The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (68 comments)

  1. morganovich

    due process?

    we don’t need no stinking due process…

  2. Benjamin Cole

    Any local government can say you are a dope dealer and then take all your money and property. Under the Patriot Act they can also say you are a terrorist and seize all your wealth…but then the feds can also just execute you sans trial, in the latter case…using money they taxed or seized from you or other citizens…ain’t it grand?

    1. Not really excecute you, unless they claim you are in the middle of an act. If you are talking about American Citizens who are planning attackes on American soil from overseas that is a different story.

      What a loophole for Al Quaeda, if all they need to do to not get attacked overseas is have all their officers American citizens.

      You purposefully and knowingly fight for the enemy and you no longer have the same protections.

      1. Not really excecute you

        Ask Jose Guerena. As we all know, a SWAT raid, by incompetent police, is, like, totally warranted for suspicion of possession of pot.

        The cops claimed Guerena fired on them, but after they killed him, an examination of the gun determined no shots had been fired from his rifle. In fact, his safety was still on.

        1. You did note my exception – didn’t you?
          ” unless they claim you are in the middle of an act”

          The police always were able to shoot you if they thought you would do them or others harm. Of course this gets abused sometimes.

        2. The gun was a drop by the thugs that invaded Guerena’s home.

      2. “What a loophole for Al Quaeda, if all they need to do to not get attacked overseas is have all their officers American citizens.”

        Or they could just wage their jihad in Syria – not only will they not get attacked there, the U.S. will actually give them weapons & fight on their side!

  3. More information please:

    If the Dehko family has “done absolutely nothing wrong” then what reason did the Feds give for seizing their bank account??

    1. Citizen Buddy

      Here is more background by the Institute for Justice on the Dehko family case or:


      & THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY ONE DOLLARS AND ELEVEN CENTS ($35,651.11) IN U.S. CURRENCY v. United States of America (counter defendant)

      1. Citizen Buddy

        This is the actual case name in federal court!

        1. morganovich

          money talks, but it cannot defend itself in court, especially if it’s been seized.

          note the truly insidious nature of this seizure:

          it will almost certainly cost more than $36k to fight this in court.

          thus, once this arbitrary seizure takes place, there is NO WAY to get your money back without spending more than they took.

          if not for the laudable pro bono work of the IFJ, there would be no path forward that made sense.

          you either submit to gross injustice or wage a Pyrrhic court battle and wind up losing even more money.

          there really needs to be a “loser pays” provision for cases like this.

          1. It is interesting that the government has set up a loser pays scenario for environmental and civil rights cases. That is why the ACLU is always waging war against crosses on hilltops – because the people they sue have to pay for their defense whether they win or not. In the end it costs the cities so much to defend over and over and over again, that they give up.

            That is also why the American Lung association frequently sues the EPA, sometimes at the EPA’s request!

    2. morganovich


      the 5 second gist of this is that the government did not like the way they were depositing money into their bank account.

      they saw lots of deposits just under $10k and assumed money laundering or attempts to skirt bank regulations.

      so, rather than asking any questions or investigate what was going on, they simply seized the money.

      the family has done absolutely nothing wrong other than trigger a watchdog algorithm the feds use to monitor banks.

      1. Morganovich says: “the family has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

        So, now, we have conclusive evidence.

        1. Morganovich says: “the family has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

          So, now, we have conclusive evidence.

          Yes, yes we do:

          From the article:

          In 2010, the IRS visited Terry and Sandy and reviewed their banking practices. In 2012, the IRS conducted an anti-money-laundering examination of Terry and Sandy’s store, thoroughly reviewing their books and policies, and gave the Dehkos a clean bill of health. After the audit, the IRS sent Terry and Sandy a letter clarifying that “no violations [of banking laws] were identified.”

          1. morganovich

            “So, now, we have conclusive evidence.”

            indeed we do peak.

            conclusive evidence that you are a buffoon and a liar.

            honestly, we get it. your strangely compulsive need to prove it over and over is tiresome.

