The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread ΛΕ

[Gori the Grey]

Not always, no. They're generally linked, but they're distinct enough that one can be operative without the other.

It was just because you seemed to be regarding them as possibly synonymous that I mentioned the usual connection between them, but it's only usual, not necessary.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, but they'd have been subpoenaed before by now. That wouldn't establish a precedent. Never for a president's tax returns, true. But just some agency with the authority to subpoena; I'm sure they've responded to such things thousands of times.

Why? A subpoena is a request for documents related to a potential crime that might provide evidence of that crime, and you have to show a judge that it's relevant. I can't really think of any crimes that show up on your tax returns other than directly related crimes like tax fraud, and tax fraud is investigated by the IRS so there wouldn't be any call for turning the returns over. I'm not trying to argue with some guy on the internet, because clearly the provision is there in the cited law. I'm just having trouble picturing the applicability.

 

[Cutlass]

But if you have the capacity to do something, you are not necessarily responsible for it

You have the capacity to mow your neighbor's yard. But it's not your responsibility to do so.

 

[cardgame]

One big point of agency is that it is a necessary prerequisite to be responsible for anything.

 

[Mouthwash]

Can someone explain this joke to me? I don't get it, and I feel like I've failed as a Jew somehow.

 

[Arakhor]

Presumably because the animating word spells out truth, but if you remove the final aleph, it becomes death instead.

 

[Zkribbler]

I'm just having trouble picturing the applicability.

Ownership of property used in a crime.
Business relationship with criminals you claim not to know.
Embezzlement.
Bribery.

 

[Mouthwash]

Presumably because the animating word spells out truth, but if you remove the final aleph, it becomes death instead.

I think you mean first aleph? Anyway, I still don't get it.

 

[Arakhor]

I think you mean first aleph? Anyway, I still don't get it.

I do, yes. I'd take a guess that if the golem was animated by truth, then to quote St John, ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

 

[Lexicus]

@Sommerswerd @JollyRoger @metalhead

Tagging you because you're lawyers, but I've got a law question -what does it mean when a civil case is dismissed "with prejudice against the defendants"? I understand the concept of prejudice here (or think I do anyway), but I thought that usually a civil case being dismissed "with prejudice" means the plaintiffs can't bring the action again. But I've never heard of "prejudice against the defendants" and Google is not helping me out.

 

[JollyRoger]

I would have to see the context. Could it be a dismissal for claims against certain defendants while allowing the plaintiff to pursue the same claims against other defendants? Or were there counterclaims that are being dismissed?

 

[Lexicus]

I would have to see the context. Could it be a dismissal for claims against certain defendants while allowing the plaintiff to pursue the same claims against other defendants? Or were there counterclaims that are being dismissed?

Nope, no counterclaims involved. I think I figured it out though- it's a voluntary dismissal, so I think it means there was a settlement and the court is just saying the defendants can't appeal or otherwise revisit the action.

 

[MaryKB]

I'm wondering how @HoloDoc is doing with his whole energy company problem? I hope he's been able to work things out.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Lexicus - Never discount the possibility of it simply being a typo... they might have just typed "defendants" when they meant "Plaintiff" or typed "against" when they meant "for". Happens more frequently than you might expect, since its possibly a clerk transcribing the record or the judges notes. Another possibility, probably more likely is akward grammar/wording/sentence structure. For example the intention may have been to say "case against the defendants is dismissed with prejudice ".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ownership of property used in a crime.
Business relationship with criminals you claim not to know.
Embezzlement.
Bribery.

That's all great, but how do tax returns figure as evidence? Do you expect bribes and embezzlement to be itemized under "income"?

 

[Gori the Grey]

No, but you've reported some value for something, and the receipts don't back that up, so where was the rest of this money coming from? The information in tax returns can be a pointer to other crimes.

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus - Never discount the possibility of it simply being a typo... they might have just typed "defendants" when they meant "Plaintiff" or typed "against" when they meant "for". Happens more frequently than you might expect, since its possibly a clerk transcribing the record or the judges notes. Another possibility, probably more likely is akward grammar/wording/sentence structure. For example the intention may have been to say "case against the defendants is dismissed with prejudice ".

How would I go about checking that, exactly? Would I have to get in touch with people at the court?

 

[rah]

That's all great, but how do tax returns figure as evidence? Do you expect bribes and embezzlement to be itemized under "income"?

No, the hope is that bribes and such are not listed as income so can be used for a Tax Evasion charge. See Al Capone.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, the hope is that bribes and such are not listed as income so can be used for a Tax Evasion charge. See Al Capone.

That has us back to the tax evasion charge, which is investigated and brought by the IRS, and they already have the returns. People who are being investigated for taking bribes, or embezzlement, are often accused of "living beyond their apparent means," and may very well submit their tax returns as part of their defense; "look, I have this additional income you were not aware of, and that explains that." But that's a use of tax returns as evidence for the defense and doesn't relate to subpoena by the prosecution.

Money laundering, I can see calling for subpoena of tax returns. If you are already on the hook for some sort of illicit income, like they have you cold on that embezzling charge and just want to add time and penalties, and you've been washing your embezzled funds into your regular accounts through a false front business; "sure, I run a consulting firm on the side, but most of my 'customers' are actually just me paying myself with dark money." That false front business would be filing returns that would be useful to prosecuting the additional charge...maybe. But the accounting records of that business would be already part of the proceedings, most likely, including the tax returns.

 

[sophie]

Agency = capacity to effect change
Responsibility = bureaucratic/ethical/legal obligation to effect change

As a bouncer I have the agency to tackle whomever I want in the bar in the name of „keeping the peace,“ but I have a responsibility to use my discretion and only tackle a patron when there exists no other way to maintain or restore peace.