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.

(Washington Post)   Today's IRS love story comes to us from Fraser, Mich where an immigrant's bank account was drained because shut up   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, IRS, Mich, bank accounts, Americans, IRS agents, immigrants, Institute for Justice  
•       •       •

3167 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 May 2014 at 1:20 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-05-01 11:11:07 AM  
Absolutely farking insane.
 
2014-05-01 11:22:23 AM  
The Civil Forfeiture law should never have been thought up in the first place.
 
2014-05-01 11:22:45 AM  
Yeah, you big farking pussy, that dog was going to kill you.  That mix of 3 of the most friendly breeds was about to rip your throat out.  You were totally justified.  Because you're a big farking pussy that gets to carry guns.
 
2014-05-01 11:28:12 AM  

Hoban Washburne: Yeah, you big farking pussy, that dog was going to kill you.  That mix of 3 of the most friendly breeds was about to rip your throat out.  You were totally justified.  Because you're a big farking pussy that gets to carry guns.


That's the other thread where we hate our government and it's armed lackeys.
 
2014-05-01 11:28:46 AM  
Whoops, wrong thread.

/backs away slowly
 
2014-05-01 11:32:20 AM  

Hoban Washburne: Yeah, you big farking pussy, that dog was going to kill you.  That mix of 3 of the most friendly breeds was about to rip your throat out.  You were totally justified.  Because you're a big farking pussy that gets to carry guns.


Hoban Washburne: Whoops, wrong thread.

/backs away slowly

i1123.photobucket.com

 
2014-05-01 12:01:46 PM  
Disgusting people.
 
2014-05-01 12:11:57 PM  

R.A.Danny: The Civil Forfeiture law should never have been thought up in the first place.



This.
 
2014-05-01 12:18:21 PM  
This story is not just old, it's so old the guy got his money back 2 months after it was seized.
 
2014-05-01 12:49:43 PM  

R.A.Danny: The Civil Forfeiture law should never have been thought up in the first place.


Mhhmmm.
 
2014-05-01 01:12:23 PM  
The IRS used "civil forfeiture," the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved with, crime

It's too bad we don't have some sort of amendment to the Constitution that would prevent the government from taking your money without a warrant issued by a judge.
 
2014-05-01 01:13:45 PM  

ginandbacon: This story is not just old, it's so old the guy got his money back 2 months after it was seized.


And he only had to pay a lawyer about $10k to get it back.  At least that seems to be the going rate.
 
2014-05-01 01:15:08 PM  

ginandbacon: This story is not just old, it's so old the guy got his money back 2 months after it was seized.


How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.
 
2014-05-01 01:27:14 PM  
Ignoring the fact we've already discussed this on Fark because it's old news...

STFU, George. You don't need all that overwrought, emotional prose to talk about a law virtually nobody in this country outside of law enforcement is in favor of anyway. Liberals and conservatives both already dislike it. Who do you think you're trying to convince with all that excess handwringing and emotional pap?
 
2014-05-01 01:31:21 PM  

Lorelle: ginandbacon: This story is not just old, it's so old the guy got his money back 2 months after it was seized.

How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.


A little Google-fu brought me to this:

http://www.ij.org/miforf

Basically, although they already got their money back, a civil rights law firm is continuing to sue the government for the principle of the thing.  It's possible George Will (being an old man without my Google-fu powers) was only aware of the current, ongoing lawsuit.
 
2014-05-01 01:35:18 PM  

skozlaw: Ignoring the fact we've already discussed this on Fark because it's old news...

STFU, George. You don't need all that overwrought, emotional prose to talk about a law virtually nobody in this country outside of law enforcement is in favor of anyway. Liberals and conservatives both already dislike it. Who do you think you're trying to convince with all that excess handwringing and emotional pap?


So.... It shouldn't be discussed?
 
2014-05-01 01:35:20 PM  

Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.


The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.
 
2014-05-01 01:35:48 PM  
The stor(ies) Will links to from the New Yorker is orders of magnitude more f*cked up than this guy's story.

