Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1988 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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2013-09-26 09:54:17 AM  

lockers: 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.


Worked during the IRS "scandal." No matter the actual circumstances, regardless of who's affected, conservatives are always the biggest victims of EVERYTHING.
 
2013-09-26 09:54:40 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.


Why are conservatives so completely devoid of creativity? Why are most of their attempts at humor amount to little more than awkward plagiarism? It's sad, and a little frightening - how does someone make it through life, handicapped in this manner? Why would anyone even want to keep living when they are utterly unable to incubate a single original thought? I don't know.

Oh, and subby? Your headline should be taken out back and put down. It's the compassionate thing to do.
 
2013-09-26 09:55:14 AM  

lockers: There is more to this story and Reason is purposely giving a biased slant of events.


WHAT? That never happens!

Reading a few other sources, it looks like their accounting process was sloppy. The IRS got suspicious, and sent auditors. The auditors didn't find anything actionable at the time, and went home. Nine months later, someone reviewed the case, decided that it was in fact actionable, and acted (or, something novel happened in those nine months that was actionable).
 
2013-09-26 09:55:29 AM  

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


Yeah, I posted that before everyone else chimed in and I must say that I am pleasantly surprised to see that most everyone is finally coming around. It was only a matter of time.

skozlaw: Hi, submitter.


Not mine. I don't get the Krugman angle either. I do kind of like the Somalia bit though.
 
2013-09-26 09:56:27 AM  

BMulligan: Why are conservatives so completely devoid of creativity? Why are most of their attempts at humor amount to little more than awkward plagiarism? It's sad, and a little frightening - how does someone make it through life, handicapped in this manner? Why would anyone even want to keep living when they are utterly unable to incubate a single original thought?


People accustomed to living mouth-to-tit from their parents often have a difficult time accomplishing anything for themselves.
 
2013-09-26 09:58:35 AM  

skozlaw: 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.


Srsly. Between the lame trolling headline (Krugman? Wtf?) and the poorly written actual story (Obama was president in 2003?) the submitter effectively undermines interest in what could be an actual ... thing.

By the way, you can follow Reason's link maize to the actual GAO report on assets forfeiture. If I'm reading one of their tables right, AFF's revenue jumped way up in 2006 and 2007.

/no idea what AFF stands for
//assume it's Asset Forfeiture something
 
2013-09-26 09:59:41 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: finally coming around


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.

The fark is wrong with you, anyway? Were you conceived in the middle of a superfund site or something?
 
2013-09-26 10:00:14 AM  

EyeballKid: BMulligan: Why are conservatives so completely devoid of creativity? Why are most of their attempts at humor amount to little more than awkward plagiarism? It's sad, and a little frightening - how does someone make it through life, handicapped in this manner? Why would anyone even want to keep living when they are utterly unable to incubate a single original thought?

People accustomed to living mouth-to-tit from their parents often have a difficult time accomplishing anything for themselves.


Thanks for not mentioning my mangled sentence structure.
 
2013-09-26 10:04:25 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-26 10:04:52 AM  
Reason? I wonder what actually happened.
 
2013-09-26 10:09:59 AM  

t3knomanser: lockers: There is more to this story and Reason is purposely giving a biased slant of events.

WHAT? That never happens!

Reading a few other sources, it looks like their accounting process was sloppy. The IRS got suspicious, and sent auditors. The auditors didn't find anything actionable at the time, and went home. Nine months later, someone reviewed the case, decided that it was in fact actionable, and acted (or, something novel happened in those nine months that was actionable).


No, no, no! These Patriotstm Did nothing wrong and obviously the central government acted capriciously. Any Reason other than a wild act of fascism can be discounted. Fartbongo should be ashamed of his actions.
 
2013-09-26 10:12:42 AM  
Here's a link from a local paper.  It doesn't really add any new details, but it is at least not tainted by being on reason.com.
 
2013-09-26 10:15:12 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You must be new here.


Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so easy to peg by somebody who hasn't been on Fark that long?

You're a pathetic joke and everyone knows it. Nobody's coming around to anything, you just live in your own stupid little world where you convenience yourself that other people MUST believe whatever dumbass thing you heard on AM talk radio this morning and it astonishes you when something like this peels away your bubble and shines a little light on it.

Virtually nobody supports asset seizure without due process. You're not some brilliant mystic who's leading us from the dark on this, you're just an indolent twat who refuses to live in the real world.
 
2013-09-26 10:19:27 AM  

t3knomanser: lockers: There is more to this story and Reason is purposely giving a biased slant of events.

WHAT? That never happens!

Reading a few other sources, it looks like their accounting process was sloppy. The IRS got suspicious, and sent auditors. The auditors didn't find anything actionable at the time, and went home. Nine months later, someone reviewed the case, decided that it was in fact actionable, and acted (or, something novel happened in those nine months that was actionable).


This.

