Civil asset forfeiture will die - Page 3

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Civil asset forfeiture will die (Page 3 of 5)

Posted: 4/21/2017 2:49:06 PM EDT

[#1]

Another bastard child of the war on drugs, civil asset forfeiture needs to be taken out back and shot already.

Posted: 4/21/2017 2:52:10 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:

I should clarify, I do NOT support asset forfeiture without a conviction showing the items were gained through the criminal enterprise.

View Quote

+1

Posted: 4/21/2017 3:15:39 PM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
Weird, who will claim the 10's of thousands of dollars in cash that the two unemployed males with past priors for dealing/trafficking, in an overdue 3rd party rental on the interstate headed west on my next traffic stop? They never seem to want to claim it. Do we just leave it on the side or the road?

View Quote

In a free country there is no need to claim it or not. It is none of your business where the money came from without evidence of a crime. If you find drugs or something else illegal, by all means seize the money as evidence and keep it after a CONVICTION.

Posted: 4/21/2017 3:16:51 PM EDT

[#4]

Good. Asset forfeiture is theft, pure and simple

Posted: 4/21/2017 3:51:15 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
Forfeiture in this context is an in rem action (the defendant is a thing rather than a person).

The action is brought by a government based on a claim that the res (thing sued over) is contraband because it is (a) inherently contraband (such as cocaine); (b) fruit of a crime (e.g., drug money or things bought with drug money); or (c) an instrumentality of a crime (e.g., a boat used to haul cocaine). "Contraband" is property to which no private person may have lawful title.

To prevail in a forfeiture action, the government must prove that the res is contraband. In Florida (and federally, I believe) this burden must be met by "Probable Cause" which is legalese for "not much." If the government proves by probable cause that the res is contraband, title to the res vests in the government and may be retained or transferred by the government to another party.

Suppose that Snorty McCaine has three convictions for sale of cocaine and one for possession of a kilo of coke on a 25' speedboat. One night the Marine Patrol stops a 40' speed boat for making a wake in a no-wake zone. The occupants of the boat all debark rapidly and swim to shore, evading the Marine Patrol. On the abandoned boat, the Marine Patrolmen find 25 kilos of cocaine and $300,000.00. They also find that the boat is owned by Snorty McCaine, free of any liens and verified by the hull number. The vessel has not been reported stolen or missing.

1. Should Snorty get the boat back? The money? The cocaine?

2. If the government wants the boat, the dope, and the money, should it have to prove that Snorty knew about the apparent illicit activity?

3. If the government wants the boat, the dope, and the money, should it have to prove that Snorty knew about the apparent illicit activity by the same standard of proof that would be required to send Snorty to prison for Life for cocaine trafficking?

4. If the answer to #3 is "No," what standard of proof should apply?

View Quote

Or it could be a woman that worked at a legal job and saved her money only to have it seized by police. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nebraska-police-owe-stripper-1-161407996.html

Or it could be a $1,000 bill that is a collector's item that is seized and the funds returned in a check while the collector's item hung in the chief's office. http://alt.obituaries.narkive.com/V4vL7oLT/pine-lawn-mo-police-seize-rare-1-000-note-give-man-check-instead-or-how-a-government-can-legally

Posted: 4/21/2017 3:57:43 PM EDT

[#6]

I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender. They have him pulling a wagon up in Kansas I bet.
- Lone Watie, The Outlaw Josie Wales

Quote History

Quoted:
Forfeiture in this context is an in rem action (the defendant is a thing rather than a person).

View Quote

There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
- Captain Fletcher, The Outlaw Josie Wales

Posted: 4/21/2017 6:12:55 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
Forfeiture in this context is an in rem action (the defendant is a thing rather than a person).

The action is brought by a government based on a claim that the res (thing sued over) is contraband because it is (a) inherently contraband (such as cocaine); (b) fruit of a crime (e.g., drug money or things bought with drug money); or (c) an instrumentality of a crime (e.g., a boat used to haul cocaine). "Contraband" is property to which no private person may have lawful title.

To prevail in a forfeiture action, the government must prove that the res is contraband. In Florida (and federally, I believe) this burden must be met by "Probable Cause" which is legalese for "not much." If the government proves by probable cause that the res is contraband, title to the res vests in the government and may be retained or transferred by the government to another party.

Suppose that Snorty McCaine has three convictions for sale of cocaine and one for possession of a kilo of coke on a 25' speedboat. One night the Marine Patrol stops a 40' speed boat for making a wake in a no-wake zone. The occupants of the boat all debark rapidly and swim to shore, evading the Marine Patrol. On the abandoned boat, the Marine Patrolmen find 25 kilos of cocaine and $300,000.00. They also find that the boat is owned by Snorty McCaine, free of any liens and verified by the hull number. The vessel has not been reported stolen or missing.

1. Should Snorty get the boat back? The money? The cocaine?

2. If the government wants the boat, the dope, and the money, should it have to prove that Snorty knew about the apparent illicit activity?

3. If the government wants the boat, the dope, and the money, should it have to prove that Snorty knew about the apparent illicit activity by the same standard of proof that would be required to send Snorty to prison for Life for cocaine trafficking?

4. If the answer to #3 is "No," what standard of proof should apply?

View Quote

The above makes a perfect argument, and is why so many of us oppose the war on drugs.

Posted: 4/21/2017 6:26:24 PM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:
Forfeiture in this context is an in rem action (the defendant is a thing rather than a person).

The action is brought by a government based on a claim that the res (thing sued over) is contraband because it is (a) inherently contraband (such as cocaine); (b) fruit of a crime (e.g., drug money or things bought with drug money); or (c) an instrumentality of a crime (e.g., a boat used to haul cocaine). "Contraband" is property to which no private person may have lawful title.

To prevail in a forfeiture action, the government must prove that the res is contraband. In Florida (and federally, I believe) this burden must be met by "Probable Cause" which is legalese for "not much." If the government proves by probable cause that the res is contraband, title to the res vests in the government and may be retained or transferred by the government to another party.

Suppose that Snorty McCaine has three convictions for sale of cocaine and one for possession of a kilo of coke on a 25' speedboat. One night the Marine Patrol stops a 40' speed boat for making a wake in a no-wake zone. The occupants of the boat all debark rapidly and swim to shore, evading the Marine Patrol. On the abandoned boat, the Marine Patrolmen find 25 kilos of cocaine and $300,000.00. They also find that the boat is owned by Snorty McCaine, free of any liens and verified by the hull number. The vessel has not been reported stolen or missing.

1. Should Snorty get the boat back? The money? The cocaine?

2. If the government wants the boat, the dope, and the money, should it have to prove that Snorty knew about the apparent illicit activity?

3. If the government wants the boat, the dope, and the money, should it have to prove that Snorty knew about the apparent illicit activity by the same standard of proof that would be required to send Snorty to prison for Life for cocaine trafficking?

4. If the answer to #3 is "No," what standard of proof should apply?

View Quote

In a case such as you have outlined, it should be a simple matter for the state to present a case that the boat was used in illegal activity (after all, they found it with a large quantity of cocaine on board). After they have done so the state has a clear right to seize the asset.

If the state can't be bothered to present that case to a jury in such a clear cut case then the boat still belongs to the legal owner.

Posted: 4/21/2017 6:49:09 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:

You have trouble reading. Civil forfeiture is often used to take the profitability out of criminal activity, AND as a way for people who committed crimes by mistake (didn't realize what they did was outside the law) to surrender the profits in exchange for dropping of charges. Contrary to the LIE a lot of people here believe, most civil forfeiture is voluntary, and part of an agreement.

View Quote

Exactly. It is voluntary.

Just like in Teneha, Tx where they would pull families over and seize cash and even things like jewelry and then make it "voluntary" by getting them to sign over the property in return for not putting their kids in foster homes.

Voluntary... 'Merica!!!

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:26:35 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
More is lost to UNCONVICTED "Civil Asset Forfeiture" now than is lost to all burglaries/robberies combined.

Linkages

We has met the enemy...and they IS us. - Pogo

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/11/forf.png&w=1484

View Quote

Government theft is best theft, comradski.

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:42:02 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
lol

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets

lol

and just WOW

On a pro 2nd amendment site no less

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:43:08 PM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:
I don't care; I'd rather 10 guilty benefit than 1 innocent be damaged.

View Quote

Agree 100%

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:45:12 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets

View Quote

Okay

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:47:59 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
So I agree with RBG on something?

View Quote

And you disagree with Thomas.

And I'm OK with this. Thomas isn't always right and Ginsturd isn't always wrong.

I despise civil asset forfeiture laws. Some shitheel on the side of the road has absolutely no right whatsoever to take property from someone.

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:48:17 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
The whole point of asset forfeiture is to hurt their criminal in terms of benefiting from their criminal activities. if you wait to seize their ill gotten gains, they'll hide those assets.
So yeah, I do care.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm not sure I care about that.

But even if I did, you shouldn't be able to seize a thing without starting a criminal case at the same time, and if the criminal case fails, the assets should be automatically restored.

The whole point of asset forfeiture is to hurt their criminal in terms of benefiting from their criminal activities. if you wait to seize their ill gotten gains, they'll hide those assets.
So yeah, I do care.

Every story I've read on this includes exactly 0 criminal enterprises and many many thefts from honest Americans. Even if not "honest" gains then prove that in a court of law, I shouldn't have to "prove" to you how I got this 10 grand in cash....its up to YOU to prove that it was illegal gains. I think its all written down somewhere on some old parchment paper.

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:48:41 PM EDT

[#16]

The only good thief is a dead thief.

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:51:17 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
I don't think anyone here will justify or be in favor of this.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
In before civil asset forfeiture justifications

I don't think anyone here will justify or be in favor of this.

I would have thought the same but we have at least one here so far.

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:52:40 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Okay

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets

Okay

So give the assets back if they're acquitted. See, that was easy.

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:54:23 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
It's an imperfect world. Better some criminals benefit than our liberties are further eroded.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets

It's an imperfect world. Better some criminals benefit than our liberties are further eroded.

(Ben Franklin I think) “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

Posted: 4/29/2017 2:59:42 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
I doubt many would argue against temporary seizure based on a warrant (30 or 60 days for the prosecution to prove it shoudl be forfeited, otherwise it is returned with interest and defense fees), for example with a warrant that alleges "Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 occurred, and evidence will be presented as such"

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets

I doubt many would argue against temporary seizure based on a warrant (30 or 60 days for the prosecution to prove it shoudl be forfeited, otherwise it is returned with interest and defense fees), for example with a warrant that alleges "Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 occurred, and evidence will be presented as such"

Yep. I am OK with this. Make it hurt the state financially to seize wantonly like some are doing.

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:08:08 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
The only good thief is a dead thief.

View Quote

needs repeating

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:13:02 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets

View Quote

Except they are not criminals until if or when they may be convicted. Not a hard concept to accept seeing as that is what the law says.

Roy

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:17:37 PM EDT

[#23]

So we are OK to take El Capo's 16 Billion seized to use to build The Wall. The Mexican will build The Wall. MAGA

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:18:28 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
needs repeating

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only good thief is a dead thief.

needs repeating

OK

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:20:13 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
So I agree with RBG on something?

View Quote

Unbelievable LOL!!!!

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:21:32 PM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:

OK

View Quote

OK

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:42:46 PM EDT

[#27]

Protection money
theft
kidnapping
Ransom

...the state sounds a lot like the mafia.

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:43:51 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
So we are OK to take El Capo's 16 Billion seized to use to build The Wall. The Mexican will build The Wall. MAGA

View Quote

The man that's been convicted several times and kept escaping and who is currently indicated on criminal charges? Not sure that's the best example to use.

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:46:50 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:

From the decision:

As best I can tell, he seems to think that it's not their money anymore...?

View Quote

It's a strong reminder that neither the left nor the right is perfect. Both sides would shit on certain provisions of the BOR.

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:54:05 PM EDT

[#30]

I don't think Thomas was supporting CAF. I read that he would prefer a more simple process to return the funds.

His point was that the fines were paid in accordance to the court ruling at the time. Those funds have become part of the state. Now that the original ruling has been overturned the funds should not have been paid, yet they have already been absorbed as property of the state. The defendants should be able to quickly recover funds by filing a claim and presenting the overturned ruling, rather than an automatic refund check at the time of the reversal.

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:55:03 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
The whole point of asset forfeiture is to hurt their criminal in terms of benefiting from their criminal activities. if you wait to seize their ill gotten gains, they'll hide those assets.
So yeah, I do care.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm not sure I care about that.

But even if I did, you shouldn't be able to seize a thing without starting a criminal case at the same time, and if the criminal case fails, the assets should be automatically restored.

The whole point of asset forfeiture is to hurt their criminal in terms of benefiting from their criminal activities. if you wait to seize their ill gotten gains, they'll hide those assets.
So yeah, I do care.

Asset forfeiture can still take place, and the actual seizure need not be changed, even if "civil forfeiture" were to go away. What would be needed would be a specific change to the law applying actual forfeiture to the sentencing portion of the process. Government seizes assets in the course of some investigation, they are held for safekeeping until such time as the case is resolved, with some type of safeguard for delayed/deferred prosecution. Once charges are dropped/deferred/resolved in court, then assets are either forfeited under the revised sentencing laws or returned to the people from whom they are seized (excepting of course, stolen or otherwise ineligible property).

What needs to be changed is the presumption that the State may forcibly acquire property from its citizens based on government processes which do not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To be honest, I personally believe that ANY government lawsuit seeking damages/fines/extraction of payment should require a jury verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt." The government is subservient to the people, not superior or even equal, and the government should conduct all such proceedings against its own citizens from a position of relative disadvantage. If you want to "hurt criminals in terms of benefiting from their criminal activities, fine, but first prove those criminal activities to the standards required.

Mike

Posted: 4/29/2017 3:57:52 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
OK

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

OK

OK

Ha. That's not a sarcastic OK.....it was, OK I will repeat it.

Posted: 4/29/2017 5:11:39 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
You have trouble reading. Civil forfeiture is often used to take the profitability out of criminal activity, AND as a way for people who committed crimes by mistake (didn't realize what they did was outside the law) to surrender the profits in exchange for dropping of charges. Contrary to the LIE a lot of people here believe, most civil forfeiture is voluntary, and part of an agreement.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Get a conviction and show the assets were ill gotten gains then seize away.

The idea of needing to prove your innocence never should have been seen as constitutional.

You have trouble reading. Civil forfeiture is often used to take the profitability out of criminal activity, AND as a way for people who committed crimes by mistake (didn't realize what they did was outside the law) to surrender the profits in exchange for dropping of charges. Contrary to the LIE a lot of people here believe, most civil forfeiture is voluntary, and part of an agreement.

Voluntary while staring at the barrel of a gun, is not voluntary.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:15:43 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
The whole point of asset forfeiture is to create additional revenue for the police and government. It's theft, plain and simple.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
The whole point of asset forfeiture is to create additional revenue for the police and government. It's theft, plain and simple.

As long as those funds are from criminals, I don't see a problem with that.
Forfeiture money funds equipment and training that the taxpayers aren't being asked to pay for. Equipment and training that in many cases the agencies wouldn't be able to otherwise afford.
And as I said before, if you wait until conviction, the criminal will have time to hide those resources to prevent them from being seized.
But I guess that some of you are OK with that.

