no responses” is because FTB habitually misclassifies Responses in order to falsely impose penalties, fees and interest. I believe that the intention of the evasive response FTB provided in Response to 4A was an effort to cover up FTB’s multiple breaches of duty to properly classify Responses, to cover up that FTB imposed penalties that may not have been imposed had FTB not breached its duty to properly classify said Responses, and to hide FTB’s multiple violations of our Taxpayer Rights. 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 5D: If an estimated tax payment is made on or before the due date, but is withheld by FTB, is that payment considered timely?

FTB Response to Interrogatory 5D: Defendant refers Plaintiff to Revenue and Taxation Code section 19363 regarding the effective date of estimated tax payments. 

Argument for Compelling Response to INTERROGATORY 5D : I would like to remind Your Honor that in Interrogatory 5A, I asked FTB to define the word “timely” and FTB refused. Now FTB claims that they cannot answer this question because FTB doesn’t understand what the word “timely” means. 

This is a simple policy and procedure question. I see no justification for FTB to not answer it. I find it suspicious that FTB changed the topic by referring me to R&TC 19363. R&TC 19363 only addresses payments made via credit elect, and does not discuss the definition of timely. R&TC 19363 does not pertain to FTB’s published policy of withholding all estimated tax payments made by married couples. As discussed in the Interrogatory 10A below, it also appears that FTB withholds many other types of payments, not only the two types of payments that I identified in my Complaint. 

The question before Your Honor is whether or not FTB’s policies and procedures comply with the laws. The judge will not be able to make such a determination if FTB refuses to disclose these policies and procedures. 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 5E: If the timely paid but withheld estimated tax payment is not considered timely, please provide the legal code to justify this policy. 

FTB RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5E : Defendant is unable to understand Plaintiff’s Request as stated. 

Argument for Compelling Response to Interrogatory No. 5E: The purpose of this lawsuit is for Your Honor to determine whether FTB’s policies and procedures are in alignment with the existing state and federal tax laws. Your Honor will be unable to make a proper determination if FTB refuses to disclose the laws that it utilizes in setting its policies and procedures. I believe disclosure of the law requested in 5E is vital to this case. 

As already stated above in Interrogatory 5D, I believe that FTB is running a bona fide embezzlement and racketeering scheme by putting timely received payments into suspense instead of immediately applying the money to the taxpayer’s account then charging late fees for “paying late” in violation of the guidelines of R&TC 19087. FTB can prove me wrong by providing the legal codes that show these business practices are legitimate.

I made a separate post re: Special Interrogatory # 6A

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8C: Please clearly state FTB’s policy/procedure regarding withholding estimated tax payments made by married couples.  

FTB RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8C: Defendant objects to this Request as violating Code of Civil Procedure section 94, since in a limited case, each party may serve on each adverse party no more than 35 of any combination of interrogatories, requests for admission or demands for inspection. Plaintiff has exceeded the allowed limit.

Argument for Compelling Response to No. 8C: I am humbly requesting Your Honor to make an exception to the limit on the number of questions. This particular policy/procedure is especially relevant as it is one of the precedential matters that I am requesting that Your Honor to determine. 

I believe this policy of withholding all estimated tax payments made by married couples violates multiple laws. The first issue is the heart of this case: was it is legal for FTB to not timely apply estimated tax payments, then impose Demand Penalties for “paying late” as per R&TC 19087, when the monies had been received by the due date? 

The second major issue in this case is: was it lawful for FTB to demand payments of additional monies for tax liabilities that FTB knew – by their own records – that we did not owe? I believe that FTB utilizes this policy to unlawfully enriched itself. While it is true that the excess tax payments will be refunded once that year’s tax return is filed, FTB maintains possession of a lot of extra money in the interim. The third issue is: is this policy a violation of the Equal Protections Clause within the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution?

According to the Taxpayer Advocate (exhibit 48, pages 21 – 22), if you are single and file late, the FTB will apply the estimated tax payments that were held in suspense to your account after the penalties, fees and interest are falsely imposed, but before you actually file that year’s tax return. So let’s pretend that you are single and you paid $10,000 in estimated tax payments that FTB withheld. You file late, and FTB imposes $2,000 in penalties, fees and interest for “underpaying.” Because you are single, FTB will then apply the $10,000 in estimated tax payments to your account and you only have to send in the $2,000 in penalties, fees and interest — and nothing more. 

