What Will the Next Outrage Be?

     Outrageous actions of government are so common they
have lost most of their shock effect.  They are still outrageous,
but expected.  This week brought word of two actions that prove
government can still stretch the envelope.

     Both actions sprang from fertile soil that has germinated
many past outrages.  Both are new, mutant varieties.  One
sprouted in the realm of gunaphobic school administrators.   The
other was the fruit of civil asset forfeiture, the mere existence of
which is an outrage.

     The gunaphobic school administrators suspended a
student and threatened to expel him for one year.  His alleged
offense was playing with some kind of spring powered gun.  It
wasn't clear from the report if the student's actions were dumb
or not.  Apparently the son of the complainant was also
participating in whatever happened.

     The key point isn't what happened, but where it
happened.  The student was still in  his own yard at home.  I
don't know if the school administrator's name was Blomberg. 
Whatever his name, he apparently believes he has the right to
completely control everyone else's life.

     It will be a challenge for someone to stretch that
envelope further.  I don't doubt that some bureaucrat and his
minions will find a way.

     The big push for civil asset forfeiture started in the
1960s.  Prosecutors were upset that drug dealers hired lawyers
who made it more difficult for prosecutors to get convictions. 
The plan was to allow the prosecutors to take all of the alleged
drug dealers money.  Without money, how could the defendant
hire a lawyer?

     This scheme wouldn't work if the defendant had to be
found guilty of something before taking his money.  Civil asset
forfeiture allows the government to allege that the money or
other asset was involved with a crime.  Nothing need be alleged
against the owner of the asset.  The asset need not be proven
guilty.

     The government simply files the allegation and takes the
money.  The burden is then on the owner to try and get his
property back.  The owner, who may be penniless because of the
asset seizure, may be required to post bond before he can even
challenge the forfeiture.

     The headline read "Feds Steal $35K From Small Grocer's
Bank Account Despite Finding 'No Violations' To Justify the
Grab."  Sometimes headlines exaggerate.  This one didn't.

     According to the article from "Reason" the grocer in
Fraser, Michigan made a substantial amount of cash sales.  His
insurance didn't cover losses of cash in excess of $10,000.  The
grocer made many cash deposits to avoid holding large amounts
of cash.  To anyone but the Internal Revenue Service that might
appear to be reasonable and prudent.

     Federal law requires banks to report all cash deposits in
excess of $10,000.  The same law, part of the so-called "Patriot
Act," makes it illegal to structure cash deposits for the purpose
of avoiding $10,000 deposits.  Apparently in the government's
view if you split $10,000 into two deposits, that entitles the
government to take every dollar in your bank account.   If you
didn't have the second $5,000 when you made the first deposit,
tough.  The government still gets your money.

     A few months before taking the grocer's money IRS sent
him a letter saying no violations of banking laws were identified. 
The money had been accused of a crime.  That was enough to
prompt the IRS to punish the money.  Any impact on the  grocer
was merely collateral damage.

     The saga isn't over yet. The Institute for Justice is
representing the grocer.  It has a great track record of stopping
abuses by government.  Even if the grocer gets his $35,000
back, it is likely to cost him or the Institute for Justice more than
$35,000.  That is how government gets away with most of its
outrages.  Fighting back costs more than giving up.  In other
words, government is the biggest extortionist on the loose in the
land.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum