If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Feds seize $35K from Michigan business, because a massive central government acting on whims is essential to prevent us from turning into Somalia, which is the obvious end result of all libertarian policy (Book of Krugman, Chapter 1, Verses 2-13)   (reason.com) divider line 123
    More: Interesting, Somalia, Michigan, central government, civil forfeiture, Institute for Justice, Shelby County, insurance policy, feds  
•       •       •

1985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2013 at 9:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-26 07:31:36 AM  
I don't think you'll find many defenders of civil asset forfeiture here on FARK trollmitter
 
2013-09-26 07:44:54 AM  
They were laundering money. That's not okay and $35k is hardly something to go all Teaparty-overthrow-the-government on. Get a grip idiots.
 
2013-09-26 07:58:09 AM  
The article makes it sound like the Patriot Act is the sort of thing that enables this, not, say, quantitative easing. So it doesn't seem fair to take a shot at Krugman, unless you're the sort of libertarian who if he can't have freedom will settle for slurping the curdled slop out of some wrinkled white guy's yambag.
 
2013-09-26 08:11:22 AM  
WTF does this have to do with Krugman, moronmitter?
 
2013-09-26 08:11:27 AM  

ginandbacon: They were laundering money.


I missed that part of the no violations letter. Perhaps you could point it out.
 
2013-09-26 08:30:01 AM  
The IRS didn't do anything illegal.  This is covered under the "You didn't build that" executive order.
 
2013-09-26 08:31:19 AM  
Civil Asset forfeiture is awful and should be abolished.
 
2013-09-26 08:44:26 AM  

Rincewind53: Civil Asset forfeiture is awful and should be abolished.


Want to get it moved? Seize the assets of a rich banker or three. It'll be gone in under a month.
 
2013-09-26 08:46:45 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: The article makes it sound like the Patriot Act is the sort of thing that enables this, not, say, quantitative easing. So it doesn't seem fair to take a shot at Krugman, unless you're the sort of libertarian who if he can't have freedom will settle for slurping the curdled slop out of some wrinkled white guy's yambag.


Um, you didn't actually read the article, did you?
 
2013-09-26 08:48:29 AM  
I don't buy this story for a minute. No business in Michigan could possibly have $35k on hand
 
2013-09-26 08:49:02 AM  
TFA: Last year, Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini called the practice "state sanctioned theft"

Oh man...the Fark Dependents® aren't going to like that one bit.
 
2013-09-26 08:52:31 AM  
Continuing the war against small businesses.......
 
2013-09-26 08:53:41 AM  
Hit and Run grammar and spelling from the Hit and Run Blog.
 
2013-09-26 08:57:09 AM  
I have to wonder about selective enforcement here, too.  These rules seem so broad and require so little evidence, I can only imagine many people are running afoul of them without even knowing it.
 
2013-09-26 09:01:57 AM  

Diogenes: I have to wonder about selective enforcement here, too.  These rules seem so broad and require so little evidence, I can only imagine many people are running afoul of them without even knowing it.


These rules seem to be almost whimsical and enforced only at random. With no means of appeal some relatively low level government official could easily destroy a number of small businesses and nobody could stop it from happening.
 
2013-09-26 09:02:49 AM  
The IRS doesn't even allege that the Dehkos committed a crime to justify cleaning out their bamk account using civil asset forfeiture

I hate it when the IRS cleans out my bamk account.
 
2013-09-26 09:11:56 AM  

Sybarite: The IRS doesn't even allege that the Dehkos committed a crime to justify cleaning out their bamk account using civil asset forfeiture

I hate it when the IRS cleans out my bamk account.


IRrational Spouse?
 
2013-09-26 09:13:54 AM  

Rincewind53: Civil Asset forfeiture is awful and should be abolished.


At the very least, it needs to be reformed and carefully regulated. It originated from a good motivation to solve a real problem. Abolishment isn't out of the question, though, simply because the people in charge of reforming and restricting the practice are the same people who pull in millions of dollars by abusing the process.
 
