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

[Skylar]

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.

Civil forfeiture isn't quite that rule free. And it is subject to judicial review. Its entirely possible to get your property back, and many people do. But the process isn't easy and it isn't quick. And the standards for the seizure of property is far lower than it would be for criminal convictions for individuals.

I'd argue that lawsuits against inanimate objects should be invalidated, as it makes no rational sense. How can an object commit a crime? The government should be held to the standard of the application of criminal fines as the property belongs to individuals who have a right to it. And if you're going to deny a right, you need a very good reason. A criminal convinctoin and fine would be more than adequate. A seizure based on the preponderance of evidence standard is not.

Most liberals would agree:



The practice is egregious and needs to change. But as the basis for discarding all government, I think the issue may be overrated.

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.

Take a look at Barron V. Baltimore from 1833. The State didn't even need an accusation of criminal behavior to do the same thing. This 'decent from freedom' argument assumes an era in which rights and freedoms were better protected in the past than they are now.

And I'd argue we're living in one of the freest periods in our nation's history. And it can arguably be freer still.

 

[AntiParty]

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.

The Right Loves "profiling" until it's done to them.

They openly quote Ted Nugent's speech when it comes to profiling blacks.

But when someone is an open Tea Party/Libertarian/Don't Tread on Me American and someone at your tax rates based on that........you think it's wrong for them to?

 

[Skylar]

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

And you just blinked. You can't provide a rational support for your argument so you've descended into personal insults.

Just show us the link to whomever does your thinking for you. As you clearly have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

 

[AntiParty]

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

And you just blinked. You can't provide a rational support for your argument so you've descended into personal insults.

Just show us the link to whomever does your thinking for you. As you clearly have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

"You can't provide a rational support for your argument so you've descended into personal insults." ~ Well put. The truly uninformed always resort to insults because they have no basis to debate the topic on.

I call this the "You are a stupid dumby dumb face" argument. It's the argument a child would have. Sometimes they get more creative with it, but it's always the same substance.

People should learn politics before discussing/debating them online.

 

[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.

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

.

I have not found that to be true at all. I disagree with his/her opinions on many matters but that is a far cry from 'retarded.' Skylar has been quite reasonable in this thread - why not reciprocate?

 

[FA_Q2]

Civil forfeiture isn't quite that rule free. And it is subject to judicial review. Its entirely possible to get your property back, and many people do. But the process isn't easy and it isn't quick. And the standards for the seizure of property is far lower than it would be for criminal convictions for individuals.

For all intents and purposes, it is. Just because someone with large enough resources and time can pursue this to correct it does not mean it is not tyrannical. The fact remains that the average Joe (you know the people that actually need the protections of the law and judicial review) cannot effectively fight this. The 'rules' that govern civil forfeiture are also virtually meaningless. they can and have outright robbed people. T

I'd argue that lawsuits against inanimate objects should be invalidated, as it makes no rational sense. How can an object commit a crime? The government should be held to the standard of the application of criminal fines as the property belongs to individuals who have a right to it. And if you're going to deny a right, you need a very good reason. A criminal convinctoin and fine would be more than adequate. A seizure based on the preponderance of evidence standard is not.

And I would agree. I think that is rather clear. Even more, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that really disagrees with this save for a few shills.

Most liberals would agree:

Yes, perhaps they would BUT I see this type of abuse as inherent in government largess and control. While liberals do not want to see this type of thing occur it is inherent in the type of government that liberals demand.

I would bet you disagree but I think that large government and government overreach has established itself all over history. This is, though, another topic for another thread - it would entirely derail the OP.

The practice is egregious and needs to change. But as the basis for discarding all government, I think the issue may be overrated.

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.

Take a look at Barron V. Baltimore from 1833. The State didn't even need an accusation of criminal behavior to do the same thing. This 'decent from freedom' argument assumes an era in which rights and freedoms were better protected in the past than they are now.

And I'd argue we're living in one of the freest periods in our nation's history. And it can arguably be freer still.

First: I am not the one 'disregarding all government' so that is a moot point. I can pretty much guarantee that Contumacious does not base his anarchism off this one concept either so, again, moot point.

I would take issue with your last point as well. We have made grate strides in freedom in the modern era, that is true. At the same time though we have made other moves that are clearly backward and some VERY erroneous ones. It is can not 'arguably' be freer still - it CAN be freer still and it needs to be. We should stride ever more for grater freedom. It seems to me that we are only striving for grater control. From the control to what you are allowed to eat to the control of where and what you are allowed to do - the pendulum is starting to shift the other way. The real trick is to catch it BEFORE we are no longer free because the one thing that I am sure of is that if we wait to correct the course after we have lost real freedom then there simply is no correcting it.

One of my favorite illustrations is in this piece:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt."

And that is precisely what is occurring.

 

[Contumacious]

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

And you just blinked. You can't provide a rational support for your argument so you've descended into personal insults.

Just show us the link to whomever does your thinking for you. As you clearly have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

There is no worse blind than he who doesn't want to see... If you are a fascist, a government employee the conflict of interest will blind you.

.

