Marc Stevens and "Insufficient Evidence"

[Famspear]

It would be foreign entity claiming I've broken their code, and something that would not be a crime here. It's not the punishment involved, but the belief they can impose their code on people outside of their jurisdiction that's the problem.

I understand that you feel that way, and believe I understand why you feel that way.

The motion to dismiss, as I understand it, would be a request to dismiss because the claimant hasn't produced evidence that I am subject to their IRS code. I shouldn't have to prove anything myself. Unless they can produce such evidence, or evidence isn't necessary, the motion should be granted.

Again, I understand that you feel that way. You're wrong. That motion would probably be a futile gesture in a court of law in the United States. Based on the international law information posted by wserra, it might well be a futile gesture in the UK as well.

I suspect that the United States is not the only nation whose laws -- or rather some of the laws of which -- apply world wide. Even certain U.S. federal criminal laws apply world wide.

[AndyK]

Have you read the US-UK convention on avoiding double taxation and tax information exchange? If not, before you continue you might read Title 27 ¶ 4:

I seriously doubt that would grant the IRS the ability to start issuing summons against people in the UK directly. However, this is hypothetical, we could use some fictional state code that imposes $10000 fines for people who drive blue cars if you prefer.

Should the IRS desire / require documents related to a subject-to-the US-laws taxpayer, it can issue subpoenas to anyone -- irrespective of the location of the desired information.

Such subpoenas carry the full weight of all treaties regarding taxation established between the USA and other nations. The only sticking point is that the document request must be adjudicated according to the lws of the host nation.

Irrespective of that detail, many such subpoenas have been served, adjudicated, and fulfilled outside the United States.

[GaryBale]

I suspect that the United States is not the only nation whose laws -- or rather some of the laws of which -- apply world wide. Even certain U.S. federal criminal laws apply world wide.

I don't believe any US agency/state code applies outside of the US. With regards to the IRS, they may have some cooperation from some agency in the UK (requires some UK code) but they shouldn't get anywhere without that cooperation, which is why I introduced the hypothetical car colour fine.

I'm not sure you are saying that some agency/state in the US can claim their rule(s) apply to everyone, or perhaps attempt to impose rules retrospectively on people who performed perfectly legal actions abroad and then moved to the US, but this is what I am contesting.

I'd be concerned that the IRS could gain support in the UK courts for the actions discussed. I still think any request would need to be supported by some evidence (or that should be the case and the UK code is inappropriate), but I agree Stevens motion would probably not suit such a situation. Perhaps if the UK code requires evidence (as extradition cases once did) something very similar could be used, but it's not important.

[wserra]

I'm gonna try one more time.

I don't believe any US agency/state code applies outside of the US.

As far as the tax laws are concerned, that is literally true as to people who have no US income and are neither citizens nor permanent residents. However, when a UK court directs you to comply with the IRS demand you're holding - as it must do if UK requirements are met - you may not find that distinction comforting. And, if you do have US-sourced income, or are a US citizen or permanent resident, then yes, the US income tax laws apply directly to you wherever you are.

I'd be concerned that the IRS could gain support in the UK courts for the actions discussed.

UK courts are required by treaty to enforce IRS demands, so long as those demands are consistent with UK law. Same with US courts and HMRC demands.

I still think any request would need to be supported by some evidence

Whatever evidence UK law requires. In the US, the requirements are generally contained in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964). Those requirements have nothing to do with "evidence that the laws apply to me".

I agree Stevens motion would probably not suit such a situation.

"Stevens' motion" doesn't suit any situation. Try standing before a UK court and demanding proof that the laws - not a specific law, but any law - applies to you. The same thing would happen to you as has happened every time to Stevens - laughed at or thrown out on your ear, depending on the judge's mood.

[GaryBale]

Focusing too much on the IRS and it's confusing the issue.

Let's say that lovely ayatollah from Iran brings a claim against you in the US, or somewhere else where you actually care about the result. The claim could be something perfectly legal in the US, such as drawing a cartoon of Muhammed.

How do you respond?

[Famspear]

....I don't believe.... they shouldn't get anywhere without...... I'd be concerned.... I still think... but I agree......

What you or I "believe" or do not "believe", where you or I "feel" someone should or shouldn't "get", whether you or I would be "concerned", what you or I "think", and what you or I "agree" about are not determinative. The law is as I and others have explained it here in this thread, and the legal system works the way I and others have explained it.

Marc Stevens suffers from a malady that many others of his ilk also suffer -- the false belief that he can (1) string together various bits of technical legal jargon he has read in various places, (2) use those bits to concoct a frivolous theory that sounds good to him, and (2) get a court of law to rule that his theory is correct. He is wrong.

[Pottapaug1938]

Focusing too much on the IRS and it's confusing the issue.

