US Marshalls proposed asset forfeiture surpasses even the Nazis

[orangeninja]

Heck, I have no problem with removing them. Give me some pliers, I'll be the Nazi.

 

[3rdpig]

Those of us who do favor less government and more civil liberties would really appreciate it if the word "Nazi" was reserved for those few occasions were it actually captured the horror of the systematic extermination of entire races as policy. Pretty soon they will do something worthy of the word "Nazi" and nobody will even blink when you point it out because the power of the word will have been defused by its frequent and erroneous use.

Too late, it has already lost it's meaning to most under 30 thanks to the constant misuse. To most now it means "harsh" or "extreme". Everyone needs to take a look at the pics from Auschwitz to remember what the word really means. But since images like that traumitize the frail minds of our children they'll never see them in school. Along with other dangerous images, like Nick Berg getting his head cut off and the Twin Towers falling, they are just too disturbing to view, they could damage young minds.

We mangle the language and change the meaning of words, then we cower and run from the images that would remind us of exactly what the true meaning of the words are.

I feel we have a long and hard road to travel before we learn the lesson we will eventually have to learn to survive.

 

[orangeninja]

I'm not going to get involved, but I recommend everyone thinking that this is really Nazi like read a book called "Holocaust" by Mike Jacobs. It will give you a little perspective on this word "Nazi" that everyone seems to like to banter about in this board so freely.


Free thy caged ignorance....seek to be educated.

 

[antarti]

Those of you who thought this was comparable to Nazi Germany...could you point me to the part in Nazi history where your state-appointed defense lawyer gets to go the court and get an order defying the will of the state?

If removing and confiscating gold teeth is "the will of the state", then you have answered your own question, and need nothing further from me.

I started the thread. I never used the word "holocaust". I never implied that the teeth were slated to be transferred to a Swiss bank. I used "Nazi" because I was quoting the defense lawyer, and I think his quote was appropos given the circumstances.

This is not Nazi Germany... don't we expect better juddgement than this from the US Marshalls?

Quite frankly, I believe the State yanking somebody's teeth as "assets" is pretty darn fascist, if not outright "Nazi" behavior. I am (at least) pretty certain there is little "American" about it. IMHO the term "Nazi" for this behavior, is not out-of-bounds. It does remind one of a certain failed National Socialist dictatorship, no matter how you choose to spin it.

Is the argument that since it was done for money that it's Capitalist? Or that since our government is a Republic that it must be good?

I am also pretty certain that my (unfortunate or not) parroting the lawyers choice of words is far less harmful to the collective psyche of millions of people than the actual mindset and resulting actions of the arresting Marshalls will be to more Americans.

I've never felt even a twinge of "sorry" for drug dealers or their lawyers. This actually made me glad for them that a judge ruled anything in their behalf. Sad, isn't it?

If the boot fits, wear it.

 

[JohnBT]

"don't we expect better juddgement than this from the US Marshalls?"

Everybody makes a mistake now and then. That's why we have all these ckecks and balances. Perfection is only a goal to strive for, don't expect to attain it.

John

 

[riverdog]

In a Nazi state, the judge would not have become involved at all -- neither would the dentist have been necessary. Just three or four guys and a good set of pliers and "there you go, that didn't hurt much did it". Hell, if the guy fought too much a concussion from falling down some stairs or tripping into a wall would have quieted him down.

What happened in this non-event cannot be considered in the same league as what happened under the Nazis -- not even close. Anyone making the comparison needs to watch the History Channel.

 

[DesertRat]

I don't have alot of sympathy for these maggots. What about when drug dealers steal the souls of innocent youngsters who get hooked on their junk? Or what about when they execute others over deals gone wrong, greed, etc?

OTOH, I wouldn't waste the gov't. time / money on retrieving those things either because what is it really worth once its been pulled. I mean really - who's going to want to reuse that stuff for jewelry or anything else for that matter once they know where its been.

 

[WvaBill]

"It sounds like Nazi Germany when they were removing the gold teeth from the bodies, but at least then they waited until they were dead."

I don't think the Nazis "waited" until they were dead, but killed them before stripping fillings.

 

[armedandsafe]

"Learn something new every day."

