3 ms·

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 somethi

by 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
      >This wasn't in pursuit of a future crime The future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy. If that asset movement were not possible there's no need of secrecy. If the asset movement is not a crime then it's even worse.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy This is sort of like saying cops wear bulletproof vests to prevent the future crime of their murder. Or that we put bars on jail cells to prevent the future crime of escaping prison. Or that we lock doors to prevent the future crime of theft. Like, sure. That too. But there’s a more-obvious motivation: preventing the behaviour per se.
        harry8 3y ago
        Locking your house, bars on jails, wearing a vest all take none of our rights away. Doesn't compare with giving away rights to government agencies for their convenience in countering things you haven't done and may not. If you can't see it now nothing i can say will help you and i wish you well.
kbenson 3y ago
You are both completely misinterpreting my point and the tone I was intending. I'm aware there's no warrant. You said it would be "secret", which I interpreted to mean that the parties in question may not know the information was gathered by the government from the other parties in question. I'm not sure whether that's any different than a warrant, and so if it isn't, I'm not sure your objection is well formed. If, instead, you are upset about a lack of oversight, then you should form your objections along those lines, so people actually can engage with you on the topic fruitfully. I am, in fact, fairly open to an argument along those lines, as oversight and the lack thereof seems to cause a lot of problems. I would want to know what the thoughts of the jurists on SCOTUS was regarding that. It's probably spelled out in the majority and minority opinions to some degree. > So much ridiculous, wordy justification of the unjustifiable! Is it just AKTCHUALLY dialled up to eleven or something else? Perhaps what's going on is instead that you're not really communicating your point clearly, and when being asked for clarification your combativeness is causing you come come across as an asshole, and people are responding as such.
- harry8 3y ago
  Let's flip it then. Why does the IRS need any secrecy at all here? Or better Why does /any/ government agency require /any/ secret search powers without a properly executed warrant where they justify that?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Why does the IRS need any secrecy at all here? Jackson clearly cites the risk that "upon receiving notice that the IRS has served a summons, interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder."
    - harry8 3y ago
      > "...interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder." Is that asset movement or hiding illegal? Hasn't happened yet either way. A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent. A: No, it is not illegal. Then what the actual fudge? You might do something /legal/ so we'll stop you by doing it in secret? Huh? The problem is someone might or might not move assets. The suggested solution of secrecy is just _wrong_ on every level. Get some kind of court order saying assets cannot be moved. Change the law. Do whatever. The "do it in secret" answer is just wrong and /will/ be abused.

by harry8 3y ago

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
    >This wasn't in pursuit of a future crime The future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy. If that asset movement were not possible there's no need of secrecy. If the asset movement is not a crime then it's even worse.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy This is sort of like saying cops wear bulletproof vests to prevent the future crime of their murder. Or that we put bars on jail cells to prevent the future crime of escaping prison. Or that we lock doors to prevent the future crime of theft. Like, sure. That too. But there’s a more-obvious motivation: preventing the behaviour per se.
      - harry8 3y ago
        Locking your house, bars on jails, wearing a vest all take none of our rights away. Doesn't compare with giving away rights to government agencies for their convenience in countering things you haven't done and may not. If you can't see it now nothing i can say will help you and i wish you well.

kbenson 3y ago

You are both completely misinterpreting my point and the tone I was intending. I'm aware there's no warrant. You said it would be "secret", which I interpreted to mean that the parties in question may not know the information was gathered by the government from the other parties in question. I'm not sure whether that's any different than a warrant, and so if it isn't, I'm not sure your objection is well formed. If, instead, you are upset about a lack of oversight, then you should form your objections along those lines, so people actually can engage with you on the topic fruitfully. I am, in fact, fairly open to an argument along those lines, as oversight and the lack thereof seems to cause a lot of problems. I would want to know what the thoughts of the jurists on SCOTUS was regarding that. It's probably spelled out in the majority and minority opinions to some degree. > So much ridiculous, wordy justification of the unjustifiable! Is it just AKTCHUALLY dialled up to eleven or something else? Perhaps what's going on is instead that you're not really communicating your point clearly, and when being asked for clarification your combativeness is causing you come come across as an asshole, and people are responding as such.

harry8 3y ago
Let's flip it then. Why does the IRS need any secrecy at all here? Or better Why does /any/ government agency require /any/ secret search powers without a properly executed warrant where they justify that?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Why does the IRS need any secrecy at all here? Jackson clearly cites the risk that "upon receiving notice that the IRS has served a summons, interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder."
  - harry8 3y ago
    > "...interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder." Is that asset movement or hiding illegal? Hasn't happened yet either way. A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent. A: No, it is not illegal. Then what the actual fudge? You might do something /legal/ so we'll stop you by doing it in secret? Huh? The problem is someone might or might not move assets. The suggested solution of secrecy is just _wrong_ on every level. Get some kind of court order saying assets cannot be moved. Change the law. Do whatever. The "do it in secret" answer is just wrong and /will/ be abused.