2013-09-26 09:28:14 AM  
When an ordinary citizen does this, it's called "theft".

The government should be held to the same standards.  They should not be allowed to call it "asset forfeiture".  It needs to be called what it is:  "Government theft".
 
2013-09-26 09:29:00 AM  
Wait, what did Paul Krugman do?
 
2013-09-26 09:29:26 AM  

Diogenes: I have to wonder about selective enforcement here, too.  These rules seem so broad and require so little evidence, I can only imagine many people are running afoul of them without even knowing it.


That's the entire point of the exercise.
 
2013-09-26 09:29:53 AM  
So did they get a lawyer or what?

Also, lol Patriot Act. You farking ninnies.
 
2013-09-26 09:30:34 AM  
If I had a dog, I could feed him that headline for breakfast.
 
2013-09-26 09:30:47 AM  

CPennypacker: Wait, what did Paul Krugman do?


I can tell you what he didn't do...audit the Fed.
 
2013-09-26 09:30:54 AM  

t3knomanser: Rincewind53: Civil Asset forfeiture is awful and should be abolished.

At the very least, it needs to be reformed and carefully regulated. It originated from a good motivation to solve a real problem. Abolishment isn't out of the question, though, simply because the people in charge of reforming and restricting the practice are the same people who pull in millions of dollars by abusing the process.


It's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Of course the present crop of Extremes don't see it that way.
 
2013-09-26 09:31:14 AM  

Speaker2Animals: WTF does this have to do with Krugman, moronmitter?


www.taylormarsh.com
 
2013-09-26 09:32:21 AM  

Speaker2Animals: WTF does this have to do with Krugman, moronmitter?


Because LIBBBBBSSSS
 
2013-09-26 09:32:32 AM  
another farking retarded headline.
 
2013-09-26 09:32:47 AM  
Article was very light on the reason for the action.
 
2013-09-26 09:32:52 AM  
I will never forgive George Bush for instituting this crap.
 
2013-09-26 09:32:53 AM  
On its face that seems wrong. I'd be interested in hearing the entire story.

Thank Saint Reagan and his Holy War on Drugs for making civil forfeiture an acceptable law enforcement tool.
 
2013-09-26 09:33:59 AM  

Diogenes: I have to wonder about selective enforcement here, too.  These rules seem so broad and require so little evidence, I can only imagine many people are running afoul of them without even knowing it.


Working as intended.
 
2013-09-26 09:36:24 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: It's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Of course the present crop of Extremes don't see it that way.


It  isn't a clear violation. Asset forfeiture is not without due process. The challenge is that forfeiture  puts the assets themselves on trial in a civil proceeding. Since assets do not have any constitutional protections of their own, and since the proceeding is civil in nature, there is a significantly reduced standard of evidence required. It's a bizarre approach, certainly, but it's not unusual for courts to place non-human actors on trial.
 
2013-09-26 09:39:20 AM  

monoski: Article was very light on the reason for the action.


So was the IRS.
 
2013-09-26 09:40:20 AM  
FTFA:

But the use of asset forfeiture, both civil and criminal, soared at the federal level under the current administration, growing from $500 million in 2003, to $1.8 billion in 2011.

Um...

blog.angelatung.com
 
2013-09-26 09:42:02 AM  
I'm sorry, Reason, but when your story misspells 'bank,' can't spell the family's name consistently, and only links to your own stories as sources, I'm going to remain a bit dubious.
 
2013-09-26 09:42:56 AM  

ZangTT: I will never forgive George Bush for instituting this crap.


Don't let Congress off the hook.
 
2013-09-26 09:44:17 AM  

t3knomanser: Marcus Aurelius: It's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Of course the present crop of Extremes don't see it that way.

