Feds Seize Family Grocery Store’s Entire Bank Account
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:16 pm
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5210
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)Coffee wrote: 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?Coffee wrote: 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.Coffee wrote: There's got to be more to the story than this. Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.
Because it's a one sided piece that doesn't even make a cursory effort to address the "why"?RuralEngineer wrote: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.Coffee wrote: There's got to be more to the story than this. Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.
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.
I'm sure the Mafia has a reason when they kill people. Do we need to hear their side of the story?Coffee wrote:Because it's a one sided piece that doesn't even make a cursory effort to address the "why"?RuralEngineer wrote: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.Coffee wrote: There's got to be more to the story than this. Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.
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.
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.
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.Coffee wrote: There's got to be more to the story than this. Even if this is what actually happened, there must be more to it.
WikiLibertarian666 wrote:I'm sure the Mafia has a reason when they kill people. Do we need to hear their side of the story?Coffee wrote:Because it's a one sided piece that doesn't even make a cursory effort to address the "why"?RuralEngineer wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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?Coffee wrote: 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?Coffee wrote:WikiLibertarian666 wrote:I'm sure the Mafia has a reason when they kill people. Do we need to hear their side of the story?Coffee wrote: 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.
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.
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]
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.Xan wrote: 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.