Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 455 posts

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#271

Post by juliangregorian »

itistoday2 wrote: post #15
imroot wrote: post #10

While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…

I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "…

Double-plus ungood.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#272

Post by Amezarak »

leap_ahead wrote: post #221

Russian citizen here. This sort of things I have regularly been hearing about the US over the last decade make me really sad. Some 20 years ago America was a symbol of civil liberties for us. I considered one day maybe going there to work and live. A few years ago I still entertained an idea of going there for an internship. Today I'd be scared to go there even as a tourist or on a short business trip. Let's say I go…

These things happen, but they are incredibly unlikely to happen to you. They're trumpeted in the media and discussed on HN because they are so outrageous to our sensibilities, not because they are common, everyday occurrences. They're very rare in a country of 300 million - but still too common on the grounds they should never happen.

In reality, you would be much better off and safer visiting the US now than you would have been in the past - especially the 60s and 80s.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#273

Post by techlibertarian »

jqgatsby wrote: post #242
Frondo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, you're not antitax. You're just engaging in a lengthy thread debate using their common arguments. I stand by my statement w.r.t. the antitax crowd. And again, whether all other countries do not meet your preference or requirement does not free you from your obligations to this one, as long as you live here. Whether other countries don't allow you in, don't allow you to stay, don't govern the way you like, or wh…

My hat is off to Frondo and notahacker. I've occasionally (regrettably, foolishly) tried to argue it out with the "taxation is theft" folks, and this is the first time I've seen one of them actually give up from exhaustion. I'm sure he'll recharge and come back tomorrow once he looks up the next argument in his playbook, but even temporary victories must be savored. Sorry, itistoday2, I'm sure you're a nice person in…

> Have you noticed how people get really annoyed when you make it? It's not because it's a good argument!

People also used to get annoyed when people said the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#274

Post by techlibertarian »

Frondo wrote: post #201
titanomachy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If taxation today is theft, is there a time when it wasn't?

Taxation isn't theft. The anti-tax crowd is just like the anti-vax crowd. They both want a free ride on the rest of our backs; the anti-vaxers want the benefit of herd immunity, and the anti-taxers want others to pay the cost of living in the modern world. (*edited to a missing word)

> the anti-taxers want others to pay the cost of living in the modern world

This simply isn't true. Anti-taxers want to choose where their dollars go - each and every one.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#275

Post by patrickaljord »

Frondo wrote: post #180
api wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do I vote for s Republicrat or a Republicrat? Or maybe s third party with no chance?

You know, I hear this attitude all the time. I think it reflects lazy thinking, and the conflation of cynicism and "cool". Yes, money in politics is a corrupting influence, yes, neither major party gets it right on some big issues (like the size of our military and how ready we are to use it, how much wall street gets away with ripping us off, etc), but are they the same? No, of course not. Had McCain won in 2008, th…

ObamaCare was pretty much the same thing as RomneyCare so yes, we'd probably have the same thing. Can we stop pretending there's a difference?

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#276

Post by DaFranker »

spiritplumber wrote: post #164
tsotha wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to get your money back because the government treats it as if it weren't your money. What happens is since the DEA can't prove you're involved in a crime they sue... your money. There will be a case in federal court that will be something like "Leonhart v $23,174". They don't even have to notify you. So. At this point you're not a party to the proceeding, so you can't do any of the normal things you'd do if…

What if I wrap my (virtual) money in a simple script that allows it to defend itself by hiring a lawyer or, at least, contacting me?

Even if the money were sentient and capable of arguing for itself and defending its own case better than a good lawyer, here's what would happen: You can only authorize a legal person to use computer equipment. It is impossible to authorize a pile of money to use computer equipment. Therefore any computer equipment that is used by the pile of money (including that of the owner of the money) is used without consent, and therefore runs afoul of anti-piracy / anti-hacking laws, and your money will be charged with High Tech Fraud.

Since the money is not a legal person, legal responsibility would probably fall to the owner at the time of the crime (just like it falls to the "owner" of a child, their parents) and you would get punished along with your money. On top of this the money is automatically guilty and must pay reparations and punitives, which means you need to pay more of it as legal guardian of the now-bankrupt money.

And on and on down the rabbit hole it goes...

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#277

Post by dalke »

Frondo wrote: post #220
itistoday2 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One involves non-coercive mutual consent (a signed agreement), the other doesn't.

You do give consent by continuing to live here past the age of maturity. When you're a child, and your parents have custody of you, they make that choice for you--you're a citizen here, here's where you'll live, be politically involved, and pay taxes. When you're old enough to make that choice for yourself, that's when you can stay--with all that entails--or go.

There are several reasons why this argument does not work. The most important is that US law says that US citizens must pay taxes, even those who live in other countries. The only way to avoid it is to give up US citizenship. That can only be done outside of the US, and by an adult.

It's therefore impossible for any US citizen to legally avoid paying tax at least once, assuming sufficient income to have to pay tax in the first place.

Do note that this law also applies to foreign born US citizens, who are citizens by blood but who have never even visited the US. For obvious reasons, many of these citizens either don't know about their obligations under US law, or deliberately ignore it.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#278

Post by marcosdumay »

leap_ahead wrote: post #221

Russian citizen here. This sort of things I have regularly been hearing about the US over the last decade make me really sad. Some 20 years ago America was a symbol of civil liberties for us. I considered one day maybe going there to work and live. A few years ago I still entertained an idea of going there for an internship. Today I'd be scared to go there even as a tourist or on a short business trip. Let's say I go…

Brazilian citizen here.

Do you realize that the news report thing out of proportion, right?

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#279

Post by a3n »

anigbrowl wrote: post #144
a3n wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you make it out to, and when?

You don't make it out to anyone. A cashier's check is a bearer instrument issued by the bank against its own funds.

"The payee's name, the written and numeric amount to be tendered, the remitter's information, and other tracking information (such as the branch of issue), are printed on the front of the check." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashier%27s_check

"A bearer instrument is a document that indicates that the owner of the document has title to property, such as shares or bonds. Bearer instruments differ from normal registered instruments, in that no records are kept of who owns the underlying property, or of the transactions involving transfer of ownership. Whoever physically holds the bearer bond papers is assumed to be the owner of the property. This is useful for investors and corporate officers who wish to retain anonymity, but ownership is extremely difficult to recover in event of loss or theft." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearer_instrument

Post reply on HN