US Marshalls proposed asset forfeiture surpasses even the Nazis

Status
Not open for further replies.
(Godwin's Law & Correlary aside...the point must be re-iterated...)

There is a HUGE difference between siezing a criminal's assets (even if glued to his teeth), vs. taking every conceivable asset from genocide victims. :cuss:

Asset forfieture (sp?) laws in the US are insane. That police can take one's assets, especially ones unrelated to the transgression in question, prior to a guilty verdict is unacceptable; that charges can be brought against inanimate objects independent of the owner thereof is downright insane. That such behavior can be considered acceptable and reasonable is a sign of diseased minds.

As bad as such laws are, they in no way measure up to the "Nazi" label. The criminal in question was able to call a lawyer, go to court, get a verdict in his favor, and continue to enjoy his adorned teeth. Had the "Nazi" label applied, there would be no lawyer, there would be no court, the verdict to his objection would be "shut up" shortly followed by a bullet, and the gold on his teeth would be chiseled out of his decomposing head.

There's also a difference between gold fillings as a medical necessity vs. jewelry glued to teeth.
 
John, I wore braces too a long time ago (before the transparent/modern ones)... I would hope that if I were arrested (which I never have been) for something, they wouldn't be yanked/drilled/busted out, or even expertly removed by dentist before getting a fair trial.

What you and I (and others with dental fixtures) think is irrelevant though, at least compared to a famous somebody else who had false teeth, and lived long before the 4-letter N-word folks.

George Washington had some removable teeth made of ivory and precious metal (no, they weren't WOOD like I was told in school). His were easily removable... and probably worth far more than this thugs, both today and then.

How do you think he would feel about this?

I'd wager if we could dig him up, his opinion wouldn't be favorable. Isn't what he would think more relevant? Or am I the only one who believes he would object?
 
As bad as such laws are, they in no way measure up to the "Nazi" label. The criminal in question was able to call a lawyer, go to court, get a verdict in his favor, and continue to enjoy his adorned teeth. Had the "Nazi" label applied, there would be no lawyer, there would be no court, the verdict to his objection would be "shut up" shortly followed by a bullet, and the gold on his teeth would be chiseled out of his decomposing head.

And none of what you say has anything to do with the behavior of the arresting officers. It was the system and individuals around them that prevented this, not some question of conscience on the officers' part. If you will look at the thread title, and read the article, it does not say "We live in a Nazi USA". It compares the actions of a few to the actions of many long ago. Period.

It compares the behavior of the arresting officers to Nazi's. It does not compare the lawyer, perp, judge, or country-at-large to Nazi Germany.

I submit their behavior is (at the very least) indeed reminiscent of what was done by Nazis. The quotes may be from a grandstanding lawyer, but he is only responding to what the Marshalls did, which is a far cry from actually attempting to seize somebody's teeth without due process.
 
Just to keep it gun-related, does everyone recall that it was recently proposed that this drug war precedent, like many others before it, be applied to guns?

Bill: Seize homes that contain 'illegal' guns

New Jersey lawmaker wants buildings, cars taken if firearms not permitted

Posted: May 10, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A New Jersey state assemblyman has introduced a bill that would allow the government to seize the home or car of anyone whose property contains an illegal firearm.

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.

"If we will do this when someone is caught with illegal drugs, it only makes sense that we should do it for when someone has an illegal weapon," Manzo told the Hudson Reporter.

"We currently allow this to take place when illegal drugs are found. This is to keep a landlord or someone driving the car from turning a blind eye to the drugs people in an apartment or passenger in the car is doing," he said. "I think if a landlord knows there is an illegal gun in the house, he or she should do something about it. And this may encourage someone driving a car to keep a person from carrying a gun."

Under the proposed law, an unlicensed machine gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun are considered illegal.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, slammed the proposal.

"It looks like [Manzo] is going to have a go at the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment," said Pratt, referring to constitutional rights involving firearms and private property. "Way to go – a 'two-fer'!"

Pratt told WND police skullduggery could cause law-abiding citizens to lose their property.

"So if an officer plants a gun in your home, you lose your house," he said. "It's the same drill they've been using in the war against drugs. Now they want to use the same tactics against people who have a gun for self-defense."

Of the bill, Pratt stated, "I hope it's going nowhere, but you never know with New Jersey."

Manzo compared the cost of his proposal to a current gun buyback program.

