Feds Seize Family Grocery Store’s Entire Bank Account

[Mdraf]

Scary stuff

[dualstow]

I just read the entire text. Makes my blood boil!

[Coffee]

There's got to be more to the story than this.  Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.

[Mdraf]

There's got to be more to the story than this.  Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.

Possibly but the IFJ is careful about cases they take on. I stumbled on it while reading about a friend of mine's case they took on (and won today)
http://www.ij.org/stifling-citizen-speech-in-arizona

[Libertarian666]

There's got to be more to the story than this.  Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.

Why?

[RuralEngineer]

There's got to be more to the story than this.  Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.

Seriously?  Not to be blatantly disrespectful, but have you been in a medically induced coma or something for the last few years?  What possible reason has the government or any federal agency given you to warrant the benefit of the doubt in cases like this?  With everything we know today I pretty much assume some combination of corruption and incompetence.

Even if the shop owners were guilty if malfeasance, civil forfeiture without charge or trial is extremely wrong. There are no good outcomes to be had.

[notsheigetz]

I've read quite a few stories of asset forfeiture like this and yes they do leave you incredulous. How could it have been more plainly written in the constitution than "No man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"? In most of the cases I've followed, the people do finally get their property back but only after years of battling the system.

[Coffee]

There's got to be more to the story than this.  Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.

Seriously?  Not to be blatantly disrespectful, but have you been in a medically induced coma or something for the last few years?  What possible reason has the government or any federal agency given you to warrant the benefit of the doubt in cases like this?  With everything we know today I pretty much assume some combination of corruption and incompetence.

Even if the shop owners were guilty if malfeasance, civil forfeiture without charge or trial is extremely wrong. There are no good outcomes to be had.

Because it's a one sided piece that doesn't even make a cursory effort to address the "why"?
I'm sure in your mind, the "Why" is already met because you believe the government is nothing more than a group of Jack Booted Thugs. 

That thought process plays well with the Alex Jones crowd, but for the rest of us... there is more to the story.

Usually, the government has better things to do than randomly seize $30,000 from a small grocer for no reason, expose itself to massive lawsuits, possibly lose their (the agent's) job and get sued in civil court... why?

Even if it is actually a complete abuse of power, I'm sure they'd at least have a plausible "why".  The article doesn't address that, and you must therefore take their writer's position at face value, rather than applying critical thinking.

[Libertarian666]

There's got to be more to the story than this.  Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.

Seriously?  Not to be blatantly disrespectful, but have you been in a medically induced coma or something for the last few years?  What possible reason has the government or any federal agency given you to warrant the benefit of the doubt in cases like this?  With everything we know today I pretty much assume some combination of corruption and incompetence.

Even if the shop owners were guilty if malfeasance, civil forfeiture without charge or trial is extremely wrong. There are no good outcomes to be had.

Because it's a one sided piece that doesn't even make a cursory effort to address the "why"?
I'm sure in your mind, the "Why" is already met because you believe the government is nothing more than a group of Jack Booted Thugs. 

That thought process plays well with the Alex Jones crowd, but for the rest of us... there is more to the story.

Usually, the government has better things to do than randomly seize $30,000 from a small grocer for no reason, expose itself to massive lawsuits, possibly lose their (the agent's) job and get sued in civil court... why?

Even if it is actually a complete abuse of power, I'm sure they'd at least have a plausible "why".  The article doesn't address that, and you must therefore take their writer's position at face value, rather than applying critical thinking.

I'm sure the Mafia has a reason when they kill people. Do we need to hear their side of the story?

Also, don't you know that the government can't be sued unless they allow it? The polite name for that is "sovereign immunity".

And if you can point to one case where an agent got in trouble for doing this, or even something much more egregious (see "Randy Weaver" for examples), I'd be surprised. They are just "doing their jobs", after all.

[Mdraf]

According to the Detroit Free Press article "According to the court filings, the IRS claims Dehko skirted rules that deposits greater than $10,000 be reported by making many smaller deposits."

[Xan]

There's got to be more to the story than this.  Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.

The story I heard was that their insurance policy covered up to $10,000 in cash in the registers.  So whenever they got close to $10,000 in cash at the store, they'd go and deposit just under $10,000.

Basically it's illegal to do that, because it looks like you're trying to get around the reporting rules for banks which kick in at $10,000.

The level of bogosity here is off the charts!!

[Coffee]

Seriously?  Not to be blatantly disrespectful, but have you been in a medically induced coma or something for the last few years?  What possible reason has the government or any federal agency given you to warrant the benefit of the doubt in cases like this?  With everything we know today I pretty much assume some combination of corruption and incompetence.

