Eminent Domain Abuse

“They just walked into the store” and announced that they had emptied the store’s bank account. The IRS agents believed, or pretended to believe, that Terry and Sandy were or conceivably could be — which is sufficient for the IRS — conducting a criminal enterprise when not selling groceries.

What pattern of behavior supposedly aroused the suspicions of a federal government that is ignorant of how small businesses function? Terry and Sandy regularly make deposits of less than $10,000 in the bank across the street.

Click to expand...

The IRS used “civil forfeiture,” the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved with, crime. The IRS could have dispelled its suspicions of Terry and Sandy, if it actually had any, by simply asking them about the reasons — prudence, and the insurance limit — for their banking practices. It had, however, a reason not to ask obvious questions before proceeding.

The civil forfeiture law — if something so devoid of due process can be dignified as law — is an incentive for perverse behavior: Predatory government agencies get to pocket the proceeds from property they seize from Americans without even charging them with, let alone convicting them of, crimes. Criminals are treated better than this because they lose the fruits of their criminality only after being convicted.

Click to expand...

IJ [Institute for Justice], a libertarian defender of property rights and other American premises, says that what was done to Terry is done routinely across the nation — indeed, it was done almost simultaneously to the owner of a gas station near Schott’s Supermarket who deposited his cash receipts whenever he could get to the bank, typically every few days.

Civil forfeiture proceeds on the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle, forcing property owners of limited means to hire lawyers and engage in protracted proceedings against a government with limitless resources just to prove their innocence. Says IJ: “To make matters worse, forfeiture law treats property owners like random bystanders and requires them to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the government against their property just to get it back. That is why civil forfeiture cases have such unusual names, such as United States v. $35,651.11 in U.S. Currency — the case involving Terry and Sandy.”

Click to expand...

Tide1986 said:

United States v. $35,651.11 in U.S. Currency.

Click to expand...

Mayor Bob Hall of Charlestown, Indiana, a town about 90 miles southeast of Bloomington, announced in June he wanted to demolish more than 350 homes in the town’s Pleasant Ridge neighborhood for a modern development to include small businesses, restaurants, and affordable housing tailored for seniors, according to the News and Tribune. The new development would also include duplexes and single family townhouses.

Click to expand...

Tide1986 said:

This is truly one of the most contemptible tools of government.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-mayor-indiana-town-wants-kick-residents/

Click to expand...

BamaHoHo said:

A few years ago Gene Stallings & Pat Dye were doing commercials trying to get us to vote it in here. Cant find a link but I''ll keep looking.

Click to expand...

Tidewater said:

Stallings & Dye were advocating allowing local jurisdictions to condemn private property so they could turn around and sell it to another private business, but one that would generate more revenue for the local jurisdiction?

Click to expand...

BamaHoHo said:

And in the process, screw the landowner.

Click to expand...