"This is one more tool that law enforcement can use in an effort to do away with illegal weapons," he told the Hudson Reporter. "Unlike the buyback program, this doesn't cost the taxpayers money to get rid of illegal guns."
 
And none of what you say has anything to do with the behavior of the arresting officers.
Yes it did: that the arrestee was able to push back against would-be overaggressive police, get his day in court, and keep his dental decorations. They didn't just shoot him when he resisted - which was the Nazi way.
It compares the behavior of the arresting officers to Nazi's.
The objection of some here is that the comparason is too strained. In no way do we support or justify what they did. To liken such behavior to that of Nazis is to demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the latter, and to trivialize the Holocaust.

Too many make "reminiscent" references in a manner that trivialize.
 
THis is a case that shows how easy it is for anyone, including the people here, to twist what actually happened. They were not trying to remove their teeth. They were trying to remove jewelry. Just like they do with every person that is arrested. You don't leave personal items with the people when they are incarcerated. You take off chains, rings, etc. In this case they thought it was just another piece of jewelry, albeit some that was difficult to remove.

Of course to read what you all are saying they already had a pair of pliers in these punks mouths trying to pry the grills out. THis is not the case at all. They were taking them to a dentist to have them popped out. The lawyer went to a Judge and said they could not be just easily popped out like that, the judge told the Police to stop and the Police did just that.

Sounds like the system worked just fine and any analogy to the Nazi's is just people trying to stir stuff up. Definitely not THR attitude.
 
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.

Apparently, you're not very familiar with the application of modern search and seizure laws. It is legal for a federal agency (state and local law vary) to seize various property (often cash) without any charges.

http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/

Specifically http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/07federalforfeiture/index.htm

Administrative forfeiture is an in rem action that permits the federal seizing agency to forfeit the property without judicial involvement. The authority for a seizing agency to start an administrative forfeiture action is found in the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1607. Property that can be administratively forfeited is: merchandise the importation of which is prohibited; a conveyance used to import, transport, or store a controlled substance; a monetary instrument; or other property that does not exceed $500,000 in value.

Source: A Guide to Equitable Sharing of Federally Forfeited Property for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, U.S. Department of Justice, March 1994.

Some various stories on search and seizure.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/517.asp

Interestingly meantions Virginia has seized 6,450 automobiles

http://www.uspcak9.com/training/introsearchandseizure.shtml

Police guide to K9 search and seizure

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/t...&en=32b386c595a19305&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Federales seized $3.2 million from the Discovery Channel for displaying advertisements of legal activity (offshore casino, fully licensed and legal in Costa Rica)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a392947cb365d.htm

An interesting article about various state and local police evading state law on S&S by calling the federales so the police get a cut instead of the money going to the state mandated fund.

Interesting quote :

The Justice Department says that from October 1996 through March 1999 it accepted $208,454,000 in seizures from state and local police.

But that figure is still being audited because the Justice Department has not published an annual forfeiture report since 1996, although the law requires the report to be produced each year.

Gee, seems pretty clear cut. If the law says "Tell Congress how much money you seize", and the DOJ doesn't... Heh. Who do you call to have the DOJ arrested? :neener:

A quick Google or yahoo search will turn up as many horror stories as you want to read.


Sorry, Brett, but indeed the police can and do seize property without conviction. Usually the bar is "probable cause". But the trick is, they arrest the cash, car or whatever. Obviously, property doesn't have the same legal rights as it's not a person, so property can be arrested without due process. (I swear, I'm not making this up, I sincerely wish I was.) You indeed have to sue as a third party on behalf of the object(s) to get them back. Estimates vary, but I've heard estimates of an average of 10 grand to get your property back. Of course, the sky is the limit.

It's immoral as high hell. It's un-Constitutional and just plain wrong to anyone with any sense. But it is a legal activity, just like the Nazis ripping the gold teeth out of genocide victims.

Remember something, "drug suspects", they were not convicted of jack before the govt tried to rip out their dental work. No, the govt wanting to rip the dental work out of the skull of a live suspect is not as morally wrong as the Nazis ripping dental work out of the skull of a victim after they killed them. But neither activity is right either.
 
"Sounds like the system worked just fine. . ."


"In other words, the War on Drugs is working just fine?"

No, the ability to go before a judge and get something overturned or stopped.
Do me a favor and go twist somebody else's words.

