Comments on: Institute for Justice tackles a structuring-forfeiture case https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/institute-justice-tackles-structuring-forfeiture-case/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Fri, 27 Sep 2013 01:47:37 +0000 hourly 1 By: Canvasback https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/institute-justice-tackles-structuring-forfeiture-case/comment-page-1/#comment-239090 Fri, 27 Sep 2013 01:47:37 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=41635#comment-239090 @ Fubar Has your ex-wife been talking to my ex-wife?

]]> By: DEM https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/institute-justice-tackles-structuring-forfeiture-case/comment-page-1/#comment-239059 Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:48:31 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=41635#comment-239059 The government lawyers and agents involved should be ashamed and face consequences. Oh wait, I forgot: they have no shame and (as discussed in another recent thread) a complete lack of consequences is a de facto benefit of government employment.

]]> By: Fubar https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/institute-justice-tackles-structuring-forfeiture-case/comment-page-1/#comment-239058 Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:44:32 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=41635#comment-239058 Next up: prosecution for income tax evasion because defendant willfully refused to earn sufficient income to have the income tax liability that government believes defendant should have, based on age, education, profession, etc.

Government will not need to prove any income greater than what defendant declares. Proof that defendant should have earned more according to government’s evaluation of his income producing potential will be sufficient.

]]> By: ras https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/institute-justice-tackles-structuring-forfeiture-case/comment-page-1/#comment-239007 Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:28:09 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=41635#comment-239007 Punished on “suspicion,” rather than conviction. The times they have a’changed.

]]>