Slashdot Mirror
Law Lets IRS Seize Accounts On Suspicion, No Crime Required
schwit1 writes: The IRS admits to seizing hundreds of thousands of dollars of private assets, without any proof of illegal activity, merely because there is a law that lets them do it. From the article: "Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up and settle the case for a portion of their money.
'They're going after people who are really not criminals,' said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. 'They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.'" The article describes several specific cases, all of which are beyond egregious and are in fact entirely unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is very clear about this: The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation."
'They're going after people who are really not criminals,' said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. 'They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.'" The article describes several specific cases, all of which are beyond egregious and are in fact entirely unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is very clear about this: The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation."
It's time for the people to take back the world. The massive bureaucracy with its bloated laws and indifferent employees have got to shrink!
Just compensation has nothing to do with this.
it's a bad law and i don't think it should exist but most of the examples in the article are people highly likely to be cheating on their taxes by running a cash only business and under reporting their revenues. they should really just get a safe deposit box and keep the cash in there and mostly use cash in their daily life
I guess the IRS saw the 2.5B dollar haul local cops have brought in since 9-11, and said "oooo look! I bet we can do that too...thanks 9-11! thanks Patriot Act!! thanks terrorists!!!"
To each according to their need. You are clearly able to give this much. The First Lady thanks you; she needs a new round-the-world vacation.
Just because something is a law, does not make it A- correct, or B - constitutional. Taking from people with no proof of a crime, is unconstitutional. I hope these people get a damn good lawyer, and sue the fuck out of the IRS. I mean the IRS has always been a clusterfuck, but i cant think of any other time in my admittedly short life that the IRS has been involved in so many scandals
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
...Is going to have to be to drive a silver stake through the whole civil forfeiture beast.
Solved! The use of such law makes me wonder if the scope is not defined in the usage guidelines, preparatory notes and the actual text. Those too are sources that can be reasoned with in courts, in addition to the law and the cases.
And the young skulls full of mush that frequent this site are so eager for government involvement in even more aspects of our lives?
When will the lesson that you can't trust those who desire to govern other people be learned?
Since legalized theft through Civil Forfeiture pumps billions of dollars every year into the coffers of police departments throughout the country, the IRS simply wants their piece of the pie as well.
IRS agent: Gentlemen you're accounts have all been seized, no doubt you're curious as to why.
Walmart CEO: Yeah what gives? is this a mistake?
Oracle CEO: We filed our taxes last month! as you can see we owed nothing.
GE CEO: Hes right! we didnt owe a damned thing on that 20 billion in profit we made
IRS Agent: yes through a system of complex accounting and offshore assets you've managed to not only avoid paying taxes but in some cases demand millions in tax refunds. So we got to thinking...who would be so nefarious as to intentionally defraud the government in such a malevolent way. And thats when we decided you're all drug dealing terrorist shariah muslim ISIS fighters.
Microsoft CEO: we are not! we make helpful electronics and software for everybody to become more productive!!
IRS Agent:....Thats exactly what id expect some Zune making terrorist to say...
Good people go to bed earlier.
... I first read about a couple innocently falling afoul of this phenomenon in the Reader's Digest, in the early ninteen-sixties. I was in grade school at the time. Here, some sixty years later, it's illuminating to see the progess we've made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)
Since it sounds like it breaks multiple amendment in the bill of rights, to be specific the 4th, 5th, and 8th. Let's see, the 4th prohibits unreasonable seizures which this is. You'd think it breaks the 5th since that literally says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". (How is taking property with no ability to get it back not expressly prohibited by that?) Finally it breaks the 8th in my mind because "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." to me means the only appropriate punishment if there has been no crime proven is no punishment at all.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
..at least from the article it seems to me that the victims in this case are entirely innocent.
It seems entirely unjust, and obviously so.
I'd say it's a perfect case where someone would go to their congressman or senator and start getting some crap stirred up.
-Styopa
On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”
Oh, well, that's okay then, liberty and justice for all. Nothing to see here. "Move along. I said, move the !@#$ along!"
Thank goodness the system is self-correcting. All you need to do is catch the !@#$sucking, mother!@#$ing sons of whores doing it, and they'll stop. Simple. Hoorah! USA!1!
Why did it take a MSM article for them to think of whether it was acquired illegally or that they had justification? When do we get our Magna Carta?
Then we come over all indignant when that law (which is "on the books") is used outside its originally intended area of application.