However, FTB refuses to apply any estimated tax payments to married people until they actually file their returns. So let’s pretend you are married and that your joint tax liability is identical to the single person’s in the example above. You and your spouse paid $10,000 in joint estimated tax payments that FTB withheld from both of your accounts. You file late, and FTB imposes $2,000 in penalties, fees and interest on you for “underpaying” and another $2,000 on your spouse “for underpaying.” So already, the joint filers have to pay twice as much as the single filers in upfront penalties as compared to a single person, even though the tax liability is identical. I realize the penalty amount is later adjusted, but is it lawful to demand double the money upfront? 

FTB then demands that the married couple send FTB $14,000 “RIGHT NOW OR ELSE we will garnish your wages and levy your bank account!” (emphasis added to demonstrate the aggressive and coercive collection tactics that FTB utilizes to force compliance with the unjust demands for money). So if you are married, you also have to pay the original tax liability of $10,000 as if FTB had never received that $10,000, even though FTB has had that original $10,000 in their possession since the day that the money was due. I believe that treating married people in a way that financially penalizes them for being married is a violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that the government has to treat all classes of people the same. Marital status does qualify as a class, and FTB readily admits that they do not treat the married class the same as they treat the single class. 

I believe that the years of unlawful harassment that my husband and I endured from FTB over the payments of monies that were never owed – by FTB’s own records – would not have occurred if my husband and I were cohabitating instead of legally married. 

Finally, my argument for tax year 2014 is that my husband and I had reasonable cause for filing tax year 2014 late: FTB’s relentless harassment for monies not owed. FTB continually made excessively time-consuming and overly burdensome demands that we provide them information regarding payments already made “RIGHT NOW OR ELSE we will garnish your wages and levy your bank account!” Their coercive demands were so time-consuming that it prevented us from having time to work on the tax returns for tax years 2011 and on. 

I believe that Your Honor needs to understand exactly what FTB’s policies and procedures are in order to determine if FTB’s spate of coercive demands were reasonable and in accordance with the laws. This is critical information for all three years in dispute. 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10D: Are these “suspense” funds utilized for spending of any sort, whether routinely or sporadically? SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10E:If the answer to 10D is yes, please list all circumstances under which it is authorized to utilize these “suspense” funds. 

FTB RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10D and 10E: Defendant objects to this Request as violating Code of Civil Procedure section 94, since in a limited case, each party may serve on each adverse party no more than 35 of any combination of interrogatories, requests for admission or demands for inspection. Plaintiff has exceeded the allowed limit. 

Argument for Compelling Response to No. 10D and 10E: I believe the answer to these two question explaining the policies and procedures for utilizing – or not utilizing — the funds held in suspense is critical information for Your Honor to understand in order to make a proper determination as to the lawfulness of the practice of not timely applying the funds to the taxpayers account as was specified by the taxpayer, and instead keeping the funds in a general account that someone within the State controls. 

As I detailed in my Specially Prepared Interrogatories Set #002, Accounting Irregularities (see attached exhibit 49), I have documented numerous accounting irregularities involving payments that had been put into suspense. For example, for tax year 2011, we have documented that the withheld payments of $4,393 and $9,000 were not applied to our account until several months after FTB processed the 2011 tax returns. This was a violation of FTB’s Taxpayer’s Advocate’s stated policies and procedures that credit elect payments are applied at the time the taxpayer files the return. 

I believe that it is important for Your Honor to understand if these delays in applying the withheld funds in violation of FTB own stated policies and procedures could be as a result of the suspense account being underfunded because someone spent the money. I believe that FTB should be eager to explain how the suspense funds are utilized in order to prove that the suspense funds are utilized – or not utilized — in accordance with the law. 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10F:When FTB calculates revenue collected for the State of CA, does FTB include the monies held in suspense in the revenue totals, or are these funds unaccounted for until they are removed from suspense?

FTB RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10F: Defendant objects to this Request as violating Code of Civil Procedure section 94, since in a limited case, each party may serve on each adverse party no more than 35 of any combination of interrogatories, requests for admission or demands for inspection. Plaintiff has exceeded the allowed limit. 

