Speaker2Animals: WTF does this have to do with Krugman, moronmitter?
Gulper Eel: vygramul: I have full confidence that Reason provided all the details of the story and that there's nothing else going on for this purely random grab for money - or probably they donated to Romney. But surely, nothing suspicious was left out of the story. That never happens.Detroit Free Press.According to the court filings, the IRS claims Dehko skirted rules that deposits greater than $10,000 be reported by making many smaller deposits. Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which is working on Dehko's behalf, said the deposits were often in the $9,000 range, but that Dehko made regular deposits in those amounts because his insurance policy will not cover him for loss or theft of more than $10,000 in cash in the store.Dehko said a federal agent came to his store in January and told him his funds were being seized, and Dehko has been fighting ever since. Dehko noted that the government offered to settle with him, but the offer was for 20% of what was seized, so he rejected it. The court filings note that the IRS had found no violations during an audit of Dehko's books in April 2012.An IRS spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, and a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, also named as a defendant, said the only comment would come through court filings.The facts of the case do not appear to be in dispute, much as farxists would like to shout otherwise.
Gulper Eel: Marcus Aurelius: Splitting your deposits up to keep them under $10k is explicitly against Federal law, because our Congressmen went full retard on the War on Drugs.Then the feds should be hassling the insurance company for imposing the sub-$10K requirement and not bothering the grocers - except it's more likely that the insurance company has bought itself some friends in Washington.
bdub77: Tor_Eckman: Dancin_In_Anson: skozlaw: Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so easy to peg by somebody who hasn't been on Fark that long?It's glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue in the world what I am referencing. Perhaps you should lurk one or two more times before posting.I agree with everything skozlaw posted. He has you totally pegged.And I don't think you have to check my account age.Yah I'm gonna have to agree with skozlaw too he's pretty awesome in fact I hope he stays around.
IlGreven: But, once Fraser gets its own "Emergency Manager" which shuts down Schott's Market in the name of "fiscal restructuring", everyone will think it's just dandy. That is, everyone who knows about it.
Dancin_In_Anson: I don't ever do this but I'm going to bookmark this thread.
Gulper Eel: thurstonxhowell: If by "are okay", you mean "lead to an investigation that ends your governorship", then sure.Because having a nine-figure nest egg, dad's real-estate empire, and instant cable-news job offers to fall back on is exactly the same situation the Michigan grocers are in.
ReluctantPaladin: I'm voting for skozlaw in case that wasn't apparent.
Dancin_In_Anson: skozlaw: Yea, that's what it is. It's not that you're just full of bullshiat and like to rail aimlessly at what you imagine "LIBS" believe in every thread, it's that people are "finally coming around" after all these years of loving the IRS. Because if there's one thing Americans of all stripes have always loved, it's the taxman.You must be new here.Account created: 2013-03-06 09:34:52Yup.skozlaw: The fark is wrong with you, anyway? Were you conceived in the middle of a superfund site or something?Weak, son...weak.
Dancin_In_Anson: ginandbacon: They were laundering money.I missed that part of the no violations letter. Perhaps you could point it out.
Marcus Aurelius: 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.So why can't my money afford a lawyer? And why is it assumed guilty until proven innocent?As for "due process", asset forfeiture works like this:1. Cops steal your money.2. Cops keep your money and split it up with their cronies.3. You pay a lawyer $10k to fail to get your money back.If the Founding Fathers had even dreamed that the cops could steal your money in the future, they'd have made the Fourth Amendment a little more specific.
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: Feb 27 2017 02:23:57
Runtime: 0.321 sec (320 ms)