Am I the only one who thinks that Congress is to blame here (for passing sloppy legislation), not the IRS or The Government?
Might it not be a good idea to work harder to phrase legislation in such a way that it's difficult to abuse? Or would that cramp the style of "tough-on-crime" politicians?
These property seizures are basically piracy and home invasion. The correct answers are historically obvious.
I think the theory here is that it's OK to violate the Constitution, because there is no prescribed consequence. Other laws with no consequences for breaking them are likewise disregarded.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I'm not sure I understand why people don't take the matter to court (and involve the press) to expose the unconstitutional actions of the government. How could a court decide in favour of the government when the person hasn't committed a material crime?
If your (combined) gross income is over $40,000 per year, you need an accountant adviser - one that is a former IRS employee if possible. They cost, but unlike most types of insurance these days, that money will be well spent and you will see active value every year. There is no way that you can keep track of the tax code these days (unless you are a tax professional yourself). Simply paying your due share of taxes in hopes of staying out of the IRS radar doesn't work anymore.
It's getting so bad that a person feels compelled to launder their own money to keep it out of government hands.
All your account are belong to us.
Let's bet Republican's accounts get seized much more than Dem's. Just like they did with the tea party last year. Obama's administration is nothing but crooks.
This is why the prez carries no cash and doesn't even have a working credit card.
"The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation."
That is where the poor understanding lies, the IRS is a private institution.
Need more proof your government is stealing from the people?
It's just destroying the last non-slavery jobs your country still has, be a proud American about that alright...
fucking nazi's...
Nice words, but once he's president of course the banks will blackmail him like they've done with every other presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy...
Are you trying to pass? Is that it? Believe me, most people don't care.
This seizure of assets stuff is one of the biggest scandals that isn't being widely discussed in the media. It's happening with organizations with police powers at every level in the US, from local sheriff's to municipal police right on up to Federal police agencies like the IRS.
The most insidious part of the story is that it is really nothing more than a tool of upward redistribution of wealth - upward. Like most things in government since at least 1980, the government is all about redistributing wealth upwards.
By far, asset seizure is being used more often against people in the lower half of the socio-economic scale. In Chicago, I see it every day with cars being booted for non-payment of parking tickets, and it's accelerated since the cost of street parking went up 20-40x over the course of three years.
You are welcome on my lawn.
My comment was posted before I'd thought things through. The Slashdot virus must have infected me.
Its not legal, but for the last 6 years ANYONE who questioned anything the administration did was called a racist. When questioned about the IRS Obama said there was a "smidgen of corruption" and again if anyone questioned they were instantly labeled a racist.
What did you expect to happen every time an administartion did something illegal and it got pointed out you would call those pointing it out racists instead of holding them accountable? I know you wanted them to go after people you "didn't like" and you didn't care if they broke the law doing it. I just don't know why you never thoguht they would come after you eventually. Many people support communism because for some reason they think they will be the ones "more equal" than the others, but thats just not the case. They are supporting themselves being repressed.
Let this be a lesson. When people point out illegal activity done by the government against people you don't like, realize it will be done to you eventually and you should support stopping the illegal actions instead of trying to cover up for it.
It's time to put the Bitcoin to the Buccality. Make a YouTube Video with a full facial with the following script recited:
"The following is POLITICAL SPEECH and therefore is an exercise of the First Amendment. The government is hereby burdened to prove that this exercise falls within the purview of the following enumerated exceptions to said Amendment:
Incitement
False statements of fact
Obscenity
Child pornography
Fighting words and offensive speech
Threats
Speech owned by others
Commercial speech
Restrictions based on special capacity of Government
I, $YOURFULLNAME do hereby serve notice that I am a FULLY INFORMED JUROR. Therefore I will vote according to MY CONSCIENCE.
Also, I regard those who are serving time for conviction under certain laws to be POLITICAL PRISONERS. I regard those who were jailed for contempt for employing jury nullification as POLITICAL PRISONERS.
Also, the following should not be allowed to serve on a jury:
Law enforcement personnel
Veterans
Persons employed in occupations requiring a security clearance
Persons employed in occupations involving intellectual property
Persons invested in corporations involving intellectual property
Persons employed in occupations requiring government permissions (doctor, lawyer, electrician, etc.)
Any person whose livelihood involves a position in government and/or depends on a government privilege whether directly or indirectly."
