DOJ: Money Isn't Property, so it can confiscate yours

[pmbug]

... The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that confiscating $50,000 from a small business did not infringe the business' right to private property because money is not property.

"Money is not necessarily 'property' for constitutional purposes," the government's brief declared—putting the very idea of property in square quotes. Reading at my desk, I practically fell out of my chair.

The DOJ gave three rationales for the argument, all packed into a doorstopper of a footnote: (1) the government creates money, so you can't own it; (2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and (3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the "general welfare."
...

More:

The government says money isn't property—so it can take yours

In a jaw-dropping argument, the Department of Justice claims seizing $50,000 from a small business doesn’t violate property rights because money isn’t property.

reason.com

So about the whole civil asset forfeiture thing...

 

[searcher]

More:

C.S. Lawn Administrative Appeal - Institute for Justice

When the Department of Labor decided to fine Chuck Saine tens of thousands of dollars, Chuck did not get to make his case to a […]

ij.org

IJ Sues Department of Labor in Latest Attack on “Courts” That Aren’t Really Courts - Institute for Justice

If the government fined you thousands of dollars for allegedly violating a regulation, you’d probably expect to go through a basic legal process. You’d want […]

ij.org

 

[Viking]

Money is property and the government doesn’t create it. They create that phony stuff called currency.

 

[Casey Jones]

When a government no longer recognizes the property rights of a person who traded wealth - the results of work - for stored-value (money/currency)...when this happens, that government loses its legitimacy.

It is effectively claiming the rights to the labors of its subjects - essentially making them chattel.

The choice is to accept the enslavement, or fight it. You can imagine how.

 

[pmbug]

The legal battle is ongoing and given the DOJ's ridiculous argument, they are going to lose.

 

[Casey Jones]

The legal battle is ongoing and given the DOJ's ridiculous argument, they are going to lose.

The other issue is, the DoJ of this moment isn't the DoJ of three weeks ago. We knew what Merrick Garland was/is. He was a Davos operative put in there to DESTROY the Rule of Law.

It can and probably will be reversed. But, for how long? This is the Overton Window shift. We see what the Circle-D jack@sses are about, where they are going. David Hogg as a DNC officer, now.

It bears remembering, that a government installed is not always legitimate.

 

[Cigarlover]

People enjoy being slaves and even demand to be slaves. Sadly that is how far we have fallen in the US. Even after the Moore decision last year people still don't follow the law and refuse to hold the people they work for accountable.
However I get it too. People build their lives around being a slave with all sorts of payments then they need to continue in that slavery just to make some money from most people who will hire them so they demand they be treated like a slave.
How many have actually read the Moore decision by the SC from last year or even understand the implications? How many understand the difference between direct and indirect taxes?

 

[pmbug]

Moore decision ~> https://www.pmbug.com/threads/moore-v-united-states-tax-on-unrealized-income.5729/post-104591