Posted on 07/26/2002 10:18:45 PM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:55:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
There is a damn large pile of this going on anyway as you seem to be well aware of . I'm sure we will see more of the same here , " If you have nothing to hide why do you care " crowd .
This substitute theme of 'taking from the rich to give to the poor' is just liberal/socialist spin.Exactly. Rand touched on this in "Atlas Shrugged", where the Ragnar Danneskjold character wanted to "kill Robin Hood". I think Rand could have done a better job with the whole scene where Ragnar explains his motives, by instead having him be the man who wanted to rescue Robin's good name.
They aren't talking about seizing all of the accused's assets either, just those relevant to the transgressions. And even if that leaves the person penniless, they would still be able to get legal representation since there are lawyers who will realize that they can still make a considerable profit representing people in cases like this on a "pay if we win" basis.
If I loot a company like Adelphia for billions of dollars, I should not be able to spend the money I stole to try to avoid being brought to justice. The money should go to the injured parties if I am convicted, not to my lawyers.
I see two problems. First of all, will they try to apply these seizures to the existing investigations? That is, IMO, an ex post facto law. Second, look at how RICO has been abused. Given the history of the feds taking a limited power and gradually expanding it into an uncontrollable monster, I am hestitant to start down this road here. We have to face the fact that the laws in place at the time these alleged offenses occurred are not sufficient to apply what you and I and most other folks would consider to be justice. But the feds want us to be tempted to demand that they once again throw aside the Constitution to punish these big fish. And then, in five years or so, those laws will be used to fry a lot of little fish as well...
First of all, will they try to apply these seizures to the existing investigations? That is, IMO, an ex post facto law.Obviously. Seeing as the legislation hasn't even been drafted no less debated at this point, I think it is premature to yell about this though. I know if I hear they want to make the law retroactive though, I will be screaming.
Second, look at how RICO has been abused. Given the history of the feds taking a limited power and gradually expanding it into an uncontrollable monster, I am hestitant to start down this road here.An absolutely valid and legitimate concern, IMO.
I think there is some sort of sensical legislation that can be crafted in this regard though. It just doesn't make sense for someone to be able to use the proceeds of a looting to get the best defense the stolen money can buy or use the money to avoid having the money taken and given back. Making the state liable for interest and penalties in cases where guilt is not ever proven (with, perhaps, some capped punitive damages as well) might be one way.
Wealth, although almost everyone would agree is preferable to poverty, does have it own set of unique problems.
Ethics come from the home , our parents , and like minded associations . If folks keep focused on values , then at least when the Fed Gov comes for us we will have the assets to fight there illegal and unconstitutional powers .
I don't know that they all played "by the rules", but this whole spate of corporate problems starts and ends with our byzantine tax code.
If the IRS wasn't so busy creating new rules and regulations every day, these CEO's would not be trying to find ever more creative ways to circumvent them. With a simple flat or consumtion tax, the annual report would be much simpler to understand, and there would be little incentive for "off the balance sheet transactions".
I recently looked at one of GM's annual reports, and then asked my accountant if he could understand any of it. To me, in spite of the report summary, it looked like they lost money for that year. My accountant agreed, but admitted that he had no way to understand the report without access to the raw data, and a "definitions" disclosure. Having been an accountant for over 30 years, he said that some of the terms he saw in the report were created out of thin air.
If a 30 year veteran accountant couldn't decern the veracity of this report, God help the little guy investor.
Because it is an election year, listen to them talk, and they have done similar things before. History repeats itself.
This whole thing is just another way to seperate you from your money and possessions. The cops will use this as a way to take away a guy's house because his $20 shoplifting charge has been redefined as "embezzelment". Think it can't happen? Ask the parents who have lost their homes and vehicles because one of their kids got busted with $10 worth of marijuana.
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.