Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Supreme Court Rules against Civil Forfeiture

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    Nonsense.

    No property is forfeited without due process, ie, a court hearing. I do not know of any state which allows property to be seized prior to the resolution of a criminal case.

    And it certainly isn't a cash cow (except for when cash is involved) because it usually takes a year or more to resolve the criminal case, if not longer. At the end of that time the value seized is divided two to five ways, which means no one is getting much (unless, again, you nab a mound of cash). A lot of agencies only go after cash, because even brand new vehicles aren't really worth the paperwork and hassle.

    .
    In the case covered by the ruling the max fine was $10,000 and yet a $40,000 vehicle was seized. If not for the ruling it would have been kept.

    That is not excessive?
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
    Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      Then you aren't paying attention.

      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...n_6623972.html

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/institu.../#5ba8b7a9561b

      https://www.offthegridnews.com/curre...from-citizens/

      http://www.news9.com/story/32168555/...ion-of-a-crime

      https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...r-broke-no-law

      As these and hundreds of other articles point out, the property, and cash in particular, is taken and held. Even after someone proves their innocence, they have to generally sue and often end up taking a settlement to get their property back. That shouldn't be happening.
      They have no reason ZERO, to scan pre-paid cards for amounts on them prior to bringing charges or going to court, and then only to determine the amount. If the person isn't charged or is found innocent, then the police have a duty to return ALL OF THEIR PROPERTY INTACT AND IN GOOD CONDITION AS THEY FOUND IT.] There is absolutely no excuse for someone having to fight law enforcement or the government for what belongs legally and justly to them. Nor is there any excuse for law enforcement to not take proper and careful care of someone's property while in their custody.
      Huffpost?

      You would be better off saying 'Some guy I met in a bar said..."
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post

        In the case covered by the ruling the max fine was $10,000 and yet a $40,000 vehicle was seized. If not for the ruling it would have been kept.

        That is not excessive?
        It was used in the commission of a felony, of which the accused was found guilty in a court of law. And paid for in cash by a guy with a declared income of $10,000 a year. It was not a fine. We don't give a burglar back his tools, nor a murderer back his weapon.

        The only thing OC leadership fears is asset forfeiture.

        And now that threat has been weakened. The situation is simple: to whom do you want your children ruled by, the rule of law as administered by the US Government, or organized crime?

        It is exactly that simple.

        And you've made your choice.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

          It was used in the commission of a felony, of which the accused was found guilty in a court of law. And paid for in cash by a guy with a declared income of $10,000 a year. It was not a fine. We don't give a burglar back his tools, nor a murderer back his weapon.

          .
          He was able to prove that he bought it with legal money.
          The court didn't rule against seizure, they just found this to be excessive.

          If somebody steals a steak from Wal-Mart can they seize his house?
          (Since that's where he cooked it...)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            The problem is that civil forfeiture has become a cash cow against individuals who might-- might-- have committed some criminal act. The times it's used against organized crime is small by comparison. The other issue is that it is often done before a person is convicted of anything. That is to say, their property is confiscated up front (ostensively to prevent their using ill-gotten gains for their defense). This means they have effectively been fined before the fact. Worse, if found not guilty or the charges dropped, it is difficult to impossible to get their property back and likely that the property will have been mishandled or used diminishing it's value without recourse against those that confiscated it.

            I would rather see the government forced to take all of this to court, prove their case, then confiscate property rather than snatch it up from the get go. The bad move is giving government the power to take property without going through the legal system to do it.
            Bingo.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Freebird View Post
              He was able to prove that he bought it with legal money.
              The court didn't rule against seizure, they just found this to be excessive.

              If somebody steals a steak from Wal-Mart can they seize his house?
              (Since that's where he cooked it...)
              Not according to the transcript, he did not. The appeal approached it as a fine, not as an income disparity purchase.

              The key is 'used in the commission of a felony criminal offense'. Stealing the steak was the commission, and it was not a felony.

              There's far more to the process than the media bothers to report.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                Huffpost?

                You would be better off saying 'Some guy I met in a bar said..."
                An ad hominem? I thought you knew better.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                  What do you think of the theory that inequality not poverty drives violent crime?
                  It's bulls.

                  I've never been equal to anyone rich or powerful or important and never will be, nor was I equal to all of those above me in the military and elsewhere, but crime has never been my answer, Hard work has been.

                  Crime is the new answer for all alleged social imbalances, and blaming whitey absolves any personal responsibility. If that fails, then they claim mommy didn't love them.

                  It's amazing that the socially deprived from other nations come to America, work hard and do well while those born here with the home court advantage can't hack it. Guess they haven't been 'deprived" enough.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X