| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
I've been caught sleeping. Is anyone else alarmed to learn that our law enforcement institutions are able to confiscate our property even if we are inoccent of any related crime? Google "Civil Asset Forfeiture." I was alarmed as I learned about the issue watching Stossel on the Fox Business Channel yesterday evening. Unbelievable! How the heck was such law ever allowed to happen? Where the heck was the ACLU? Busy promoting a redefinition of marriage and trying to mandate atheism as a national religion, no doubt. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/ 6/27/191414.shtml The really infuriating aspect of the civil asset forfeiture laws is that they allow the local governmental entities (police dept, district attorneys offices) to keep the property for their own use. Predictably, many have abused it. So in effect we've given the law enforcement folks incentive to take our property for no valid reason. How the heck did that ever become law??? | ||
| Patches |
We use to live in the United States of America. The United States of America has been Sold to the Highest Bidder and no longer in existence anymore. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Blake, do some more reading. It's been happening here since the mid 1800's, perhaps even before that. I will recount my own experience in detail either tonight or tomorrow. Depends what time I get out of work today. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Ok, I have asked it before, and damnit inquiring minds want to know. Seeing how this place is on a down ward slide into nationalized means of production, abolishment of private ownership/enterprise, loss of personal freedoms and the impending increased taxes.... Where else could you go to get away from it ? Where on this f'n planet can you be left to your own devices, own property, own guns, practice self determination and avoid intrusive government ? Really ? | ||
| Dwardo |
It's been a big issue for at least 30 years, to my knowledge. It has been around for a long time before, but it really got kicked into high gear by "the war on drugs". I went to a lecture about it 20 years ago. I think it might have been David Horowitz. When I try to tell people about it they generally look at me like I have two heads. | ||
| Milt |
The ACLU is squarely against civil asset forfeiture. Of course, they win some and they lose some. It's hard to fight a Federal judiciary that was largely appointed by Reagan and 2 Bushes. | ||
| Buellkowski |
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 appears to have addressed many of the most troubling aspects of this undue process. It's a tough call. Can't nab the drug dealers and terrorists outright so the authorities nab their spoils, no matter who's holding them. Perhaps there were far too many instances of criminals "giving" their wealth to otherwise innocent folks for "safekeeping." | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Oddly there is another program out there that if you develop and squat on the land that it is released to your ownership as long as you pay the taxes. Its how I ended up with the cabin on the cheap. Washington (at least in 1989) still had squatters rights legislation. Still thinking Kamchatka or Sakhalin Island. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
My buddy is an Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Specialist. He works with the DEA. Apparently, there are two court cases that are leveled at drug traffickers. The first is the illegal sale and distribution of a controlled substance. The second is the failure to pay income and, license, and sales taxes on the sale and distribution of a controlled substance. When the DEA makes a drug bust, he goes in and documents the value of the property seized. Once the assessment is complete and the source of the income confirmed, he has a "sit down". Here is how his meeting would go: "Mr. Smith, I do not work with the DEA and am not interested in the drug charges they have against you. I work for the IRS. In addition to the drug charges, the IRS will be seeking to charge you with tax evasion whether you are convicted of the drug charges or not. We have estimated your tax liability with interest and penalties to be $XXX,XXX. If you satisfy that liability with me, the IRS will drop the tax evasion charges against you. Satisfaction of your tax liability with the IRS is in no way an admission of guilt." He was interested in recruiting me to come work with him. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It'll be cold, but I hear Antarctica is free for the taking. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Wintered over one year for the 'scientists' liaison that the Soviets send down for 'research' One of the better prepositioned off the radar places to hide out, if you can get there | ||
| Phatkidwit1eye |
ATF has been doing this for a while and from the looks of things are quite proud of it. http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/09/atf-leatherma n-tool.html The best is when the .gov raids a company or person with a sealed warrant. The poor SOB that is getting raided has no idea what he did and the warrant can stay sealed for years. All the while the .gov is auctioning off the person's stuff. | ||
| Blake |
The forfeiture is one thing. That the law enforcement organizations are allowed to keep the proceeds is outrageous. | ||
| Blake |
It seems like nothing short of incentive to commit theft. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Blake, there are procedures in place that if a person believes that they have been the victim of an unreasonable seizure they can seek relief. Sure, it is not illegal to be carting around boatloads of cash, but if one cannot in good faith explain where the cash came from, then I think the burden is on the person to prove it is theirs and is not the proceeds of a criminal activity. I am willing to guess that the seizures we read about in the article were the results of a larger investigation(s). As with many news articles we are getting only one side of the story. Not saying any abuse is justified. I am merely saying I support the seizure of proceeds of criminal enterprises. | ||
| B00stzx3 |
