7 ms·

The above analysis bothers the hell out of me. Because you might do something /wrong/ we need to have secret powers executed in secret. Surely if moving asset

by harry8 3y ago

The above analysis bothers the hell out of me. Because you might do something /wrong/ we need to have secret powers executed in secret. Surely if moving assets is wrong, there's a law that says in these circumstances you may not do it. Jail is a pretty good deterrent and only one party is subject to that. Surely if the IRS wants to do these things it can notify that it has done so at the absolute minimum. Not "lack of a gag order" but a hard requirement to notify. Secret searches seem like a power that /will/ be abused. Put money on it happening. And hey, it's not like the IRS doesn't have a history of abusing power. Just ask a journalist like Matt Taibbi about the IRS response to his testifying before congress for a recent example of naked, unwarranted intimidation (Why did they do that? Is it systemic abuse? We don't even know yet! But that they surely did is not actually up for debate...)

coderintherye 3y ago
Your reasoning is incorrect. The party in question already did something wrong and it was proven so.
- harry8 3y ago
  Nonsense, the reasoning is completely sound and you have misread. The justification for secret powers executed in secret is that the "party in question" might proceed to do something else wrong in the future if they were notified. It's a classic case of, "We deem you bad so you have no further rights" justification as argued there. Read it again, it's actually a very important point. You yourself have broken laws in the past.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > secret powers executed in secret They’re noticed of their liability. And there is no gag order on those subpoenaed. The IRS isn’t getting a FISA court.
    - harry8 3y ago
      The whole thing can happen in secret. No gag does not require your notification. That secrecy will be abused. Count on it.
      - kbenson 3y ago
        Does a warrant to a third party require your notification? Either it does, in which case this is different, or it doesn't, in which case this is no different at all, and it's purely up to the third parties in general as to whether they want to notify you about what is (now) legal access to your records from a government entity.
        harry8 3y ago
        Oh for goodness sakes what is going on here? So much ridiculous, wordy justification of the unjustifiable! Is it just AKTCHUALLY dialled up to eleven or something else? There is NO WARRANT here. None. If there were a warrant then a judge could tell them to get lost. That is oversight.. If you aren't even notified you can't even get your lawyers to get a judge to do the obviously right thing when there is CLEAR abuse. Abuse that WILL happen. In secret. You can bet a lot on that, actually.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > There is NO WARRANT here. None. If there were a warrant then a judge could tell them to get lost Subpoenas require court approval. > what is going on here? Informed, reasoned, balanced debate. Flipping out isn’t a mark of good argument. > get a judge to do the obviously right thing Decades, at least, of precedent across courts and Congress disagree.
        harry8 3y ago
        So when someone at the IRS with no oversight does something utterly evil and totally illegal for whatever reason they had and your business gets ruined as a result, you are bankrupted and you could have easily prevented it all because any judge would have seen it your way but you didn't get to take it to a judge because it was secret, you're ok with this? To prevent you from maybe doing something that is presumably already illegal in the future. Of course if the something isn't illegal so the secrecy is required to prevent you from taking wholly legal actions then that's also ok? Why is there /any/ need for /any/ secrecy here at all?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > party in question already did something wrong and it was proven so To be clear, there was no conviction. (There is court oversight.)
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Allegedly. And alleged by the same party basing their own actions on it.

by harry8 3y ago

coderintherye 3y ago

Your reasoning is incorrect. The party in question already did something wrong and it was proven so.

harry8 3y ago
Nonsense, the reasoning is completely sound and you have misread. The justification for secret powers executed in secret is that the "party in question" might proceed to do something else wrong in the future if they were notified. It's a classic case of, "We deem you bad so you have no further rights" justification as argued there. Read it again, it's actually a very important point. You yourself have broken laws in the past.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > secret powers executed in secret They’re noticed of their liability. And there is no gag order on those subpoenaed. The IRS isn’t getting a FISA court.
  - harry8 3y ago
    The whole thing can happen in secret. No gag does not require your notification. That secrecy will be abused. Count on it.
    - kbenson 3y ago
      Does a warrant to a third party require your notification? Either it does, in which case this is different, or it doesn't, in which case this is no different at all, and it's purely up to the third parties in general as to whether they want to notify you about what is (now) legal access to your records from a government entity.
      - harry8 3y ago
        Oh for goodness sakes what is going on here? So much ridiculous, wordy justification of the unjustifiable! Is it just AKTCHUALLY dialled up to eleven or something else? There is NO WARRANT here. None. If there were a warrant then a judge could tell them to get lost. That is oversight.. If you aren't even notified you can't even get your lawyers to get a judge to do the obviously right thing when there is CLEAR abuse. Abuse that WILL happen. In secret. You can bet a lot on that, actually.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > There is NO WARRANT here. None. If there were a warrant then a judge could tell them to get lost Subpoenas require court approval. > what is going on here? Informed, reasoned, balanced debate. Flipping out isn’t a mark of good argument. > get a judge to do the obviously right thing Decades, at least, of precedent across courts and Congress disagree.
        harry8 3y ago
        So when someone at the IRS with no oversight does something utterly evil and totally illegal for whatever reason they had and your business gets ruined as a result, you are bankrupted and you could have easily prevented it all because any judge would have seen it your way but you didn't get to take it to a judge because it was secret, you're ok with this? To prevent you from maybe doing something that is presumably already illegal in the future. Of course if the something isn't illegal so the secrecy is required to prevent you from taking wholly legal actions then that's also ok? Why is there /any/ need for /any/ secrecy here at all?
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> party in question already did something wrong and it was proven so To be clear, there was no conviction. (There is court oversight.)
nonethewiser 3y ago
Allegedly. And alleged by the same party basing their own actions on it.