Even if the shop owners were guilty if malfeasance, civil forfeiture without charge or trial is extremely wrong. There are no good outcomes to be had.

Because it's a one sided piece that doesn't even make a cursory effort to address the "why"?
I'm sure in your mind, the "Why" is already met because you believe the government is nothing more than a group of Jack Booted Thugs. 

That thought process plays well with the Alex Jones crowd, but for the rest of us... there is more to the story.

Usually, the government has better things to do than randomly seize $30,000 from a small grocer for no reason, expose itself to massive lawsuits, possibly lose their (the agent's) job and get sued in civil court... why?

Even if it is actually a complete abuse of power, I'm sure they'd at least have a plausible "why".  The article doesn't address that, and you must therefore take their writer's position at face value, rather than applying critical thinking.

I'm sure the Mafia has a reason when they kill people. Do we need to hear their side of the story?

Also, don't you know that the government can't be sued unless they allow it? The polite name for that is "sovereign immunity".

And if you can point to one case where an agent got in trouble for doing this, or even something much more egregious (see "Randy Weaver" for examples), I'd be surprised. They are just "doing their jobs", after all.

Wiki
In August 1995, the US government avoided trial on a civil lawsuit filed by the Weavers, by awarding the three surviving daughters $1,000,000 each, and Randy Weaver $100,000 over the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver. The attorney for Kevin Harris pressed Harris' civil suit for damages, although federal officials vowed they would never pay someone who had killed a U.S. Marshal (Harris had been acquitted by a jury trial on grounds of self-defense). In September 2000 after persistent appeals, Harris was awarded a $380,000 settlement from the government.[18]

[notsheigetz]

Wiki
In August 1995, the US government avoided trial on a civil lawsuit filed by the Weavers, by awarding the three surviving daughters $1,000,000 each, and Randy Weaver $100,000 over the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver. The attorney for Kevin Harris pressed Harris' civil suit for damages, although federal officials vowed they would never pay someone who had killed a U.S. Marshal (Harris had been acquitted by a jury trial on grounds of self-defense). In September 2000 after persistent appeals, Harris was awarded a $380,000 settlement from the government.[18]

Wow! They had to pay out $1,000,000 to EACH daughter - meaning $3 MILLION of taxpayer's money? I bet that put the fear of God in them once and for all! And another $380k to boot?

Polite sarcasm intended.

[Libertarian666]

Because it's a one sided piece that doesn't even make a cursory effort to address the "why"?
I'm sure in your mind, the "Why" is already met because you believe the government is nothing more than a group of Jack Booted Thugs. 

That thought process plays well with the Alex Jones crowd, but for the rest of us... there is more to the story.

Usually, the government has better things to do than randomly seize $30,000 from a small grocer for no reason, expose itself to massive lawsuits, possibly lose their (the agent's) job and get sued in civil court... why?

Even if it is actually a complete abuse of power, I'm sure they'd at least have a plausible "why".  The article doesn't address that, and you must therefore take their writer's position at face value, rather than applying critical thinking.

I'm sure the Mafia has a reason when they kill people. Do we need to hear their side of the story?

Also, don't you know that the government can't be sued unless they allow it? The polite name for that is "sovereign immunity".

And if you can point to one case where an agent got in trouble for doing this, or even something much more egregious (see "Randy Weaver" for examples), I'd be surprised. They are just "doing their jobs", after all.

Wiki
In August 1995, the US government avoided trial on a civil lawsuit filed by the Weavers, by awarding the three surviving daughters $1,000,000 each, and Randy Weaver $100,000 over the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver. The attorney for Kevin Harris pressed Harris' civil suit for damages, although federal officials vowed they would never pay someone who had killed a U.S. Marshal (Harris had been acquitted by a jury trial on grounds of self-defense). In September 2000 after persistent appeals, Harris was awarded a $380,000 settlement from the government.[18]

And what happened to the agent in that case?

Here, let me Google that for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi

[notsheigetz]

Basically it's illegal to do that, because it looks like you're trying to get around the reporting rules for banks which kick in at $10,000.

I believe the law reads something like it is illegal to do cash transactions under $10,000 if you are doing it for the purpose of avoiding the reporting requirements.

So it sounds to me like it all boils down to whether the family was making the deposits under $10k because of the insurance provisions or because they didn't want to fill out the goddamn paperwork. Probably will take a court and maybe even a jury to sort it out. In the meantime they're out the $35k and that is the whole point. Sends a signal to the rest of us to always err on the side of avoiding even the appearance of trying to deceive the lying bastards.