Although we don't know how the business is set up. If they were set up as partnership than the K-1s would show the income. Set up as a C-corp wouldn't be a problem. If they are stupid they probably have set up as an S-corp family business and think that money is their own and doesn't belong to the business. If they started shifting cash deposits between personal and business accounts kind of a red flag for the IRS and the FBI if they thought there was laundering going on.
 
2013-09-26 10:20:09 AM  

t3knomanser: Reading a few other sources, it looks like their accounting process was sloppy. The IRS got suspicious, and sent auditors. The auditors didn't find anything actionable at the time, and went home. Nine months later, someone reviewed the case, decided that it was in fact actionable, and acted (or, something novel happened in those nine months that was actionable).


In other news, demonstrably dodgy financial transactions are okay if you're Eliot Spitzer - but if you're a grocery store in Michigan the IRS will have its claws out regardless of whether you did anything wrong.
 
2013-09-26 10:20:31 AM  
We tried going the libertarian road early this century.

It didn't work out so great. Things like workers dieing in factory fires, people selling poisons as medicine, fake doctors roaming the land, and auto and oil companies buying up competing products simply to push their products (i.e. standard oil's monopoly and GM killing the street car).

Libertarians worship the false god of the "free market" with a fervor that would make a radical Shia feel embarrassed.
 
P0e
2013-09-26 10:21:46 AM  
I'm quoting a quote from the article, but the Dehkos institute, which is defending the grocer is absolutely WRONG in its understanding of the relevant law.
FTA:
Federal law requires banks to report cash transactions above $10,000, and it is illegal to "structure" cash deposits for the purpose of avoiding this requirement.
The actual law:
Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to ...file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.

If you make over 10k in transations in a day to someone you HAVE to report it.  They are a successful business, and if they deposit more than 10k, they should report it.  Their financial institution should be able to help them do that.

This law is in place because people were hiding illegal large-value transactions by splitting up the transfers of money into a number of smaller purchases.  Eliot Spitzer, while Attorney General of New York, actually used this statue to crack down on prostitution and other white-collar crime (which he later got caught for himself).

According to the TFA, they were visited TWICE before the penalty was handed down.  They were told they were violating the law, and they ignored it.  The solution is not to change how they do their business, or change how they handle their money, but simply to REPORT these transactions.  The letter from the FBI stated that an investigation into their funds found no illegal activity regarding the money, but that does not change the fact that they were breaking the law by not reporting their money.  I'm sure they're all riled up over the idea of sticking it to the government, but this is not a case of the government coming in and taking things without just cause.
 
2013-09-26 10:22:00 AM  
So, Paul Krugman started the War on Drugs?  Because that's what this is, it's the war on drugs.

The victims deal in cash, they deposit the same way drug dealers and money launderers do (well, did) and they get caught in the "must catch drug dealers!!!11one" net like a sea turtle out for a swim.

But no, this is somehow BOB's fault, whoever the fark he is.
 
2013-09-26 10:26:34 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-26 10:27:39 AM  
Seems to me the grocer guy and his daughter did not file Form 8300 as they were told to do.

I know some Farkers are going to attempt to turn this into some kind of attack on personal freedom, but when you run a small business you know there are things required. You need to file a tax return, you need to report wages paid, and so forth. Form 8300 is just one of those things businesses need to file.

IRS rule
The form itself is simple and it can be filed electronically. Apparently this business did not.
 
2013-09-26 10:36:21 AM  

Gulper Eel: In other news, demonstrably dodgy financial transactions are okay if you're Eliot Spitzer - but if you're a grocery store in Michigan the IRS will have its claws out regardless of whether you did anything wrong.


If by "are okay", you mean "lead to an investigation that ends your governorship", then sure.
 
2013-09-26 10:39:46 AM  
Doesn't sound quite as bad as the CEO of Gibson claiming persecution for his political beliefs when law enforcement enforced the laws he was breaking.
 
2013-09-26 10:41:24 AM  

Delay: Seems to me the grocer guy and his daughter did not file Form 8300 as they were told to do.

I know some Farkers are going to attempt to turn this into some kind of attack on personal freedom, but when you run a small business you know there are things required. You need to file a tax return, you need to report wages paid, and so forth. Form 8300 is just one of those things businesses need to file.

IRS rule
The form itself is simple and it can be filed electronically. Apparently this business did not.


If they had a decent accountant they would have known that; however, accountants impede freedoms much like terrorists.
 
2013-09-26 10:48:03 AM  

wotthefark: If they had a decent accountant they would have known that; however, accountants impede freedoms much like terrorists.


Heh. Not our accountant. She's a nice older woman who lives in the neighborhood. She comes in twice a month for about an hour and does some tasks using our accounting software while telling me stories about her dog. I could not imagine anyone less damaging to my freedoms.
 
2013-09-26 10:58:48 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?


What do the people in the thread have to do with anything? D_I_A is in a constant war with the "liberals" in his head. What's going on in reality matters not to his delusional internal struggle.
 
