"Law" Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required

[dblack]

Contumacious said:

“I am a Libertarian. I want NO government.”

You are ridiculous.

You're no libertarian, C - you're authoritarian through and through.

 

[Skylar]

Contumacious said:

“I am a Libertarian. I want NO government.”

You are ridiculous.

You're no libertarian, C - you're authoritarian through and through.

Libertarianism has more flavors than baskin robbins. And there are many an anarcho-capitalist who claims the mantle of 'libertarian'.

 

[Contumacious]

“America Has Entered a New Level of Tyranny
By Dave Hodges”

Nonsense.

Subjective, hyperbolic opinions do not constitute 'facts.'

“It is amazing how many Americans have never heard of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Under the NDAA, a person can be snatched off the street without cause, not allowed access to an attorney, held indefinitely, never charged with a crime and never released.”

It is amazing how wrong and ignorant many demagogues can be.
The NDAA possesses no such provision, and authorizes no such action. Citizens cannot be detained by government authorities absent due process even if designated to be an "enemy combatant" (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)).

In addition, acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000)). That some might think or believe a law is un-Constitutional, or might violate their civil liberties, does not render that law in fact un-Constitutional (Clapper v. Amnesty International (2013)).

ACLU

" The ACLU does not believe that the NDAA authorizes military detention of American citizens or anyone else in the United States. Any president’s claim of domestic military detention authority under the NDAA would be unconstitutional and illegal.Nevertheless, there is substantial public debate around whether the NDAA could be read even to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and authorize indefinite military detention without charge or trial within the United States."

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious said:

“I am a Libertarian. I want NO government.”

You are ridiculous.

You're no libertarian, C - you're authoritarian through and through.

Really?


Whose authority did I suggest that you comply with?

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious said:

“I am a Libertarian. I want NO government.”

You are ridiculous.

You're no libertarian, C - you're authoritarian through and through.

Libertarianism has more flavors than baskin robbins. And there are many an anarcho-capitalist who claims the mantle of 'libertarian'.

Really?

You found a publication which claims that you can support slavery and Libertarianism at the same time, right?

.

 

[Dot Com]

Contumacious said:

“I am a Libertarian. I want NO government.”

You are ridiculous.

exactly C_Clayton_Jones

 

[Clementine]

Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required

ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her funds, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

This has to stop. It's just like the way they seize money for suspected drug dealers. If you get pulled over and have too much cash on you, you'll be robbed by authorities without being charged. Government, state and federal, are nothing but low life scum who steal money from working Americans. It's total bullshit that they can take everything, then put people in a position where they have to prove their innocence to get their money and belongings back. It's backward and in violation of our rights. Looks like she runs a fairly small business, but when politicians know there is money, they scheme to get their filthy hands on it by any means possible.

She probably deposited less than $10,000 because that is what she made in a certain time period. So, they go after you for not depositing enough and they go after you for having too much. Either way, you lose and they win. What a fucked up deal that is.

 

[Dot Com]

I am a Libertarian. I want NO government.

.

might put that in my siggie although you misspelled 'anarchist' lol

 

[dblack]

I am a Libertarian. I want NO government.

.

might put that in my siggie although you misspelled 'anarchist' lol

Indeed. It's not spelled 'l-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n'.

 

[Contumacious]

:

Have you even read your article? If so, tell us why it works.

Present your argument.

What 's your agenda?

A conversation. And its like pulling teeth to get you to simply tell us what you believe and why you believe it. Or to back those claims up with reasoned arguments and evidence.

If you don't know why you believe as you believe, just say so. If you do know, then by all means share that with us. And offer us reasonable arguments to support those beliefs.

If you are truly an American Citizen residing in the US then you are either a government employee or your are FUBR.

 

[Clementine]

The Internal Robbery Squad knows that the populace is narcotized. It also knows that federal "judges" have sworn to support and defend the welfare/warfare police state.

.

You may want to look into Civil Forfeiture law a little more closely. Most of it is done at the State level. And liberals aren't too thrilled about it either:

It starts at the state level, but authorities turn many cases over to the DOJ to get around some of the laws and they share the money with the feds.

 

[Skylar]

" The ACLU does not believe that the NDAA authorizes military detention of American citizens or anyone else in the United States. Any president’s claim of domestic military detention authority under the NDAA would be unconstitutional and illegal.Nevertheless, there is substantial public debate around whether the NDAA could be read even to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and authorize indefinite military detention without charge or trial within the United States."