Quoted:

Every story I've read on this includes exactly 0 criminal enterprises and many many thefts from honest Americans. Even if not "honest" gains then prove that in a court of law, I shouldn't have to "prove" to you how I got this 10 grand in cash....its up to YOU to prove that it was illegal gains. I think its all written down somewhere on some old parchment paper.

Of course those are the stories you read about, because there's always the anti-forfeiture crowd that wants to publicize a few of those stories and claim that they're the norm.
If you got that 10K legitimately, you should be able to prove where it came from.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:29:35 PM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'm not sure I care about that.

But even if I did, you shouldn't be able to seize a thing without starting a criminal case at the same time, and if the criminal case fails, the assets should be automatically restored.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets

I'm not sure I care about that.

But even if I did, you shouldn't be able to seize a thing without starting a criminal case at the same time, and if the criminal case fails, the assets should be automatically restored.

The law is about punishing the criminal, not funding police departments. CAF has become a "thing", taking on a life of its own. My town approved its officers traveling 12 miles (outside the town limits) to patrol I-65 because of the potential for confiscating cash from drug runners.

If you want to punish criminals by taking their property, then give the proceeds to charity. Accomplishes the same goal, right?

We'll see how far THAT idea gets.

TC

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:30:51 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
I don't care; I'd rather 10 guilty benefit than 1 innocent be damaged.

View Quote

This!

TC

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:33:46 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

The law is about punishing the criminal, not funding police departments. CAF has become a "thing", taking on a life of its own. My town approved its officers traveling 12 miles (outside the town limits) to patrol I-65 because of the potential for confiscating cash from drug runners.

If you want to punish criminals by taking their property, then give the proceeds to charity. Accomplishes the same goal, right?

We'll see how far THAT idea gets.

TC

View Quote

How do you decide what charities?
As far as funding LE, I don't think that many people realize how tight most LEAs budgets are.
Small agencies in particular wouldn't get many basic things like updated computers, new firearms etc without forfeiture actions.
If they did get those things without forfeiture, they would be getting funded by taxpayer dollars

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:33:54 PM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
If you got that 10K legitimately, you should be able to prove where it came from.

View Quote

The point that you are not getting is, someone should not have to prove that they got it honestly.
It should be the states burden to prove they didn't.
You know...... The whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:35:03 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:

The point that you are not getting is, someone should not have to prove that they got it honestly.
It should be the states burden to prove they didn't.
You know...... The whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

View Quote

I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:35:43 PM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:

The whole point of asset forfeiture is to hurt their criminal in terms of benefiting from their criminal activities. if you wait to seize their ill gotten gains, they'll hide those assets.
So yeah, I do care.

View Quote

But, often, finances are commingled with the legitimate funds earned by a spouse who was not complicit. So, even if you freeze assets until a trial is held, you risk unfairly bankrupting an innocent. And, you risk bankrupting an innocent man if the "crime" is never brought to trial or an innocent verdict is returned.

I believe you have to err on the side of caution so innocents are not harmed in the (often manic) rush to "put a stop to crime".

TC

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:38:54 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

The point that you are not getting is, someone should not have to prove that they got it honestly.
It should be the states burden to prove they didn't.
You know...... The whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven.

And if they were dishonesty obtained then that should be easily proven.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:39:57 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:

He's stating that as a matter of law it ceased to be their property when it was handed over to the state. Then the state as a sovereign entity can set conditions for filing claims against the state.

View Quote

Well, that's just fucked up. We'll take your stuff. And, when we can't prove you did anything wrong, you have to petition the .gov and grind it out to get it back.

Nope.

TC

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:44:52 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
But, often, finances are commingled with the legitimate funds earned by a spouse who was not complicit. So, even if you freeze assets until a trial is held, you risk unfairly bankrupting an innocent. And, you risk bankrupting an innocent man if the "crime" is never brought to trial or an innocent verdict is returned.

I believe you have to err on the side of caution so innocents are not harmed in the (often manic) rush to "put a stop to crime".