 

[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 is a great DEMOPUBLICAN PArty disaster.

 

[paulitician]

Obama's IRS. What a disgrace. Him and his IRS henchmen should be arrested. We need revolutionary change in our Tax structure. The IRS as we know it, should be abolished. It's a criminal gang.

 

[Contumacious]

Obama's IRS. What a disgrace. Him and his IRS henchmen should be arrested. We need revolutionary change in our Tax structure. The IRS as we know it, should be abolished. It's a criminal gang.

The IRS abuses are yet another demopublican party disaster.

Hearings on IRS abuses were conducted during the Clinton Administration.

.

 

[paulitician]

Obama's IRS. What a disgrace. Him and his IRS henchmen should be arrested. We need revolutionary change in our Tax structure. The IRS as we know it, should be abolished. It's a criminal gang.

The IRS abuses are yet another demopublican party disaster.

Hearings on IRS abuses were conducted during the Clinton Administration.

.

I hear ya, both Parties are to blame. But Obama has taken it to new lows. His IRS abuses are especially despicable. Going after Filmmakers and Journalists. Him and his henchmen really should be arrested. It's time to abolish this current IRS. Come up with a new more simple system of Taxation, and then scrap it.

 

[Dot Com]

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

So you & paulie participate in #OWS sit-ins?

 

[paulitician]

More 'Hope & Change.' It's so cool, right?

 

[Contumacious]

Obama's IRS. What a disgrace. Him and his IRS henchmen should be arrested. We need revolutionary change in our Tax structure. The IRS as we know it, should be abolished. It's a criminal gang.

The IRS abuses are yet another demopublican party disaster.

Hearings on IRS abuses were conducted during the Clinton Administration.

.

I hear ya, both Parties are to blame. But Obama has taken it to new lows. His IRS abuses are especially despicable. Going after Filmmakers and Journalists. Him and his henchmen really should be arrested. It's time to abolish this current IRS. Come up with a new more simple system of Taxation, and then scrap it.

He is trying to satisfy two powerful parasitic entities: the moochers and the war profiteers.

.They are always screaming " FEED ME SEYMOUR"

.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The Right Loves "profiling" until it's done to them.

They openly quote Ted Nugent's speech when it comes to profiling blacks.

But when someone is an open Tea Party/Libertarian/Don't Tread on Me American and someone at your tax rates based on that........you think it's wrong for them to?

Are you drunk?

 

[Contumacious]

Congress Wants the IRS to Cancel Your Passport
By Mark Nestmann

Nestman.com

August 8, 2013



If you think your U.S. citizenship gives you the right to a U.S. passport, think again.

The government has several ways to cancel or refuse to renew your passport. And now, Congress is poised to give it one more: if you owe money to the IRS.

Hidden within the 2013 highway funding bill are a few paragraphs with the innocent-sounding title of the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.” Section 40304 of this act would revoke your passport if you have a “seriously delinquent tax debt.” In other words, if you owe the IRS $50,000 or more, the Feds can revoke your passport. There’s no hearing and no opportunity to contest this decision.

How’s that for “moving ahead for progress”?

 

[Dot Com]

stop being deadbeats and that is a non-issue.

 

[Clementine]

The Right Loves "profiling" until it's done to them.

They openly quote Ted Nugent's speech when it comes to profiling blacks.

But when someone is an open Tea Party/Libertarian/Don't Tread on Me American and someone at your tax rates based on that........you think it's wrong for them to?

Profiling has always been a valuable tool for investigators, but it's used as a starting point in any investigation. It's one thing for deposits to raise a red flag. Quite another to skip over proving that a crime was committed, pressing charges and getting a conviction. They assume something is wrong and go right to the punishment stage, then expect people to prove their innocence.

If the profiling merely led to them looking a little harder at people accounts, no big deal. It's the fact that they don't look into the matter and immediately draw conclusions that benefit them.

 

[Contumacious]

stop being deadbeats and that is a non-issue.

Exactly.

That is your money we are talking about.

.

 

[Skylar]

For all intents and purposes, it is. Just because someone with large enough resources and time can pursue this to correct it does not mean it is not tyrannical. The fact remains that the average Joe (you know the people that actually need the protections of the law and judicial review) cannot effectively fight this. The 'rules' that govern civil forfeiture are also virtually meaningless. they can and have outright robbed people.

No, it isn't. It can be a difficult process, but its far from impossible or even improbable. Additionally, you're portraying every civil forfeiture as an act of theft against unwitting and innocent people charged with nothing. In many instances Civil Forfeiture is used against organized crime and used only after grand jury indictments have been issued. The problem with the practice isn't the seizures. Its the low threhold of proof necessary for the seizure. Raise the standard of evidence and the issue resolves itself.

The Supreme Court currently uses grand jury indictment as its standard for civil forfeiture. But is far, far higher standard than the 'Tengo mucho mucho dinero in su trucky trailer' standard used by the highway patrol in some rural areas. And requires actual evidence of an actual crime to be presented in an actual court to an actual grand jury before it can be implemented. That's still way to low for forfeiture which is a genuine transfer of ownership. But I'd argue is more than adequate for asset freezes. And in every contested case, that's effectively what it is.