But those people aren't Small Business Owners and probably deserved it.
 
2014-05-01 01:39:45 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.


It does. You should read the New Yorker story if you really want to be outraged.

This guy got off easy. So easy, in fact, that it doesn't even really make sense to mention it in the context of other much more heinous abuses.

In Will's defense, he does link to it, but this particular story is the one he chooses to focus on?
 
2014-05-01 01:40:24 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.


Yeah, it really bothers me that people at the IRS are human and screw up.
 
2014-05-01 01:45:24 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.


Bothers the Hell out of me, and civil forfeiture laws should all be wiped off the books.

It's still, at an absolute minimum, somewhat intellectually dishonest of Will to not mention that the guy got all his cash back. In trying to maximize his readers' outrage, he was either shoddy in his research or deceptive in his writing.

That has nothing to do with the politics or the merits of the case. Just a statement on the lack of journalistic integrity on display.
 
2014-05-01 01:45:37 PM  
You guys made your bed by electing the nutjobs that created the legislation. Now sleep in it. Feel safe from terrists?
 
2014-05-01 01:49:48 PM  

sigdiamond2000: You should read the New Yorker story if you really want to be outraged.


I'm well aware of the abuses on the 59 corridor. That part of the state is as corrupt as it gets. FWIW, the ACLU helped shut down the racket in Tenaha.

cameroncrazy1984: it really bothers me


It doesn't bother you in the least.
 
2014-05-01 01:51:11 PM  

Russ1642: You guys made your bed by electing the nutjobs that created the legislation. Now sleep in it. Feel safe from terrists?


This goes back much further than 2001.
 
2014-05-01 01:52:01 PM  

Lorelle: ginandbacon: This story is not just old, it's so old the guy got his money back 2 months after it was seized.

How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.


"In what it probably considered an act of unmerited mercy, the IRS offered to return 20 percent of Terry's money. Such extortion - pocketing others people's money - often succeeds when the IRS bullies bewildered people not represented by IJ, which forced the government to return all of Terry's and the gas station owner's money."
 
2014-05-01 01:53:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

Yeah, it really bothers me that people at the IRS are human and screw up.


Or it should bother you that they view the American People as their target/enemy and they assume guilt over innocence.  How was this, and the other cases like it, an honest screw up?
 
2014-05-01 01:58:40 PM  
You know, before we get all harrumph about this issue we should recognize that there are two sides to every story. The IRS isn't going around stealing people's stuff just for the hell of it.
They probably legitimately thought there was an issue here and made a mistake.

Dude got his money back and should be paid for his trouble.
 
2014-05-01 01:59:41 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.


The fact that Reagan was responsible for it (it's part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984) should bother YOU.
 
2014-05-01 02:05:16 PM  

sigdiamond2000: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

It does. You should read the New Yorker story if you really want to be outraged.

This guy got off easy. So easy, in fact, that it doesn't even really make sense to mention it in the context of other much more heinous abuses.

In Will's defense, he does link to it, but this particular story is the one he chooses to focus on?


Will won't write a column on the New Yorker case because that is local law enforcement abusing their powers. He only wants to focus on federal overreach. And by making it about the IRS he can try and bring up memories of Issa's witchhunts.
 
2014-05-01 02:09:38 PM  

Lorelle: The fact that Reagan was responsible for it (it's part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984) should bother YOU.


Oh...so that's the game that we're playing. Shall we list those that have allowed the practice to continue and who or whom that should bother?
 
2014-05-01 02:12:45 PM  

Lorelle: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

The fact that Reagan was responsible for it (it's part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984) should bother YOU.


Derp
 
2014-05-01 02:12:49 PM  

Ontos: So.... It shouldn't be discussed?


In the context of an op ed focused on emotional pandering over an event that was resolved months ago to a conclusion the mentioned op ed doesn't even bother to state?

No.
 
2014-05-01 02:21:52 PM  

Gonz: It's still, at an absolute minimum, somewhat intellectually dishonest of Will to not mention that the guy got all his cash back


Minus the lawyer fees, of course.
 
