User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 12:53:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 12:59:55 PM EDT
[#2]
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
...;nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law it's amazing how conservatives and liberals both will argue against plain english when it suits their agenda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:01:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Show me a crime family spouse that doesn't know what her husband is into. I highly doubt they're ignorant of what their husband is doing. As I've said multiple times, if you wait for conviction to seize assets, the assets will be gone once a conviction IS obtained. I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:01:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:02:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 1:16:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they wait for a conviction, the criminals involved will simply hide their assets Any department that defends this gets zero help out of me, ever, until they unfuck themselves. You want people to drive by felony stops gone wrong without giving a shit? This is how you get that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:20:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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 1:23:32 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So... what you really want is for the police to be able to judge and punish people before there's been a trial. I can't read that statement any other way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:41:58 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, the excuse is that forfeiture will harm an innocent spouse. Show me a crime family spouse that doesn't know what her husband is into. I highly doubt they're ignorant of what their husband is doing. As I've said multiple times, if you wait for conviction to seize assets, the assets will be gone once a conviction IS obtained. I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Show me a crime family spouse that doesn't know what her husband is into. I highly doubt they're ignorant of what their husband is doing. As I've said multiple times, if you wait for conviction to seize assets, the assets will be gone once a conviction IS obtained. I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/07/judge-orders-1-million-returned-to-exotic-dancer/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:47:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And sometimes it is a woman that saved up from working a legal job. Then the state steals her money and fights tooth and nail to give it back because the money has already been spent on office supplies. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/07/judge-orders-1-million-returned-to-exotic-dancer/ Molon stapler. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:48:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............ I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:52:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously, cops see absolutely nothing wrong with this? That's some seriously twisted logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 1:52:46 PM EDT
[#13]
The ratio of individuals with assets seized to individuals that are actually charged with anything tells the story. Apologists can bleat all they want about "muh law and order!111" and "but they's gonna hide their money!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 2:18:43 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously, cops see absolutely nothing wrong with this? That's some seriously twisted logic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............ I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 2:22:19 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's an imperfect world. Better some criminals benefit than our liberties are further eroded. ...but then in my "perfect world" there wouldn't be victimless crimes. The only crimes would involve violating another individual's right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. <I can dream> |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 2:23:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ratio of individuals with assets seized to individuals that are actually charged with anything tells the story. Apologists can bleat all they want about "muh law and order!111" and "but they's gonna hide their money!" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 2:49:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, the excuse is that forfeiture will harm an innocent spouse. Show me a crime family spouse that doesn't know what her husband is into. I highly doubt they're ignorant of what their husband is doing. As I've said multiple times, if you wait for conviction to seize assets, the assets will be gone once a conviction IS obtained. I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. Firstly, there are spouses that don't know about criminal activity, and we should at least pretend that there is some burden of proof. Furthermore your line of thinking is in contravention of case law. Secondly, assets can be held by the police and courts during a trial while remaining the property of the accused. It's done all the time. Thirdly, money found in the possession of people who deny their ownership of it is found property, not criminal profits. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 2:51:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If an agency can't afford to provide basic office supplies without resorting to highway robbery then perhaps they can't afford to be a police department in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 3:06:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not a "reason" for anything. It means that anybody who claims lawful title to the item can go into court and fight for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 3:36:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Law enforcement would never take the money if the person says yes it is theirs and they are on there way to buy a car. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............ I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/07/judge-orders-1-million-returned-to-exotic-dancer/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 3:43:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 3:46:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To quote the President. "Wrong" http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/07/judge-orders-1-million-returned-to-exotic-dancer/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............ I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/07/judge-orders-1-million-returned-to-exotic-dancer/ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 3:54:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
as it should civil asset forfeiture is a disgusting unconstitutional practice. no one should be deprived of property without due process. if someone is a drug dealer convict them then confiscate their stuff So, by calling it something else it becomes double-plus-good. You must hate the troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 4:02:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Civil asset seizure has become more about revenue generation than punishing criminals. Criminals will victimize other criminals, now the judicial system does it too. Now the definition of criminal has been expanded to mean anyone with large amounts of cash.