It would be interesting to see how much IRS 'investigators' received as bonus payments for 'retrieving proceeds of illegal activities'. I suspect that they target people who are least able to fight back and take amounts (by & large) that many people will just write off since employing a lawyer to get it back will just cost more.
It looks as if they have been reading the Mafia extortion handbook.
If they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
I hope you were being sarcastic but it's modded 'insightful' so that's not how people are reading it! Even if you are completely innocent of all wrong doing having your accounts frozen will have a massive impact on your life. Suddenly accessing your paycheque to pay the mortgage/rent, purchase food etc. becomes impossible all you have is you cash on hand for however long it takes them to realize that you are innocent and to pay it back. That will have a massive impact on your life and to be able to do that simply because some overworked policeman has a suspicion seems highly unreasonable. In fact I'm guessing that you'll need to go to court to get the money back and who knows how you'll be paying for the lawyer or whether you can also reclaim the expenses of the court case from the US government.
I'm all for supporting law enforcement but seizing money on a suspicion without any court oversight is just wrong. If they need to act fast then let them freeze an account for 24 hours to give them the time to go to a court and make a case for seizure. This gives them the ability to act rapidly, keeps the system open to public scrutiny and would ensure that they have some evidence before peoples lives are impacted. Why do governments find it so hard to put reasonable balances like this into laws?
Just like they did with the tea party last year.
Quick! Point to where the tea party or any of the Republicans changed the law allowing the IRS to harass people like that!
Waiting...
Waiting...
Waiting...
Didn't think so. The conservatives are just waiting for their turn to be in charge of the government so they can use big government the "right" way.
If they think you've not paid your taxes, they can and do seize your accounts and other assets. If you're a business, they'll lock the doors and control the contents.
in the 80's some 'conservative' judge gave the cops the right to seize and liquidate assets in drug busts *before* any trial.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
It sounds to me as if most of these should be pursued in Small Claims Court. Just letting the IRS take your money is stupid.
Police stop you, and take all of your money, because they think you were going to use the money for drugs.
Sounds unbelievable, but it really happening.
Jon Oliver, does an informative, and funny, video about it.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
Perhaps you should get YOUR facts straight. The central law, the Bank Secrecy Act and its various amendments, which is what created this legal situation, were ALL passed by a Congress where BOTH Houses were controlled by the Democratic Party. These were not "Republican policies". Since they were signed into law by Republican Presidents, I must conclude that they were bipartisan,
It is possible this conclusion is wrong, so I will not argue with anyone providing evidence that this was primarily a Democratic Party idea (I can think of several explanations as to why a Republican President would sign a bill into law that he mildly disagreed with, but cannot conclude that any of those are true in this case without doing more work than I am willing to at this time).
Conclusion: This is not a "Republican policy". It is a bipartisan policy and should be unconstitutional (and that the Framers of the Constitution would be horrified that anyone could think that it was not).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Repubs, and dems, don't give a crap. They are both owned by corporations. Congress has, something like, a 10% approval rating, and a 90% retention rate.
Throw the bums out, vote 3rd party. It is the only way we will ever have real change.
The differences between our two parties on many important issues around privacy, rule of law, and freedom of speech are mostly negligable. Both parties are pretty pathetic, if not defacto evil.
Quote: "'They're going after people who are really not criminals,' said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor "
Ummm, hey Mr. Lawer Dude: why should they be allowed to impound ANY non-criminal item from ANYONE? It's one thing to remove, say, guns and illegal drugs when arriving with a warrant. It's another to say "hey, I bet that cash and those guns are illegal so let's take them " (and the car they're in -- the car is often taken as well) It's been pretty well established that local police depts use the forfeiture laws as a moneymaking operation. How about we take property the old-fashioned (joke) way: after conviction, or at the very least, grand-jury indictment?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Administrative seizures of money without an associated criminal case began in earnest in 2012. I don't recall, who was running the administration? Perhaps he had more flexibility after he was re-elected.
Waiting...
Waiting...
Waiting...
Wow. I don't see any responses while you were "Waiting..."
You really 0wned them. That's really clever.
Let me try it.
Waiting...
Waiting...
Waiting...
GOT YOUR NOSE!!
And I'm not going to give it back.
The government is settling with this people. AKA, it's saying, yep we stole your money now if you shut-up we'll be nice and give you a percentage back when the government should be forced to pay the percentage these people incurred in interest plus punitive sum.
Also, telling is the fact that making several less then 10,00 dollar deposits is basically a crime because it could have been done to void reporting requirements. But most small businesses are doing just that. They have say 10k in cash sales a week. So they deposit it in maybe 3.3K increments as they make the money and in-order to avoid having too much cash on hand or they could be depositing 1.2k a day if the bank isn't too far away. These business are probably not (big)tax cheaters since their depositing money into the bank where the government can find out about it. This is a war(intentional or not) on cash based businesses. Hell, if I were making money illegally I would make only big deposits or uses prepaid CCs to launder the money to me through my shell business. Being flag is less suspicious then "avoiding" being flagged. The IRS is too lazy to actually find illegal shell corps.
Also, if you want to know why mexico is fucked up economically just this is the reason why. The government started seizing money in the 80s or maybe even earlier, saying it was illegally obtained, no amount of documention was suffice to over ride their suspicion. This lead to honest small business people simply leaving the country.
*Facepalm*
;)
// Both with lowercase first letters.
The GP refers to the 501(c)(4) scandal last year, not to any particular changes in law.
Looks like the liberals are just waiting for their turn to feel mock indignation about something.
/ More liberal than conservative.
And a week from now they will once again vote for business as usual. But there is the opportunity to completely clean out the house. It sure would be nice to see people take advantage of it. But nope... It just ain't gonna happen. So then, what do we do to protect ourselves from the majority? How do we stop them from voting away our rights and using the gun to enforce their tyranny? When will we say *NO!* to corrupt authority?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yeah! That evil Obama is responsible for every Bad Thing. Even the Bad Things that predate his term, or have fuck-all to do with him! That's how horrible he is.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
In totally unrelated news, the thief responsible for a string of high-profile burglaries in New York State was acquitted after promising he wouldn't do it anymore. Questions from the victims regarding their lost property went unanswered.
People need to understand that when law enforcement invokes the images of drug traffickers, money launderers and international criminals to demonstrate a "need" for new powers, those people aren't really the targets.
Regular, every day, citizens are who they want to go after.
Remember how they sold the USAPATRIOT act as an anti-terrorism measure? Remember how they sold CALEA as a tool to enforce the laws?
Law enforcement powers are intended to be abused, that's why they're always so broad and with no oversight.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
One thing is for sure this problem will not be fixed on the /. forums. Try theses
http://www.treasury.gov/IRSOB/FAQs/Pages/default.aspx
Jack of all trades,master of none
Perhaps you should get YOUR facts straight.
problem is "by Anonymous Coward" Why should they ? they post so as to not get modded to hurt there real account. I think they should have a the setting to view AC posters as an opt-in setting and punish poor moderation.
Jack of all trades,master of none
When he spoke at Georgetown about civil seizure, standards of evidence and double jeopardy, his answer was, and here I paraphrase, No one is being punished. The money is being punished and so the Constitution does not apply.
Think about it next time you have a few dollars in your bank account from the sale of that old car in your front yard.
they can take it all for no reason whatever, thanks to Scalia et al..
You're a fucking idiot. Or a very obvious troll.
innocent until proven guilty"
That's Tea Party talk. I'll bet you're anti-choice too.
Many businesses deposit this way. Restaurants, hairdressers, parking lots.
The previous day's receipts arecommonly in the 5 to 8 thousand dollar range, and owners are in the bank first thing in the morning, EVERY morning. Every business is guilty of structuring under these rules.
10 grand was specified in 1986, when 10 large was a lot of money, and daily receipts were 10% what they are today.
Officer: "How much money is in your car?"
Citizen: "Enough to buy your daughter on the E-bay auction."
it's a bad law and i don't think it should exist but most of the examples in the article are people highly likely to be cheating on their taxes by running a cash only business and under reporting their revenues.
This does not justify civil forfeiture of those assets. The IRS can demand taxes be paid on unclaimed income but they should not be able to seize the entirety of the asset.
Not to mention, both parties have changed quite a bit since the 1970s.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
As I understand, this means that the IRS can just take anybody's money (yours, mine, whoever's) for no reason at all, and that they are actively doing precisely this.
So, how do we stop it? Is the ACLU currently representing someone in a case against this that could get the law challenged in the supreme court? Is there a political lobby that is currently making the fighting of this their primary objective?
To whom can I voluntarily give my money now in an effort to get this law changed, so I can protect the rest of my money?
Do they simly sit on the money for some time (possibly quite long) while investigating - and eventually give it back if they find nothing wrong?
Or do they confiscate the money so it is lost forever?
I didn't plan on doing business in the U.S. anyway - but this seems crazy. Compare to south Italian corruption or Russian government . . .
Whoa, that's messed up!
Back when banking was just, well.... banking, it made sense to keep your money there. I smell a growth opportunity in private "safe deposit boxes."
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Every business is guilty of structuring under these rules.
Yes, that's the beauty of it. Everyone can be stolen from. Right now, it's happening in small increments. If there's a real financial crisis, I can foresee every small business in the USA losing their money on the same day.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Maybe this explains why the rich have complex financial arrangements. I'm sure a lot of it is about avoiding taxes and the chore of investing (and spending) lots of money, but maybe some of it is about insulating your wealth from these kinds of things.
I know these people weren't rich and a couple were probably only sort of middle class (like the restaurant owner) and they may be chosen because of their limited resources to fight back. And a lot of rich people are high salaried or compensated in non-cash ways.
But it's like the quote about robbing banks because that's where the money is -- the IRS must be fairly interested in sort of wealthy people, too, since a $50k legal tab is expensive after the government has taken all your cash.
Show me a third party that isn't fucked in the head more than the R & D and I'll consider.
The Libertarians and Constitution parties are just more Republicans with a different name. The Greens are also fucked in the head as well.
And I've heard the libertarian rhetoric, and I've seen who they put on the ballot, they're just extremist republicans.
Yes, lets bet [hypothetically]. You have made an assertion. Would you be willing to bet $1000 that you are right? Or do you just like spouting off. If you think government overreach and seizure is a Dem only feature you're really living inside your own echo chamber. In the end this is a problem larger than any single party and is just a feature of power corrupting at all levels.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
what if instead of trying to fix all this craziness we just adjusted the $10,000 figure currently in place for inflation (retroactively to whenever the $10,000 amount was first set)?
what would that value be?
The police have a hard job to protect us from criminals while, at the same time, not infringing on our freedom and as such they deserve our help and support. In this case there does not even seem to be any suggestion of abuse of their powers it is just that the powers are so far reaching without any checks that honest mistakes end up having huge consequences for innocent people.
In a democracy the police use the powers handed to them by the politicians. If they get handed a hammer then thats what they have to use to do their job. It is not their job to start evaluating their own powers to see whether they are too far reaching or not - the politicians should be doing that BEFORE they start handing out police powers like hallowe'en candy.
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that "due process of law" means shit like civil procedure being evenly applied and such and that you have no right to see the inside of a court room for anything other than imposing criminal judgements.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/36-procedural-due-process-civil.html
not to any particular changes in law.
And certainly not to any particular changes in law in the past year that would have put a stop to this bullshit?
Still waiting... Maybe Ted Cruz will do something to rein in Big Government when he gets a break from trying to repeal obamacare for the 100th time.
Still waiting... Maybe there's a Republican somewhere looking to make a name for himself by going up against one of the least popular bureaucracies in the US (outside of Congress itself, of course).
Still waiting... *facepalm*
Face it: neither party ever cuts down the power of government because they want big government when they're in charge of it. They're simply waiting their turn to be in the driver's seat.
It's a war on cash. They can't track cash. They would love to see cash die.
The first thing to consider is that if you travel with, or have on your person, an amount of money a police officer simply finds interesting, they can seize that money without any reason. So you're to keep the money in the bank, then, right? Sure, so the second thing to consider is that it can be seized from your bank without any reason also.
Apparently, we're supposed to keep our money at home. Although there's already a law against hoarding coins.
Just let that sink in for a few minutes.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"merely because there is a law that lets them do it"
If the action is approved by statute then that is good reason for them to take it. They should follow statute.
If a statute is unconstitutional then it is up to courts to decide that. We don't want middle managers deciding what the Constitution says. They should obey Congress, and Congress should be chosen by the voters. And they do, and it is. So either blame nobody or blame voters or maybe blame Congress, but don't blame the IRS.
It can also create powerful anger, desperation and a sense of being treated extremely unfairly.
Thinking just a bit longer term, the whole thing doesn't seem like a good idea at all.
Human nature being what it is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That's what a contingency-fee based lawyer is for. Of course, he/she has to believe the case is winnable, and it *will* cost you a pretty penny if you win, but at least you can get representation.
The seizure of assets laws must be reworked. The current laws put all of us at slave status. And it opens up a broader issue. We can not allow a system that enables profits to be made by courts and government agencies. For example a common traffic ticket should generate a loss to the system. Making an arrest or holding a person in jail should also generate losses. If fancy book keeping can hide a profit being made by the police then we are in deep danger. Imagine a bankrupt city like Detroit issuing $10,000 dollar parking tickets or seizing cars for trivial violations . Then we have a huge hazard in private prison systems acquiring convicts and renting them out as laborers at a profit. These conditions create an incentive to lock people up without cause or reason. These issues can cause revolts when combined with other problems.
When the courts are staffed by judges who do not take their oaths seriously, they feel free to "reinterpret" the meanings of the "living document" before them to achieve whatever results they wish. They can simply "stretch" words like "reasonable", completely re-imagine words like "regulate" (which USED to mean "make regular" but now means "exert any arbitrary control required to achieve outcomes desired by the government"), or claim to be mystified by expressions like "the people" which were long understood and obvious. They can do this secure in the knowledge that the public will not hold them to account as long as they mostly do this in ways that most people either desire or will at least tolerate. This is "the ends justify the means" as public policy, where the courts and the politicians have all decided they need unlimited piles of money from the taxpayers, so no dusty old document that plainly prohibits this sort of bovine excrement will be allowed to get in their way.
This is what's wrong with the progressive view of the Constitution. If any inconvenient word can be reinterpreted to mean something else any time a judge desires it, then ALL the words can be reinterpreted. The same flexibility that suddenly enables judges to discover things like abortion rights and gay marriage rights in a document that mentions neither one, ALSO allows juges to declare that the Constitution contains vast loopholes that allow the government to spy on everybody without warrants and sieze people's assets without cause, due process, or even ANY evidence of ANY degree of wrongdoing. The proper way to change the Constitution is via the amedment process, NOT judicial tyrany. In a world of honest, oath-respecting judges, EVERY judge in EVERY courtroom in the USA would toss this IRS policy (and many other IRS policies which are based on the anti-American idea of "guilty until proven innocent") into the trash.
Is there *any* evidence that the police targeted innocent people deliberately to seize their money? This is a bad law which, I'll agree, is ripe for abuse and gives the police far too much power without any checks but from the article the complaint is that the police made an honest mistake. If the police do abuse it then yes, those particular individuals are "being evil" but where is your evidence of that?
Without that evidence what you have is an extremely bad law that *could* easily be abused and which will lead to huge inconvenience for innocent people when mistakes are made. The law is not inherently 'evil' (it does not *require* that innocent people have theor money seized) and, if we lived in a utopia where we could be sure the law would be correctly enforced, there would be no issue with it. The problem is that we do not live in such a world and so this is a terrible law hence it is the politicians who are at fault because they are the ones writing the laws.
Hey, it could be worse right? It's not like they'll forcibly rape you in the ass without evidence.
Oh, wait.
Thinking of cops as anything but thugs that view everyone else as the enemy, who they can lie to, kidnap, steal from, and beat/tase/mace with total impunity, is naivete now reserved only for the people who have not yet been unfortunate enough to catch a cops eye (which doesn't require doing anything illegal). These people think that not all cops are bad simply because they see them not abusing someone, and the fact that many targets of the police are criminals who need to be removed from society. That doesn't excuse the fact that any cop who doesn't, at least sometimes, violate peoples rights (the friendly cop who helped you out probably also civilly forfeited his department a new margarita machine/zamboni/trip to disney-all real, btw), is at a minimum covering for his buddies that do. The entire system is rotten to the core: there are no good cops, only cops that are less pure evil and closer to how cops should act (that is, they occasionally arrest someone who deserves it without violating their rights).
This may be a bi-partisan policy, but what you fail to acknowledge is that it is a Democratic administration who runs the IRS...the same IRS that is guilty of targeting conservative organizations.
So bi-partisanship really isn't bi-partisanship when an abusive administration is imposing its will on the people.
but this is the EXACT kind of behaviour which drives a small businessmen / common man to forms of terrorism. To steal someones hard work and earnings will surely just create more Timothy McVeigh type people.
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016!
And get a great interest rate on your BitUSD deposits too.
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand
When did the IRS ever flag democrats for audit for being democrats as an explicit policy?
When did the IRS ever grant carte blanche tax-emempt status to republican groups?