2014-05-01 02:23:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

Yeah, it really bothers me that people at the IRS are human and screw up.


I doubt it does since you probably think an in rem proceed has something to do with an Athens rock band that hit it big in the 1980's.
 
2014-05-01 02:24:00 PM  

Russ1642: You guys made your bed by electing the nutjobs that created the legislation. Now sleep in it. Feel safe from terrists?


Wrong target - civil forfeiture laws were made to make us feel safe from evil drug lords.  `
 
2014-05-01 02:25:02 PM  

dsmith42: sigdiamond2000: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

It does. You should read the New Yorker story if you really want to be outraged.

This guy got off easy. So easy, in fact, that it doesn't even really make sense to mention it in the context of other much more heinous abuses.

In Will's defense, he does link to it, but this particular story is the one he chooses to focus on?

Will won't write a column on the New Yorker case because that is local law enforcement abusing their powers. He only wants to focus on federal overreach. And by making it about the IRS he can try and bring up memories of Issa's witchhunts.


I was wondering about that... I usually see civil forfeiture associated with police departments, not with the feds. Didn't know the IRS had those kinds of powers. Also, wouldn't this usually be exercised by an agency investigating the subjects, like the FBI or the Secret Service, instead of the IRS?
 
2014-05-01 02:26:53 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: it really bothers me


It doesn't bother you in the least.


Yet another conservative telling me what I think.
 
2014-05-01 02:27:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: it really bothers me


It doesn't bother you in the least.

Yet another conservative telling me what I think.


Well, he has such a clean slate to work with.
 
2014-05-01 02:28:47 PM  

skozlaw: Ontos: So.... It shouldn't be discussed?

In the context of an op ed focused on emotional pandering over an event that was resolved months ago to a conclusion the mentioned op ed doesn't even bother to state?

No.

This is where you are wrong.  As Dimensio noted up thread, the conclusion is mentioned in the article.  And cases like this need to be discussed frequently for those of us that don't regularly abuse ourselves by reading up on IRS outrages.  So, it happened in 2012 or 2013, and got resolved with outside intervention fairly quickly?  Good, and now that we all know about the IJ group, if another example of these IRS over-reach starts, we will know who to contact for help.
 
2014-05-01 02:30:53 PM  
Just popped in to say that the store in TFA is near my work and I have shopped in it.

I know you are all jealous.
 
2014-05-01 02:33:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yet another conservative telling me what I think.


Nabb1: Well, he has such a clean slate to work with.



i1123.photobucket.com

 
2014-05-01 02:39:23 PM  

skozlaw: Ignoring the fact we've already discussed this on Fark because it's old news...

STFU, George. You don't need all that overwrought, emotional prose to talk about a law virtually nobody in this country outside of law enforcement is in favor of anyway. Liberals and conservatives both already dislike it. Who do you think you're trying to convince with all that excess handwringing and emotional pap?


Yeah, we've said we don't like it, what more can anyone do? Let's head on over to the next shiny object outrage.
 
2014-05-01 02:41:15 PM  

skozlaw: Ontos: So.... It shouldn't be discussed?

In the context of an op ed focused on emotional pandering over an event that was resolved months ago to a conclusion the mentioned op ed doesn't even bother to state?

No.


Except that the two store owners still have a pending suit against the IRS...so it isn't resolved.
 
2014-05-01 02:43:15 PM  

cherryl taggart: ...if another example of these IRS over-reach starts...


If?

Most of the time they're stealing money from people who actually are drug dealers and money launderers, so there's no outrage. Nothing ever gets done because this is one of those situations where people only seem to care when they target the occasional innocent victim even though it really ought to just be illegal across the board.
 
2014-05-01 02:51:11 PM  

skozlaw: cherryl taggart: ...if another example of these IRS over-reach starts...

If?

Most of the time they're stealing money from people who actually are drug dealers and money launderers, so there's no outrage. Nothing ever gets done because this is one of those situations where people only seem to care when they target the occasional innocent victim even though it really ought to just be illegal across the board.