Abuse is rampant in my state and all around the nation. Read this article about the use of seized assets. It is pocket cash for LE and DAs. http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/07/15/law-enforcement-seizures-misspent-missing/ The state senator trying to curtail asset forfeitures in Oklahoma mentioned in the article suddenly came under investigation for campaign funding. He was under fire by sheriffs and DAs all across the state after introducing legislation. He resigned last week. http://kfor.com/2017/04/27/oklahoma-sen-kyle-loveless-submits-resignation-letter-amid-criminal-investigation/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 5:04:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There certainly shouldn't be any straw man arguments.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 5:20:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, while I'm sure he didn't mean it seriously, plea bargains *do* need to go away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 5:33:46 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I do not disagree that the plea bargain practice is messed up, it's rather irrelevant in this discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, while I'm sure he didn't mean it seriously, plea bargains *do* need to go away. On the topic of the thread, however, I fear that anyone hoping this ruling will somehow be used as a precedent in the asset forfeiture arena is in for a let down. Outside of Maine, (with some exceptions,) asset forfeiture is handled via civil courts (or by criminal courts in civil proceedings,) and therefore operates under different standards of proof than criminal cases. This ruling, which covers the refund of fines assessed in *criminal* cases, is unlikely to be cited in any putative future case on asset forfeiture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 5:37:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, while I'm sure he didn't mean it seriously, plea bargains *do* need to go away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 6:36:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I agree with RBG on something? i need to go rinse my brain out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 6:45:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. No more reduced sentences. But I also agree, I think plea bargaining should be done away with entirely. Try the case in front of a jury. I realize it will slow down the system, and will cost the taxpayers more money. But it would also force the taxpayers to consider what laws they actually want enforced. The way the system works now, means that every now and again an innocent person will accept a plea, to avoid draconian sentencing requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 6:47:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why did Thomas dissent? In other words, this is a throwback to when monarchies ruled, and a charter from the the king is needed to create one's property. I think Thomas farted but that methane took the escalator and affected his brain on this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 6:54:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If an agency can't afford to provide basic office supplies without resorting to highway robbery then perhaps they can't afford to be a police department in the first place. Notice how it's not called criminal forfeiture? That's basically all we need to know. We've truly hark back to the days of monarchies in many ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 7:28:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is that government spending on welfare, and public pension obligations are overburdening the cash flow from tax revenues. Governments look for alternative ways to increase revenue without resorting to traditional raising of taxes. Civil forfeiture is just another form of tax designed to slide under the radar of scrutiny by the voters. Notice how it's not called criminal forfeiture? That's basically all we need to know. We've truly hark back to the days of monarchies in many ways. But in the case of civil asset forfeiture it's easy enough to see the agencies that push the limits or abuse it. In Georgia you can see a huge difference from county to county. I laugh everytime pass through Dooly county along I-75. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 7:30:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think he is saying that property rights are created by government laws and regulations, and therefore CO's civil forfeiture is part of the law that creates property rights. The constitution only protects those rights as created by those laws and regulations. In other words, this is a throwback to when monarchies ruled, and a charter from the the king is needed to create one's property. I think Thomas farted but that methane took the escalator and affected his brain on this one. I did a at first, but read the dissent on page 1. He's right (he always is IMO)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 7:37:36 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is that government spending on welfare, and public pension obligations are overburdening the cash flow from tax revenues. Governments look for alternative ways to increase revenue without resorting to traditional raising of taxes. Civil forfeiture is just another form of tax designed to slide under the radar of scrutiny by the voters. Notice how it's not called criminal forfeiture? That's basically all we need to know. We've truly hark back to the days of monarchies in many ways. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If an agency can't afford to provide basic office supplies without resorting to highway robbery then perhaps they can't afford to be a police department in the first place. Notice how it's not called criminal forfeiture? That's basically all we need to know. We've truly hark back to the days of monarchies in many ways. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 7:40:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Did this case deal with fines/restitution or civil asset forfeiture? Two different things. Article mentions one and OP mentions the other...