I have learned today that the Nazis were soooooo evil that anything done in the United States of America is acceptable practice. :banghead:

Pops

 

[MillCreek]

I have always thought it remarkable that when you consider 20th Century murderous dictators, Stalin and Mao rank right up there with Hitler, or on a per-capita basis, Pol Pot. It is curious that people rarely, if ever, refer to 'Stalin's Soviet Union', 'Mao's China' or 'Pol Pot's Cambodia' to make the same sort of comparison as by using Nazi Germany. I am sure there must be some sort of fascinating sociological explanation for this.

 

[antarti]

I don't have alot of sympathy for these maggots. What about when drug dealers steal the souls of innocent youngsters who get hooked on their junk? Or what about when they execute others over deals gone wrong, greed, etc?

I agree 100%. I expect thuggish behavior from somebody who would have no ethical trouble peddling poison to kids. I am happy when they are arrested and get whatever a jury decides.

I am not, however, expecting that somebody arrested for a crime be sent to a dentist to have any silver/gold dental work yanked out as part of an "asset forfeiture", only to pad the account of the arresting agency.

There is "innocent until proven guilty" (due process). How will this person (if its a bad arrest) be "made whole" (pardon the pun) afterward? Returning the teeth with the dead roots hanging out doesn't exactly strike me as an apology. Not everybody arrested is guilty...

In fact, you have to wonder at the mind that even thought to do this, given the parallels with the last people who did.

Perp? Got 'im!
Car? check!
House? check!
Wad o cash? check!
Frozen all his accounts yet? check!

Pulled his gold toofs yet? <== huh? How did we (collectively) get here from there?

If they can do it to one they can/will do it to others.

Free thy caged ignorance....seek to be educated.

I agree.

Don't like the choice of words, fine. Offer an alternative, or what you feel is "acceptable" or appropos. If you think "Fascist" or "SS-like" or "National Socialist Goon Squad with little mustaches" is better, suggest it.

You read "I Shall Bear Witness" and other first hand accounts to help free yourself. The Nazi's didn't turn Germany upside down in an afternoon and execute millions by nightfall. There was plenty of incrementalism over there too, all the while many "pooh poo'ed" it as "not applying to xxxx(me)".

Enough French Jews (appointed police in France) were apparently unconcerned or uninformed enough to put their brothers on trains bound for Germany, where the worst was waiting for them. Many, and in many countries, Germany included,were fooled into inaction or denial, even up until their last moments.

Let's keep our eyes open here, so we don't end up on the same "fast track to Fascism" the Germans did. Critiquing messenger's English won't stop the delivery.

Everybody makes a mistake now and then. That's why we have all these ckecks and balances. Perfection is only a goal to strive for, don't expect to attain it.

You make a good point. Which is why some superior for these Marshalls should be yelling hard questions like "Just what the h@|| did you guys think you were doing? Extracting his d@^n teeth? Are you nuts? Didn't the Nazi's do that? The press, lawyers, and taxpayers are going to have a @!%$#^ field day with that!" about 1" from the ears of the officers involved.

In your first post you said the "system worked". I respectfully disagree, if it worked the spokeswoman would have said something like "these officers are on leave and under investigation for attempting to have the suspects teeth removed". If the judge were busy fooling around with the court reporter/secretary or playing golf... it would have turned out differently.

 

[antarti]

I am sure there must be some sort of fascinating sociological explanation for this.

It is a matter of our sociology, but not in the way you think.

That's because there is a difference. If we had central planning and control of the means of production (along with a police state) then I would use the "Socio/Commun-ism" pejorative.

Since we have a government content on private ownership of the means of production, but with large government oversight and regulation by government (along with an increasing police state)... well, there you have it.

 

[Crosshair]

I don't think the Nazis "waited" until they were dead, but killed them before stripping fillings.

At least they took the time to kill them before stripping the gold teeth. A truly twisted person like Saddam would do it while they where still alive. Hitler wanted the jews dead. Saddam killed his enemies as well, but generaly made it a very painfull ordeal. Of all the ways governments have killed their own people, the Nazi Gas chamber has to be the most "Humaine", if such a term can be used to describe such evil.

/Sorry if I offend

 

[Erebus]

What I don't understand about this confiscation of the teeth is, on what grounds are they taking the teeth?

I can understand taking away the drugs and a vehicle that was used to transport the drugs. And I can understand confiscating any cash that was OBSERVED to be used by officers in the commission of a drug transaction. As in the LEOs have to see the cash change hands in the commission of a drug transaction to seize it. Just cause someone has lots of cash on them doesn't mean it is drug money as is frequently done by default. And innocent until proven guilty should stand in that case.

