4 ms·

Why do you think calling it a fine changes anything?

by HamsterDan 2y ago

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
Excessive fines clause of the 8th Amendment?
- kristjansson 2y ago
  Explicitly considered. The ultimate fine is much _less_ than it could have been under the controlling law.
neaden 2y ago
Personally because my first thought when I saw the title was that it was going to be another case of the police confiscating cash from someone because they thought it was "suspicious". I think this title is purposefully trying to mislead people.
- autoexec 2y ago
  I don't think your assumptions make the article misleading. I think it's a reasonable concern that if the government views money as not being property that view will make it easier for them to engage in civil-forfeiture and prevail in challenges to the practice.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 2y ago
  The title accurately describes the government's legal argument, though.
ty6853 2y ago
It makes it easier to dismiss and thus solidify as precedent, even if nonbinding precedent. The government is quite sly. They like to introduce evil new techniques on cases or people others will have no sympathy for, in hopes they can build new powers without resistance.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  It's not new. The point of the footnote is to demonstrate that money and property are distinct for the kinda of constitutional argument attempted, and have been distinct since the founding.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    The article cited argued it is new. Maybe they are wrong, but I was incorporating the facts presented. If you have an uncited bone to pick with that, that is your uncited adversarial prerogative.
    - kristjansson 2y ago
      > uncited The actual motion is linked from TFA. I should have been clearer that I was referring to that. It's worth reading the bits TFA extracts in the context of the motion, both for the supplied historical context and for clarity on the actual position taken.
mrkeen 2y ago
You're right, it doesn't. It's weird of the government to say "money is not property" in a footnote. But it's just as nonsensical for the plaintiff to argue that he (or his business?) can't be fined because his money is his private property. ----- Edit: no, I'm rethinking this immediately lol. If Congress passed a law saying "we're taking $16k from this dude" that's abitrary and capricious and clearly violates the guy's rights. But if laws are passed (taxation, fines) that everyone is subject to, then obviously those laws need to function by taking money. If "the gov can't take my property" is what is meant by the constitution, then fines and taxes wouldn't exist. So maybe that's what the gov means here, i.e. "money is not property for the purposes of taxation and fines".
- autoexec 2y ago
  According the article (and sources it links to) he isn't claiming that he can't be fined, only that he should be able to argue his case in a real courtroom with a real judge or even a jury. For what it's worth, I think the guy sounds like a scumbag engaged in very shitty business practices, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't get his day in a real courtroom.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    He had several days in court over four years, in the sort of venue specified by the visa program he took advantage of. Administrative courts are still adversarial courts where all the normal civil procedure rules apply.
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      Right, the article isn't very clear. I would assume that the 7th amendment to a jury trial would apply here, but it is unclear if he was denied this right or chose not to try assert it until after he ran out administrative appeal options.
      - kristjansson 2y ago
        The government's motion (that Reason, to their credit, link in the first paragraph) is much more helpful on the actual case. In this case, the answer is kinda both. Administrative law stuff like this can be heard without violating the seventh amendment under the two-part test cited in I.A (which was affirmed by a 2024 decision), and I.B points out that he implicitly consented by litigating in front of the ALJ for four years (and that implicit consent has been upheld as consent to avoid exactly this kind of gamesmanship).
kristjansson 2y ago
Because all the constitutional arguments therein are a long-shot attempt to remove a long-litigated fine by attacking the underpinnings of the administrative agency that that assessed the fine. It's like getting a speeding ticket and arguing that traffic enforcement is unconstitutional.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
because fines are incurred when the government sees you guilty of a crime. In this case, stolen wages. The process to incur a fine is much more structured (and bound by its own laws) than a government trying to break your down down and grab your cash.

Why do you think calling it a fine changes anything?

EMIRELADERO 2y ago

Excessive fines clause of the 8th Amendment?

kristjansson 2y ago
Explicitly considered. The ultimate fine is much _less_ than it could have been under the controlling law.

neaden 2y ago

Personally because my first thought when I saw the title was that it was going to be another case of the police confiscating cash from someone because they thought it was "suspicious". I think this title is purposefully trying to mislead people.

autoexec 2y ago
I don't think your assumptions make the article misleading. I think it's a reasonable concern that if the government views money as not being property that view will make it easier for them to engage in civil-forfeiture and prevail in challenges to the practice.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 2y ago
The title accurately describes the government's legal argument, though.

ty6853 2y ago

It makes it easier to dismiss and thus solidify as precedent, even if nonbinding precedent. The government is quite sly. They like to introduce evil new techniques on cases or people others will have no sympathy for, in hopes they can build new powers without resistance.

kristjansson 2y ago
It's not new. The point of the footnote is to demonstrate that money and property are distinct for the kinda of constitutional argument attempted, and have been distinct since the founding.
- ty6853 2y ago
  The article cited argued it is new. Maybe they are wrong, but I was incorporating the facts presented. If you have an uncited bone to pick with that, that is your uncited adversarial prerogative.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    > uncited The actual motion is linked from TFA. I should have been clearer that I was referring to that. It's worth reading the bits TFA extracts in the context of the motion, both for the supplied historical context and for clarity on the actual position taken.

mrkeen 2y ago

You're right, it doesn't. It's weird of the government to say "money is not property" in a footnote. But it's just as nonsensical for the plaintiff to argue that he (or his business?) can't be fined because his money is his private property. ----- Edit: no, I'm rethinking this immediately lol. If Congress passed a law saying "we're taking $16k from this dude" that's abitrary and capricious and clearly violates the guy's rights. But if laws are passed (taxation, fines) that everyone is subject to, then obviously those laws need to function by taking money. If "the gov can't take my property" is what is meant by the constitution, then fines and taxes wouldn't exist. So maybe that's what the gov means here, i.e. "money is not property for the purposes of taxation and fines".

autoexec 2y ago
According the article (and sources it links to) he isn't claiming that he can't be fined, only that he should be able to argue his case in a real courtroom with a real judge or even a jury. For what it's worth, I think the guy sounds like a scumbag engaged in very shitty business practices, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't get his day in a real courtroom.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  He had several days in court over four years, in the sort of venue specified by the visa program he took advantage of. Administrative courts are still adversarial courts where all the normal civil procedure rules apply.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    Right, the article isn't very clear. I would assume that the 7th amendment to a jury trial would apply here, but it is unclear if he was denied this right or chose not to try assert it until after he ran out administrative appeal options.
    - kristjansson 2y ago
      The government's motion (that Reason, to their credit, link in the first paragraph) is much more helpful on the actual case. In this case, the answer is kinda both. Administrative law stuff like this can be heard without violating the seventh amendment under the two-part test cited in I.A (which was affirmed by a 2024 decision), and I.B points out that he implicitly consented by litigating in front of the ALJ for four years (and that implicit consent has been upheld as consent to avoid exactly this kind of gamesmanship).

kristjansson 2y ago

Because all the constitutional arguments therein are a long-shot attempt to remove a long-litigated fine by attacking the underpinnings of the administrative agency that that assessed the fine. It's like getting a speeding ticket and arguing that traffic enforcement is unconstitutional.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

because fines are incurred when the government sees you guilty of a crime. In this case, stolen wages. The process to incur a fine is much more structured (and bound by its own laws) than a government trying to break your down down and grab your cash.