ETA: Just read the decision. It was about fines, not asset forfeiture. All the anger in this thread...all the pain...for nothing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 7:58:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:08:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Fucking thief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:08:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I agree with RBG on something? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:17:57 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are you fucking with the money in the first place. Is it a crime to have money? This is the bullshit I have a problem with. No one will be charged, and you stole money from someone you could coerce into not demand it back. Fucking thief. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Fucking thief. Supposedly they have stopped using them. http://www.news9.com/story/32168555/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-used-during-the-commission-of-a-crime |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:22:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I do not disagree that the plea bargain practice is messed up, it's rather irrelevant in this discussion. The plea is a necessary option and used in the majority of criminal cases. There are plenty of attorneys here that can chime in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:25:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:29:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Nope. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:34:04 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, the excuse is that forfeiture will harm an innocent spouse. Show me a crime family spouse that doesn't know what her husband is into. I highly doubt they're ignorant of what their husband is doing. As I've said multiple times, if you wait for conviction to seize assets, the assets will be gone once a conviction IS obtained. I'll use one example of a asset seizure. Officer stops a car, in the course of the stop he finds a duffel bag full of cash. IIRC it was in the hundreds of thousands. Regardless, it was a lot of cash. The occupants of the car denied the cash was theirs. Now according to your thinking, the officer should have just let the occupants of the car drive away from the stop with the cash they just admitted wasn't theirs because he couldn't prove on the spot that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. Or maybe you think that officers should let them leave with the cash, launch an investigation and then ultimately at some point down the road hope the cash can be seized. Either way, if that's how you think that incident should have played out, we'll never agree. If you think that's how it should have gone, we simply aren't going to agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:34:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If an agency can't afford to provide basic office supplies without resorting to highway robbery then perhaps they can't afford to be a police department in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:35:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Messed up how? The plea is a necessary option and used in the majority of criminal cases. There are plenty of attorneys here that can chime in. Client X, is threatened with a possible 20 year sentence. He can take his chances with justice, or he can cut the difference and accept a 5 year sentence. Some innocent people will take 5 years in exchange for 20 years. Let's face it incarceration is bad. It sucks. There is nothing good about it no matter how short it is. But shorter is better. What plea bargaining does is it increases the number of cases we as a society can handle. Law schools are churning out graduates, attorneys are paid, the judges are paid, courts are busy, prison contractors are busy, and the jailers are paid. Meanwhile we are the biggest jailer on the FUCKING planet. The United States, home of the free, has more people in jail than other country on the planet. ....something is wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:36:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Messed up how? The plea is a necessary option and used in the majority of criminal cases. There are plenty of attorneys here that can chime in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
While I do not disagree that the plea bargain practice is messed up, it's rather irrelevant in this discussion. The plea is a necessary option and used in the majority of criminal cases. There are plenty of attorneys here that can chime in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:38:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. You don't understand. People have rights, so there is no action brought against a person. The action is brought against the property, and property has no rights, recourse, or need for due process. With no action against any person, then no person has standing to even argue the point. So, by calling it something else it becomes double-plus-good. You must hate the troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 8:41:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is that government spending on welfare, and public pension obligations are overburdening the cash flow from tax revenues. Governments look for alternative ways to increase revenue without resorting to traditional raising of taxes. Civil forfeiture is just another form of tax designed to slide under the radar of scrutiny by the voters. Notice how it's not called criminal forfeiture? That's basically all we need to know. We've truly hark back to the days of monarchies in many ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 9:36:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand what you're saying, but if those funds were honestly obtained that should be easily proven.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
