Seizure Fever: Proof is for Suckers

[Harley Quinn]

The three Judges

Me I am just agreeing with their over-turn. This will be a good one to follow.

What is interesting to me is it is being over turned by the judges going against the defendent, who won in the first place... Hilarious.

I guess the County/State, had already spent the money on the trial and figured it into the budget.

Monkeyleg: That is very honest of them to turn it into the estate, that way they will get it, and not have to look over their shoulder. Other wise they would not sleep well, I figure.

The law's are here, to protect the innocent

HQ

 

[Tokugawa]

As I see it, there are two big problems with the forfeiture laws- one is the no proof required part, and the other is that the money goes directly into the local Gov. coffers. I am not positive, but think it goes straight to the police.
Could anyone think of a better way to encourage corruption?

 

[ctdonath]

I would think to get it back, all he has to do is to show where he got it.

I would think to get it back, all he has to do is show that he was not convicted of any crime involving it.

You know, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?

 

[One of Many]

These asset forfeiture laws are nothing more than a way for the government to commit armed robbery, without the owner being allowed to defend himself. In a typical armed robbery on the street, by common thieves, the owner has a chance to fight off the robber, and possibly keep his propety.

When the government comes in with cops, takes your property by force at the point of a gun, and then goes to court to have your property declared forfeit, you have no chance to prevail. The cops and the courts get to decide how they are going to spend your money, for items they get to use exclusively.

The courts get to decide if your evidence of property acquisition, ownership and transportation meet criteria for your continued ownership and possession of that property. The courts make the rules, change the rules when it favors the courts, and ignore the rules when it pleases them; they ignore the US constitution with impugnity, and reward the police for doing something that would result in any non-police or non-court person being sent to prison for many years. If a common citizen would be sent to prison for some action against a fellow citizen, then the police and judges should also be sent to prison for that action against a citizen.

The criteria for asset forfeiture must be changed to match that for ciminal conviction. The practice of sueing an inanimate object, in order to defraud the owner of that object of his right to possess that inanimate object, must be eliminated.

Another practice used by "law enforcement" that needs to be eliminated is the sham arrest on fake charges, resulting in confiscation of personal property, and setting BAIL at exhorbitant amounts that no common person could hope to pay without losing all of their life savings. Get arrested for reselling cell phones, charged with phoney counterfeit and money laundering offenses, with bail set so high that the bondsman gets $30,000 (non refundable) just so you can get out of jail until the case is heard; even if you win the case and your freedom, you are still out the lawyers fees and the bondmans fees. This is persecution by malicious prosecution under the law, and is designed to harrass the common citizen serf into kowtowing to the lord and master that controls the execution of the law.

The law enforcers and judges must answer to the people, not be masters over the people. If things keep on the way they have been recently, we may see another american revolution or civil war in the next couple of decades; when/if that happens the elite ruling class will find themselves ruling no one, and having to fend for themselves in the midst of an angry populace. Money and social status means nothing if there is nothing for money to buy. Police and courts mean nothing when no one respects or follows the law, because it has been abused to the breaking point.

The new ruling class will be those that have the goods (food shelter clothing medicines guns ammo) to survive without depending on someone else to provide the basics for them; those without the means to defend themselves will become servants of those with guns, on one side or the other of the conflict.

 

[gezzer]

Theft by JBT no other reasonable answer.

 

[publius]

As I see it, there are two big problems with the forfeiture laws- one is the no proof required part, and the other is that the money goes directly into the local Gov. coffers. I am not positive, but think it goes straight to the police.
Could anyone think of a better way to encourage corruption?

You're close, but it's not quite that bad. It's not "no proof" as opposed to "absolute proof" because that's not how things work. It's a question of how much proof is enough. For "civil" actions like this, the standard is "more likely than not." That is very different from the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." We have criminal asset forfeiture laws, but it is far more profitable and much easier to use the "civil" laws to punish crimes. Though the popularity of this kind of action skyrocketed in the drug war, it has been around for a while.

That gets to your second point on incentives. Yes, in many cases, the seizing agency gets to keep the loot. In some cases, it goes into the general tax fund. More on Policing for Profit.

 

[Diomed]

But we're supposed to give up some of our antiquated civil liberties for some more security! The Wall Street Journal said so, and why would they lie?

