Fed abuse of power - violation of rights
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
nashville.general only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

nashville.general Profile…
 Up
Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: Paul Stevens
Date: Mar 1, 2008 22:02

Given that there have been various discussions of abuse of power under
the current adminstration, I'd like to submit a recent incident for
consideration.

Federal tax agents showed up at a small manufacturing facility, presented
a search warrant that listed the facility as the place to be searched, and
gave a vague suspicion of tax law violations as the...
Show full article (1.96Kb)
19 Comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: Paul Stevens
Date: Mar 1, 2008 22:12

Forgot to mention that there has been speculation that the "raid" was
prompted by the company's owners stepping on some (political) toes,
in the last year or so.
no comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: jakdedert
Date: Mar 1, 2008 23:46

Paul Stevens wrote:
> Forgot to mention that there has been speculation that the "raid" was
> prompted by the company's owners stepping on some (political) toes,
> in the last year or so.
>
>
Paul, not that I doubt your account, but how about some sort of cite...?

jak
no comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: Olin
Date: Mar 2, 2008 08:44

"jakdedert" bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NWsyj.4552$rE5.88@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Paul Stevens wrote:
>> Forgot to mention that there has been speculation that the "raid" was
>> prompted by the company's owners stepping on some (political) toes,
>> in the last year or so.
>>
>>
> Paul, not that I doubt your account, but how about some sort of cite...?
>
> jak

Not Paul... and not really even the same story, but another possible example
of very likely Nixonian abuse of power nonetheless... regarding the IRS
deciding to "investigate" the entire United Church of Christ denomination
because Barack Obama was invited to make, and did make, a non-partisan
speech about his own faith and the role it plays in public life.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14724.html
Show full article (1.72Kb)
no comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: Paul Stevens
Date: Mar 2, 2008 10:54

"jakdedert" bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NWsyj.4552$rE5.88@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Paul Stevens wrote:
>> Forgot to mention that there has been speculation that the "raid" was
>> prompted by the company's owners stepping on some (political) toes,
>> in the last year or so.
>>
>>
> Paul, not that I doubt your account, but how about some sort of cite...?
>
> jak

Well, I was trying to delay the eventual banter about "gubs", since this is
a Fourth Amendment issue of a federal tax agency walking in with a vague
warrant, then confiscating just about everything the company would need
to keep it's day to day operations going, from a financial view (how do you
keep your employees happy, if you just lost *all* of your payroll records?).

Given that there are no specific charges, no licenses pulled, and no
arrests, it (at the very least) has the appearance of being motivated by a
desire to put the company out of business.

Don't know where this story's charges of fraud and money laundering came
from, as it's the wrong agency for such charges, and the agent interviewed
stated "federal firearms violations"(tax law violations...
Show full article (2.10Kb)
no comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: Boston Blackie (Read only 0.01%% by KD the Merciless!)
Date: Mar 2, 2008 10:59

On 2008-03-02 12:54:26 -0600, "Paul Stevens" bellsouth.net> said:
> ll, I was trying to delay the eventual banter about "gubs",

banter
1676, slang, origin uncertain.

noun: light teasing repartee

verb: be silly or tease one another; "After we relaxed, we just kidded
around" [syn: kid]

WordNet(R) 3.0, (c) 2006 by Princeton University.

--
I wouldn't join any organization that would have me as a member.
no comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: Paul Stevens
Date: Mar 2, 2008 14:48

http://ktar.com/index.php?sid=746736&nid=6
"It's still not clear if the nature of the investigation is as serious as
the
evidence implies."

Uh, what evidence? Other than the guns the BATF put out on the
sidewalk for display to the media (and what is that evidence of?)?

Still trying to figure out where I saw the reference to a contractor being
used to do the seizure.
no comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: Paul Stevens
Date: Mar 2, 2008 16:14

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/110061

"TAKING INVENTORY: Members of the ATF and a contractor
branch, Forfeiture Support Associates, sort through piles of arms
seized from Cavalry Arms Corp. in Gilbert on Wednesday."
no comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: Paul Stevens
Date: Mar 2, 2008 19:08

No comments on the issue of the federal government having a
contractor set up to provide manpower for government seizure
of private property?

I could see some argument (don't think I'd agree with it, though)
for using a contractor for seizing property that had been forfeited
in a court order to sell the property to settle a tax debt, but this
incident was supposedly a federal agency serving a search
warrant and seizing "evidence". If the feds were using a 'forfeiture
support' contractor, was it collecting evidence in a case, or just
seizing property for the purpose of seizing it?

Is the federal government turning handling of evidence over to
private contractors? If you were serving on a jury, what would
you think of "evidence" that you had been told was collected,
tagged, and inventoried by an employee of some low-bid
contractor?
no comments
Re: Fed abuse of power - violation of rights         


Author: JG
Date: Mar 2, 2008 19:21

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 21:08:30 -0600, "Paul Stevens"
bellsouth.net> wrote:

Okay, I'll bite.
> If you were serving on a jury, what would
>you think of "evidence" that you had been told was collected,
>tagged, and inventoried by an employee of some low-bid
>contractor?

In the first, and maybe only place, there is simply way too little
information to go on based on what you've provided so far. And I
really can't help but believe that if this raid had netted drugs,
child porn, or auto parts from a chop shop, you wouldn't be on your
high horse about it. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been a blip on
your radar.
no comments
1 2