2013-09-26 11:02:55 AM  
I liked the seizes and whims, but I'm going to deduct half a point for the lack of jackboots.

The Krugman was a nice touch, but I would have gone with Saul Alinsky tactics.
 
2013-09-26 11:05:16 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-26 11:08:02 AM  

someonelse: 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.


Reason really went to shiat when they caught the "OBAMA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME" sometime in 2009. I liked them before but christ on a crutch they've become bad.
 
2013-09-26 11:13:47 AM  

ginandbacon: 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.


Meanwhile multibillion dollar banks launder drug money and the Feds refuse to do anything
 
2013-09-26 11:30:02 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-26 11:30:04 AM  
Does Fark yet have a word for threads where the headline seems like obvious bullshiat that wouldn't be read if it didn't have a click-bait headline, and you don't want to reward the source with a click-through, so you just go into the thread comments to see *how* it was bullshiat from all the other Farkers?
 
2013-09-26 11:30:06 AM  
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.
 
2013-09-26 11:31:01 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Does Fark yet have a word for threads where the headline seems like obvious bullshiat that wouldn't be read if it didn't have a click-bait headline, and you don't want to reward the source with a click-through, so you just go into the thread comments to see *how* it was bullshiat from all the other Farkers?


Yes.  They are called "threads".
 
2013-09-26 11:33:02 AM  

Tor_Eckman: I agree with everything skozlaw posted.


YEA! Here. Have a cookie.
 
2013-09-26 11:37:27 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Tor_Eckman: I agree with everything skozlaw posted.

YEA! Here. Have a cookie.


Exceedingly lame.  Even for you.

You should maybe try an alt or something.

The DiA shtick has become tired and boring.
 
2013-09-26 11:41:30 AM  
Banks are required to report deposits of $10k and over.  Making multiple deposits for $9,999.99 will not get you out the requirement.  In fact, as seen here, trying to game the system by making multiple deposits for $9,999.99 will get you extra scrutiny.

I'll also point out that there is a history of middle-east-owned businesses in the metro-Detroit area, where this takes place, funneling money to Hezbollah and other militant groups (look up the chain LaShish) so this probably drew extra scrutiny for that reason.
 
2013-09-26 11:44:14 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.


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.
 
2013-09-26 11:46:16 AM  

please: Banks are required to report deposits of $10k and over.  Making multiple deposits for $9,999.99 will not get you out the requirement.  In fact, as seen here, trying to game the system by making multiple deposits for $9,999.99 will get you extra scrutiny.

I'll also point out that there is a history of middle-east-owned businesses in the metro-Detroit area, where this takes place, funneling money to Hezbollah and other militant groups (look up the chain LaShish) so this probably drew extra scrutiny for that reason.


The reason they made the smaller deposits was due to insurance company not covering employee thief over $10K.
 
2013-09-26 11:47:48 AM  

minoridiot: The reason they made the smaller deposits was due to insurance company not covering employee thief over $10K.


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.
 
2013-09-26 11:52:02 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-26 12:01:19 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Dancin_In_Anson: Tor_Eckman: I agree with everything skozlaw posted.

YEA! Here. Have a cookie.

Exceedingly lame.  Even for you.

You should maybe try an alt or something.

The DiA shtick has become tired and boring.


This isn't true. It hasn't become tired and boring; it was tired and boring ab initio.
 
2013-09-26 12:01:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: minoridiot: The reason they made the smaller deposits was due to insurance company not covering employee thief over $10K.

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.


Publication 1544 and the subsequent Form 8300 is there to protect us from the Wars on: drugs, terror, crime, the internet, drunk driving, morality, violence, teen pregnancy, cancer, culture, Christmas, gangs, Women and Porn.

It was the war on terror and the Patriot Act that requires the form though. Before it was just RICO laws and THEN they went full retard.
 
2013-09-26 12:02:26 PM  

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.
 
2013-09-26 12:03:53 PM  
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.
 
2013-09-26 12:05:26 PM  

Wellon Dowd: 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.


Started with Nixon and has only gotten worse from there.
 
2013-09-26 12:07:42 PM  

please: I'll also point out that there is a history of middle-east-owned businesses in the metro-Detroit area, where this takes place


Racial profiling is okay when the IRS does it.
 
2013-09-26 12:11:24 PM  
Funny because the Republicans in Michigan are the ones who essentially had a dictator take over Detroit.  Who then decided to cut people's power off with no warning.

It's not authoritarian when we do it and all that.

Yes I know two wrongs don't make a right, just saying.
 
2013-09-26 12:11:53 PM  

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.
 
2013-09-26 12:15:17 PM  
I don't ever do this but I'm going to bookmark this thread.
 
2013-09-26 12:16:48 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.


McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 Basically states insurance companies can do whatever the fark they want to in a state.

They are not subject to the commerce clause. The insurance company isn't liable for federal deposit requirements, thus it's the owners responsibility for not paying more in premiums for insurance to cover more than $10000 in cash.
 
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 123 of 123 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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