I did acknowledge that. That's why I said they should have worked with the State to resolve the error, rather than ignore it until a seizure was required.

Seizures are expensive for the state too. If you're working with them on the tax liability (inc. disputing it) they likely aren't going to go the seizure route as a first port of call.

There are situations where the mail that the State sends does not properly reach the taxpayer. I suppose if they confiscate the funds and then are open to swift resolution of the error, that's not so bad, but I'm surprised they don't choose wage garnishment or some other way of contacting the taxpayer before just "surprise, the money is ours!"

So... Chase is, in your imaginary world, supposed to refuse a lawful court order because this person claims that they don't actually owe the money? Hey, maybe Chase could even pony up for a legal defense fund! I mean, why wouldn't they?

When a private company tried to lay a claim to my account, BoA told them to go stuff themselves.

I understand that a court of law is different, but that does not mean that the court has acted ethically or logically-- they have only acted officially.

If your money was stored non-digitally, it would be a bit more difficult to confiscate, such as if it were in a safe that I privately maintained offsite somewhere.

All irrelevant. The GP is bashing Chase for complying with a court order. It's not their place to decide which lawful orders they will follow.

Out of curiosity, are you also one of those Westerners who also criticizes China for being authoritarian?

It's because I'm trying to understand the logic of those who feel like just because an action has been performed by a certain government, it therefore must be logical and ethical 100000% of the time.

I could point to examples of times where private organizations defied specific government orders because they felt the order was unjust, but I have a feeling this wouldn't be a sufficient argument for you.

>Out of curiosity, are you also one of those Westerners who also criticizes China for being authoritarian?

Wow.

>It's because I'm trying to understand the logic of those who feel like just because an action has been performed by a certain government, it therefore must be logical and ethical 100000% of the time.

I literally never said that. Not once in any of these comments. Are you even replying to the right person?

>I could point to examples of times where private organizations defied specific government orders because they felt the order was unjust, but I have a feeling this wouldn't be a sufficient argument for you.

So, in your mind, Chase should perform their own investigation of this man's taxes before complying with the court order? This is really what you think?

Should we also have private companies arrest people who the police say have committed a crime?

Hey! That guy is in your restaurant. Hold him down before we get there. If you don't comply then you are in contempt.

Ummm... no, we have police for that. Of course, the police do not have access to anything and everything in any place at any time, which is why they sometimes need to go through the court in order to compel private entities to assist.

honestly, have you thought through anything that you're saying? How do you imagine any of this could possibly work in the way you imagine? You literally expect every subject of a warrant to conduct their own internal investigation as to the validity of said warrant, even though they have absolutely no right to not comply.

it's so unreasonable that it's comical; I don't even know why I continue to respond. You live in a fantasy land.

In this argument, that point does not matter. OP said that Chase stole money from them. That is not true; banks lawfully complying with government orders is not theft. Banks, or really any private business, do not protect you from the government.