<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The government as thief	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/the-government-as-thief/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/the-government-as-thief/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2015 01:05:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Edward		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/the-government-as-thief/#comment-709714</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Edward]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2015 01:05:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://behindtheblack.com/?p=32826#comment-709714</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[From the first article: &quot;[government] has required financial institutions to report deposits of $10,000 or more to the Treasury Department, because such large sums of cash are obviously suspicious. You know what else is suspicious? Deposits of less than $10,000, because they suggest an attempt to evade the government&#039;s reporting requirement, which has been a federal crime, known as &#039;structuring,&#039; since 1986.&quot;  

So if you are a successful small business with revenues of around $3 million per year, your daily bank deposit will be a little less than $10,000.  Thus you are pretty much guaranteed to be suspect.  

Who was it that said that we unwittingly commit three felonies a day?  Just by engaging in banking transactions, we commit one felony -- well, the government can decide to interpret it that way.  

The danger of selective enforcement of laws is that we stop being a nation of laws and become a nation of men.  In the former, we can be assured that breaking a law will result in prosecution; in the latter, if we know the right people (i.e. make the right bribes), then we won&#039;t be prosecuted for breaking the law.  The former is a nation of equality for all, the latter is a nation where some people are more equal.  

Civil forfeiture could be considered a form of bribery, as in &quot;we won&#039;t prosecute you for a crime that you didn&#039;t commit, so long as we can keep this money/car/house/whatever.&quot;  

What a nice place this country has turned into, where being innocent isn&#039;t enough.  

The Constitution may not be perfect, but it is better than what we have now.  The Fifth Amendment is very clear that civil forfeiture is illegal: &quot;nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.&quot;  Civil forfeiture bypasses due process.  So if government isn&#039;t following the Constitution, what is it following?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the first article: &#8220;[government] has required financial institutions to report deposits of $10,000 or more to the Treasury Department, because such large sums of cash are obviously suspicious. You know what else is suspicious? Deposits of less than $10,000, because they suggest an attempt to evade the government&#8217;s reporting requirement, which has been a federal crime, known as &#8216;structuring,&#8217; since 1986.&#8221;  </p>
<p>So if you are a successful small business with revenues of around $3 million per year, your daily bank deposit will be a little less than $10,000.  Thus you are pretty much guaranteed to be suspect.  </p>
<p>Who was it that said that we unwittingly commit three felonies a day?  Just by engaging in banking transactions, we commit one felony &#8212; well, the government can decide to interpret it that way.  </p>
<p>The danger of selective enforcement of laws is that we stop being a nation of laws and become a nation of men.  In the former, we can be assured that breaking a law will result in prosecution; in the latter, if we know the right people (i.e. make the right bribes), then we won&#8217;t be prosecuted for breaking the law.  The former is a nation of equality for all, the latter is a nation where some people are more equal.  </p>
<p>Civil forfeiture could be considered a form of bribery, as in &#8220;we won&#8217;t prosecute you for a crime that you didn&#8217;t commit, so long as we can keep this money/car/house/whatever.&#8221;  </p>
<p>What a nice place this country has turned into, where being innocent isn&#8217;t enough.  </p>
<p>The Constitution may not be perfect, but it is better than what we have now.  The Fifth Amendment is very clear that civil forfeiture is illegal: &#8220;nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.&#8221;  Civil forfeiture bypasses due process.  So if government isn&#8217;t following the Constitution, what is it following?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
