Scribd

{IJ068833.DOCX}

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PETITION FOR REMISSION OR MITIGATION OF RANDY AND KAREN SOWERS

David L. Watt, Esq. Law Offices of David L. Watt, LLC 10087 Tyler Place, Suite 2 Ijamsville, MD 21754 Phone: (301) 639-5629 Email: dwatt@dwattlaw.com Paul D. Kamenar, Esq. 1629 K Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 603-5397 Email: paul.kamenar@gmail.com

Of Counsel

Scott Bullock Robert Everett Johnson THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 682-9320 Fax: (703) 682-9321 Email: rjohnson@ij.org

Attorneys for Petitioners

{IJ068833.DOCX}

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9 I. The Government Has Authority To Return Randy And Karen’s Money, And There Are No Procedural Barriers To The Grant Of The Petition ....................................... 9 A. The Government Has Statutory Authority To Return The Money ............................... 9 B. Randy And Karen’s Agreement To Forfeit The Money Does Not Bar Their Petition .............................................................................................................. 11 C. Randy And Karen’s Petition Is Timely ....................................................................... 12 II. Because The Forfeited Money Is The Legitimate Proceeds Of Randy And Karen’s Lawful Dairy Farm Business, It Should Be Returned In Its Entirety ................... 14 A. Return Of The Property Will Promote The Interest Of Justice, Will Not Diminish The Deterrent Effect Of The Law, And Is Necessary To Prevent Extreme Hardship ....................................................................................................... 15 B. Factors Listed In Governing DOJ Regulations Support Return Of All The Forfeited Money To Randy And Karen ...................................................................... 19 C. IRS Guidelines For Mitigation Likewise Support Return Of The Forfeited Money To Randy And Karen ...................................................................................... 21 III. At The Very Minimum, The Government Should Return A Substantial Portion Of Randy And Karen’s Money .......................................................................................... 23 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 24

{IJ068833.DOCX}

1

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1618 and 31 U.S.C. § 5321(c), Randy and Karen Sowers hereby petition the United States Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service to remit or mitigate $29,500 that was seized from their bank account on or about February 28, 2012, and ordered forfeited by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on May 30, 2012. Those funds would not be seized—much less forfeited—under current government policy. Now, the government should do the right thing and give the money back.

INTRODUCTION

Randy and Karen Sowers run a dairy farm in Frederick County, Maryland, in the same rural community where they were born, married, and lived their entire lives. Both Randy and Karen had grandparents who were farmers, and they met while participating in 4-H programs. They purchased their first 100 cows together in 1981. Since then, they have worked virtually without pause to care for their animals and grow the operation. More than 30 years after opening their farm, Randy and Karen still wake before dawn every day to milk their cows. In February 2012, the IRS seized the entire bank account for Randy and Karen’s farm, containing $62,936.04. The government took the money because Randy and Karen deposited cash earned at farmers’ markets into their account in amounts under $10,000. Federal law requires banks to report cash transactions over $10,000 and makes it a crime (“structuring”) to deposit cash in amounts under $10,000 in order to evade that reporting requirement. This law was intended to target drug dealers, tax evaders, and other criminals seeking to conceal their activities from the government. But, in Randy and Karen’s case, the law was applied to innocent business owners guilty of nothing more than doing business in cash. Randy and Karen deposited cash in amounts under $10,000 only because a bank teller told Karen that doing so would avoid unnecessary, unspecified paperwork. Apart from that act of depositing cash, the government has never even

alleged

that Randy and Karen did anything unlawful.