by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TRUMP
George Will shined the light on yet another disturbing case of civil asset forfeiture a practice that denies citizens the right to due process. In this particular instance, a border agent on US soil unlawfully demanded the password a citizen’s phone; when he refused, they searched his truck and then seized possession of it after finding five .380-caliber bullets (and no weapon) in the truck’s center console. Their rationale? He was transporting “munitions of war.”
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to take money or property from a citizen who is merely suspected of criminal activity — not charged or convicted. Though original asset forfeiture laws were aimed at drug cartels to interrupt their business and money, it use has expanded rapidly in recent years. It’s not being used just for “organized crime” anymore; that’s a red herring that gives police a green light to continue to abuse citizens and take their property without due process. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent and have to prove that they were not involved in any criminal activity, which can be a long and expensive process against the government.
Outrageously, the citizen had to petition to get a judicial hearing about his truck (after paying a bond of 10% of his truck’s value) — but then the hearing actually never happened. He never got his due process and only got his truck back after two years, during which he faithfully continued making loan payments and maintained insurance. This lack of any hearing for a citizen to redress the unlawful seizure is not an anomaly, either. In fact, the citizen is now pursuing a class action lawsuit, just “to establish a right to prompt post-seizure judicial hearings,” which should already be a given anyway in such incidences — even though the practice of civil asset forfeiture should be abolished outright.
Civil asset forfeiture is really all about money. “Under the equitable sharing program, federal authorities may “adopt” state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level. Those local police departments get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.” During the Obama Administration — after some highly publicized appalling asset forfeiture cases, Obama began addressing asset forfeiture and restrictions were rightly implemented as a stepping stone to reign in this abominable practice. Unfortunately last year, AG Jeff Sessions loosened those once again.
Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent of asset forfeiture last year when SCOTUS chose not to hear a case on the matter. He wrote, “this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. He further pointed out, “because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” Clarence Thomas is entirely correct, and the policy of civil asset forfeiture should be entirely eliminated. Continuing to highlight this abhorrent practice is the only way to bring about change.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, TAXES
When assets are seized during federal investigations, the proceeds can be shared with law enforcement agencies who participate with federal agencies during the process. This is called Equitable Sharing, and both the Justice Departments and Treasury Departments can do it. The funds received have rules that govern how they are spent.
Therefore it was surprising that a Power Point presentation created by the Justice Department in 2015 suggested a way to circumvent those rules; typically they don’t allow funds to be spent on salaries or raises but this presentation gave a clear way for an agency to get around that restriction. “The presentation advises that instead of using the seized funds money to fund raises, agencies can use it to cover routine costs — such as maintaining vehicle fleets — and then redirect money already budgeted for maintenance into salaries. The PowerPoint says redirecting money in that manner is acceptable “so long as your overall budget does not decrease.”
It appears the Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, took that suggestion to heart. The “AP raised questions about significant pay raises for several of Herring’s employees at a time when state workers’ pay was stagnant elsewhere. Some staff attorneys’ salaries rose as much as $15,000 in a year — one had a 30-percent increase.” This investigation revealed the existence of the Power Point presentation, and is the reason 64 attorney received a raise in their pay floor, with the median raise of $7,000.
“Virginia received more than $100 million in asset forfeiture money under a joint state-federal settlement with Abbott Laboratories for an anti-seizure drug’s off-label marketing. Herring spokesman Michael Kelly said raises were made possible in part by using some of the funds to pay allowable expenses involving the agency’s rent, vehicle maintenance and operational costs.
The Abbott settlement money was administered by the Treasury Department, but Kelly cited the PowerPoint as justification for using the funds to make raises possible. He said the PowerPoint was part of 2015 training for accountants in the state attorney general’s office.”
The AP noticed the pay raises in the Office of Attorney General and requested documents about the aberration; last year, the rest of the Commonwealth canceled pay raises that were scheduled for state employees when budget problems got difficult.
It is unfathomable that a state agency, under the guidance and direction of a federal agency, could move money around in a ploy to give themselves pay increases. If one state agency, as part of a training exercise for accountants, could conclude that this action was both just and allowable, how many other agency partners in the Equitable Sharing program have done this?
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
I have written numerous articles over the year about the onerous, destructive practice of IRS asset forfeiture cases. Basically, the IRS has been leveraging laws intended to target money launderers and criminals in order to seize the bank accounts of business owners who make one or more deposits of $10,000 cash. Time after time, these cases showed the circumstances were not criminal, and yet citizens spent months and even years trying to get their hard-earned money back.
