In article ,
Elliot Ness wrote:

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?
=======================

Which is completely unresponsive to the part where you assert that
this can be done w/o court involvement. Indeed the RICO Act itself notes:
? 1964. Civil remedies
(a) The ***district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction*** to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of
this chapter by ***issuing appropriate orders***, including, but not
limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest,
direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions
on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but
not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of
endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect
interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or
reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of
innocent persons.
Forfeiture requires court involvement.
Heck even the IRS has to get okay:
Seizure Warrant

1. Property subject to forfeiture may be seized pursuant to a warrant
obtained in the same manner as provided for a search warrant under Rule
41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Fed. R. Crim. P. 41). The
AUSA must submit an application for the seizure of particular property,
as well as a special agent's sworn affidavit setting forth the facts
that provide probable cause for the seizure.
2. A seizure warrant may be issued in any judicial district in which
a civil forfeiture action against the property may be filed, and may be
executed in any judicial district in which the property is found. In the
event that an out-of-district seizure is contemplated, it must involve
consultation and coordination with the US Attorney's Office and the
field office within the judicial district in which the seizure is to
occur.
3. Title 18 USC ?985 requires that civil forfeiture of real property
proceed judicially. Except as provided in the statute, the real property
that is the subject of a civil forfeiture action cannot be seized before
entry of an order of forfeiture.



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?

Again, hoakum. Guilt or innocence isn't at issue in the instance
at hand. This is for additional penalties if you acted in bad faith. You
have to first be judged to have been guilty of the underlying offense by
a court of law (judge OR jury your choice). Most laws have aggravating
or mitigating circumstances that are taken into account during
sentencing. This is just one of them.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein