Comment by mothballed

I'm arguing the statutory law as applied today is avoiding the constitution, which is the supreme law. That is, the government is ignoring the supreme law by acting through a 3rd party. This doesn't "pivot" from my original position. Claiming so just allows you to "pivot" around my 4 points, and "avoid" addressing the inconvenience of their existence with a thought terminating quip that it just boils down to I "don't like the law".

You're "speculating" that a SCOTUS decision from 1974 applies to KYC today which has changed significantly since the passing of the BSA to a much more expanded search of your papers, updated significantly post 9/11. Moreover, the ruling you cite claims they didn't even think the clients themselves had standing in that suite, which reduces the strength of your argument since my assertion was that the clients were having their rights violated and your cited case largely contemplated whether the bankers had their rights violated.