By the by, where's the padlock? Someone's losing a step, I think...

 

[Lupinus]

yeah, real easy to work withen the system these days

Kinda hard to work in the system when its the system screwing you over

 

[mike101]

I hardly know where to begin. What was Gonzales actually charged with? Speeding, is a traffic offense. As far as I know, traffic offenses are not grounds for a vehicle search, though it happens all the time. Nor should it be grounds for them to even ask if he had ever been arrested. If he hadn't consented to the search, maybe this wouldn't have happened, but I doubt it. Some LEO's have a way of creating probable cause. This is absolutely Racial Profiling.

A few years ago, there was a piece on American Justice, about a town in Fla. that is notorious for just this sort of thing. A major road between Orlando and Miami passes through this town. The police routinely stop people on the grounds of a "routine check". No speeding, no improper lane changes, nothing. The people they stop tend to be Black, Hispanic, or young and White. The police ask, politely, if they can search the car. When they find nothing, they ask, politely, for you to empty your pockets. If you have a large amount of cash, they confiscate it as "suspected drug money", and then send you on your way, without charging you with anything. These poor idiots just hand the money over, expecting, I assume, that they will be able to get it back eventually. What they don't know is, to get it back, they have to file suit in Federal Court, which, at the time, cost $10,000. If they can't afford the 10 G's, they lose their money. This is how this town was able to afford a brand new 2.5 million dollar Police Station.

One young white kid did not give them permission to search his car. He told them they had no probable cause to search his car. Then, the LEO's politeness vanished. "Don't give me any of that ACLU crap. What do you have to hide?" the officer said, right on camera! Another time they stopped a middle aged black man. He was nicely, but casually dressed, and driving a brand new, loaded pick-up truck. They asked why he had a large amount of cash. He told them he owned a restaurant, and was going to purchase a new oven. They confiscated the money. Well, this guy did own a restaurant, and had the 10 G's to file suit. He got his money back eventually. This incident is what got the story on TV.

When the reporter asked these cops by what cryteria they make these stops, they said something to the effect that they stop people who look like they can't afford the car they are driving. Sounds like heavy-duty profiling to me.

Gonzales comitted no actual crime, and from what I read, was not charged with one. I don't understand how this even qualifies as a civil case, but then, I'm not a lawyer. I hope, for all our sakes, that he wins his appeal.

HQ- he was going to buy "weapons of mass destruction". "one less terrorist on the road". ARE YOU SERIOUS ? I hope not. To be honest, I can't really tell. You did say you agreed with the over-turn. If you are serious, I would say you have spent too much time in the Land of Feinstein. If you are not, my apologies.

 

[publius]

By the by, where's the padlock? Someone's losing a step, I think...

Oops! Forgot to establish gun relevance, and some may not remember...

The power to tax was used to gain regulatory authority over drugs in the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. 20 years later, that precedent was applied to firearms, and we got the NFA.

Since then, the Constitution has grown, as living documents do, and nowadays, the power to regulate guns and drugs comes from the commerce clause. Some things never seem to change, and one of them is gun grabbers following the trails blazed by drug warriors. It just happened again last year, with the Raich and Stewart cases.

The gungrabbers will continue following the trails blazed by drug warriors, and last year there was a proposal in New Jersey to apply civil asset forfeiture laws to gun law violators.

The legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Louis Manzo, D-Jersey City, authorizes the forfeiture of "motor vehicle, building or premise" if a firearm is found in it that is not possessed legally per state law – "even if the firearm was not possessed by the owner of the motor vehicle, building or premise," states a summary of the bill, A3998. The legislation was introduced Thursday.

Manzo pointed out his bill extends government power now reserved for targeting those in possession of illegal drugs.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Part of the problem is that in civil forfieture cases, you don't have even as much in the way of rights as in regular civil cases. Because, don't you see, they're not accusing you of the crime.

They're accusing, and putting on trial, your money. And money, of course, doesn't have any civil rights.

The other problem, of course, is that these are actually criminal cases being called civil cases in order to get the lower standard.

 

[publius]

Someone posted the opinions on Free Republic. I found the cited precedent case titles interesting.

