C'mon, you didn't think that the extent of the Obamastapo's malfeasances stopped at screwing Tea Party groups on their 501(c)(4) applications, did you?
No siree-Bob, when The One talks about "soaking the rich," he is not just being metaphorical:
The Internal Revenue Service has been seizing money from the bank accounts of individuals and businesses with no proof of any crimes nor any charges filed.
Now, the IRS claims that it will stop — but will it?
Using a law, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, that allows the feds to seize money from suspected gangsters, drug dealers and terrorists, the IRS has put innocent people into bankruptcy and massive debt and taken the money a military father saved from his paychecks to put his kids through college, solely by tracking the amounts that people put into their bank accounts.
That would be Army Sergeant Jeff Cortazzo, who managed to save sixty-six grand out of his meager military pay for his daughter's college education only to have the IRS summarily steal it and force him to spend a third of it trying to get it back from them. And then there's Bi-County Distributors, a candy and cigarette (immediate red flag) company, in business for over a quarter-century, which did what every company does - made daily deposits into their bank account of over and below $10,000 - which somehow (1) got the IRS's attention and (2) prompted them to rob B-CD of almost half a million dollars absent any criminal charges or even investigation of same. The company has gone $300,000 in debt attempting to reverse this heist.
Said their attorney, Joseph Potashnik. "I don’t think they’re really interested in anything. They just want the money."
And did you notice that neither of these two examples constitute "rich" people? But Sergeant Cortazzo is a "violence freak" and Bi-County sells....cigarettes and sugared products. Perhaps if the former had been a gay florist and the latter had been distributing broccoli and doobies, they'd have been left alone.
In other words, Mr. Potashnik, yes, they want the money, but they're also interested in "punishing their enemies". And they're quite obviously not letting the law or the Constitution get in the way of this larcenous crusade:
When no criminal activity is charged, the New York Times [!!!] reports, the IRS often negotiates to return only part of the seized money, leaving impoverished citizens with little option but to either accept the IRS' offer or continue a lengthy and very expensive legal battle to try to get their legitimately earned money back.
The problem has been growing. The Institute for Justice estimates that from just 114 seizures in 2005, the IRS made 639 seizures in 2012, and in only 20% of the cases were any criminal charges ever pursued.
Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks report transactions larger than $10,000 to federal authorities, but also report a pattern of regular, smaller deposits which appear designed to get around the act. This alone can be enough to trigger a seizure, the Times reports, and banks filed over 700,000 "suspicious" reports last year.
The "crime," my friends, is that anybody has that kind of coin to deposit independent of Barack Obama's government. Remember the left-wing mentality: ALL wealth belongs to the them, and whatever "stipend" we're allowed to keep is the product of their "paternal, benevolent generosity". And if we display the "ingratitude" to try and take back what's rightfully ours, further punishment will be mercilessly meted out.
And no, that isn't hyperbole:
Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, said in a written statement in response to the Times story, "After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year… IRS-CI will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with 'legal source' structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances....
Jazz Shaw made the perfect observation yesterday:
If the people in charge at the IRS honestly thought that this practice was ethical and in the interest of justice, why would they immediately announce that it was being curtailed as soon as the details were dragged out into the sunlight? And if they will now focus only on money that they think is acquired illegally, what sort of money were they focusing on before?
Why, money that the think was acquired "immorally," Jazz. It really is that obvious.
Let us now revisit the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, shall we?:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [emphasis added]
I guarantee that Mr. Weber will merrily resume his plundering on behalf of his infernal majesty just as soon as this kerfuffle blows over, via the discovery of a sudden "elasticity" in the IRS's definition of "exceptional circumstances".
Backyard mattress seizures will be next. Mark my words.
No comments:
Post a Comment