So, you seem just fine with the fact that now the IRS can just seize someone's assets with no prior notice and then make them come into court where they have to prove they are not guilty of illegal activity to get it back?
 
2014-05-01 02:52:00 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: it really bothers me


It doesn't bother you in the least.

Yet another conservative telling me what I think.

Well, he has such a clean slate to work with.


This may surprise you, but not my thoughts are clean.
 
2014-05-01 03:01:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Russ1642: You guys made your bed by electing the nutjobs that created the legislation. Now sleep in it. Feel safe from terrists?

This goes back much further than 2001.


The part about the IRS requiring banks to report transactions over $10k in cash is (IIRC) older than 2001. The part about banks being required to notify the IRS of a pattern of sub-$10k deposits is (IIRC) not, and is part of a raft of banking rules passed as part of PATRIOT.
 
2014-05-01 03:02:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, it really bothers me that people at the IRS are human and screw up.


This is what has some folks so upset:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The humans screwups of the IRS would be greatly ameliorated by the constitution, if we had one.
 
2014-05-01 03:23:48 PM  

Nabb1: skozlaw: cherryl taggart: ...if another example of these IRS over-reach starts...

If?

Most of the time they're stealing money from people who actually are drug dealers and money launderers, so there's no outrage. Nothing ever gets done because this is one of those situations where people only seem to care when they target the occasional innocent victim even though it really ought to just be illegal across the board.

So, you seem just fine with the fact that now the IRS can just seize someone's assets with no prior notice and then make them come into court where they have to prove they are not guilty of illegal activity to get it back?


I read it as he thinks it should be outrageous regardless of whether the person who is having their assets seized is a drug dealer or not. They shouldn't be able to seize your assets when you haven't been convicted of any crime. Their belief that you're a drug dealer, even if you ARE in fact a drug dealer, should not be enough.
 
2014-05-01 03:39:08 PM  

Nabb1: So, you seem just fine with the fact that now the IRS can just seize someone's assets with no prior notice and then make them come into court where they have to prove they are not guilty of illegal activity to get it back?


Um. Yea. I guess. If by what you said you mean the exact opposite of everything you said.
 
2014-05-01 03:54:46 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The IRS used "civil forfeiture," the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved with, crime

It's too bad we don't have some sort of amendment to the Constitution that would prevent the government from taking your money without a warrant issued by a judge.


Or at least require the approval of the FISA Court.
 
2014-05-01 04:05:36 PM  

Russ1642: You guys made your bed by electing the nutjobs that created the legislation. Now sleep in it. Feel safe from terrists?


That's the problem.  Somebody up thread said that both liberals and conservatives hate forfeiture laws.  But each side is in favor of the sort of mindsets that breed these sorts of laws.

Even if you remove this specific aspect of the law, you still have the greater issue surrounding all the punitive actions the government can do without the threshold of a criminal trial.  Civil forfeiture laws are the worst, but government civil trials are increasingly sliding toward circus act territory.
 
2014-05-01 04:18:11 PM  
In Will's defense, he probably forgot about the story when it first ran. Alzheimer's is a hell of a disease. And a hell of a disease
 
2014-05-01 04:24:37 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Dancin_In_Anson: Russ1642: You guys made your bed by electing the nutjobs that created the legislation. Now sleep in it. Feel safe from terrists?

This goes back much further than 2001.

The part about the IRS requiring banks to report transactions over $10k in cash is (IIRC) older than 2001. The part about banks being required to notify the IRS of a pattern of sub-$10k deposits is (IIRC) not, and is part of a raft of banking rules passed as part of PATRIOT.


The issue here isn't even the rules about the pattern of sub-$10K deposits.

The issue here is that the IRS (and local police agencies, and the DEA, and the FBI, and everybody else) can just steal shiat because they feel like it.
 
2014-05-01 04:43:27 PM  

Geotpf: The issue here isn't even the rules about the pattern of sub-$10K deposits.

The issue here is that the IRS (and local police agencies, and the DEA, and the FBI, and everybody else) can just steal shiat because they feel like it.


The deposit rule is what allows them to steal legally take money out of your account. Civil forfeiture is dumb, and this is a reason why, but it was done according to the letter of the law in this case.

// and the notion that the IRS (or whomever) should walk in and ask "Hey, these 'suspicious' deposits are on the up-and-up, right?" is retarded beyond words
 
2014-05-01 05:01:25 PM  

miscreant: I read it as he thinks it should be outrageous regardless of whether the person who is having their assets seized is a drug dealer or not. They shouldn't be able to seize your assets when you haven't been convicted of any crime. Their belief that you're a drug dealer, even if you ARE in fact a drug dealer, should not be enough.


If only we had some sort of constitutional amendment that prohibited the denial of life, liberty, or property without due process.
 
2014-05-01 05:07:49 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Geotpf: The issue here isn't even the rules about the pattern of sub-$10K deposits.

The issue here is that the IRS (and local police agencies, and the DEA, and the FBI, and everybody else) can just steal shiat because they feel like it.

The deposit rule is what allows them to steal legally take money out of your account. Civil forfeiture is dumb, and this is a reason why, but it was done according to the letter of the law in this case.

// and the notion that the IRS (or whomever) should walk in and ask "Hey, these 'suspicious' deposits are on the up-and-up, right?" is retarded beyond words


No, what I'm saying is that I can see how the various $10k rules make sense; it's just there needs to be a court and a judge and a bunch of lawyers involved, not just  gimmie gimmie mine gimmie.
 
2014-05-01 05:16:47 PM  
The story is bad.

George F. Will's writing is worse; it is stuffed with weasel-words and is painting all government action as bad, like I should get rid of the street in front of  my house because it was installed by a government.

Just tell the story; let Stephen King do the florid stuff.
 
2014-05-01 06:05:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

Yeah, it really bothers me that people at the IRS are human and screw up.


Is there any governmental action you won't apologize for?
 
2014-05-01 06:07:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You know, before we get all harrumph about this issue we should recognize that there are two sides to every story. The IRS isn't going around stealing people's stuff just for the hell of it.
They probably legitimately thought there was an issue here and made a mistake.

Dude got his money back and should be paid for his trouble.


Do you know it is up to you to prove the IRS made a mistake in their assessment if they come after you? It is one of the few powers of government where you are guilty until proven innocent. IRS makes a mistake, you have no avenue to claim damages. You make a mistake and its damages plus interest.
 
2014-05-01 06:08:33 PM  

Lorelle: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

The fact that Reagan was responsible for it (it's part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984) should bother YOU.


Reagan ruled over the legislative branch in 1984? Who knew!
 
2014-05-01 06:11:34 PM  

zerkalo: In Will's defense, he probably forgot about the story when it first ran. Alzheimer's is a hell of a disease. And a hell of a disease


It is funny seeing liberals more outraged at Will writing a column than they are at the abuse of power.
 
2014-05-01 06:50:54 PM  

MyRandomName: zerkalo: In Will's defense, he probably forgot about the story when it first ran. Alzheimer's is a hell of a disease. And a hell of a disease

It is funny seeing liberals more outraged at Will writing a column than they are at the abuse of power.


OUTRAGE!
 
2014-05-01 06:54:18 PM  

Foundling: The story is bad.

George F. Will's writing is worse; it is stuffed with weasel-words and is painting all government action as bad, like I should get rid of the street in front of  my house because it was installed by a government.

Just tell the story; let Stephen King do the florid stuff.


Don't begrudge George the moment. He just made an easy layup at halftime but needs to celebrate as though he posterized the Left with a two-handed tomahawk dunk in Obama's face at the buzzer
 
2014-05-01 07:08:18 PM  
Go back to writing long-windedly about sports, George.
 
2014-05-01 07:14:21 PM  
Obama's faithful have assured me the IRS is full of angels, this could never happen.
 
2014-05-01 07:18:39 PM  

sigdiamond2000: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

It does. You should read the New Yorker story if you really want to be outraged.

This guy got off easy. So easy, in fact, that it doesn't even really make sense to mention it in the context of other much more heinous abuses.