      2. Was that because of their daily reciepts running typically a bit under 10k in cash to boot. Was it one deposit a day or more. If you did several a day as the linked piece suggests it does seem to follow the pattern that drug dealing would have. Once a day would be a different matter, but then you would expect days of over 10k and days of under 10k.
        In some respect its like the folks who carry tens of thousands in cash to buy a car, while legal it does attract suspicion, as well as being stupid as what if you meet a robber?

        1. It’s almost like you didn’t bother to read the article before you commented. If you had you would have read that their insurance has a limit of $10,000.00 cash. So, they make deposits whenever they start getting close to that amount like nay sane business would. Did you read the part about the 2 IRS audits they went through with no problems, one just 9 months previously?

          1. Different agencies. However because of their insurance limit, and the number of deposits they manged to fit a profile. IRS audits are a completly different matter than homeland security, and the DEA/DOJ who did the seizure. You expect one part of the government to talk to another?
            The IRS only really cares if you pay the taxes, indeed recall they got Al Capone on tax evasion, not on violations of the Volstead act.

          2. Rick, why didn’t the government go after other “sane businesses?”

          3. Lyle

            Rather than just guessing or making stuff up, why not read the actual information at the IJ website.

            “But nine months later, the IRS obtained a secret warrant and cleaned out Terry and Sandy’s entire bank account (over $35,000) on the grounds that their frequent cash deposits—deposits of which the IRS should have been well aware when it issued its clean bill of health—violated federal “structuring” law.“

          4. Ron, how about directing Lyle to an objective site rather than a biased site.

      3. Even the 10,000 thing is annoying. The deposit limit for forcing banks to disclose – has been $10,000 as long as I can remember. $10,000 thirty years ago was a good chunk of money, $10,000 today, not so much so.

        Banks feel so threatened by the FBI that many will report transactions of $5000 or less.

    3. Ed

      They don’t need a reason. “Unusual” banking activity triggers an alarm with the IRS.

      In this case frequent deposits of just under $10K raised a red flag. If you watch the video you will see that the reason for the frequent deposits is that the insurance policy the store owner carries only covers up to $10K in cash, so the owners made deposits before that amount was on hand.

      Note that the owners, as far as I know, were never contacted by the IRS before the theft of their money, and they have not been accused of any wrongdoing, nor charged with a crime.

      And, the *owners* must prove their money is innocent of wrongdoing.

      If this isn’t abuse of power, I don’t know what is.

      It’s hard to imagine being an attorney defending the IRS in this suit. How could they sleep at night?

      1. How could they sleep at night?“…

        Just like other vampire bats, they hang upside down in some cool, dark place that has lawyer guano all over the floor…

        1. That sounds about right. Slimy bastards.

      2. Once again it was not likely the IRS did the deed. Indeed Banks file the form with the Treasuries Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, not the IRS (That is just for Non Banks). I suspect someone at their bank filed a suspicious activity report which went there, and the investigation may not have involved the IRS at all.

        1. Lyle

          The Words “likely” and “may” are not your friends. To make the claim you are making you need to know for sure.

          Read the information at the link Citizen Buddy provided.

          1. He is right about this. Banks are under strong pressure to report unusual activity. It used to be if you deposited more than $10K, then some banks got in trouble, so they started reporting lesser amounts, down to $5K to the IRS every time they happen. It is quite probably how the IRS got the info.

            Interestingly this 10K limit has been in effect as long as I can remember. At least since the early 80’s. 10K in 1980 was worth something $10K now – not as much – but they don’t raise the limit, because it gives the government more control, and more ability and reason to spy on us.

          2. marque2

            The question is whether the IRS took the money. The IJ article clearly states that the IRS obtained the warrant. There is no disagreement about bank reporting.

    4. BigEd,

      If they did something wrong, why were no charges brought?

  4. If it works as well in practice as in theory, I’d be all for it.

    I haven’t seen a case yet where it hasn’t worked the way it was intended. Even the motel owner, who seemed to be around 80 years old, knew he was supporting people engaged in criminal activity (or should’ve known after who knows how many decades of running a motel), was warned by the police, repeatedly, for years, attracted riff-raff from all over the region into the neighborhood, etc. seemed to be a worthy case. He just didn’t seem to care.

    If it works well 99.9% of the time, is that good enough?

