5 ms·

This really just boils down to a local version of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_

This really just boils down to a local version of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena Administrative subpoena. This is common practice all over the country. Funny that they quote a former NYC prosecutor who seemingly forgot that the NYC district attorney offices issue self-generated pieces of paper saying "subpoena" on them, too. Must have slipped his mind. The only problematic part of this particular DA's use of these is the printing of the legal threat. If a judge doesn't issue and sign a subpoena, it's legally toothless. Claiming otherwise is a lie. But just printing the word "subpoena" on a piece of paper that isn't signed by a judge doesn't make it "fake," as the article so melodramatically declares.

forgotpwtomain 9y ago
This is almost certainly not true, it's not just a lie its 'fraud' at best.
- bogositosius 9y ago
  You can say it's not true all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that administrative subpoenas exist as a concept and are used regularly by governmental agencies. Your inability to distinguish between a document signed by a judge and one that is not doesn't automatically imply that it is fraudulent.
  - _jal 9y ago
    Yes, administrative subpoenas exist. The difference is whether courts are going to back the document in question.
geofft 9y ago
It's a little different: an administrative subpoena is authorized by law (an arbitrary agency cannot, in fact, just print the word "subpoena" on a piece of paper and make it a subpoena), and that law is subject, like all laws, to judicial oversight. HN may be most familiar with the administrative subpoena in the form of the National Security Letter, and such subpoenas have been fought in court. It's not great, to be clear. We should have all subpoenas / warrants require individual advance approval by a judge. But there's a big difference between a type of subpoena authorized by the legislature, used by the executive, and subject to review from the judiciary (and subject to the entire law being ruled unconstitutional, in theory), and the executive inventing the idea of "administrative subpoena" on their own.
- bogositosius 9y ago
  Yes, federal administrative subpoenas are an altogether different ballgame. Those have teeth, even when not signed by a judge. But this is done at a local level, too. New York criminal procedure law even specifically allows district attorneys to self-issue witness subpoenas. No penalty for non-compliance is specified though, so to bring you on by force they'd still have to go to a judge for a material witness order. I'm not saying I approve of the concept, but this is common practice, unlike what many posters in this thread want to tell themselves.

forgotpwtomain 9y ago

This is almost certainly not true, it's not just a lie its 'fraud' at best.

bogositosius 9y ago
You can say it's not true all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that administrative subpoenas exist as a concept and are used regularly by governmental agencies. Your inability to distinguish between a document signed by a judge and one that is not doesn't automatically imply that it is fraudulent.
- _jal 9y ago
  Yes, administrative subpoenas exist. The difference is whether courts are going to back the document in question.

geofft 9y ago

It's a little different: an administrative subpoena is authorized by law (an arbitrary agency cannot, in fact, just print the word "subpoena" on a piece of paper and make it a subpoena), and that law is subject, like all laws, to judicial oversight. HN may be most familiar with the administrative subpoena in the form of the National Security Letter, and such subpoenas have been fought in court. It's not great, to be clear. We should have all subpoenas / warrants require individual advance approval by a judge. But there's a big difference between a type of subpoena authorized by the legislature, used by the executive, and subject to review from the judiciary (and subject to the entire law being ruled unconstitutional, in theory), and the executive inventing the idea of "administrative subpoena" on their own.

bogositosius 9y ago
Yes, federal administrative subpoenas are an altogether different ballgame. Those have teeth, even when not signed by a judge. But this is done at a local level, too. New York criminal procedure law even specifically allows district attorneys to self-issue witness subpoenas. No penalty for non-compliance is specified though, so to bring you on by force they'd still have to go to a judge for a material witness order. I'm not saying I approve of the concept, but this is common practice, unlike what many posters in this thread want to tell themselves.