What is in a name?

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
Reaction score
It tain't stealing if the government does it.

Did you know the government gave itself the power to take things from innocent people, even if they didn't commit a crime? And that it doesn't want them to be able to get it back? Cops routinely pull people over, search them without probable cause, steal their cash, and then makes them prove that they got it legally. When people rebel against this, and pass laws that bypass the government, even lessening its power, the government ignores the laws as long as possible, then change them so it can freely steal again.

Yet some people right here on this forum will tell you this never happens. When they are presented with evidence even they cannot deny, they will insist that the people who it happens to deserve it. Like the couple who own a grocery store in Michigan that had their bank account seized even though the IRS admitted they weren't actually breaking a law.

In 2010, the IRS visited Terry and Sandy and reviewed their banking practices. In 2012, the IRS conducted an anti-money-laundering examination of Terry and Sandy’s store, thoroughly reviewing their books and policies, and gave the Dehkos a clean bill of health. After the audit, the IRS sent Terry and Sandy a letter clarifying that “no violations [of banking laws] were identified.”
But nine months later, the IRS obtained a secret warrant and cleaned out Terry and Sandy’s entire bank account (over $35,000) on the grounds that their frequent cash deposits—deposits of which the IRS should have been well aware when it issued its clean bill of health—violated federal “structuring” law. The government never charged Terry and Sandy with any crime and refuses to return their money.
The Institute for Justice

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? The best part is that it takes money to sue the government, and they know that. That just makes it easier for them to steal from you because they only have to pay if they decide they do.

The voters in Utah rebelled against this a few years ago and passed a ballot measure with over 70% of the people voting for it. The government didn't like it, so it decided to pretend the law didn't really apply to it. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?) This, by the way, is why I feel nothing but contempt for anyone who trots out the "We the people" argument when they defend the government. (I dare [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] to say it in this thread. It should be easy for him since the law passed unanimously. which makes it mainstream even by his wapred standards.) The people in Utah spoke, and the government decided to change the laws.

Take the state’s new statute on attorney’s fees. Previously, state law provided that “the court shall award a prevailing party reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs of litigation reasonably incurred by the owner.” So if an owner won a civil forfeiture case, the government would have to pay for his or her legal expenses.But HB 384 replaced “shall” with “may.” Before, the government was obligated to pay attorney’s fees when it lost a civil forfeiture case; now it’s optional. Even worse, the bill added a new cap on the amount of attorney’s fees: They “may not exceed 20 percent of the value of the property.”
In numerous civil forfeiture cases, the cost of litigation can be far more than the property that was originally seized. But fully compensating innocent owners for the attorneys’ fees they incur to recover their property is vital to stopping unjust forfeitures.
“Limiting the recovery of attorneys’ fees to 20 of the value of the property means that many innocent owners will not risk taking the government to court to get their property back,” remarked Institute for Justice Attorney and forfeiture expert Larry Salzman.
The bill also undermined an important safeguard against property seizures. Before HB 384, state law required prosecutors to meet a strict deadline for filing court papers seeking to keep the seized property. If they didn’t, the forfeiture could not proceed and the law provided that any prosecutor who missed the deadline “shall promptly return the property to its owner.”
But here again, “shall” was replaced with “may.” Now an innocent owner’s property can potentially be held indefinitely by the government, even when prosecutors miss key filing deadlines.
Utah Made It Easier For Cops To Seize Innocent People's Property. And Not A Single Lawmaker Voted Against It - Forbes

Theft is theft even if you call it justice.

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Aug 19, 2009
Reaction score
A warm place with no memory.
Jimmy Carter seized my assets without compensation. He cloaked his actions in the guise of a "tax" based on "windfall profits". His own formulaic premise was later proven false. It was neither a tax, nor was it based on profits.

Fucking Liberal trash. They never change.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List