TC

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
But, often, finances are commingled with the legitimate funds earned by a spouse who was not complicit. So, even if you freeze assets until a trial is held, you risk unfairly bankrupting an innocent. And, you risk bankrupting an innocent man if the "crime" is never brought to trial or an innocent verdict is returned.

I believe you have to err on the side of caution so innocents are not harmed in the (often manic) rush to "put a stop to crime".

TC

If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. How many of these organized crime wives do you really think don't have any idea that their spouses are deep into criminal enterprises?

Quoted:
And if they were dishonesty obtained then that should be easily proven.

Not really.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:45:09 PM EDT

[#44]

Civil Asset Forfeiture was meant to cover the ship coming into harbor loaded with contraband. The problem is that the government has abused the system horribly. They've expanded the definition of "proceeds of crime" to entirely swallow the Fifth Amendment, allowing the government to levy fines absent due process on anyone under suspicion of any crime. I mean, we've seen examples of the government seizing houses and cars because someone had a bit of pot in them. That was never the intent of the system, and the whole thing needs to be dismantled.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:47:54 PM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets

View Quote

Never noticed how big a statist you were until someone said it in some other thread. After paying attention to you, now I see it.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:49:53 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

The point that you are not getting is, someone should not have to prove that they got it honestly.
It should be the states burden to prove they didn't.
You know...... The whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven.

No, you still don't understand.
How easy or hard it is to prove honest ownership of funds doesn't matter.
Because, they should not have to.......no matter how easy it would be to do so.
The burden of proof should be 100% on the state.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:50:02 PM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:
If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. How many of these organized crime wives do you really think don't have any idea that their spouses are deep into criminal enterprises?

Not really.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
But, often, finances are commingled with the legitimate funds earned by a spouse who was not complicit. So, even if you freeze assets until a trial is held, you risk unfairly bankrupting an innocent. And, you risk bankrupting an innocent man if the "crime" is never brought to trial or an innocent verdict is returned.

I believe you have to err on the side of caution so innocents are not harmed in the (often manic) rush to "put a stop to crime".

TC

If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. How many of these organized crime wives do you really think don't have any idea that their spouses are deep into criminal enterprises?

Quoted:
And if they were dishonesty obtained then that should be easily proven.

Not really.

Does the laying down with dogs and getting fleas extend to cops? One cop does something dishonest and we get to punish all of them because they laid down with dogs?

And if you can't prove that the money was dishonesty gained then you have no right to take it. How is this a hard concept?

Does the 4th amendment mean nothing to you?

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:50:55 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You have trouble reading. Civil forfeiture is often used to take the profitability out of criminal activity, AND as a way for people who committed crimes by mistake (didn't realize what they did was outside the law) to surrender the profits in exchange for dropping of charges. Contrary to the LIE a lot of people here believe, most civil forfeiture is voluntary, and part of an agreement.

View Quote

Exactly. It is voluntary.
Just like in Teneha, Tx where they would pull families over and seize cash and even things like jewelry and then make it "voluntary" by getting them to sign over the property in return for not putting their kids in foster homes.
Voluntary... 'Merica!!!
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

View Quote

It's fucking amazing, the mental gymnastics some will go through, to justify something so obviously wrong; something so offensive to any freedom loving person.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:51:57 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The point that you are not getting is, someone should not have to prove that they got it honestly.
It should be the states burden to prove they didn't.
You know...... The whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

View Quote

I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven.

View Quote

No, you still don't understand.
How easy or hard it is to prove honest ownership of funds doesn't matter.
And they should not have to.......no matter how easy it would be to do so.
The burden of proof should be 100% on the state.

View Quote

Can tell you right now, you're wasting your time.

Posted: 4/30/2017 12:53:34 PM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:

Never noticed how big a statist you were until someone said it in some other thread. After paying attention to you, now I see it.

View Quote

It's also total nonsense. No one is saying the government can't freeze assets. It's just that if they want to keep them, they need a criminal conviction and a lawfully issued fine from an Article III judge subject to due process.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Civil asset forfeiture will die (Page 3 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us