John
 
They were trying to remove jewelry. Just like they do with every person that is arrested.
No, not like every arrest. If I am arrested for a property crime, they would indeed take my stuff before putting me in a cell. Thing is, they'd put that stuff in an envelope for me, and I'd get it back on my way out. If I am arrested for a drug crime, then my stuff becomes the property of the seizing agency, and I'm unlikely to ever get it back.

This makes it rather profitable for agencies to suspect people of drug involvement, much more profitable than actually convicting them, which might explain why, in 80% of federal forfeiture cases, no criminal charges are ever filed.
 
When will the drug war end? I'd like my country back. I mean come on now. Wasn't LEOs shaking down "negros" a relic of the early 20th to early '60s era.

This is just rediculous. Pulling the gold out of a man's mouth?

Next thing you know the police will just break into peoples homes in the middle of the night and take them off to pri....

I would continue but my language would not be very High Roadish
 
Twisting the intent of somebody's statement into some ludicrous example does not at all help rational discussion.

My question goes to the heart of the issue: whether the system -- the repeated interplay between lawyers, judges, law enforcement, and gangbangers -- is truly working in the 35-year War on Drugs? It just so happens that this thread discusses one of the tools of the War on Drugs: asset forfeiture. Are we going to continue to defend asset forfeiture and its slippery slope toward further erosion of the Bill of Rights because some on this thread take offense when questioned whether this system is working?
 
Just a Matter of Time...

Whether the US gets the teeth or Bubba the cell-mate gets 'em. Just a matter of time, not principle.

All these chins quivering in righteous indignation...

Buddy
 
Apparently, you're not very familiar with the application of modern search and seizure laws. It is legal for a federal agency (state and local law vary) to seize various property (often cash) without any charges.

Sez who I'm not familiar with it? I'm well aware such actions are legal. Indeed, that is what's so outrageous about the situation, that this sort of pre-trial and without-trial punishment aren't the actions of a few loose cannons, they're SOP.

That this sort of thing is perfectly legal IS the outrage.
 
Sez who I'm not familiar with it? I'm well aware such actions are legal. Indeed, that is what's so outrageous about the situation, that this sort of pre-trial and without-trial punishment aren't the actions of a few loose cannons, they're SOP.

That this sort of thing is perfectly legal IS the outrage.

My apologies, I phrased it kinda badly. I wasn't trying to sound uhm, belligerant. Moreso resigned sarcasm at how messed up the situation has become.

It's legalized theft that is vastly underaccounted. The DoJ refuses to release accurate numbers on how much stuff was seized, and for what 'crimes' said stuff was seized. (A joke, one estimate said 80% of the cases, no charges were filed. DoJ refuses to publish the numbers.) Asset seizure has been become much more widely applied than just obvious drug dealers, over 200 different statutes and counting. That's merely on a federal level.

That is indeed the scary aspect. There is no courts involved. Heck, according to those that can pry the numbers out of the DoJ, as high as 80% of the cases don't involve charges against the property owner. Little to no accountability, ugh. It's a mess. It's even more amusing in many cases, the states have tried to curb the abuse. Many police agencies simply ignore their state laws, and turn it over to the federales. The federales ignore the state laws dictating handling of asset seizure, and give a cut of the money back to the police agencies directly.

The lovely part? It's only gonna get worse from here.


Another good intro to 'asset forfeiture' : http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/
 
The objection of some here is that the comparason is too strained.

Observed and noted.

In no way do we support or justify what they did.

Glad to hear it.

To liken such behavior to that of Nazis is to demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the latter, and to trivialize the Holocaust.

Too many make "reminiscent" references in a manner that trivialize.

First, I am not one to deny or trivialize the holocaust. I can tell you not to bother looking for some statement on my behalf that it was historic revisionism, because I never made such an idiotic statement in my life, whether in print or voice.

This thread was not about 2 men having their teeth pulled being equivalent to the holocaust. That particular comparison is one that others have imported into the thread, not me.

Second, if I were in denial of or trivializing it, why would I be concerned about behavior reminiscent of those who committed it, in my own country?

Wouldn't a simple "bah, that's crap" be more in line with what you suggest?

The holocaust is well-recorded history. I am, however, someone who would prefer that such events stayed in the past, and were discussed forever in the singular, not as the holocausts 50/20/10/5 years from now.

