Friday, June 14, 2013

Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later

By: Robin Vinci, Editor
Posted by Frank Smith at 14.6.13

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I had a phone call from an upset resident this week. It seems the police in New Britain are checking license plates for unpaid taxes.

This person was pulled over and their car was threatened to be impounded if they did not go to City Hall in 10 minutes to pay the car taxes. Police said they would follow this person to the bank and did follow them into City Hall to pay their car taxes.

I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this. I believe everyone should be forced to pay their taxes. I pay mine and you should too. My only complaint is it seems like a violation of civil rights. I’m wondering how residents feel about this? Please send me a letter to the editor voicing your opinion.

ROBIN SEEMS COMPLETELY ACCURATE THAT THIS CLEARLY IS A VIOLATION OF THIS PERSON'S CIVIL RIGHTS. THEY SHOULD RUN TO A GOOD CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY IMMEDIATELY.

STATE LAW (C.G.S. Sec. 12-162) ONLY ALLOWS A STATE MARSHAL OR A CITY CONSTABLE TO IMPOUND A CAR WHEN THEY ARE IN POSSESSION OF A VALID TAX WARRANT. CITY POLICE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SERVE TAX WARRANTS BECAUSE POLICE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SERVE CIVIL PROCESS. THAT AUTHORITY IS RESERVED BY STATE LAW TO MARSHALS AND CONSTABLES. POLICE ONLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SERVE CRIMINAL PROCESS, AND NON-PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES IS A CIVIL MATTER.

IF THIS STORY IS TRUE, THEN THIS PERSON WAS APPARENTLY FORCED UNDER COLOR OF LAW BY AN ARMED PERSON TO TURN OVER HIS MONEY WHICH SEEMS TO AMOUNT TO LITTLE MORE THAN ARMED ROBBERY. IF I WERE YOU, I WOULD RUN TO THE NEAREST CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY!

June 14, 2013 at 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...

In the second paragraph it says clearly, ... their car was threatened to be impounded ... " The car was not impounded by the police.

June 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...

In the second paragraph it says clearly, ... their car was threatened to be impounded ... " The car was not impounded by the police.

June 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...

7-276 "The members of such police department shall have all such authority with respect to the service of criminal process and the enforcement of the criminal laws as is vested by the general statutes in police officers and constables."

June 14, 2013 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the second paragraph it says clearly, ... their car was threatened to be impounded ... " The car was not impounded by the police.

Sec. 53a-133. Robbery defined. A person commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (1) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (2) compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the larceny.

(5) Extortion. A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will: (A) Cause physical injury to some person in the future; or (B) cause damage to property; or (C) engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or (D) accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or (E) expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or (F) cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person’s business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed extortion when the property is demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or (G) testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or (H) use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or (I) inflict any other harm which would not benefit the actor.

(1) “Restrain” means to restrict a person’s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such a manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent. As used herein “without consent” means, but is not limited to, (A) deception and (B) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.

(2) “Abduct” means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (B) using or threatening to use physical force or intimidation.

Sec. 53a-94. Kidnapping in the second degree: Class B felony: Three years not suspendable. (a) A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he abducts another person.

Sec. 53a-94a. Kidnapping in the second degree with a firearm: Class B felony: Three years not suspendable. (a) A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree with a firearm when he commits kidnapping in the second degree, as provided in section 53a-94, and in the commission of such offense he uses or is armed with and threatens the use of or uses or displays or represents by his words or conduct that he possesses a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm. No person shall be convicted of kidnapping in the second degree and kidnapping in the second degree with a firearm upon the same transaction but such person may be charged and prosecuted for both such offenses upon the same information.

(b) Kidnapping in the second degree with a firearm is a class B felony for which three years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.

June 14, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...

While I support the collection of scoff laws, if this story is factual things have gotten way out reason.

First of all, if the city is asking it's police department to step up license plate scans to pull in tax dollars then the public should be made aware of this and given the opportunity to come in voluntarily to pay overdue tax. Furthermore, should a citizen not have the funds available in full then a payment plan can be implemented. So long as regular attempt to make payment no impound.

Other cities have given public notice and in fact have waived some of the interest fees to get people to come in an pay their bills.

I hope this story is false.

Sally Eigenraam

June 15, 2013 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...

We received the following statement from Phil Sherwood,
"The Tax Collector has the statutory authority to seize property due to
nonpayment of taxes. The police have LPRs (License Plate Readers)
which identify if people are wanted persons, owe for unpaid parking
tickets, or owe unpaid taxes. If the officers are alerted to the
person owing taxes, they will give the person an opportunity to pay
the taxes as a courtesy, so the Tax Office does not have to go through
with the property seizure. The police will seize nothing – this is a
civil action which can only be done by the city."
thanks,
Robin

June 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...

someone should ask Mr. Sherwood under what authority the police can stop a person in a forcible motor vehicle stop situation because his taxes are overdue?

June 15, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...

Are you KIDDING me!?!??!?

This is absolutely obscene. I'll tell you what Phil Sherwood, you petty, desperate, power hungry little man, why don't you START collecting back taxes and water bills too for that matter, from CURRENT, ACTIVE, COMMON COUNCIL MEMBERS!?!?!?

And it wasn't too long ago, several of them owed back taxes as well!

I suggest you START with your desperate plan to humiliate and threaten citizens by at least having OUR REPRESENTATIVES set the bar!!

June 15, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...

how about the name of the girl in the city owned car on the Mass Pike?

June 16, 2013 at 1:52 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Web Tracking
Online Florist