Kurt Ullman wrote:

These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies
that can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze
you out of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.

Which ones?

All of them.

Apparently by using a widened interpretation of the RICO act.

The following is taken from he

http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/aforfeit.htm

Which by itelf makes for interesting reading - at least the first few
pages.

====================
RICO: Threat or Weapon

RICO has become a threat to some groups and a weapon to others. The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), passed by
Congress in 1970, which was meant to bring big-time, profit motivated
crime organizations to their knees, has taken yet another twist. In
January, 1994, the Supreme Court widened the scope of RICO by ruling
that federal racketeering laws can apply when the motivation is social
or political and not just economic. In other words, RICO has now become
a threat for those who engage in the national tradition of social or
political protest. That decision becomes spine-chilling to those of us
who value our freedom of speech and right to association.

RICO: WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

Is it true that government agencies in every state are profiteering at
the expense of innocent third parties by taking advantage of the federal
R.I.C.O. laws? RICO is the acronym for the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law passed by Congress in 1970, and
is commonly used to describe the legal process by which government
agencies take personal property away from individuals. And what can be
taken and who are the individuals?
=======================

"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding
how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded
attorney-client communications."

In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the
confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of
taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney
-client privilege.

ONLY to the extent that a person uses that communication as part
of their defense when the legitimacy is not only questioned, but
tossed out entirely. You really can't say "I don't owe extra fines
related to bad faith because it wasn't bad faith because I relied
on my attorney and then not let what the attorney said enter into
it. That is well-established and nothing new.

What sort of government or rule of law do you people have where your
guilt or innocence (or tax penalty) is in some way based on the state of
your "faith" that what you were doing was within the rules, instead of
on the facts, as determined by a jury, that you did or didn't follow the
rules?