Civil Forfeiture: The Dark Underbelly of the American Bureaucratic Machine that is the IRS

page: 1
33

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
A little known practice of the Government is called "Civil Forfeiture". It is typically relegated to drug-busts, prostitution rings, etc, etc; you know, illegal activities. Apparently the Government has been steadily expanding their sphere of influence with this practice and is now targeting those who have done nothing wrong or anything illegal. To highlight this, I present you United States v. $35,651.11

While United States v. $35,651.11 might not be the official case name, it highlights exactly what the State is attempting to claim what is not theirs to claim. In this case, it is a grocer named Tarik "Terry" Dehko and an unbelievable story (well not that unbelievable) about a government who has decided that they wanted his money, bank account and any proceeds that are associated with it.

The Institute for Justice has taken up Terry's case.

For over 30 years, Terry Dehko has successfully run a grocery store in Fraser, Mich., with his daughter Sandy. In January 2013, without warning, the federal government used civil forfeiture to seize all of the money from the Dehkos’ store bank account (more than $35,000) even though they’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. Their American Dream is now a nightmare.


Their crime? According to their complaint brief (PDF), they were depositing 'large sums of cash', multiple times a day. The brief explains that the practice was no secret and they explain exactly why they make multiple deposits a day.

A: They are a retailer and they would rather not have large sums of cash in the till.
B: They have a company policy towards those with the responsibility of making deposits, to never have more than $10,000 of cash on hand; fear of robbery and putting employees in danger.
C: The IRS audited their actions under the auspicious "Bank Security Act" and found no wrong doing.

Unfortunately, even though they were "cleared" by that audit, the Government obtained a warrant and without recourse, seized Mr. Dehko's business account.

The Government's reasoning behind this seizure, as outlined in the complaint, is as follows:


The basis for the Government’s civil forfeiture action was its assertion that Terry
and Sandy violated federal law by “structuring” a series of cash deposits “to evade the currency
reporting requirements in violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 5324.”


Here is 31 USC § 5324 - Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited

The Government based this forfeiture solely because it decided that Mr. Dehko's practices of depositing large sums of cash, in small increments, violated "federal structuring laws" and that the crime committed was a "cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report."

Currently, this case is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and a date is to be determined on its hearing. Cases such as these infuriate me because they have little recourse and little to no notice that the Government will just step in, claim it is theirs, and then point to an abstract portion of the United States Code as their authority. They do not need to prove it save a warrant; which we have seen abused time and time again.
edit on 4-10-2013 by ownbestenemy because: Minor fixes in grammar and style.




posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Man, I worked on their e-file application...

What a nightmare, I would NEVER work for that cult again.




-SN



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Interestingly, as I continue to research into this practice, it is not an unknown in American Law. Apparently we adopted the British version, The British Navigation Act(s); specifically the revitalization during the late 17th Century the rise of mercantilism. Fast forwarding to more modern day usage and how the United States has applied such protectionism, we look at the Prohibition period.

The period of time in American history saw a huge jump in civil forfeiture instances. From there we have stories arising from all corners of the United States in which might as well be from a run in with the Mexican Federalies. Innocent (they are never charged or convicted) people being extorted by a bully Government.

Sometimes they threaten to take away your child; as in the case of Jennifer Boatright. They did indeed have a large sum of money and they did indeed have a "colorful glass pipe"; but the police never charged them and the judge that assumed this situation offered two paths: We take your child or you give us your money.

This city by the way is Tenaha. Apparently it is a hot-spot for unsuspecting drivers that are caught up in this town facing the barrel of a gun or give up their goods. Robbery that is legal.

As I have been searching for resources on this practice, it appears that the Insitute for Justice has been hitting hard at this practice. They even have a catchy phrase: Policing for Profit. That link will allow you to look up your state's 'report card'. It is appalling across the board.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Civil Forfeiture is the Robin to Overcriminalizations Batman.

If you're new to the topic(s) then you'll get a kick (to the freedom balls) from these resources:

The Overcriminalization of America: Are We All Criminals Now?

Overcriminalization: Congressional Research Service Doesn't Have The Manpower To List All Federal Crimes

www.overcriminalized.com... && www.heritage.org...

And the book "Three Felonies a Day" - www.harveysilverglate.com... ..

Then consider all of that in the context of the NSA, parallel reconstruction, and other surveillance and Government abuses.

It's a dark dark pathway we've been set on. -Mags



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I think this demonstrates the US gov't to get a hold of any large entity that has a food distribution complex -

I am in total agreement that they were doing the right thing - if they were "criminals" they would be using the large cash funds for nefarious purposes - but they weren't - they were putting them into a bank (gov't bank- I might add).

Things are getting so stinky out here now in the US - it's scary-

Like a previous poster said - they are making everyone out to be a criminal of one sort of another.

Where does it stop? Where does the public decide they have had enough?

It really is like Hitler - first, they came for the jews - I'm not a jew - then they came for the homosexuals - I'm not a homosexual - then they came for the retarded - I'm not a retard - Well, you get the picture.

This may very well come to "food distribution" monopoly - which they obviously want Walmart to be.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
This appears to be yet another case of a "War on Drugs" tactic being used to target the innocent. This is another example of the US profiting from "War" and it is a war waged against its own citizens. Is there much doubt that this is another example of a "cure" being worse than the disease?

Stop the war and give the American people back their freedoms once again.

edit on 5-10-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
There are a multitude of cases that proceeded this grocer. They transcend class and race. Take the case of Donald Scott. Scott was a man that was well-off and had it all. In 1992, his home was invaded by a multitude of law enforcement agencies, executing a warrant that indicated that Scott was 'cultivating marijuana'.

Here is the supposed list of agencies involved in the raid:
5+ Agencies Raid to Forfeit Ranch


LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (FEDERAL)
BUREAU OF NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT (STATE)
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CANINE UNIT
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
NATIONAL GUARD


National Guard? Jet Propulsion Lab? National Park Service? U.S. Forest Service? One makes you wonder why these agencies were involved in this instance.

It should be noted. Their warrant was for marijuana. They found none. No recourse but the State ended up with a multi-million dollar ranch in their possession.

More of these to come...



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The biggest problem with Civil Forfeiture is that the money goes back to the enforcement agencies. Many departments around the country are over 50% funded through forfeiture now. It's so entrenched in the budgets of police departments that they would quite literally fall apart without the laws. Something needs to change but the scale of the issue is such that it can't be an overnight fix.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Aazadan
The biggest problem with Civil Forfeiture is that the money goes back to the enforcement agencies. Many departments around the country are over 50% funded through forfeiture now. It's so entrenched in the budgets of police departments that they would quite literally fall apart without the laws. Something needs to change but the scale of the issue is such that it can't be an overnight fix.


That is an interesting claim. Do you have anything to back that up? It would really add weight to the thread.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I could probably find it. I read about it here a few weeks ago, though I don't remember the thread anymore.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


The Department of Justice has an "Asset Forfeiture Program". That program relies solely upon the 1984 "Comprehensive Crime Control Act"; the Act that created the program.

It would seem, as I traverse the DOJ site for this program, that they are using this as an augmented funding source. If that is the case, they have every desire to continue stretching the law to keep their funding and/or coffers filled.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
www.newyorker.com...

There's an article about it, the same story (though from a different source I think) was in the thread here about it. There's a lot of abuse going on.

Sorry that it's a long read. It's worth it though.

The practice is an absolute shredding of the Fourth Amendment.
edit on 6-10-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


It doesn't only shred the 4th Amendment, but also the 9th and 10th Amendments.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics
top topics
 
33

log in

join