In 2014, after a series of high-profile cases outlined the outrageous behavior, the IRS announced it would restrict its practice to situations in which the person is suspected of criminal activity; subsequently, the DoJ issued a change as well, saying that they would devote themselves only to the “most serious illegal banking transactions.”
While these changes are a step in the right direction, they still left behind a trail of cases that severely disrupted the work and lives of many Americans. Remember, money was seized time after time for years — usally without any charges ever brought forth, only the suspicion of possible “illegal activity” for merely depositing large sums of money.
Some of the tactics involved in the practice of asset seizure involve the government offering a “settlement” to the business owners, returning to them only a portion of their hard-earned money, which keeping the rest for their coffers. Many people — for fear of government or lack of funds for representation — chose the path of settlement to be able to move on with their lives and have some money back in their accounts.
Two asset forfeiture cases have emerged recently where both parties are requesting restitution. The first cases involves trying to recover the portion of the money that the government kept as part of the settlement; the second cases requests the full portion that was seized after the party involved unknowingly signed away his account when visited by IRS agents.
In the first case, due to “a prior settlement with the government, Randy and Karen Sowers, who own South Mountain Creamery in Middletown, Maryland, got back a portion of the seized money, around $33,500. Now in a new letter filed this week to the Justice Department, a nonprofit organization that has has been working with the farmers is helping in the fight to get back the rest of the couple’s money — $29,500 — despite the prior settlement.
Randy Sowers said his bank teller initially suggested that his wife keep deposits under $10,000 to avoid time-consuming paperwork at the bank. “We thought it was very legitimate,” he said. Karen Sowers initially wanted to deposit $12,000 earned from a weekend farmer’s market. “If I wanted to hide it, I would have put it in a can. We have trouble paying our bills and don’t need the government coming and taking money from us.”
Despite settling previously with the government, the Sowerses and Johnson say they are owed all of the assets, and initially had to settle for fear of losing the full amount seized and potentially more assets.
Congress has even gotten into the fray. The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight took up the Sowers case, and asked the Treasury Department to review similar cases.”
The related cases include Khalid “Ken” Quran, who owns a convenience store in Greenville, North Carolina. He had more than $150,000 seized in June 2014 after he unknowingly agreed to forfeit his bank account when IRS agents visited his store, accusing him of skirting reporting laws. Quran denies the charges.
“He said, ‘You need to sign a paper,’ and I told him my English is not right,” said Quran, an immigrant from the Middle East. “Then he read it to me like you would read the newspaper and said you need to sign it.” Quran said he did nothing wrong. “No bank told me that. No bookkeeper told me that,” he said.
He has not received any of his money back, and the Institute for Justice has also filed a petition on Quran’s behalf. On Tuesday, the legal nonprofit send a letter to the IRS, asking for his petition to be reviewed.”
The IRS and Department of Justice should work immediately to make these cases, and possibly others, correct again. The seizures, as they were practiced prior to the changes made in 2014, were egregious and improper.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The practice of asset forfeiture by the IRS has been highlighted in recent months due to a high-profile case involving a woman who had roughly $33,000 of her money seized by the IRS. The IRS claimed her “pattern” of depositing the money she earned from her restaurant — typically cash and often in sums under $10,000 — was suspicious enough to warrant the plundering of her account.
Several weeks after the public outcry about this woman’s plight, the IRS dropped the case and agreed to return her funds. But here’s the problem. It’s not enough to just give the money back. The IRS needs, at the very least, to pay civil damages. They took assets from a woman who committed no crime, who wasn’t even charged with any crime.
More importantly, the IRS needs to investigate how this case even came about. There was no preponderance of evidence that any crime occurred. There was virtually nothing. The case occurred because an IRS representative watched her accounts over a period of time, and decided – with no basis, investigation, or even inquiry with the taxpayer – that her method of deposits (for which she had a perfectly valid reason in connection with her perfectly legal, decades-owned business) violated a law typically meant to catch money launderers and drug dealers. That is reprehensible.
A few days after the article came out about the case, the IRS issued a policy change over the practice. The IRS stated, “the agency will no longer pursue asset forfeiture in cases in which the source of the funds is legal except in exceptional circumstances and only with the approval of the director of field operations.” This means nothing and changes nothing — because someone higher up on the IRS food chain can still sign off on cases, or when someone within the IRS deems it “an exceptional circumstance”. It’s not good enough.
If the IRS is sincere about regaining the public trust, it needs to clean house, starting with the agents involved in this and other similar forfeiture cases.
