Posted on 07/09/2007 5:57:37 AM PDT by John Jorsett
Nearly 15 years ago, the state of California seized about $25,000 worth of stock that Richard Valdes had set aside and forgotten about.
He's been fighting to get it back almost ever since.
Valdes' stock was in an escrow account that the state declared dormant. But no one from the government tried to contact him before the shares were taken and sold. Valdes said he was effectively robbed of stock that would now be worth at least $100,000.
"It's unbelievable to me that they can destroy records and sell your property without notifying you," Valdes, 71, said. "I've lived in the same Newport Beach area for 50 years. It's very easy to get ahold of me."
[snip]
But on April 30, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court decision, sending the case back to Shubb with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction that temporarily halted the state's sale of unclaimed property. The appeals court noted that citizens have a due-process right to be notified of the possible loss of their property.
The reversal buttressed the legal argument that the unclaimed property law "wasn't designed to be a revenue stream or a profit center," Palmer said.
The injunction sent the controller, the governor and state legislators scrambling to fill an estimated $442-million hole in the state budget for the fiscal year that began July 1.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Unfortunately for you, the Founding Fathers FAILED. They tried, and what they established worked for a long time--but the statists have finally succeeded in emasculating what they set up. It took them two hundred years, but they have won. What we have today is no longer the system the Founding Fathers set up.
The fact that you fail to understand the above points up your problem. So you go right ahead and "stand with them". I, on the other hand, stand with the principles they espoused---putting sufficient chains on government to keep it in check and protect peoples liberties and rights.
You are aware, of course, that this is the patented retort of unemployed thirtysomething losers who live in their moms' basements - not an argument.
Yes, but “no action” would be impossible if interest payments are considered, no?
“No action” on the part of the owner of the account!! The obligation to maintain the account is to you. The rules on this are very old and the history really goes back to the beginning of our banking systems.
The Constitution remains and functions as the law of the world's freest, most prosperous and most powerful nation.
You are free to spout as much nonsense as you wish, but don't imagine that it confers on you any authority to stand in judgment of the Founders' accomplishments.
The fact that you fail to understand the above points up your problem.
I understand that in every generation there are carping critics who whine about how liberty is threatened because they are not getting the free lunch they believe they are entitled to.
Your complaints fall squarely in that category.
I reiterate: it has always been the case that if you abandon property and leave someone else with the uncompensated burden of tending it, you have forfeited it. This principle was firmly enshrined in the common law which the Founders drew upon in drafting the Constitution, and it does not contradict the Founders' principles in any way.
That would be interesting to read those ancient maintenance obligations.
It’s pretty complicated, that 14th century dutch stuff. Hell, a lot of people can’t maintain a checking account, which is about as simple as it gets. I’m always amused, sort of, when I hear someone say something like “Oh, I don’t have a checking account, because I just can’t do it..”
I agree of course that dormant accounts would be an accounting nightmare but understand it is the custodian of such accounts that should be held to the highest standards at finding the owners of these.
AS IN ALL MATTERS, YOU have duties and obligations, too. One of them is sending "Change of Address" notices. This is where most people fail.
Yes, I agree with all that, and more. I’m jes’ sayin’. They have a fiduciary responsibility, and should be held to a higher standard, the monies held in escrow (assuming here)
You are aware, of course, that you are an anal retentive, emotionally retarded and amoral clown, intent on justifying theft in the name of The State. There’s no possiblity of argument with such as you, and I wouldn’t waste the energy required to try.
Wrong. We may currently be the most prosperous and most powerful, but our level of freedom is far less than we possessed even in my youth (early 50's). And the direction is toward even less freedom today.
"You are free to spout as much nonsense as you wish, but don't imagine that it confers on you any authority to stand in judgment of the Founders' accomplishments."
Here's a clue. My ancestors WERE the Founding Fathers. One signed the Declaration of Independence, was governor of a post-revolution state, and served in Geo. Washington's first administration. I think I know just a tiny bit about the founder's accomplishments. If the FF were alive today, they'd be appalled at how we have lost our way.
"I understand that in every generation there are carping critics who whine about how liberty is threatened because they are not getting the free lunch they believe they are entitled to. Your complaints fall squarely in that category.
Horse manure. I've earned my own way since high school. Free lunch, my ass.
"I reiterate: it has always been the case that if you abandon property and leave someone else with the uncompensated burden of tending it, you have forfeited it. This principle was firmly enshrined in the common law which the Founders drew upon in drafting the Constitution, and it does not contradict the Founders' principles in any way."