It  isn't a clear violation. Asset forfeiture is not without due process. The challenge is that forfeiture  puts the assets themselves on trial in a civil proceeding. Since assets do not have any constitutional protections of their own, and since the proceeding is civil in nature, there is a significantly reduced standard of evidence required. It's a bizarre approach, certainly, but it's not unusual for courts to place non-human actors on trial.


Yet somehow, non people corporations aren't being put on the docket.
 
2013-09-26 09:44:35 AM  

monoski: Article was very light on the reason for the action.


thats the whole point.  they don't need a concrete reason to take someone's money.  They can seize property without due process or proof of guilt.

The only requirement is that the authorities believe that it is being used to commit a crime.

/kind of like a pinky swear
 
2013-09-26 09:45:54 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: TFA: Last year, Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini called the practice "state sanctioned theft"

Oh man...the Fark Dependents® aren't going to like that one bit.



You realize that almost every post in this thread contradicts your point, don't you?
 
2013-09-26 09:46:33 AM  

phaseolus: Dancin_In_Anson: TFA: Last year, Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini called the practice "state sanctioned theft"

Oh man...the Fark Dependents® aren't going to like that one bit.


You realize that almost every post in this thread contradicts your point, don't you?


You think he cares?
 
2013-09-26 09:46:33 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So was the IRS.


Hi, submitter. Hey, just a tip. I have no idea what this is about and since your headline is complete bullshiat and links to a bullshiat website that's most notable for posting bullshiat now I have no interest in investigating further even though the general gist suggests this might be one of those bogus forfeiture seizures which I'd ordinarily be more than happy to rail against.

So... yea... good job, I guess. Hope your lame attempt at trolling was worth all the people you'll turn off of the subject who might have otherwise agreed with you.
 
2013-09-26 09:47:37 AM  
There's way better options for laundering money. Art auctions, for example. I've been laundering money for years using Thomas Kinkade paintings. Sh*t just sells.
 
2013-09-26 09:48:40 AM  
Due process has a dollar value now.  Free speech has a dollar value now.  We should just attach a dollar weighting factor to the rest of our constitutional rights and get it over with.
 
2013-09-26 09:49:05 AM  
Well this is just one of fundamentals of our system.   Guilty till proven innocent.

you can't change that.
 
2013-09-26 09:49:35 AM  
In a court filing, the government said it took the money because it appeared Dehko was making deposits of less than $10,000 to avoid having the transactions reported to the IRS, a requirement under law.

More information from an actual source.  Person defrauding the government gets assets taken.

//Every single bank in the US reports this type of behavior if they spot it.
 
2013-09-26 09:50:15 AM  

pueblonative: Yet somehow, non people corporations aren't being put on the docket.


They frequently are, especially in civil proceedings.

ltdanman44: The only requirement is that the authorities believe that it is being used to commit a crime.


The requirement is that the funds must either be the instrument or product of a crime. Part of the reasoning behind this is that it prevents criminal enterprises from sheltering assets behind non-criminal names. If Joebob McDrugking buys a million dollars worth of real estate in his grandmother's name, that million dollars of property is the product of a criminal enterprise- it can be taken by the state even though the putative owner has committed no crime. That's actually a pretty reasonable use of asset forfeiture. The problem is that, due to the reduced standard of evidence (again, in AF cases, it is the  property which is placed on trial,  not the owner of the property) and the rewards for cheating the system (lots of money for law enforcement), governments end up abusing the system.
 
2013-09-26 09:50:34 AM  
This didn't happen the way they said it happened. There is more to this story and Reason is purposely giving a biased slant of events. Most likely these people weren't paying taxes and are now acting astonished that the government won't put up with it. By all means, though, uphold these sovereign citizens as victims.
 
2013-09-26 09:52:41 AM  
DIA is just askin' questions again.

/not giving that stupid site any clicks
 
2013-09-26 09:54:08 AM  
Here's a non-Reason local link, but it's roughly as information-sparse as this one. I can't decide if there's more to the story that isn't being told here, even the local branch is only getting the grocer's side.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report