[/quote]

And what is this citation supposed to demonstrate?

 

[Contumacious]

Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required

ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her funds, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

This has to stop. It's just like the way they seize money for suspected drug dealers. If you get pulled over and have too much cash on you, you'll be robbed by authorities without being charged. Government, state and federal, are nothing but low life scum who steal money from working Americans. It's total bullshit that they can take everything, then put people in a position where they have to prove their innocence to get their money and belongings back. It's backward and in violation of our rights. Looks like she runs a fairly small business, but when politicians know there is money, they scheme to get their filthy hands on it by any means possible.

She probably deposited less than $10,000 because that is what she made in a certain time period. So, they go after you for not depositing enough and they go after you for having too much. Either way, you lose and they win. What a fucked up deal that is.

 

[Skylar]

Really?

You found a publication which claims that you can support slavery and Libertarianism at the same time, right?

Can you quote me saying that?

And of course, you have yet to make a credible argument that we are slaves or live in tyranny. You've typed the claim. But you don't seem to understand why you believe as you do.

 

[Contumacious]

Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required

ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her funds, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

This has to stop. It's just like the way they seize money for suspected drug dealers. If you get pulled over and have too much cash on you, you'll be robbed by authorities without being charged. Government, state and federal, are nothing but low life scum who steal money from working Americans. It's total bullshit that they can take everything, then put people in a position where they have to prove their innocence to get their money and belongings back. It's backward and in violation of our rights. Looks like she runs a fairly small business, but when politicians know there is money, they scheme to get their filthy hands on it by any means possible.

She probably deposited less than $10,000 because that is what she made in a certain time period. So, they go after you for not depositing enough and they go after you for having too much. Either way, you lose and they win. What a fucked up deal that is.

Why?

They know that they can get away with murder - there is no judicial oversight.

The parasites on this board want the government to steal, loot and plunder so that can be kept in the lifestyle to which they have been accustomed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“A conversation. And its like pulling teeth to get you to simply tell us what you believe and why you believe it. Or to back those claims up with reasoned arguments and evidence.”

And that's never going to happen.

Having dealt with these 'no government' reactionaries for decades one will eventually get to the point where they'll claim that every Supreme Court ruling was 'wrong,' up to and including Marbury, which they perceive as 'judicial activism.' Seeking to engage their ilk is pointless and futile.

 

[FA_Q2]

Really?

You found a publication which claims that you can support slavery and Libertarianism at the same time, right?

Can you quote me saying that?

And of course, you have yet to make a credible argument that we are slaves or live in tyranny. You've typed the claim. But you don't seem to understand why you believe as you do.

I would think that the OP would have some base support for that concept.

What else (other than tyranny) do you call the government having the ability to seize anything they want at any time whatsoever for virtually any fabricated reason without you having any real option of recourse. That is tyranny right there and a gross violation of rights. The very fact that something like that can pass muster in this nation is utterly insane and has shown exactly how far from freedom we have fallen.

 

[Contumacious]

" The ACLU does not believe that the NDAA authorizes military detention of American citizens or anyone else in the United States. Any president’s claim of domestic military detention authority under the NDAA would be unconstitutional and illegal.Nevertheless, there is substantial public debate around whether the NDAA could be read even to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and authorize indefinite military detention without charge or trial within the United States."

And what is this citation supposed to demonstrate?[/QUOTE]
Even if the SCOTUS eventually nullifies the act , the bill shows that we are being governed by the criminally insane.

.

 

[Skylar]

Even if the SCOTUS eventually nullifies the act , the bill shows that we are being governed by the criminally insane.

How so?

 

[Contumacious]

Really?

You found a publication which claims that you can support slavery and Libertarianism at the same time, right?

Can you quote me saying that?

And of course, you have yet to make a credible argument that we are slaves or live in tyranny. You've typed the claim. But you don't seem to understand why you believe as you do.

I would think that the OP would have some base support for that concept.

What else (other than tyranny) do you call the government having the ability to seize anything they want at any time whatsoever for virtually any fabricated reason without you having any real option of recourse. That is tyranny right there and a gross violation of rights. The very fact that something like that can pass muster in this nation is utterly insane and has shown exactly how far from freedom we have fallen.

Unfortunately Skylar is either a government employee, a parasite or profoundly retarded.

.