Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Federal civil asset forfeiture - back in business

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Federal civil asset forfeiture - back in business

    Jeff Sessions has reversed Obama-era ban on civil asset forfeiture for citizens who are suspected but not charged with crimes.

    To be blunt, I see this as outrageous. There was one case of a man who had nearly his entire life savings taken after he got pulled over. He was transporting his savings in cash to start a business cross-country, and the police determined that carrying that much cash was suspicious. There is often no recourse for people who have their assets taken in this way.

    If there is that much proof that somebody is doing something wrong, then go ahead and charge them. But this is assets taken from people where there is not enough evidence to even charge them.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.975978f8cca8
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    According to the article there is recourse, they are extending the notification period and adding other safeguards.

    I don't know - I have a knee jerk distaste for it but I'd have to see the actual law.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • #3
      It has always puzzled me why this isn't universally considered grossly unconstitutional - it's the most obvious violation of due process I have ever seen.

      Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year:

      In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did... Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion. [Note that this doesn't include] property losses from larceny and theft [which add up to $12.3 billion if included]

      Sad!
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        According to the article there is recourse, they are extending the notification period and adding other safeguards.

        I don't know - I have a knee jerk distaste for it but I'd have to see the actual law.
        I don't much care for what the law says. To take private property a charge should be made. It there is no conviction the "forfeited" property should automatically be returned along with any costs resulting from forfeiture.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          According to the article there is recourse, they are extending the notification period and adding other safeguards.

          I don't know - I have a knee jerk distaste for it but I'd have to see the actual law.
          Extending the notification period isn't a form of recourse. I'm also guessing the other "safeguards" are negligible if they're not even being mentioned.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #6
            well the reason for the law is to stop money transfers for drug traffickers. Basically they have to transport the money back to Mexico or whereever the drugs came from. They will use just about anyone to do it for them. Usually the people transporting the money don't have any drugs on them or warrants. So they needed a way to confiscate the cash, even when they had no way to hold the people used to transport the money. the problem is that it can be misused or mistakes made.

            They need a better system.

            I figure with things like bitcoin, the cash transfers will probably not be a big problem anyway in the future.

            Comment


            • #7
              My question remains - if they find somebody with the drug cash, why can they not just charge them?
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                My question remains - if they find somebody with the drug cash, why can they not just charge them?
                Probably because it's almost impossible to prove they knew the source of the money.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Probably because it's almost impossible to prove they knew the source of the money.
                  Then they don't know enough to take the money.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    well the reason for the law is to stop money transfers for drug traffickers. Basically they have to transport the money back to Mexico or whereever the drugs came from. They will use just about anyone to do it for them. Usually the people transporting the money don't have any drugs on them or warrants. So they needed a way to confiscate the cash, even when they had no way to hold the people used to transport the money. the problem is that it can be misused or mistakes made.

                    They need a better system.

                    I figure with things like bitcoin, the cash transfers will probably not be a big problem anyway in the future.
                    If you can not get enough evidence to charge them you do not have enough evidence to confiscate.
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      Then they don't know enough to take the money.
                      True.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        According to the article there is recourse, they are extending the notification period and adding other safeguards.

                        I don't know - I have a knee jerk distaste for it but I'd have to see the actual law.
                        Like you said, we need to look at actual law, but when announcement of Sessions sounds reasonable, who is surprised at of wapo??

                        “Under today’s guidance, the federal government will not adopt seized property unless the state or local agency involved provides information demonstrating that the seizure was justified by probable cause. We will accomplish this through a new adoption form that state and local law enforcement must fill out before we will agree to adopt any property, which will include the necessary information to allow Department lawyers to carefully review and determine whether adoption is proper. Further, law enforcement agencies who wish to participate in the Department’s Equitable Sharing Program now must now provide their officers with enhanced training on asset forfeiture laws.

                        “The Department will adopt smaller seizures of cash—between $5,000 and $10,000—only if there exists some level of criminality or with the express concurrence of the U.S. Attorney’s office.

                        “Further, to better protect claimants, the Department will expedite the review of civil asset forfeiture cases. State and local law enforcement agencies requesting federal adoption must do so within 15 calendar days following the date of seizure. The adopting federal agency must then send notice to interested parties within 45 days of the date of seizure. This is twice as fast of a review as is required by statute. This streamlined process will ensure that people receive speedy resolutions of their cases, and that rightful owners will get their property back as soon as possible.

                        Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          My question remains - if they find somebody with the drug cash, why can they not just charge them?
                          Even if the guy is guilty, he has a right not to incriminate himself, and it's almost impossible to build a case because of the way the money laundering is set up - unlike other crime where there's a complainant, this is a "stumbled upon" "crime".

                          Not defending the practice by any means - I agree this really is an affront to due process...
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            It has always puzzled me why this isn't universally considered grossly unconstitutional - it's the most obvious violation of due process I have ever seen.

                            Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year:

                            In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did... Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion. [Note that this doesn't include] property losses from larceny and theft [which add up to $12.3 billion if included]

                            Sad!
                            From own link of yours,

                            "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.
                            Standard spin of Fake News in headlines, then walking back slowly in text. Sad!

                            Also, why Starlight and studies, also numbers cannot be trusted:

                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did... Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds.

                            Sad!
                            Like 1 billion from Madoff in 2014. Sad!
                            Last edited by demi-conservative; 03-04-2018, 09:21 PM.
                            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                              My question remains - if they find somebody with the drug cash, why can they not just charge them?
                              Because they don't have drugs with them. They are just running the money back to the drug cartel. They will have a car with lots of cash in it. And that's it. They sometimes will even hire college students or even advertise they need a car driven across country and will pay for someone to drive it for them and have the cash hidden in the car without the driver's knowledge.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              140 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              365 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              112 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              364 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X