5 ms·

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
        > 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 From a subpoena? How? Whom? Is the concern the bank will run out of resources with which to respond to court orders? You know what can be ruinous? A flippantly-filed warrant. > prevent you from maybe doing something that is presumably already illegal in the future What? A suspected tax dodge's lawyers bank was asked to provide accounts from or to which the suspect wired money. This wasn't a fishing expedition; the IRS convinced a judge to grant the subpoena. They asked the bank for records, then the bank let the lawyers know it complied. This wasn't in pursuit of a future crime. The IRS had already found Polselli liable. He had been noticed of this liability. Then they went to collect.
        harry8 3y ago
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.

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
        > 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 From a subpoena? How? Whom? Is the concern the bank will run out of resources with which to respond to court orders? You know what can be ruinous? A flippantly-filed warrant. > prevent you from maybe doing something that is presumably already illegal in the future What? A suspected tax dodge's lawyers bank was asked to provide accounts from or to which the suspect wired money. This wasn't a fishing expedition; the IRS convinced a judge to grant the subpoena. They asked the bank for records, then the bank let the lawyers know it complied. This wasn't in pursuit of a future crime. The IRS had already found Polselli liable. He had been noticed of this liability. Then they went to collect.
        harry8 3y ago

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.