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 byÂ 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 judgeÂ used terms like, â€œNOM has failed to produce a shred of proof,â€ NOMâ€™s argument â€œmisses the mark,â€ is â€œunconvincing,â€ â€œis unpersuasive,â€ and â€œ[t]o find that NOM could prevail from this scintilla of evidence â€¦ is not appropriate.â€

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 theirÂ private documents.

Those documents, ironically, requested in a Freedom of Information Act filingÂ 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, viaÂ court documents, that instead of charging the government $50,000 in legal fees, NOM requested “over $691,000.”

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

“Despite losing all the significant issues in this case and settling a damages claim of hundredsÂ of thousands of dollars for $50,000, the National Organization for Marriage, Inc. (â€œNOMâ€) nowÂ seeks over $691,000 inÂ attorneysâ€™Â fees.Â The Court shouldÂ deny NOMâ€™sÂ motion inÂ its entirety,” the filing states.

TheÂ Court need not delve into NOMâ€™s massive bills and complex algorithms to determine a reasonableÂ attorney fee, because NOM is not the â€œprevailing partyâ€ â€” either with respect to the amount incontroversy or the most significant issueÂ pled.Â Regarding the amount in controversy,Â NOM hascherry picked the actual damages it was claiming during the course of this suit and, in fact, receivedÂ less than half of what itÂ was claiming when all amounts are properly considered.Â Also, NOMâ€™sÂ viewÂ of the most significant issue is belied by the faceÂ of its sworn Verified Complaint.Â Under bothÂ analyses, therefore, NOM is notÂ a prevailing party.Â The Courtâ€™s analysis should end there â€”Â NOM isnot entitled to any attorneysâ€™ fees.

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

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

Â

Image byÂ Fibonacci BlueÂ viaÂ FlickrÂ under aÂ CC License

Hat tip: Equality Case FilesÂ