Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oklahoma Cops Find A New Way To Take Peopleís Money, Even If They Donít Have Cash

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    You did imply it. You saw an opening where there actually is none to bash Republicans and you mistakenly took it.
    Well, seeing as the Republicans control the legislature and the bill was never voted on, who would you blame?
    http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB838

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    You did imply it. You saw an opening where there actually is none to bash Republicans and you mistakenly took it.
    Last edited by Salinator; 09 Jun 16, 20:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    However your earlier post implied that it was Republicans behind this issue, while clearly it was not the case. How do you know which way the Dems voted on the issue? How many Republicans vote for overturn? How do you know which party was in power was in power laws were created? Do you have a breakdown of that? Lastly, how do you know that Loveless or some other Republican will not try again?
    I implied nothing. Since I had read the whole article before I posted, I knew that a Republican had tried to overturn the law and hadn't succeeded. It didn't matter who was in power when the law was passed, it matters now who is in power and didn't overturn it. It also isn't important how the Democrats voted, since there are so few of them that the Republicans can pass/not pass any legislation that they want. I'm sure that he will try again, now that he got the story out and the other legislators were publically shamed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    There has been corruption in every government agency since the dawn of time. It has little to do with political affiliation.
    Greed seems to be driving force.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    I did real the entire article, which you apparently didn't.
    His attempt was unsuccessful, which appears to mean that the majority of the legislature thinks that the practice is fine.
    However your earlier post implied that it was Republicans behind this issue, while clearly it was not the case. How do you know which way the Dems voted on the issue? How many Republicans vote for overturn? How do you know which party was in power was in power laws were created? Do you have a breakdown of that? Lastly, how do you know that Loveless or some other Republican will not try again?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Civil forfeiture laws should require the highest levels of proof that funds are tied to criminal enterprise. The burden of proof should be entirely on the state not the individual too. In addition, nothing should be allowed to be taken or seized until the state proves its case. Even if the person involved uses some or all of those funds for their defense, or transfers them elsewhere, so what? The state shouldn't be enriched in the least by them.
    Those funds taken should be charitably given away by the state. That way the state has no reason to want to press for civil forfeiture without legal / criminal reasons as they are not benefiting from it.

    The way they're set up now, the state has every corrupt reason to press for forfeitures as they benefit greatly from them both legally (taking a person's wealth to prevent their having a successful defense of their charges) and economically.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynelhutz
    replied
    Some of these civil forfeiture laws continuously amaze. To the extent that the forfeiture directly benefits the specific police force doing the seizing, and not the public purse, it is absolutely and inescapably corrupting.

    In any other context it would be seen as obviously wrong. At the very best it puts even those police forces run with the highest of ethical standards in an unavoidable conflict of interest and thus the appearance of corruption.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    If you have read the article, you would have seen that police authorities took it upon themselves to purchase the devices without any input from any government. It had nothing to do with Republicans. The State Senator that is fighting it is also a Republican.
    I did real the entire article, which you apparently didn't.
    state Sen. Kyle Loveless (R), who has spearheaded an unsuccessful push to overhaul Oklahomaís civil forfeiture laws,
    His attempt was unsuccessful, which appears to mean that the majority of the legislature thinks that the practice is fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    I just did some factchecking and OK is run by Republicans.
    The Gov, Lt Gov and AG along with both US Senators, all 5 US Reps and 39 of 48 State Sens and 71 of 101 of the State Reps.
    I guess that this is what happens when there aren't any realistic checks and balances.
    If you have read the article, you would have seen that police authorities took it upon themselves to purchase the devices without any input from any government. It had nothing to do with Republicans. The State Senator that is fighting it is also a Republican.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    I just did some factchecking and OK is run by Republicans.
    The Gov, Lt Gov and AG along with both US Senators, all 5 US Reps and 39 of 48 State Sens and 71 of 101 of the State Reps.
    I guess that this is what happens when there aren't any realistic checks and balances.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Was wondering how long before this got posted given it's from a less then reliable Progressive source.

    Seizures without due process. Totally illegal unless you are the IRS. If allowed to continue, it will be another reason to get all your cash out of the bank before depositors are hit with withdrawal limits, negative interest rates, and taxes on the balance of your savings.
    https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-ec...sheep-clothing
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03...ts-euro-style/

    Leave a comment:


  • slick24
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    It looks like they'll be doing quite a few seizures just to pay for the devices.
    Wonder which politician got kick back from the company for their 7.7%?
    Civil seizure may have legitimate purposes, but this is not legitimate civil seizure. This is raw government plunder, in it's purest form.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Each ERAD reader is costing the state about $5,000, plus about $1,500 for training. The state has agreed to pay the manufacturer, ERAD Group, 7.7 percent of all funds forfeited with the readers.
    It looks like they'll be doing quite a few seizures just to pay for the devices.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oklahoma Cops Find A New Way To Take Peopleís Money, Even If They Donít Have Cash

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e39a28ac2083

    How far will it go? I am not necessarily against seizing assets but I think the person being seized from should be convicted first. Here you are assumed guilty and have to prove your innocence and spend a pot load of money for a lawyer before you can get it back

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X