Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 04/06/2015 6:20:25 AM PDT by Gamecock
You position makes no sense
Does every hotel he stayed at have to return the money he paid with?
I see only idiocy in your comment.
That means you or me actually may owe some money in this case without even knowing it.
Every business he bought anything at would have to “give back” the money he spent with them.
If someone dropped stolen jewelry in the collection plate, would the church keep that too?
I just love this. The Christian way to say "stick it up your keester."
"....we have prayerfully considered....and must respectively decline....." I just love it!
Feds are gonna have to conclusively PROVE the money was stolen and not just some cash they can confiscate because of 'suspicion'....
If the feds/courts thought they had the “right” to the money for the victims, they would have sued the church rather than asked for it.
It's too bad that so many people fell prey to a get-rich quick scheme, but that is not the fault of the church.
Meanwhile, not sure if it applicable, probably not, the statue of limitations on a debt in Michigan is 6 years.
http://credit.about.com/od/statuteoflimitations/g/misol.htm
But thanks to our outstanding Congress, there is no statue of limitations on a debt to the Federal Government:
“Buried deep inside a massive piece of legislation passed by Congress sits a little-noticed passage that, with few exceptions, wipes out any statute of limitation for a debt owed to the federal government.
Thanks to the “Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008,” anyone overpaid by a federal agency, at any time in their life, can now be tracked down and put on the hook for debts that are decades old.”
Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/us-treasury-irs-statute-limitations-tax-grab-208436421.html#ixzz3WXN3CO6B
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook
I found a blog post about the “church” in question. It’s a snarky and cynical assessment of Resurrection Life Church written by an unbeliever who visited one Sunday. He has some insight those attempting to attract “unchurched seekers” might do well to remember.
Resurrection Life Church
http://blog.freakingawesome.net/2008/01/06/resurrection-life-church/
> Does every hotel he stayed at have to return the money he paid with?
OK, guy robs a bank, walks out onto the street and pays a bum $500 for a pack of cigarettes.
Who does the $500 belong to?
No, in that case the Feds have the car, as indeed they do, and are selling the car to help make restitution to the defrauded parties. If the fraudster spent the money at a hotel, that’s just considered unrecoverable. The hotel rendered services and were paid for them. But if a wealthy church with millions of dollars in the bank received the money, that’s certainly recoverable. Again, this is not breaking new ground, legally. They are going to have to pay this money back.
Guy, have you seen this church? They have the money, or at least other fully fungible dollars.
Answer the questions I asked.
You’re totally right about the 6-year lookback though, that does complicate matters for the defrauded investors.
You’re totally right about the 6-year lookback though, that does complicate matters for the defrauded investors.
On b. If it is proven dirty money, I’d sure as heck not leave it up to this government to return anything to the rightful owners. We all know what happened to the premium bond investors on GM, don’t we? I wouldn’t return ANYTHING to this government.
“No, in that case the Feds have the car”
What if the car was totaled years ago?
And no car holds it’s value. Does the dealer need to make up the difference.
“But if a wealthy church with millions of dollars in the bank received the money, that’s certainly recoverable.”
Hotel or car dealer may be much richer than the church.
You have no consistent argument.
He had a coffer worth $4.5M in the bank for his run for mayor.....I bet ain’t much left now.
Money is fungible and the church may not be legally responsible. I have a feeling that any admission by the church would open it to litigation even a freewill offering fund to reimburse the investors for McQueen’s donations. I also don’t know the timeline of McQueen’s criminal behavior.
Then the government should have to prove it was illegally received, not demand it.
Government hides behind brandishment/threat of power and authority (and inaction by Justice and Legislative oversight) to do all sorts of things contrary to established law. So what?
The difference her is there were no services received. It was a donation to a supposed church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.