I personally have no problem with civil forfeiture of assets used in criminal activity from a felon convicted of that crime. 'Used in criminal activity' and 'convicted of that crime' being the operative phrases. Asset freezes would be a valid middle ground, but only after indictment.

Yes, perhaps they would BUT I see this type of abuse as inherent in government largess and control. While liberals do not want to see this type of thing occur it is inherent in the type of government that liberals demand.

The obvious problem with that reasoning is that Civil forfeitures occur most often on the State level, both in events and total funds taken. And very frequently in conservative States, with vast support from conservative justices. This has very little to do with a liberal or conservative doctrine, as its opposed by both. The abuse in question is inherent in the low threshold of evidence needed to seize the property. Which is why by simply raising that threshold the entire issue is solved.

Here's a site dedicated civil forfietures. (tab for different states is in the upper right hand corner)

Asset Forfeiture Report Florida The Institute for Justice

You'll find that the States with republican legislatures typically have the least protections for property owners in civil forfeiture law. While democratically held legislatures typically have the most protections for property owners in civil forfeiture law. While implementation of the law follows no particular pattern of liberal or conservative. California for example gets a grade of C in its laws. But an F in implementation for a final grade of D. Arizona has a D in the law and a D in implementation for a final grade of D. One liberal, one conservative, same grade.

I'd argue that the laws better represent what a 'liberal' or 'conservative' would want however. And liberal states average roughly a C. While Conservative States are D to F on average.

Another problem with the 'what liberals demand' argument is that Kaley V. United Staes, the USSC case that defines civil forfeiture rules at the grand indictment level got the vote of every conservative justice but Roberts. When you have both Scalia and Thomas on the side you're condemning, you can hardly call it a 'liberal' vision. Though it was a 6-3 verdict that surprisingly brought in Kagan. Only Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Roberts dissented. An odd grouping on both sides, with Kagen joining the conservative wing and Roberts the liberal.

I would take issue with your last point as well. We have made grate strides in freedom in the modern era, that is true. At the same time though we have made other moves that are clearly backward and some VERY erroneous ones. It is can not 'arguably' be freer still - it CAN be freer still and it needs to be. We should stride ever more for grater freedom. It seems to me that we are only striving for grater control. From the control to what you are allowed to eat to the control of where and what you are allowed to do - the pendulum is starting to shift the other way. The real trick is to catch it BEFORE we are no longer free because the one thing that I am sure of is that if we wait to correct the course after we have lost real freedom then there simply is no correcting it.

And that's where I think you're wrong. The farther you go back in our history, the more egregious the violates of rights are at the state level. Execution for sodomy, Jim Crow laws, mandatory religious participation, felony criminalization of interracial sex or marriage, seizure of property without compensation (or any criminal complaint), mandatory castration of the mentally ill, no suffrage for women or non-property owners. For crying out loud, the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the States until nearly the beginning of the 20th century. Texas didn't stop criminalizing consensual sexual behavior in adults until 2004.

And then there's Slavery. One of the most brutal, tyrannical, draconian, insane practices in the history of our nation or any other. And it was the beating heart of the economy of most southern states for 3 full generations after the signing of the declaration of independence. Institutionalized and violently protected by the States for just as long.

If tyranny is insanity, then the early nation was batshit crazy. The idyllic, freedom loving utopia that many conservatives imagine the past to be is a cotton candy fantasy based on profound, willful ignorance, or straight up Dinesh D'Soaza historical revisionism. With today being a mere twitches of bipolar disorder in comparison.

Your 'decent into tyranny' fails on three fronts. First, a descent from what? The past was less free than the present. Not by little nibbles here and there. But by enormous blood soaked, ball chopping, race enslaving, gender disenfranchising leaps and bounds. Second, If tyranny is justification for the dissolution of the entire government, and the past was more tyrannical by an absolutely *absurd* degree, then by your own logic, our nation should have been dissolved the moment it was created. And I would disagree with such an assessment for the third problem with your argument:

This nation is a work in progress on a generally upward trajectory in terms of rights. The founder's America deserved to survive as a government because it was the best they could do with the situation they had. And they were aiming higher than they were able. That upward trajectory resulted in more freedoms, a greater appreciation for actual liberty and the liberalization of laws over time that were undeniably tyrannical and insane. The longer our nation existed, the more liberty abounded. Oh, there were twitches backward, to be sure. Dred Scott, Anti-Chinese laws, Jim Crow, Japanese Internment, Segregatoin, the Patriot Act, and the like. But the overall trajectory has been toward more liberty and more freedom.

Until today, we have more practice choice, more freedom and more liberty than at any point in our nation's history. And NOW.....NOW is when you argue that our government has lost its right to exist? Not when the USSC upheld State seizures of properties without compensation in Barron V. Baltimore. Not when the Mormon Extermination Act was codified into law. Not when Wallace stood in the school house doors trying to keep blacks out of white colleges. Not when Slavery was a violently defended institution. Not when an entire gender wasn't allowed to vote.

But now when none of those things are happening. What the fuckity fuck, dude?