In Will's defense, he does link to it, but this particular story is the one he chooses to focus on?


Well, first off, I wouldn't say the guy "got off easy" - he had $35,000 taken from him, enduring the stress of being robbed legally by the government and potentially not getting the money back and being perceived by his own government as a criminal without the benefit of due process.

I think the focus of the story is appropriate though... he was able to recover his money with the help of an outfit specifically set up to help people the government is robbing. He chose this story because the victim was clearly a victim in no uncertain terms, and while it had a "good" (relative) outcome, it highlights there is more to be done here to prevent this sort of thing, and there is actually somebody out there fighting the government on this.

Honestly, I cannot understand how this has not been tested in front of the SCOTUS. The law seems clearly unconstitutional, and there is a far greater number of innocent victims being robbed under the pretense of punishing suspected criminals. Perhaps I can seize the current bank accounts of the IRS on suspicion of them being thieving, conniving assholes, on behalf of the people of the United States?
 
2014-05-01 07:39:39 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The IRS used "civil forfeiture," the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved with, crime

It's too bad we don't have some sort of amendment to the Constitution that would prevent the government from taking your money without a warrant issued by a judge.


In today's Washington, if it's not the second amendment, it doesn't count. The 4th Amendment is more like the 4th Suggestion, If They Feel Like It (And They Don't).
 
2014-05-01 08:23:54 PM  
This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans.
 
2014-05-01 08:25:30 PM  

Geotpf: No, what I'm saying is that I can see how the various $10k rules make sense; it's just there needs to be a court and a judge and a bunch of lawyers involved, not just  gimmie gimmie mine gimmie.


There was a judge involved - the IRS had a warrant to seize the assets.  Civil forfeiture does still need a court order.

The difficulty, like any civil case, is that there is neither presumption of guilt nor presumption of innocence in the burden of proof for the warrant - the judge needs only be convinced that it is more likely than not that the funds were improperly obtained or used.
 
2014-05-01 08:41:07 PM  

Lorelle: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

The fact that Reagan was responsible for it (it's part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984) should bother YOU.


The first statute authorizing civil forfeiture was enacted by Congress in 1789 as a sanction for the use of ships in customs violations. In 1978, Congress expanded the law to permit forfeiture of all money used in, or acquired from, the illegal drug trade and authorized the forfeiture of real property in 1984.
 
2014-05-01 08:55:03 PM  
It would be awesome if I could bring a few of the founding fathers to the present day to get their take on things. I wonder what they would think of shiat like this?
 
2014-05-01 09:20:21 PM  

SDRR: It would be awesome if I could bring a few of the founding fathers to the present day to get their take on things. I wonder what they would think of shiat like this?


That would depend largely on which you brought.  Politicians of that era were no more unified in their beliefs than the politicians of our era.
 
2014-05-01 09:54:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: it really bothers me


It doesn't bother you in the least.

Yet another conservative telling me what I think.


Well... You are pretty predictable.

With about 90% accuracy your posts are...

Government?  Good.  Yes, give them more power over your lives.

Obama?  Anybody that doesn't like him is a racist.

Want to cut taxes or government spending?  You're a monster that wants to live in Somalia and hate people.

How am I doing so far?
 
2014-05-01 09:58:05 PM  

SDRR: It would be awesome if I could bring a few of the founding fathers to the present day to get their take on things. I wonder what they would think of shiat like this?


They would probably regret not including an Amendment prohibiting horseless carriages, heavier-than-air flight, moving pictures, remote communications, and other such witchcraft. Not to mention time travel.
 
2014-05-01 11:21:29 PM  
"Asset forfeiture laws allow the government to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets."

-GWB

/I just love hearing the simplistic explanations our corrupt overlords fed our previous moron in chief
 
2014-05-02 01:13:40 AM  
Please remember this next time some glad handing asshole is telling you to give him power or take away your freedom to make you safe.

When it comes government power, "The Slippery Slope" isn't a logical fallacy, its a farking logical axiom.
 
