{"id":58628,"date":"2024-08-15T06:01:42","date_gmt":"2024-08-15T11:01:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=58628"},"modified":"2024-08-15T06:01:42","modified_gmt":"2024-08-15T11:01:42","slug":"ca6-no-special-rep-in-crypto-in-fincen-8300-reporting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=58628","title":{"rendered":"CA6: No special REP in crypto in FinCEN 8300 reporting"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>There is no special reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment to bar the IRS\/FinCEN Form 8300 reporting requirement. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/24a0172p-06.pdf\">Carman v. Yellen<\/a>, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20033 (6th Cir. Aug. 9, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Four of petitioner\u2019s 2255 claims involved a search issue, and he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate it before. CoA denied. McGuire v. Sec&#8217;y, Fla. Dep&#8217;t of Corr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20036 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Petitioner\u2019s successor habeas attempt is denied. One issue is just a rehash of his previously denied Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In re Hill, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20059 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that would have failed. Defense counsel also wrote repeatedly to defendant but he never responded. \u201cRepresentation between an attorney and their client is not a one-way street. Without participation, communication, and cooperation from the client, which appears to have been lacking here, a defense counsel&#8217;s representation can be adversely impacted by their client&#8217;s lack of cooperation.\u201d State v. Smith, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 576 (Aug. 9, 2024).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There is no special reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment to bar the IRS\/FinCEN Form 8300 reporting requirement. Carman v. Yellen, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20033 (6th Cir. Aug. 9, 2024). Four of petitioner\u2019s 2255 claims involved a &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=58628\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,126,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ineffective-assistance","category-issue-preclusion","category-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58628","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=58628"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58628\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58629,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58628\/revisions\/58629"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=58628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=58628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=58628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}