bronyaur1: There seems to me to be a difference between reading your private emails and chats and reading what you post on Twitter and Facebook.
MacEnvy: The handbook is from 2009. The relevant caselaw is from 2010 and after.Shut up, you pageclick-whoring cocks.
ongbok: The administer of that site can change your password to what ever they want to access your account
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Lavbit.com. My e-mail is stored encrypted to my passphrase. I'm more than happy for them to hand over a meaningless string of characters to anyone that wants a copy.
Smackledorfer: OgreMagi: BMulligan: OgreMagi: That IRS has made it clear in the past that until the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they are free to ignore lower court rulings. That is not how our justice system is supposed to work, assholes.It's exactly how our justice system is supposed to work. Sixth Circuit rulings are only mandatory authority in the Sixth Circuit, and never in Tax Court proceedings. This is covered on, like. the third day of law school.They have a habit of ignoring citations that would apply to a particular jurisdiction. They only answer to the Supreme Court and their own tax court. And their tax court is filled with judges who were formerly IRS agents.I think BMulligan's point is that this *IS* how our justice system is set up and supposed to work.As for the complaint about what the judges used to be.... what of it? Do you think there is a conspiratorial situation where IRS agents have some huge personal stake in farking you over and stealing all your monies? I kind of doubt they get as emotionally invested as all that. It should come as no surprise that people with boatloads of experience in a field wind up judges.
OgreMagi: That IRS has made it clear in the past that until the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they are free to ignore lower court rulings. That is not how our justice system is supposed to work, assholes.
fusillade762: Why would the IRS want to read my email? I can't think of a single thing I send via email (or on Facebook, for that matter) that would be relevant to my tax situation.
BMulligan: Elegy: Isn't this like, a regular thing? It seems like every year there's some "new" story about how the IRS doesn't think judicial rulings apply to them...The Warshak decision is binding only in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Furthermore, even in those states, jurisdiction in tax disputes lies exclusively with the Tax Court unless the taxpayer/litigant first pays the demanded tax. In the vast majority of cases, Warshak would be only persuasive authority. Pity, because it's a good opinion, but it's of only limited precedential value at this point.
BMulligan: skullkrusher: James F. Campbell: If you're really that concerned about it, sign up for HushMail and encourage everyone you know to do so as well.or we could just invoke the Constitution. Thanks for your input, James.Yes, but it's not necessarily an easy constitutional call. As a result of generations of questionable Fourth Amendment jurisprudence (thanks, Prohibition/War on Drugs!), the analysis is never as simple as you'd think.
Elegy: Isn't this like, a regular thing? It seems like every year there's some "new" story about how the IRS doesn't think judicial rulings apply to them...
cman: Well, Obama, now it is your move.I doubt Obama personally knew what the IRS was doing, but now that it is out, he needs to take care of this shiat right away.
If you like these links, you'll love
All the submissions, none of the calories.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 22 2018 20:21:21
Runtime: 0.231 sec (231 ms)