from the says-you dept
This week, our first place winner is Daydream with a comment digging into the details of a Michigan Supreme Court ruling that prevented an attempt to seize someone's house over an $8.41 debt:
I just looked it up; according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, Rafaeli accidentally underpaid his taxes in 2011, and after discovering the error in 2013, paid for the deficit. The $8.41 was interest left over on that deficit that he didn't notice.
That's it. It's not even a case of 'he was being stubborn about the last few dollars and the law technically lets us do this', it's plainly obvious Rafaeli was making a good faith effort to pay all of his taxes.
This is nothing more than a shameless act of betrayal, by a state government that thinks it's above consequences.
I wonder, did the Supreme Court rule against Michigan because they recognise this kind of theft is morally wrong three times over, or because they suspected there'd be riots if they didn't?
In second place, we've got another comment on that post, this time from That One Guy predicting the next thing to happen now that the ruling has made this kind of thing harder to do quietly:
'It's not even fun anymore...'
"But, from now on, the government will have to share its takings with the people it's taking property from."
A result that I guarantee will result in a massive drop in such actions, because much like robbery-at-badgepoint ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.
