6 ms·

I disagree. It won't really harm the prosecutors and police. They'll still be able to bring the full force of the law against anyone who violates an actual sub

by mcherm 9y ago

I disagree. It won't really harm the prosecutors and police. They'll still be able to bring the full force of the law against anyone who violates an actual subpoena. In fact, it allows them to successfully prosecute a few more people (those who didn't respond to a subpoena). And stories about THAT will just terrify people and make them more likely to comply with requests from police and prosecutors (because they don't know whether such requests have the force of law). So the impact on society may be quite harmful, but the impact on PROSECUTORS is completely positive.

talmand 9y ago
There are negatives in creating a situation where people that normally would talk to you without you jumping through hoops stop talking to you willingly and require you to jump through hoops. Especially when the eventual new prosecutor wonders why they have to arrest everyone that is under subpoena to get them to respond.
Declanomous 9y ago
I'm inclined to side with you on this one. I took a linguistics class called Language and the Law. The takeaway was that the legal system is quite generous when interpreting language from the side of The Law, and very strict when interpreting the language of those on the other side. I imagine you might be able to avoid the consequences of ignoring a subpoena if your lawyer was very good, and hired the right experts to testify on your behalf, but I wouldn't bet my house on it. And legal fees can easily be as much or more than a mortgage. (IANAL) A substantial portion of the reading for the class was from Language in the Legal Process[1]. I'd highly recommend the book if you are at all interested in legal language from a linguistics standpoint. [1] https://smile.amazon.com/Language-Legal-Process-J-Cotterill/dp/140393388X https://smile.amazon.com/Language-Legal-Process-J-Cotterill/...
balabaster 9y ago
If I couldn't be sure if the document was authentic, you can be sure I'd want proof of authenticity from the court before I complied. Throw the book at me if you like, I will present my case to the court. If it was proven that the department were issuing fraudulent subpoenas, shouldn't we treat all their subpoenas as questionable until proven otherwise? It seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Of course, IANAL and TINLA applies.
kefka 9y ago
Did you know I'm really the IRS/ Consider yourself served with a bill, totalling $5800 or we will arrest you at your workplace. You can pay us via Bitcoin address 1MCwBbhNGp5hRm5rC1Aims2YFRe2SXPYK (See? That's really scammy and evil. And its illegal for us to do that. But you know, government isnt subject to the laws for the rest of us. Oh, and that's the EFF BTC address.)
wccrawford 9y ago
I disagree that it won't harm the prosecutors and police. The rest of what you said is exactly my point. Those people will get hurt because they now question some basic parts of our legal system. They might violate a subpoena that they mistakenly think is fake and end up on the wrong side of the law. At the same time, those people are also hurting the court cases that they were supposed to attend. Prosecutors who can't get their witnesses to come in to trial are going to have a bad time, even if they can later convict those people for violating a subpoena. The only time it helps them is when people comply with the fake subpoena and talk when they didn't have to... And there's some serious question about the evidence that produces. It wouldn't be the first evidence thrown out because it didn't follow the correct protocols and/or violated civil rights. And what happens when this all comes to light? Do they throw out every case where this appears to have happened, if it's found to be illegal? To me, this is a complete negative for prosecutors in the long run.
omginternets 9y ago
You're arguing short-term consequences whereas the parent comment is arguing long-term consequences.

by mcherm 9y ago

talmand 9y ago

There are negatives in creating a situation where people that normally would talk to you without you jumping through hoops stop talking to you willingly and require you to jump through hoops. Especially when the eventual new prosecutor wonders why they have to arrest everyone that is under subpoena to get them to respond.

Declanomous 9y ago

I'm inclined to side with you on this one. I took a linguistics class called Language and the Law. The takeaway was that the legal system is quite generous when interpreting language from the side of The Law, and very strict when interpreting the language of those on the other side. I imagine you might be able to avoid the consequences of ignoring a subpoena if your lawyer was very good, and hired the right experts to testify on your behalf, but I wouldn't bet my house on it. And legal fees can easily be as much or more than a mortgage. (IANAL) A substantial portion of the reading for the class was from Language in the Legal Process[1]. I'd highly recommend the book if you are at all interested in legal language from a linguistics standpoint. [1] https://smile.amazon.com/Language-Legal-Process-J-Cotterill/dp/140393388X https://smile.amazon.com/Language-Legal-Process-J-Cotterill/...

balabaster 9y ago

If I couldn't be sure if the document was authentic, you can be sure I'd want proof of authenticity from the court before I complied. Throw the book at me if you like, I will present my case to the court. If it was proven that the department were issuing fraudulent subpoenas, shouldn't we treat all their subpoenas as questionable until proven otherwise? It seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Of course, IANAL and TINLA applies.

kefka 9y ago

Did you know I'm really the IRS/ Consider yourself served with a bill, totalling $5800 or we will arrest you at your workplace. You can pay us via Bitcoin address 1MCwBbhNGp5hRm5rC1Aims2YFRe2SXPYK (See? That's really scammy and evil. And its illegal for us to do that. But you know, government isnt subject to the laws for the rest of us. Oh, and that's the EFF BTC address.)

wccrawford 9y ago

I disagree that it won't harm the prosecutors and police. The rest of what you said is exactly my point. Those people will get hurt because they now question some basic parts of our legal system. They might violate a subpoena that they mistakenly think is fake and end up on the wrong side of the law. At the same time, those people are also hurting the court cases that they were supposed to attend. Prosecutors who can't get their witnesses to come in to trial are going to have a bad time, even if they can later convict those people for violating a subpoena. The only time it helps them is when people comply with the fake subpoena and talk when they didn't have to... And there's some serious question about the evidence that produces. It wouldn't be the first evidence thrown out because it didn't follow the correct protocols and/or violated civil rights. And what happens when this all comes to light? Do they throw out every case where this appears to have happened, if it's found to be illegal? To me, this is a complete negative for prosecutors in the long run.

omginternets 9y ago

You're arguing short-term consequences whereas the parent comment is arguing long-term consequences.