Let's say that lovely ayatollah from Iran brings a claim against you in the US, or somewhere else where you actually care about the result. The claim could be something perfectly legal in the US, such as drawing a cartoon of Muhammed.

How do you respond?

For starters, is there a treaty which requires US courts to entertain the claim?

Does the claim involve a subject barred from consideration by US law (which in this case would be barred by the First Amendment, at the very least)?

Your question is much too broad and open-ended for further serious consideration.

[Jeffrey]

Are we including crimes committed outside the U.S. in countries which we have extradition treaties? Because you could argue that if you get extradited to Europe for a murder you committed over there, that technically extends the reach of that law.

[GaryBale]

Are we including crimes committed outside the U.S. in countries which we have extradition treaties? Because you could argue that if you get extradited to Europe for a murder you committed over there, that technically extends the reach of that law.

No, committed the crime where it was a crime.

[GaryBale]

Focusing too much on the IRS and it's confusing the issue.

Let's say that lovely ayatollah from Iran brings a claim against you in the US, or somewhere else where you actually care about the result. The claim could be something perfectly legal in the US, such as drawing a cartoon of Muhammed.

How do you respond?

For starters, is there a treaty which requires US courts to entertain the claim?

Does the claim involve a subject barred from consideration by US law (which in this case would be barred by the First Amendment, at the very least)?

Your question is much too broad and open-ended for further serious consideration.

No and no. The second point is interesting though. I'm guessing no court would deny a case initially even if that was the case.

[Pottapaug1938]

Focusing too much on the IRS and it's confusing the issue.

Let's say that lovely ayatollah from Iran brings a claim against you in the US, or somewhere else where you actually care about the result. The claim could be something perfectly legal in the US, such as drawing a cartoon of Muhammed.

How do you respond?

For starters, is there a treaty which requires US courts to entertain the claim?

Does the claim involve a subject barred from consideration by US law (which in this case would be barred by the First Amendment, at the very least)?

Your question is much too broad and open-ended for further serious consideration.


No and no. The second point is interesting though. I'm guessing no court would deny a case initially even if that was the case.[/quote]

You are wrong on the second point. Your imaginary Ayatollah would not be able to bring an action in a US court, because of the cartoon of Muhammed, because the First Amendment to the US Constitution would be enough to get the case thrown out of court in the pretrial stages.

[GaryBale]

You are wrong on the second point. Your imaginary Ayatollah would not be able to bring an action in a US court, because of the cartoon of Muhammed, because the First Amendment to the US Constitution would be enough to get the case thrown out of court in the pretrial stages.

It's my scenario, just an example and doesn't need to be something covered by First Amendment.

I'm just trying to understand how one would respond.

[Pottapaug1938]

You are wrong on the second point. Your imaginary Ayatollah would not be able to bring an action in a US court, because of the cartoon of Muhammed, because the First Amendment to the US Constitution would be enough to get the case thrown out of court in the pretrial stages.

It's my scenario, just an example and doesn't need to be something covered by First Amendment.

I'm just trying to understand how one would respond.

You're moving the goalposts, Gary. Your scenario would not work in any US court, no matter how much you would try to spin it. Any Iranian laws which punish the drawing of the cartoon from a criminal standpoint would fail because of the First Amendment; and the Ayatollah would lack standing to bring a civil action.

But, hey -- you say that it's "just an example"? Well, then, I'll repeat what I said at the top of my section of this thread:

"Is there a treaty which requires US courts to entertain the claim?"

"Does the claim involve a subject barred from consideration by US law (which in this case would be barred by the First Amendment, at the very least)?"

[noblepa]

You are wrong on the second point. Your imaginary Ayatollah would not be able to bring an action in a US court, because of the cartoon of Muhammed, because the First Amendment to the US Constitution would be enough to get the case thrown out of court in the pretrial stages.

It's my scenario, just an example and doesn't need to be something covered by First Amendment.

I'm just trying to understand how one would respond.

You're moving the goalposts, Gary. Your scenario would not work in any US court, no matter how much you would try to spin it. Any Iranian laws which punish the drawing of the cartoon from a criminal standpoint would fail because of the First Amendment; and the Ayatollah would lack standing to bring a civil action.

But, hey -- you say that it's "just an example"? Well, then, I'll repeat what I said at the top of my section of this thread:

"Is there a treaty which requires US courts to entertain the claim?"

"Does the claim involve a subject barred from consideration by US law (which in this case would be barred by the First Amendment, at the very least)?"

I think the issue is more generalized than his example. I don't think that any US court would entertain a CRIMINAL complaint from Iran over a violation of Iranian law.

Iran would have to charge you in an Iranian court and then make a formal request with the US State Department to extradite you to Iran. Given the current state of affairs between the US and Iran, that is iffy, at best. Iran would have to prove to the US that you are, in fact, the person they are looking for, and that you would receive a fair trial (yeah, right!).