And "I" reiterate that it is the responsibilty of government to make a good-faith effort to contact the property owner before any such confiscation takes place. The courts have decided this multiple times (not just in the case the article refers to). In fact, the "registered letter" idea that I spoke about was a result of a recent confiscation case in Washington in which the "notice of confiscation" appeared only on the confiscating utility's website. The court found that that level of "notice" did NOT fullfil the "good faith effort" requirement.
So you're STILL wrong.
There is no such thing as "The State." There is, however, a real state called the state of California.
It is governed by officials that are elected by its citizens - and sometimes those citizens pass laws that you don't like.
Talking nonsense about "Big Brother" and "The State" may sound really neat on anarchist blogs, but it's just hot air.
There’s no possiblity of argument with such as you, and I wouldn’t waste the energy required to try.
The most pathetic way of conceding the argument, but I will graciously accept the concession anyway.
“I will graciously accept the concession anyway.”
Somehow I knew you would...
So you say. It would be interesting to see something measurable, rather than just anecdotal evidence.
My ancestors WERE the Founding Fathers. One signed the Declaration of Independence, was governor of a post-revolution state, and served in Geo. Washington's first administration. I think I know just a tiny bit about the founder's accomplishments.
I have to dissent from this bizarre thesis that knowledge is imparted through the biological process of reproduction rather than through education.
Free lunch, my ass.
Burdening someone with the uncompensated responsibility of custody of your property is a free lunch.
Whether or not you first obtained that property with the cash earned at your high school job is irrelevant.
And "I" reiterate that it is the responsibilty of government to make a good-faith effort to contact the property owner before any such confiscation takes place.
(1) The money spent to locate those who have abandoned their own property is real money that comes from the pockets of the abandoner's fellow citizens. Millions of dollars are already spent to locate these individuals who should be paying attention to their own property in the first place. It's a welfare program, and the more elaborate the "good faith" effort becomes the more money it costs the taxpayer.
(2) The law provides a means of notification. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
(3) Every citizen has a right to seek legal redress.
I'm not sure the state Controller John Chiang agrees with you.
From the article:
Chiang said he realized there were problems with the program shortly after he took office in January. He said he was backing budget-related legislation that would send notices to owners before their property was taken.
Y'know, every time you open your mouth (by proxy of typing), you prove yourself a bigger fool.
Does it perhaps occur to you that, as a result of the genealogical connection, I just "might" have spent a lot more time in STUDY of the period involved???
"Burdening someone with the uncompensated responsibility of custody of your property is a free lunch. Whether or not you first obtained that property with the cash earned at your high school job is irrelevant.
And, in order to be PROPERLY compensated, it is the DUTY of the party to contact the party whose property they are trying to steal.
"(1) The money spent to locate those who have abandoned their own property is real money that comes from the pockets of the abandoner's fellow citizens. Millions of dollars are already spent to locate these individuals who should be paying attention to their own property in the first place. It's a welfare program, and the more elaborate the "good faith" effort becomes the more money it costs the taxpayer."
Still wrong. Far from being a "welfare program", the confiscation of unidentified assets is a profit center for government.
I quite seriously doubt that the cost of such efforts at location come to even five percent of the value of the assets confiscated.
And in fact, I'd be in favor of a law to exactly that end--that a maximum of ten percent of the value of the asset targeted for confiscation MUST be spent in efforts to locate the proper owners, or his/her heirs. If the owner or heirs are located and claim the property, that cost of location to be deducted from what they realize from the asset.
The state cannot lose from such a law.
"(2) The law provides a means of notification. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
The courts are determining that the current "means of notification" are insufficient (in multiple recent cases).
"(3) Every citizen has a right to seek legal redress."
Which is what the guy in the article is doing--seeking redress from an inappropriate confiscation by government.
States should "be engaged in meaningful, robust outreach efforts to locate owners," said Debbie Zumoff of Keane Organization Inc., whose consulting firm advises companies on their unclaimed property obligations.
Instead, over the years California has sharply curtailed efforts to find people before selling off their property.
Until the mid-1980s, the state controller ran a "locator unit" that searched telephone directories for property owners and published detailed lists of names from unclaimed accounts in newspapers around the state.
But in recent years, as the state came under pressure to balance its budget, efforts to find owners were dismantled.
The locator unit was disbanded around 1985, and through the 1990s and the early part of this decade the Legislature steadily reduced the amount of money the controller could spend on notifying owners of unclaimed assets. In 2003, it eliminated the state's obligation to pay interest on new claims from property holders.
Notices to the public were eventually restricted to generalized newspaper advertisements telling people to contact the controller if they thought they had unclaimed property.
"It became unrestrained looting," said Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks.
Californians were also given less time to claim their property before it was seized by the state. In 1977, the "escheat period" — the amount of time an account can be inactive before considered "abandoned" and turned over to the state — was reduced from 15 to seven years. It is now three years.
(snip)
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.