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  
•       •       •

1983 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2013 at 9:24 AM (42 weeks 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 12:17:59 PM
Where's Joe Stack when you need him?
 
2013-09-26 12:20:02 PM

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


Everything is Krugman's fault. I have a really bad sinus infection right now. And Krugman is the root cause.
 
2013-09-26 12:24:46 PM

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.


So you back up that there is no other evidence by quoting the defense attorney?

If I ever need a jury, I hope they only listen to my attorney as well.

In the meantime, I've been around way too long and seen way too many alarmist articles about incidents that liberals and conservatives and libertarians want us all to run around with our hair on fire only to discover extenuating or exculpatory or damning information that gets revealed a week later to go and believe a story like this just because some online place tells me I should be upset.

My emotions are not so easily manipulated.
 
2013-09-26 12:30:40 PM

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.


It's a stupid argument. Obviously, a business that is successful enough to regularly make cash deposits of nearly $10,000 must be able to obtain coverage somehow, or else every Wal*Mart in Michigan would be lacking coverage. I hate civil asset forfeiture as much as the next guy and I think the $10,000 rule is stupid and the "almost $10,000" regulation is asinine, but nevertheless it's the law. Businesses that fail to comply with the law are likely to suffer consequences. Want to change the law? Great! I'll be right there on the barricades with you. But as Dylan said, "he who lives outside the law must be honest."
 
2013-09-26 12:31:07 PM
It's too bad they don't do this to JPMorgan and BofA. Solve our debt and deficit problems all in one swoop.
 
2013-09-26 12:44:58 PM

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.


The Federal seizure law used to require the presence of drugs or proof of related illegal activity.  When several high profile seizures resulted in the money being returned to the law abiding citizen, Congress "fixed" it so they no longer need a pretense to simply rob you of your money.

That means the police forces of the United States are all thieving bastards.  That includes every single cop in the nation.
 
2013-09-26 12:57:19 PM

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.


Not exactly sure what a "farxist" is, but I hardly think a bit of skepticism when it comes to articles from sources as dubious as Reason is, well,unreasonable.

If the facts of the case are indeed as the defense attorney claims, then fark the IRS with a red hot poker.

I doubt you would find anyone here saying anything different.
 
2013-09-26 01:25:48 PM
Okay, having read the farking article that is crazy.  Someone should be fired for this.  Preferably having their assets seized and given to these store owners.
 
2013-09-26 01:26:02 PM

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.


Maybe we could have a vote and the winner stays and the loser goes.
 
2013-09-26 01:45:21 PM
I'm voting for skozlaw in case that wasn't apparent.
 
2013-09-26 02:23:34 PM

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.


Let's be totally fair.

The cities that got emergency managers (under both D's and R's) tended to fall into the intersection of 2 categories.

1) They were that farked up.  Detroit had had crazy levels of fiscal mismanagement and corruption.   They were adding taxes and losing money.  How is that even possible?  (And for reference, freep.com is the Detroit Free Press, NOT FreeRepublic)
2) They were big enough to make national news.  (And somewhat more charitably, they were big enough that they could drag the state with them).

If Detroit, Flint, and Pontiac are totally screwed (which they are/were), with them goes the entirety of SE Michigan because once they're gone, you're left with Monroe (depressed manufacturing town) and Ann Arbor (rich town based around top-flight university and educated, wealthy tax base that that provides).

And since the politicians andbureaucrats of those cities have demonstrated a COMPLETE and total disregard for the state of their cities and the population thereof in favor of lining their own pockets, they SHOULD be quietly put in a position of no power while people TRY to come in and fix their finances.

Mind you, the execution leaves something to be desired, and there's no guarantees that the people doing it are angels themselves, but.
 
2013-09-26 02:56:18 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I don't ever do this but I'm going to bookmark this thread.


OOh, I have the perfect song for the next time you open it up.
 
2013-09-26 03:00:28 PM

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.


This just in: Rich people have a lot of money. More at 11.
 
2013-09-26 03:35:43 PM
Hey you know what -- the Federal government does suck a great job we should let them run our health care.

I'm sure nothing bad will happen! They will do great!
 
2013-09-26 03:40:28 PM

ReluctantPaladin: I'm voting for skozlaw in case that wasn't apparent.

 
2013-09-26 07:42:05 PM

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 09:34:52

Yup.

skozlaw: The fark is wrong with you, anyway? Were you conceived in the middle of a superfund site or something?

Weak, son...weak.


This is the great hazard of the internet: someone thinks they have information, when they know nothing.  For example, he has no idea that you possess the most awesome chicken gizzard recipe in existence.  Or that you trap your wild hogs instead of shooting them.  Because he hasn't been here long enough.

No respect, I tell ya.  No respect.
 
2013-09-26 08:34:52 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ginandbacon: They were laundering money.

I missed that part of the no violations letter. Perhaps you could point it out.


Well, they don't technically have what you would call "evidence" but they know what's going on. If they are so innocent, why don't they just prove it!
 
2013-09-26 09:11:15 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I don't ever do this but I'm going to bookmark this thread.


YEA! Here. Have a cookie.
 
2013-09-26 10:07:04 PM

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.


Eh, wouldn't make much difference, this is local.

I mean the law is federal, and the abuse that can stem from it probably means it shouldn't be a law, but the abuse is (from what I've gathered" always local.  Same as every corrupt county judge and New Orleans car theft and Sheriff Joe-style, the money is stolen by a small-time local who keeps it because he (or they) is the big fish of that very small pond.

And it was brought into being to fight money-launderers, which is mostly to fight the drug trade.
 
2013-09-27 03:44:07 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I don't ever do this but I'm going to bookmark this thread.


No one cares.
 
2013-09-27 03:51:23 PM
Except for those that care enough to comment about it.
 
2013-09-27 03:58:57 PM
Oh, we don't care, I was just commenting on how much of a lonely, pathetic person you must be if you feel the need to inform us of your bookmarking of the thread.
 
2013-09-27 04:59:20 PM
Obviously.
 
Displayed 23 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 »






Report