Here are a few:

United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d 496, 501 (8th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413
F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2005)

United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $150,660.00, 980 F.2d 1200, 1206 (8th Cir. 1992)

United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994)

 

[mike101]

NJ Proposal

Publius-Do you know if this abomonaition passed? I thought the PRNJ was beyond surprising me after they passed that mandatory smart gun thing. North Jersey should sink into the Atlantic, or we should give it to New York, or secede and form our own state. I really need to move to PA.

In NJ, the law basically is, if it shoots anything, it's regulated. Black powder guns are considered firearms, you need permits for airguns, handgun permits for air-pistols, slingshots are illegal altogether. I don't think they have gotten around to bows and arrows yet, but I'm sure they will.

Meanwhile, Gay Governors are giving high-paying state jobs to their boyfriends.

I HATE THIS PLACE!!!

 

[joab]

"We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking."

I can see their point somewhat. But what were the other suspicious circumstances?
There were no drugs in the car or the suspect and the car was being legally operated and had not been reported stolen.

The guy's story sounds iffy but where does the constitution say or imply that I have to have a reason for drive across country with all my money.

The job of the police is to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals.
If the investigation reveals no crime then there is no criminal to apprehend.

 

[mzmtg]

I thought I was living the American dream when I got out of school and got a good job and bought a home and all that.

Recently, though, reality has begun to set in.

The only reason I have anything I feel is "my own" is because someone from the government hasn't decided to take it from me yet.

 

[publius]

mikeburk101, I don't know whether it passed, but I don't believe it did, because I haven't heard a thing about it since.

Every place has its faults. Down here, we have giant cockroaches which will fly RIGHT AT YOU, we have hurricanes, and even Janet Reno.

 

[Biker]

I wonder if transporting large amounts of gold or silver is subject to the same set of confiscation rules? Anyone?

Biker

 

[mike101]

Publius

Here we have giant cockroaches ( the two legged variety ), Nor-Easters, and we even have Frank Lautenburg . Wanna trade?

 

[publius]

I don't know. Will Lautenberg fly right at your face while you're trying to swat him?

Biker, it depends on whether the people who get to keep your gold think that it probably was involved in some drug crime for which no one has been charged. If the answer is yes, you lose.

 

[Phetro]

I thought I was living the American dream when I got out of school and got a good job and bought a home and all that.

Recently, though, reality has begun to set in.

The only reason I have anything I feel is "my own" is because someone from the government hasn't decided to take it from me yet.

It's true--this is what America has degraded into. I also once thought I had found the American Dream. Later I realized that the Founding Fathers had the Dream, and that the country had awakened to the horrible reality: government cannot be trusted with anything.

 

[Cosmoline]

This is a justice system so corrupt it will justify any theoretical excuse to take money for its own benefit. You have to question whether or not the police and courts are just another gang, stealing money and demanding protection tribute like the mob. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. The vaunted war on drugs has become an excuse for various governmental entities to take a cut of money from the dealers. Whether it comes in the form of overt bribes or through civil forfeiture based on "acting funny" the end result is the same. Local, state and federal governments need the drug trade, and wouldn't shut it down even if they could.

I wonder if transporting large amounts of gold or silver is subject to the same set of confiscation rules? Anyone?

There are no rules. They take what they want. If you have enough gold they'll argue you must have stolen it or mined it illegally from public lands. If they can't do that they'll zing you with tax laws.

 

[gezzer]

How does a Cop taking YOUR money be a civil case? Civil rights case more than anything. Money stolen at the point of a gun by a cop is NO differant than by a crook.

But then look at all the goodies and overtime it gives the cop for seizng it. It makes me sick that cops can realy belive this is right.

 

[TallPine]

You have to question whether or not the police and courts are just another gang, stealing money and demanding protection tribute like the mob.

I don't think there is any question about it anymore ...

 

[Harley Quinn]

I am not sure about cops.

But those three judges seemed to think it is ok. They are the ones who overturned it.

HQ

 

[tyme]

If you are dealing in narcotics, you should loose your house, car, dog, etc

Hmm... or if you are dealing alcohol or nicotine-laced products, you should lose your house, car, dog, etc.

Stop picking on narcotics just because they're illegal. If you're gripe is with mind-altering, physically- or psychologically-addictive substances that destroy lives, at least have the honesty to include alcohol.