When something that smells like Nazism rears its ugly head, I am not going to go burying mine.
 
Good grief, the only reason the holocaust is refered to in the singular is effective PR; Genocides are regrettably common, even on a higher per-capita basis than in Nazi Germany.

There are one or two being perpetrated in Africa right now, with the world doing all it can to avoid noticing.

As it happens, though, I agree with Antarti: It would be silly to compare asset forfeiture to the Holocaust, but it's not silly to compare police who'd send a suspect to a dentist to get gold caps yanked, to Nazis. And people who see no problem with it to good Germans.

There are strong elements in our government and society pushing us down the path of Nazi Germany, and if we're not there yet, that's no guarantee that we won't GET there. Refusing to see the parallels because the Holocaust was some kind of singular event that can't have any relevance to American society is just another way of greasing the rails.

BTW, Godwin's law was just an observation, the uses to which it's put, to stifle debate, are something else again.
 
Good Grief

First they came for the drug dealers,
Then they came for the rapists,
Then they came for the international terrorists,
Then they came for the money launderers,
They they came for the felons...

Where will it stop?

Buddy
 
First they came for the drug dealers,
Then they came for the rapists,
Then they came for the international terrorists,
Then they came for the money launderers,
They they came for the felons...

Where will it stop?

Buddy

Maybe at your front porch...then again, maybe not.
 
Bless me THR, for I have sinned. I once seized assets of drug dealers when I was a prosecutor. I seized cash, cars, guns, computers, night-vision gear, video equipment, a gas grill, a riding mower, and two houses. And, though I sinned in this way, I slept at night, and was proud of what I did. I didn't realize that I was stomping upon the Constitution when I looked at two guys, one an illegal alien, neither of whom had gainful employment, who had purchased 12 cars, dozens of firearms, electronics, etc. How dare I call these two drug dealers when we seized almost a kilo of meth from their home, along with manufacturing equipment and base chemicals. How dare I consider their statements in which both admitted to smuggling this meth in from Mexico, trucking it into Ohio, and then remanufacturing it for greater profit, to increase what they had. How dare I take their assets, which they admitted were purchased with drug money, have them sold, and use the money for the Police Athletic League. How dare I comply with the law and provide a quarter of the money to a drug treatment program. How dare I allow law enforcement to keep the night vision, the video surveillance gear, and the four cut down Remington 870 shotguns (14 inch barrels).

You know, the forfeiture laws actually require the State to prove that the money used to purchase the items was the direct proceeds of illegal activity. It's not like a cop calls a prosecutor because he saw Johnny, a reputed drug dealer, driving a Porsche, and you go get it. You need actual evidence. Amazingly enough, evidence does not mean "Johhny has a Porsche. Johnny is claimed to be a drug dealer. Johnny has no legal job." Hell, a lot of times, it is easier to prove them guilty than to prove the assets were illegally obtained. But, as someone who actually spoke with these dopers, the loss of money/assets means more than prison time. So, it was worth pursuing, because it hurt the guys higher up the chain. Why? The two guys I mentioned were fronted the meth, and had to pay $500,000 to the guy in Mexico by a certain date. Putting these two in jail wouldn't have meant anything to the guy in Mexico. taking away all of the stuff means the guy in Mexico doesn't get his money, so maybe he won't send his stuff back hee next time.

Sorry, I'm not going to be saying any mea culpas for this one. And, if teh AUSA thought he could get $10,000 wirth of gold and jewels from drug dealers, rather than let them wear it in their mouths, so be it. Personally, I'd have let them wear it at trial. THem sitting in front of a jury with a mouth full of gold and jewels...res ipsa loquitor.
 
It would be silly to compare asset forfeiture to the Holocaust, but it's not silly to compare police who'd send a suspect to a dentist to get gold caps yanked, to Nazis. And people who see no problem with it to good Germans.

Good reading comprehension should be appreciated, as it's getting rare. Thanks.

Godwin's law was just an observation, the uses to which it's put, to stifle debate, are something else again.

+1

Personally, I'd have let them wear it at trial. THem sitting in front of a jury with a mouth full of gold and jewels

Not an easy thing to hide from the jury, I'd imagine.

I'd think the jury would be set aback by the prosecutor showing them a jar of bloody teeth and telling them "Look! We had a dentist extract THESE from their mouths right after we arrested 'em too!". Then again, I'm no expert in such matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top