    1. I think, most people would rather get rid of the IRS than drug-related civil forfeiture.

    2. Perhaps, the Institute for Justice should:

      1. Take and win cases for people not guilty.

      2. Compile a list of the cases it won defending people found not guilty.

      1. In fact, they do.

        Feel free to browse.

    3. Your whole “guilty until proven innocent” shtick is getting tiresome.

    4. This happens all the time. Local law enforcement agents are taking peoples cars claiming they were used for drugs, and then never press charges against the people. People realizing that it would cost more to get the car back abandon it, and then the juresdiction sells it for profit to fund more police activity – yeah

      Maybe these folks weren’t as innocent as made out to be, as you claim, but the burden of proof is definitely on the wrong people. The government should have the burden of proof to prove the item or money was from criminal activity, rather than forcing the owner of the object in question to prove innocence. I don’t know if you know this, but it is much much more difficult to prove a negative, because you have to account for all cases. You say, well my item was here and was used to do this, and all they have to do is come up with another hypothesis. There are an infinite amount of false hypothesese which would allow them to keep the item forever.

      1. morganovich

        not just the burden of proof but basic notions of justice.

        what ever happened to due process?

        when did that become “we’ll grab what we want without charge, feel free to spend piles of your own money complaining and trying to get it back in a rigged kangaroo court where the burden of proof is on you, not us (and recall that you can never really prove a negative)”.

        you could grab absolutely anyone’s car.

        if the court standard is “prove your car was not used in a drug crime” (and that is exactly how it works in many jurisdictions) how do you even do that?

        it’s not even possible.

        what next? prove there was never a murder in your house?

        why stop at property?

        let’s jail anyone who cannot prove they never stole somehting.

        1. Absolutely, a poor schmuck is already at a gross disadvantage because the government has infinite money and time (for all practiacal purposes) and the schmuck doesn’t, which is why we need due process and limitations on the government from just unilaterally taking action for even if just reasons, and because more often there are dubious ones.

          And you are right, it is almost impossible to prove a negative. It would be easy for the government to take anything I own, under a hypothesis, and then demand I prove that it didn’t happen.

    5. Even the motel owner, who seemed to be around 80 years old, knew he was supporting people engaged in criminal activity (or should’ve known

      Great. He “should have” known. Your “guilty until proven innocent” schtick isn’t just getting old. It’s disgusting.

      1. Now the hotel manager has to unilaterally convict people. Imagine if he started denying rooms to one race over another based on his percieved possibility that they might be running drugs. No win for that guy.

  5. Time to write another check to Institute for Justice. If any organization deserves my support, IJ does.

  6. Benjamin Cole

    You know, the question is not “Are they really guilty?” The question is do you want government seizing assets with no due process, no proof of guilt presented to jury of peers?
    The most heinous criminal deserves a trial…and sometimes is found to be innocent (DNA testing…).

    1. Exactly! It is very hard to prove a negative. If they say you can prove yourself over a year before the item is permanently ours, all they have to do is propose one false hypothesis after another, as you disprove the last one.

      Even with a lot of money to sue, it could be impossible prove the item was not used in a criminal way.

      The terrorist thing is new, but I do remember years ago, that this was also being done. Fishing vessels siezed for drug activity when one marijuana seed was found on the vessel because the vessel was used for drug trafficing (more likely a deck hand smoked a bit and dropped a seed)

    2. morganovich


      good luck explaining that to the authoritarian, ends justify the means reactionary statists like peak.

      that guy would happily take away every right held by anyone but him if it would stop one more jaywalker.

  7. Benjamin Cole

    I can’t understand the Constitutionality of these seizures…the Supreme Court believes in property rights until they don’t?

  8. The link below provides a good summary of forfeiture.

    “There are over 150 federal laws permitting some form of forfeiture, and almost every state has one or more statutes authorizing confiscation of property.”

    1. Ah, the good ol’ “Everyone’s doing it so it must be ok” argument (or, as those of us trained in logic like to call it, the “argumentum ad populum fallacy.” Good to see Peak still relies on his playground logic.

      When you’re ready to discuss the issues like a big boy, come call on me.

