Posted on 05/08/2015 7:33:14 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Although some states have moved to stop the abominable practice of civil asset forfeiture (bravo to New Mexico), the vicious monster is still alive, still seizing money and property from innocent people, still making them battle through the legal system if they want it back.
Here’s a case that ought to send shivers up your spine if you run a business that deals in a lot of cash.
Lyndon McLellan owns a gas station and convenience store in the little town of Fairmont, North Carolina. Last spring, IRS agents came to his store and informed him that they had just seized his bank account, which had more than $107,000 in it. McLellan was not accused of any crime, but the IRS was suspicious of his bank transactions. Thanks to our “war on drugs,” the government insists that we notify it whenever we deposit $10,000 or more in cash – but if someone regularly deposits significant amounts but less than $10,000, the IRS calls it “structuring” and thus suspicious.
Without any evidence of illegal activity, the government can seize bank accounts when it observes cash deposits that might be “structuring” and that is just what it did to Mr. McLellan. After grabbing his money last spring, in December the Department of Justice filed a forfeiture complaint in federal court. McLellan will lose all his money unless he is able to defeat the feds in court. (Or he can merely lose half of it if he’ll settle – more on that below.)
No American should have to fight a legal battle against the IRS and Department of Justice to get his property back when he has not even been accused of any crime, much less convicted.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Also the prohibitionist church hymns of the era preceding it were telling of the loss of faith. Oh if we do this or that or the other worldly thing, our woes will go. Well no they won’t. You think Satan is that easy to stop? Only one thing stops Satan.
Probhition didn’t “work” because the People knew how to get rid of it. Repeal the 18th Amendment. The Statists were careful not to repeat that mistake with the War on Drugs.
It wasn’t working even before it was repealed. Alcohol was still widely available and consumed.
I believe the law requires the institution taking the deposit to report. Not the account owner.
So for example, if you have $100,000 sitting in a bank account, and you don't touch it - make no deposits or withdrawals - for long enough that the bank changes the account's status to "dormant", the federal government can come along and simply take the money.
He said it had something to do with some law having to do with money laundering. It is outright theft, plain and simple, and most people (like me) have no idea that the law exists.
And of course, the great irony in this is that it would seem that, in fact, your money IS safer being stuffed in your mattress. At least there, you’ll know the moment it goes missing...
I put “work” in quotes because even the staunchest Drug Warrior will say that Prohibition didn’t “work” while saying the Drug War does, despite the exact same results.
Triple damages and triple costs - isn’t the the standard for corporate malfeasance?
In my experience, most of them vigorously tapdance around that subject.
Well, actually, it depends on the definition of “work”.
Cirrhosis death rates for men dropped from 29.5 to 10.7 per 100,000.
Admission rates for alcohol psychosis dropped from 10.1 to 4.7 per 100,000.
Best estimates (whatever that means) puts the alcohol consumption rate declining somewhere between 30 and 50%.
No, it did not stop all alcohol consumption, but neither do murder laws stop all murder.
Having said all this - whether or not the drug war is “working”, such seizures of private property is completely immoral and symptomatic of a government gone power-mad.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html
What it DID do was create a huge influx of money for organized crime.
"consumption of alcohol actually rose steadily after an initial drop. Annual per capita consumption had been declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933. [6] Illicit production and distribution continued to expand throughout Prohibition despite ever-increasing resources devoted to enforcement. [7]"
"The Volstead Act, passed to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, had an immediate impact on crime. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. The study revealed that during that period more money was spent on po- lice (11.4+ percent) and more people were arrested for violating Prohibition laws (102+ percent). But increased law enforcement efforts did not appear to reduce drinking: arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent. Among crimes with victims, thefts and burglaries increased 9 percent, while homicides and incidents of assault and battery increased 13 percent. [42]"
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf
Yes, but cites don’t necessarily establish truth. nearly half of the cites are from 2 sources, almost a quarter of them from the author himself.
It doesn’t invalidate his work, however. Cites or no cites have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of a statement. But you and I need verification of information, and cites are provided for our comfort.
I guess this little exercise establishes once again that there are statistics and there are statistics.
I’m not sure, now, what it all means. BUT, we can still say with certainty that this out-of-control government and it’s lust for the property of private citizens is a disgusting pile of puke.
Agreed! But even more, there needs to be sanctions imposed on the agency bringing such actions, and individually against those who authorized it.
It’s kind of how PP profits now. Maybe conservatives could be more high minded and have the penalty donated to a traditional charity.
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.