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 48
    More: Interesting, Somalia, Michigan, central government, civil forfeiture, Institute for Justice, Shelby County, insurance policy, feds  
•       •       •

1984 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2013 at 9:24 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-26 09:59:41 AM
7 votes:

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 10:15:12 AM
5 votes:

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 10:27:39 AM
2 votes:
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 10:20:31 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-09-26 09:46:33 AM
2 votes:

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 09:29:00 AM
2 votes:
Wait, what did Paul Krugman do?
2013-09-26 09:28:14 AM
2 votes:
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 08:44:26 AM
2 votes:

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 08:11:27 AM
2 votes:

ginandbacon: They were laundering money.


I missed that part of the no violations letter. Perhaps you could point it out.
2013-09-26 07:58:09 AM
2 votes:
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 07:44:54 AM
2 votes:
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 02:56:18 PM
1 votes:

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 01:26:02 PM
1 votes:

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 12:57:19 PM
1 votes:

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 12:30:40 PM
1 votes:

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 12:24:46 PM
1 votes:

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 12:16:48 PM
1 votes:

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 12:11:53 PM
1 votes:

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 12:01:28 PM
1 votes:

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 11:52:02 AM
1 votes:

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 11:46:16 AM
1 votes:

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 11:44:14 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:01 AM
1 votes:

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 11:30:02 AM
1 votes:

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 11:08:02 AM
1 votes:

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 10:58:48 AM
1 votes:

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 10:36:21 AM
1 votes:

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.
P0e
2013-09-26 10:21:46 AM
1 votes:
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 09:58:35 AM
1 votes:

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 09:54:40 AM
1 votes:

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 09:50:34 AM
1 votes:
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 09:50:15 AM
1 votes:

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 09:45:54 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:02 AM
1 votes:
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 09:40:20 AM
1 votes:
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 09:39:20 AM
1 votes:

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


So was the IRS.
2013-09-26 09:36:24 AM
1 votes:

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 09:32:53 AM
1 votes:
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 09:32:47 AM
1 votes:
Article was very light on the reason for the action.
2013-09-26 09:32:21 AM
1 votes:

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


Because LIBBBBBSSSS
2013-09-26 09:30:47 AM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: Wait, what did Paul Krugman do?


I can tell you what he didn't do...audit the Fed.
2013-09-26 09:29:26 AM
1 votes:

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 09:01:57 AM
1 votes:

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 08:57:09 AM
1 votes:
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 08:52:31 AM
1 votes:
Continuing the war against small businesses.......
2013-09-26 08:46:45 AM
1 votes:

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 08:30:01 AM
1 votes:
The IRS didn't do anything illegal.  This is covered under the "You didn't build that" executive order.
2013-09-26 07:31:36 AM
1 votes:
I don't think you'll find many defenders of civil asset forfeiture here on FARK trollmitter
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report