- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: USSC rules that government cannot make a profit from seized property.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:22 am to HailToTheChiz
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:22 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Insane this had to get to the supreme court. Seems like common sense
Sam Brunson
@smbrnsn
·
Follow
Just read the Supreme Court's Minnesota property tax/takings case. It's clearly right, but it leaves me with one nagging question:
Who was the idiot in the Hennepin County government who thought litigating this was a good idea? 1/
I mean, the idea that the state can sell property to satisfy a tax debt AND keep the whole amount, even if it exceeds the outstanding debt, is absurd, even granting that we live in a world where, for some reason, civil forfeiture still happens.
But also, when you're keeping the money of a 93-year-old woman, there's no world in which you're not the villain. Like, in terms of sympathetic plaintiffs, this is probably the sympathetic-est.
But also straightfacedly arguing that, because she has debts on the property in excess of the excess value of the property? How freaking economically illiterate do you have to be to not recognize that that doesn't mean no getting the money has no economic impact on her?
Like, I'm glad the Supreme Court got this right (unanimously). But who were the idiots who ensured that they had to hear it?!?
1
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:23 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
The court concluded unanimously
Anytime you see this with THIS court, you know it was fricking bad
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:24 am to HubbaBubba
9-0 I believe
Thankfully trump brought in constitutional judges.
Full right wing conservatives would of found for government and stealing from normal joes.
Constitutional judges follow laws not agendas
Thankfully trump brought in constitutional judges.
Full right wing conservatives would of found for government and stealing from normal joes.
Constitutional judges follow laws not agendas
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:25 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Anytime you see this with THIS court, you know it was fricking bad
This shows you the incompetence of the lower courts' knowledge of the constitution. This was an easy argument that the government violated the Fifth Amendment's "Takings Clause" by confiscating property worth more than the debt owed by the owner.
TheConstantineChronicles
@CDO1962
·
Follow
?@SenWarren? ?@SenSchumer?
Unanimous Decision From a “Packed Court”?
“Lower courts ruled against her, dismissed her case—the Supreme Court unanimously sided with her arguments & held that she brought a valid claim under the Takings Clause”
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:26 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
This actually bothered you enough to make a post about it?
Says the guy who posted a response in response to my response
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:29 am to HailToTheChiz
Did a State court actually rule that the county could seize a home then sell for a profit 
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:35 am to jcaz
quote:
Says the guy who posted a response in response to my response
quote:
jcaz
Way to double down on the karen there champ.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:38 am to Jbird
Another major legal win by the Pacific Legal Foundation. This foundation is the only thing separating us from a government state.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:39 am to JiminyCricket
I got all day bud. Work is slow today.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:40 am to MrLSU
quote:
Another major legal win by the Pacific Legal Foundation. This foundation is the only thing separating us from a government state.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:43 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
94-year-old woman over her claim that a Minnesota county violated the Constitution by keeping a $25,000 profit when it sold her home in a tax foreclosure sale.
ARREST THEM FOR THEFT!
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:43 am to HubbaBubba
My question is how does this apply to drug seizures. Our county gets a decent amount of money from selling cars/boats used in smuggling drugs like Fentanyl into the USA.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 10:58 am to HubbaBubba
Two unanimous decisions handed down Friday. Shows how bad the federal judiciary has gotten.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 11:36 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
. Let's not celebrate her. She was a deadbeat taxpayer.
What an out of touch jackass.
I helped repo cars for about 6 months years ago. A lot of the people had gotten sick and had to choose between medical or car payments.
The property got paid for somehow before.
Also, we aren't celebrating not paying taxes. We are celebrating the gov not being able to keep profits beyond what you owe.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 11:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Soulless psychopaths. Holy shite.
It was based on a depression era state law that stripped ownership interest when one was behind on taxes. The idea that the government or any entity could receive a windfall in a situation like this is indeed nuts.
I do wish they had taken up the Eighth Amendment’s issue regarding the ban on excessive fines which was also at bar, that issue would have had a far more wide-ranging benefit. Gorsuch and Jackson in their concurring opinion mentioned Taylor would have prevailed on that matter as well. I imagine someone will get Cert on that issue relatively soon.
Posted on 5/26/23 at 12:04 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
Tyler’s home in Hennepin County, which includes the city of Minneapolis, was seized because she owed $15,000 in taxes and fees. But the county sold the home for $40,000 and kept all the proceeds.
So many problems with this.
Is she now going to get the profit they made?
Why was she in so much debt? Are we so degraded as a society that a local community can't acquire 15k for a woman in her mid 90s?
Why can't a local govt do a reverse mortgage type of deal - she signs over the house, they waive her debts, she gets to stay in the house, when she passes, the house belongs to the govt, they sell it, taxes paid off plus some profit - is that not possible?
Posted on 5/26/23 at 1:16 pm to POTUS2024
quote:Why would they need to when private industry has already resolved that issue?
Why can't a local govt do a reverse mortgage type of deal - she signs over the house, they waive her debts, she gets to stay in the house, when she passes, the house belongs to the govt, they sell it, taxes paid off plus some profit - is that not possible?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News