      1. Your response to the link (history and interpretation of forfeiture laws) is illogical.

        In logic, you actually have to prove or disprove assumptions, not just make declarations (which I learned in my college Logic classes).

        1. You learn trolling in a logic class?

          1. You proved you’re trolling, without any logic.

          2. morganovich

            peak, is there ANY end to your hypocrisy and lies?

            i swear you are not even sentient.

            you make an appeal to practice fallacy argument as though forfeiture is justified because it’s common.

            jon points this out.

            you then claim that he is the one not using logic and make more fake claims about your education in an attempt to, once more, appeal to your own authority by twisting the conversation to try to make jon guilty of your crime.

            stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life son…

          3. nom nom nom… troll feeding time…

        2. In logic, you actually have to prove or disprove assumptions, not just make declarations (which I learned in my college Logic classes).

          And yet, you fail to do this very thing. I guess that’s another thing you failed it.

          Your response to the link (history and interpretation of forfeiture laws) is illogical.

          Incorrect. I was not responding to the link, rather to your quote and implication that simply because there are many laws permitting such a thing, it cannot be bad. That is, by definition, a logical fallacy.

          You know, for someone who is supposedly so well-educated, you really know so very little. It must make you so angry that me, a 24 year old kid, routinely one-ups you.

          1. Jon, you’re delusional, and you’re too illogical to be honest.

          2. morganovich


            wow. for you to call someone else delusional is like mao calling someone else repressive.

            you really are beyond help aren’t you?

            do you even know that you are lying all the time or is the cognitive dissonance so strong that you cannot even see that your are a fraud and a liar?

          3. How can I possibly be delusional? I’m quoting you, and providing sources to support me. Unless you are now denying your own argument?

            Man, it’s like Larry all over again. Constantly contradicting.

          4. Morganovich, I’m not surprised you support Jon’s ridiculous statements.

            And, you haven’t proven anything, except you can shrill “fraud,” “liar,” etc.

            Let me know when you’re ready for a real conversation.

          5. morganovich


            i’ve tried having dozens of conversations with you.

            you lie, prevaricate, make appeals to authority and fictitious past statements, then slink off when you get cornered.

            you are busted dead to rights here.

            you made an argument based on an appeal to practice fallacy, got called on it, and them lied about jon having said something illogical.

            it’s all there in 1’s and 0’s.

            now slink off and we’ll see you one the next thread where you can try to claim you won.

          6. Morganovich, making more empty statements only supports my statements.

        3. Premise:
          A person who writes ridiculus arguments on a board just to incite people is called a troller.
          Peaktrader writes ridiculus arguments on a board just to incite people
          Therefore Peaktrader is a troller.

          1. Actually, I incite people like you when I reveal your ridiculous arguments.

            You try to incite me by twisting my arguments to look as ridiculous as yours.

            People like you make me laugh.

    2. Why do you support this so much? Shouldn’t the government have to prove the case before taking the property? These folks could have lost their business and livelyhood for doing nothing wrong – but deposit money a few times a day because of their stupid insurance company demands.

      1. Where did I say I support the policy? I was trying to be objective, because I knew some others would jump to conclusions. They’re so predictable.

        1. Even if one person is unfairly harmed, it may not be a good policy. What percentage of people are unfairly harmed?

  9. Thomas Boyle

    Proud supporter of IJ.

    Don’t just comment here: write ‘em a check.

  10. James Bovard has written a series of books on this subject. This has been going on a long time and mostly involving drugs and pushers, but now they have expanded as the Feds continue to squander money.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative,” When you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

  11. Ian MacLeod

    This government has shown itself to be utterly contemptuous of the Constitution, or even basic fairness. Police of ALL stripes, especially, don’t care if we’re going about our lawful business; they can ALWAYS come up with a reason to attack us financially, physically, both, or in other ways. WE ARE NOW “THE ENEMY”! You know, I’ve been hearing since I was a child that most cops, if they hadn’t become cops, would have become criminals. Well, we’ve seen the basic truth of that, I’m afraid. YouTube alone has literally THOUSANDS of examples. They’re perfectly willing to victimize us, since criminals just don’t bring in enough money anymore.


Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content