ginandbacon: They were laundering money.
Rincewind53: Civil Asset forfeiture is awful and should be abolished.
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.
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.
Sybarite: The IRS doesn't even allege that the Dehkos committed a crime to justify cleaning out their bamk account using civil asset forfeitureI hate it when the IRS cleans out my bamk account.
CPennypacker: Wait, what did Paul Krugman do?
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.
Speaker2Animals: WTF does this have to do with Krugman, moronmitter?
Marcus Aurelius: It's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Of course the present crop of Extremes don't see it that way.
monoski: Article was very light on the reason for the action.
ZangTT: I will never forgive George Bush for instituting this crap.
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.
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.
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?
Dancin_In_Anson: So was the IRS.
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.
pueblonative: Yet somehow, non people corporations aren't being put on the docket.
ltdanman44: The only requirement is that the authorities believe that it is being used to commit a crime.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 27 2017 23:20:46
Runtime: 0.417 sec (417 ms)