2014-05-02 02:34:08 AM  

Ontos: How am I doing so far?


Sh*ttily.
 
2014-05-02 02:54:29 AM  

ginandbacon: This story is not just old, it's so old the guy got his money back 2 months after it was seized.


Yet, it's still wrong and that's the point.
 
Al!
2014-05-02 04:47:09 AM  
Those defending this practice seem to be of the belief that all is well since the accused had all of their money returned, but what is a small business owner to do in the meantime?  I don't know about you guys, but if the feds rolled up and emptied my bank account, I'd be filing for bankruptcy within a month.  Sure, I'd get my cash back, but I don't need the cash in 90 days.  I need it this month when my bills are due.  Were I a small business owner, I'd likely be furloughing employees until the case is resolved.  Most likely, all of them.  How can you keep the shelves stocked at your market when you don't have any earnings from sales?

Sue their pants off.
 
2014-05-02 08:23:38 AM  
Meanwhile, the IRS said I overreported my income, and I ended up with and extra $1000 in my refund. How come no one writes an article about that?
 
2014-05-02 08:41:19 AM  
"Good night, Michigan. This is Dr. Fraser Crane, signing off."
 
2014-05-02 09:02:44 AM  
Headline should read: Today's IRS love story comes to us from Fraser, Mich where an immigrant's bank account was drained because shut up...and take my money
 
2014-05-02 12:12:40 PM  
If you want to debate the appropriateness of civil forfeiture laws and implementation, that's fine.

But when you use it as and excuse to bash the IRS for political reasons, Mr. Will, then I'm not interested in what you have to say about it.

After all, you and your ilk (R-tarded) are the ones who came up with these laws in the first place, to satisfy your moral outrage that drug dealers make money and that the U.S. government had to actually prove guilt and connect the dots in court in order to prove that their massive bank accounts were the result of illegal activity rather than an inheritance from Grandma.

So until you're willing to discuss ALL uses of civil forfeiture, your outrage is dishonest.
 
2014-05-02 12:14:48 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Meanwhile, the IRS said I overreported my income, and I ended up with and extra $1000 in my refund. How come no one writes an article about that?


Come back in a few months when the IRS decides that they made a mistake, and you need to pay back the extra amount PLUS interest because you should have corrected them.

They will waive the penalties though because it was their mistake.

But new penalties will accrue if not paid in five days.
 
2014-05-02 02:59:06 PM  

IanMoone: Tyrone Slothrop: Meanwhile, the IRS said I overreported my income, and I ended up with and extra $1000 in my refund. How come no one writes an article about that?

Come back in a few months when the IRS decides that they made a mistake, and you need to pay back the extra amount PLUS interest because you should have corrected them.

They will waive the penalties though because it was their mistake.

But new penalties will accrue if not paid in five days.


The IRS said that my dad made a mistake on his taxes and owed them a small amount + interest and penalty that grew for years until it was a big amount. They sent a letter threatening seizure and sale of his business, home, etc. etc. if he didn't cough up what he owed RIGHT NOW. He talked to his accountant who told him that the IRS was mistaken about the original debt, and besides, too much time had passed for the IRS to pursue the matter. So my dad went to an attorney who told him to pay the money as the IRS could seize pretty much everything my parents owned, and then my dad could fight for years to prove he was innocent.... if he could find an attorney who would work for free. You know, cause the IRS can seize your shiat whether your guilty of anything or not.
My dad bluffed the willingness to fight, claimed to be closer to his rich (and politically connected) uncle than he was, and negotiated a settlement with them.

So just like the police, if your not obviously guilty, or you have the ability to fight back, they don't want to fark with you.
 
2014-05-02 04:19:33 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You know, before we get all harrumph about this issue we should recognize that there are two sides to every story. The IRS isn't going around stealing people's stuff just for the hell of it.
They probably legitimately thought there was an issue here and made a mistake.

Dude got his money back and should be paid for his trouble.


Oh, you mean the store owner's Iranian origins and passport?

A little surprised they didn't Star Chamber him.
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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