Now if they seize the cash as evidence then let the jury decide if it's drug money or not that's fine in my eyes as the drug dealers should not be allowed to retain possession of ill gotten gains. But I want a jury of their peers to rule if there is sufficient evidence that it was ill gotten or not. I can't understand how the Law Enforcement Organizations just assume it's drug money and immediately take possession and ownership of large sums of cash that were found in drug busts.

And I don't see how the teeth had anything to do with the drugs or the transaction.

If they had one of those removable ones and they had drugs stashed in it that would be diffrent.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have learned today that the Nazis were soooooo evil that anything done in the United States of America is acceptable practice.

Sounds like you should spend tomorrow learning reading comprehension then because nobody has said that..

 

[Lucky]

I read a lot of intelligent stuff in this thread, makes one think. I think they knew the fillings were permanent, too, or else they'd not need a dentist.

In regards to the Nazi comparisons I'd like to interject that what the Nazi's did was, for the most part, very legal. There's a movie based on the actual dictations made from a meeting where the 'final solution' was put together, in a couple hours at a mansion, the movie is called 'Conspiracy'. The guy who crafted the laws against the Jews says at one point something like, "I'm not arguing we shouldn't do it, just that we should do it within the framework of the law." It should be required viewing, it's eye-opening, all too believable, it's the ultimate argument of why we citizens should have laws against gov't, not vice versa. When you watch this movie you will see, word for word (translated) how something like that can happen, in real time.

What the Nazis did to the Jews WAS LEGAL. I just think people should remember that point.

The Reich Citizenship Laws
German Blood Certificates
The Nazi Nuremberg Laws

All those are readily available on Wikipedia.

So, my point I felt somebody had to say but most of you all already know, is that a law is just a law, a tool, like a gun is. Laws can be used for good or bad, just like guns. If you saw every person with a gun and assumed they must be good, people would think you were crazy. The same goes for laws.

So when someone is jailed for selling something to someone else, and neither one of them is unhappy with the transaction, and you violate them, maybe even their families, because they're 'criminals', look at how many minutes it can take to go from criminalization to mass execution. Seems to take about 96.

 

[SAG0282]

Those of you who thought this was comparable to Nazi Germany...could you point me to the part in Nazi history where your state-appointed defense lawyer gets to go the court and get an order defying the will of the state?

Those of us who do favor less government and more civil liberties would really appreciate it if the word "Nazi" was reserved for those few occasions were it actually captured the horror of the systematic extermination of entire races as policy. Pretty soon they will do something worthy of the word "Nazi" and nobody will even blink when you point it out because the power of the word will have been defused by its frequent and erroneous use.

Couldn't agree more. It's pretty clear that the prosecution had the wrong idea and thought that these were easily removed, flashy accessories bought by indulgent rich people. Heck, I'm in the prime 18-24 year old MTV generation and I'm not familiar at all with them short of knowing in a VERY general sense about them. Based on the article and prices quoted, we can agree that their substantial value is relevant to the charges and state's case. So the attorney goes and files a motion and things change. I particularly agree with this above-quoted when it comes to the use of "Nazi".....it's constant use is marginalizing the gravity of their historic crimes against humanity. Nowadays everyone from Bush to the gentle old parking enforcement officer who left a ticket on your illegally parked Camry is a damn Nazi.

 

[publius]

America: A guy makes money selling drugs to kids,gets caught goes to jail assets siezed, has gold tooth replaced with composite.

Uh, how it really goes is:

America: A guy allegedly makes money selling drugs to someone, gets accused of the crime, his assets are presumed guilty and seized, he might or might not ever get convicted, but it doesn't matter because the government has the loot.

Here you go: educate yourself on the abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws and how it leads to policing for profit.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they knew the fillings were permanent, too, or else they'd not need a dentist.

Actually, there are removable gold caps on the market, that ARE just jewlrey, but you can't tell the difference without trying to remove them. And that's the sort of thing they WOULD leave up to a dentist to determine. One hopes that the dentist would have balked once he found they were permanent...

I wonder who was going to pay the dentist's bill?

The real outrage, that we'd be literally up in arms about if we hadn't been gradually aquainted with the idea, is the forfieture itself. It's based on the legal fiction that it's the thing being seized, and not the person who it's being taken from that's the guilty party.

Fictions you know are fictions, and treat as truth, are more properly termed "lies". Our legal system is using "lies" to violate the rights of people who are accused of crimes, and who might never even be convicted. THAT is the outrage.