Argument for Compelling Response to 10F: I am humbly requesting Your Honor to make an exception to the limit of questions. As was documented in In the Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Further Documents (pages 8 – 9), FTB placed the estimated tax payments that my husband and I made via credit elect into a status called “no payment.” This status indicates to me that none of these monies were included in the revenue totals that the FTB reported to the Department of Finance until after the payments were moved into the status of “payment.” If these suspense funds are not counted in the revenue collected totals until the monies are moved to the final destination of the taxpayer’s account and these suspense funds are also utilized for spending as described in Interrogatories 10C, 10D and 10E above, then it appears that this suspense account may be an “off the books” account with unauthorized and/or unregulated spending occurring. 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: The attached page 18 is a page from my 2011 Abatement Request that I submitted to FTB in July 2014 (the full letter has already been submitted as exhibit 38 for this case). In it, I stated that FTB customer service representative Carrey told me that we could not pay the penalties, fees and interest for tax year 2011 via the overpayment that already existed on tax year 2011. She demanded that we send in another payment of $3,854.74 (see attached page 19). In May of 2017, another FTB customer representative told me the same information when I asked if I could pay the 2014 penalties and interest via the overpayment that already existed on tax year 2014. The representative demanded that I mail in another payment of $4,011.49 (see attached pages 20 – 21). In the attached letter from FTB’s Disclosure Department (see pages 13 – 15), the Disclosure Department denies that this policy exists. The letter states “…we do not have any policies regarding the prohibition of payments made towards penalties, fees and interest being paid via credit elect and applied to a specific tax year. Additionally, we have determined that we do not have any policies regarding the prohibition of money being transferred from other tax years where an overpayment was made.” SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11A: Could you please explain the discrepancy between the information provided by the Disclosure Department and the information relayed to me by the two FTB employees? SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11B:If FTB does not have a policy of requiring “new money” to pay penalties, fees and interest, please explain why FTB required me to send in “new money” and would not allow the penalties, fees and interest to be paid via the overpayments for tax years 2011 and 2014? SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11C: If FTB does have a policy of requiring “new money” to pay penalties, fees and interest, please provide the legal codes to justify this policy/practice.

FTB RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NO. 11A, B, C: Defendant objects to this Request as violating Code of Civil Procedure section 94, since in a limited case, each party may serve on each adverse party no more than 35 of any combination of interrogatories, requests for admission or demands for inspection. Plaintiff has exceeded the allowed limit. 

Argument for Compelling Response to INTERROGATORIES NO. 11A, B, C: I believe that the policy and procedure for removing overpayments from a particular tax year and putting those funds into suspense, thus leaving the previously fully funded tax year as now underfunded and subject to payments of monies in order to bring the liability to zero, qualifies as a type of “withheld” payment. I believe that the details of this policy/procedure, as well as the laws upon which those policies and procedures are based, is critical information in order for Your Honor to make a proper determination as to the lawfulness of FTB’s demands on me and my husband to send in the two additional payments addressed in Interrogatory 11’s general opening. 

Given that one of FTB’s published foundational principles is to “Operate with transparency to maintain public trust and confidence,” it seems to me that FTB should be eager to prove that their policies and procedures have a valid legal basis. 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:The attached page 22 is a page from the Notes on my account. FTB fully redacted an entry made somewhere between 01-04-2018 and 01-16-2018. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12B: It is my understanding that dates and times do not qualify as redactable? If this redaction is a violation of protocol, could you please provide me with the date, time of the entry, and tax year(s) the entry applied to?

Argument for Compelling Response to INTERROGATORY 12: Attached exhibit 53 is an Accusation against FTB employee Eric Yadao that I filed in the CA Supreme Court for improperly redacting documents to hide pertinent evidence in conjunction with the OTA case that was the predecessor for this case. Given FTB’s established track-record of hiding evidence via improper redactions, and given that I have already caught Ms. Hubbard withholding pertinent evidence in this case (see attached exhibit 52, pages 8, 11), I believe it is fair to assume that FTB is again trying to hide pertinent evidence via improper redactions. 

FTB GENERAL OBJECTION NO.5: Defendant objects to these interrogatories as a whole, and to each interrogatory contained therein, to the extent they are overbroad as to time and scope, and/or unduly burdensome and oppressive.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 5: . If disclosing FTB’s daily business practices are unduly burdensome and oppressive, that is by FTB’s own doing. FTB should consider simplifying their policies and procedures so that they can give accurate and consistent information every time they are asked. It seems like simplifying policies and procedures would be easier for everyone than consistently providing misinformation which leads to lawsuits, with those lawsuits requiring Interrogatories, Meet and Confers, and Motions to Compels in order to determine the truth of what FTB’s policies and procedures really are. Considering that in March of this year, FTB was granted an additional $2 million taxpayer dollars for litigation costs above and beyond their existing litigation budget due to excessive lawsuits being filed against them, it would also be the fiscally responsible thing to do.