Everything gets abused....but this is one example I apply to death penalty debate. With death penalty, you can't always go back and find out later the dude was innocent. You can't always back and get peeps stuff back either. But...if you sell coke, meth or heroin, rot in hell and you get what you deserve. Other than that, shouldn't be stealing people's stuff unless it's proven it was bought with illegal proceeds. | ||
| Xodot |
the seizure is subject to independent judiciary review - it's not the cops coming to take what you got that they want. Relax a little It's pretty frustrating to prosecute scum, get a conviction and see them driving off in the car the drugs paid for to the mansion the drugs paid for. This legislation is to crimp organized crime. I think it is a good try. | ||
| Blake |
"there are procedures in place that if a person believes that they have been the victim of an unreasonable seizure they can seek relief." Right, at their own expense. How much to hire an attorney to get that done? Xodot, No problem for taking the convicted felons stuff. But they can take stuff from anyone, conviction or no, purely on their statement that they suspect that the stuff was used on relation to a crime. It's outrageous. B00stxx3, I oppose the death penalty too. | ||
| Xodot |
they can take stuff from anyone, conviction or no, purely on their statement that they suspect that the stuff was used on relation to a crime. That is outrageous and I can't fathom civil liberty groups not going crazy on it! I oppose the death penalty too. I haven't always but I do now. | ||
| Ratyson |
Sure, it is not illegal to be carting around boatloads of cash, but if one cannot in good faith explain where the cash came from, then I think the burden is on the person to prove it is theirs and is not the proceeds of a criminal activity. I'm going to go ahead can call complete and utter B.S. on this statement. I should not have to explain to anyone, nor have the burden of proof put upon me for any amount of money that I may have on my person. For one single reason: I am innocent BEFORE PROVEN guilty.} | ||
| Tom_b |
Blake, a friend of my fathers was stopped by the texas highwy patrol with $9,000 cash to go buy a 55 chevy south of Amarillo. He consented to a car search since he had nothing to hide. The drug dog alerted on the cash. He was arrested. Charged with drug trafficking since the cash had traces of cocaine on them. (they were $100 bills) He had one hell of a time getting his money back even though 2 days later the charges were dropped after verifying who he was and his story of buying the car. Took almost 3 months to get his cash back and about a grand in lawyer fees. fifteen years later he refuses to even step foot in texas. | ||
| Tom_b |
Raytson, the Florida highway patrol used to have classes on how to confiscate and keep money. Florida was the worst about this back in the mid to late 90's.Part of their anti drug war | ||
| Bbbob |
I should not have to explain to anyone, nor have the burden of proof put upon me for any amount of money that I may have on my person. For one single reason: I am innocent BEFORE PROVEN guilty. Blake, I'm with you, I have no problem with assets seized after a conviction in a court of law (with proof the assets were obtained as a result of that crime), but some of these seizures happen before the "suspect" goes to court. By the agency directly benefiting from these seizures it does seem to open the door for possible abuse. I'm not crazy about eminent domain being used to turn over someone's land for private development like a hotel or business center either....but that's a topic for another thread... | ||
| Sifo |
Our town has a fleet of D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) vehicles. These cars get bold new graphics applied to them that include how they were confiscated. Most are confiscated as part of a DUI arrest. While I have little sympathy for those guilty of DUI the idea of confiscating the vehicles (I notice they don't seem to have beater D.A.R.E vehicles) just doesn't seem to make that much sense to me. Get caught in a 15 year old Chevy and they don't care about the vehicle, but get caught in a nice Hummer, Corvette, etc. and suddenly they want the vehicle. They even have a nice circular brick paver spot in front of the police station where they occasionally show them off. | ||
| Rainman |
The civil procedure has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's all about leverage. Whether you are convicted or not doesn't matter in civil court. It's how the Goldman's got O.J.'s money. During the past 30 years I've seen a farmer charged with marijuana growing have the government seize his farm, even though it turned out he was growing tobacco. If the government doesn't drop the case, it can go on for years. Houses, cars, everything has been claimed by the government. If found innocent, you have to fight through the civil courts and face a jury that has no "beyond reasonable doubt" guidelines to follow. Some states want to seize your vehicle if you are arrested for a second or third DUI. | ||
| Ohio_xb12 |
It's how the Goldman's got O.J.'s money.  All the Goldman's got was screwed. Not quite double jeopardy but the Government went after OJ twice and got him once. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Ratyson said "I'm going to go ahead can call complete and utter B.S. on this statement. I should not have to explain to anyone, nor have the burden of proof put upon me for any amount of money that I may have on my person. For one single reason: I am innocent BEFORE PROVEN guilty." I believe I oversimplified, but what I am saying is if someone is observed on a known drug smuggling route, or frequenting a known drug establishment is seen carrying a duffel bag full of cash and cannot explain what they are doing with it or who it belongs to then a seizure will happen, guaranteed. Now if you were walking around with 50G's in your pocket and you are a law abiding citizen, you'll probably have a withdrawal slip from your local bank where you got the money, or a copy of a check that you just cashed, or a receipt from the homeowner who just paid you the money to replace his roof. See what I'm getting at? | ||
| Blake |
Tom, That's a perfect story illustrating how outrageous the whole issue truly is. Thanks for sharing it. |