 

[JohnBT]

"I think they knew the fillings were permanent, too, or else they'd not need a dentist."

I had braces as a kid 40+ years ago. The bands were cemented on and then wired together. They weren't permanent, but they weren't removable either, and it took a dentist to get them off and then chip the cement away.

At this point I don't know if these guys had cemented grills or cemented caps, but at $2k or $3k and up each depending on the amount of gold, platinum and diamonds involved, I can see why they tried to seize them.

Ever notice how fast a thread goes downhill after the first mention of Hitler or Nazis?

John

 

[ravinraven]

Stealing is stealing is stealing...

...is stealing is stealing and it goes on.

The "asset forfeiture before trial and no matter the outcome, guilty or not is just another excuse for the gov't to steal. Any one who takes any part in one of these operations is an AINO. [American In Name Only] That person has no pride and no guts. If such a person had guts, he/she would get into organized crime where at least they break the laws, but leave them intact. These low lifes who join "legalized crime" syndicates corrupt the very fabric of America. They are the enemies of liberty and should be shunned. They should have signs pointing to their houses. "Legalize crime pervert lives here," and such. There should be a web site with the dossiers of these low down creeps splashed around it. I could go on, but there are no real Americans who haven't already covered this ground at least in their own realization of our situation. The GASP is at work. The Great American Suicide Plan.

rr

 

[Pork Fat]

Mouth jewelry

You wouldn't let them wear their Rolexes in jail to await trial. Or their huge gold chains. If these are removable, let them await the outcome in a property envelope. If they are not removable, a bigger prisoner will find a way.

I'm sure these lads bought the jewel encrusted monstrosities with tips from the car wash, and income tax records will prove their legitimate lavish lifestyle is honest and pure.

Asset forfeiture is not a creation of the war on drugs, but of federal anti-racketeering legislation originally used against organized crime. Both the federal and state government versions of these have been abused. The intention was to make the punishment fit the crime, and make ill-gotten gains unavailable to the hoods when they got out of prison. Sort of a reverse incentive program. When it happens to Tony Soprano we don't cry about it on THR.

But the system requires a lot of oversight, checks and balances. I just want real dirtbags to pay taxes, in whatever form, just like I have to.

 

[ctdonath]

Ever notice how fast a thread goes downhill after the first mention of Hitler or Nazis?

The phenomenon is as old as the Internet, and has a name: Godwin's Law. From Wikipedia:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made the thread in which the comment was posted is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

This thread was dead on the first post.

 

[publius]

Asset forfeiture is not a creation of the war on drugs, but of federal anti-racketeering legislation originally used against organized crime. Both the federal and state government versions of these have been abused. The intention was to make the punishment fit the crime, and make ill-gotten gains unavailable to the hoods when they got out of prison. Sort of a reverse incentive program. When it happens to Tony Soprano we don't cry about it on THR.

But the system requires a lot of oversight, checks and balances. I just want real dirtbags to pay taxes, in whatever form, just like I have to.

It may not be a creation of the WOD, but it sure seems to fund it, and the most flagrant abuses always seem centered around drugs.

The intention was to lower the burden of proof, and make ill-gotten gains available to the seizing agency, not that there's a conflict of interest problem with that or anything...

We have a system with oversight, checks and balances, which can be used against real dirtbags. It's called criminal asset forfeiture, and all it requires is a conviction.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

You wouldn't let them wear their Rolexes in jail to await trial. Or their huge gold chains.

Of course I would. What possible excuse could there be for NOT letting them keep their property, when they're just suspected of being criminals?

I'm sure these lads bought the jewel encrusted monstrosities with tips from the car wash, and income tax records will prove their legitimate lavish lifestyle is honest and pure.

Maybe they did, and maybe they didn't, but until they've been tried and convicted, that's the presumption they're entitled to from the law. We've got a system for determining whether or not people are guilty, and the government shouldn't be punishing people by seizing their property without having used that system first.

By your reasoning, the police could just stroll down the street, and any time they saw somebody who looked like they shouldn't be able to afford their jewery or nice car, take it away from them, and then dare them to prove they'd come by it legally.

Civil forfieture stands the presumption of innocence right on it's head. It's based on the presumption of guilt, which they will let you try to rebut, if you can afford to do so after having all your assets seized. And can find a lawyer who thinks it's even worth trying. It's an abomination in a free society, but the longer we tolerate it, and other practices like it, the less free this society will become.