Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Federal civil asset forfeiture - back in business

  1. #1
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,228
    Amen (Given)
    1492
    Amen (Received)
    3967

    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
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  2. Amen Jedidiah, The Remonstrant amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    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.

  4. #3
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,206
    Amen (Given)
    2648
    Amen (Received)
    1598
    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!

  5. Amen Darth Executor, The Remonstrant amen'd this post.
  6. #4
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,905
    Amen (Given)
    20214
    Amen (Received)
    6482
    Quote 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?

  7. Amen The Remonstrant amen'd this post.
  8. #5
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,228
    Amen (Given)
    1492
    Amen (Received)
    3967
    Quote 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.
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  9. #6
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,995
    Amen (Given)
    4042
    Amen (Received)
    19598
    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.

  10. #7
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,228
    Amen (Given)
    1492
    Amen (Received)
    3967
    My question remains - if they find somebody with the drug cash, why can they not just charge them?
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  11. Amen Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  12. #8
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,618
    Amen (Given)
    5097
    Amen (Received)
    4630
    Quote 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.

  13. #9
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,228
    Amen (Given)
    1492
    Amen (Received)
    3967
    Quote 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.
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  14. Amen CMD, Jedidiah, Darth Executor amen'd this post.
  15. #10
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,905
    Amen (Given)
    20214
    Amen (Received)
    6482
    Quote 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?

  16. Amen The Remonstrant amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •