4 ms·

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 t

by 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).
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Does procedure really matter when the judge is employed by the same agency as the prosecutor? We've seen how administrative courts work in practice for immigration; this doesn't seem any different.

by mrkeen 2y ago

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).
- int_19h 2y ago
  Does procedure really matter when the judge is employed by the same agency as the prosecutor? We've seen how administrative courts work in practice for immigration; this doesn't seem any different.