But, say, you were charged in a UK court with a UK crime. We have pretty good relations with the UK and we have an extradition treaty. You might very well be arrested here and put on a plane to London.

I believe that similar procedures would be followed if you were an important witness in an important crime in the UK, even if you are not the defendent. The UK court would issue a summons for you to appear to testify at trial. I'm betting that there are treaties between the US and UK that allow a US court to enforce a subpoena under certain circumstances. If a US court ruled in their favor, you might very well find yourself on a plane to London.

[notorial dissent]

A simpler and more true to life scenario, you live in the UK, or just are in the UK for that matter, you hack in to a server on US soil, for whatever reason, and they catch you at it and identify you, you are charged in a US court and an arrest warrant is issued, you are arrested in the UK on the US charge and extradited to stand trial for the crime you committed in the US never having set foot in the US, and you get to go to jail. That is how it works, in real life.

[GaryBale]

Any Iranian laws which punish the drawing of the cartoon from a criminal standpoint would fail because of the First Amendment; and the Ayatollah would lack standing to bring a civil action

I think the issue is more generalized than his example. I don't think that any US court would entertain a CRIMINAL complaint from Iran over a violation of Iranian law.

Probably not the best example, but it's not the specifics of a particular claim that matters, it's the principle. However, the above statements are on point.

Pottapaug1938's are you saying that a defence would need be filed citing the First Amendment if it's a criminal procedure? Would evidence be required that the First Amendment applies and/or is superior to the Iranian legislation, and does this mean you are not challenging or could challenge the claim that Iranian legislation applies?

What would filed to thwart a civil action?

Noblepa, are you thinking the US court automatically rejects that the Iranian legislation doesn't apply, that the defendant would need to file something, or something else? Would the same be true with a civil case?

[Pottapaug1938]

Any Iranian laws which punish the drawing of the cartoon from a criminal standpoint would fail because of the First Amendment; and the Ayatollah would lack standing to bring a civil action

Probably not the best example, but it's not the specifics of a particular claim that matters, it's the principle. However, the above statements are on point.

Pottapaug1938's are you saying that a defence would need be filed citing the First Amendment if it's a criminal procedure? Would evidence be required that the First Amendment applies and/or is superior to the Iranian legislation, and does this mean you are not challenging or could challenge the claim that Iranian legislation applies?

What would filed to thwart a civil action?

It wouldn't even need to rise to the level of a full defense. A motion to dismiss, based on the First Amendment, would likely be all that is needed to bring the case to an end. The First Amendment IS "superior to the Iranian legislation", since the Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Clause 2). Any other issues regarding the applicability of the Iranian law in the US could be disposed of by showing the existence of, or lack of, a treaty between Iran and the US which is currently in force; but due to the First Amendment issue, a court would likely never get that far.

As for the civil case, a motion to dismiss based on a lack of standing would probably suffice.

[GaryBale]

A simpler and more true to life scenario, you live in the UK, or just are in the UK for that matter, you hack in to a server on US soil, for whatever reason, and they catch you at it and identify you, you are charged in a US court and an arrest warrant is issued, you are arrested in the UK on the US charge and extradited to stand trial for the crime you committed in the US never having set foot in the US, and you get to go to jail. That is how it works, in real life.

I'm not sure that's simpler as there's a treaty involved, and there may be a genuine civil claim for damages. I don't think there's much point in denying such events can happen, but these rely on local legislation. I have another scenario, that has occurred in real life and does focus on local legislation, but I'm saving that for another time.

[Dr. Caligari]

But, say, you were charged in a UK court with a UK crime. We have pretty good relations with the UK and we have an extradition treaty. You might very well be arrested here and put on a plane to London.

True, with one important caveat. All extradition treaties either list the crimes which are extraditable, so the UK charge would have to be one of the (relatively serious) ones listed in the treaty, or they specify that the crime for which you're being extradited must be a crime in both countries (so you can't be extradited if the UK tries to extradite you for something that's wouldn't have been illegal had you done it in the US).

[Pottapaug1938]

A simpler and more true to life scenario, you live in the UK, or just are in the UK for that matter, you hack in to a server on US soil, for whatever reason, and they catch you at it and identify you, you are charged in a US court and an arrest warrant is issued, you are arrested in the UK on the US charge and extradited to stand trial for the crime you committed in the US never having set foot in the US, and you get to go to jail. That is how it works, in real life.

I'm not sure that's simpler as there's a treaty involved, and there may be a genuine civil claim for damages. I don't think there's much point in denying such events can happen, but these rely on local legislation. I have another scenario, that has occurred in real life and does focus on local legislation, but I'm saving that for another time.

Well, then -- stop being coy and bring it on, especially since it was probably on your mind all along. You're like so many others who pop up here in "just asking" mode and then turn out to have some more pointed reason for their questions.