info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Civil Asset Forfeitures - who are the real crooks?
62 views
Skip to first unread message
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Nov 20, 2015, 8:19:23 AM11/20/15
to
Now - I'll be the first to say this is a bit apples/oranges wrt monies involved as burglaries are A) underreported and B) not even remotely the only financial crime - see drugs, etc
Nonetheless, startling
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/39102
Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989. Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year. According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. ****This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals****
Nonetheless, startling
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/39102
Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989. Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year. According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. ****This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals****
agavi...@gmail.com
Nov 20, 2015, 8:44:06 AM11/20/15
to
Language is everything. These aren't forfeitures - they're illegal seizures of private property.
To my limited knowledge, this is one of the worst assaults on our rights and liberty in my time. That we are so blasé to the theft of private property by the government is really disappointing.
The war on drugs is prohibition all over again. Our 'leaders', ignorant of history, are often successfull in gaining power because voters are ignorant of history.
The sad thing is that the ruined lives of mandatory drug sentencing overshadow the theft by cop program tremendously, yet no one really cares about it.
To my limited knowledge, this is one of the worst assaults on our rights and liberty in my time. That we are so blasé to the theft of private property by the government is really disappointing.
The war on drugs is prohibition all over again. Our 'leaders', ignorant of history, are often successfull in gaining power because voters are ignorant of history.
The sad thing is that the ruined lives of mandatory drug sentencing overshadow the theft by cop program tremendously, yet no one really cares about it.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 20, 2015, 8:45:05 AM11/20/15
to
target has less than two prior felony convictions, the bar should be
extremely high to allow these. If the target has two or more prior
felony convictions, there should still be the equivalent of a small
claims court to allow pro se challenge of the forfeiture.
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
agavi...@gmail.com
Nov 20, 2015, 8:53:26 AM11/20/15
to
i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't have the right to his private property until there's a judgment.
xyzzy
Nov 20, 2015, 8:59:50 AM11/20/15
to
What Andrew said.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 20, 2015, 9:19:26 AM11/20/15
to
On 2015-11-20, the_andr...@yahoo.com <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't
> have the right to his private property until there's a judgment.
On a strictly theoretical level, I agree. I don't think you are going
> i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't
> have the right to his private property until there's a judgment.
to get that passed, though, because the police unions and support for
local law enforcement is so strong. aI think this is a measure that
would stop the egregious abuse.
--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
xyzzy
Nov 20, 2015, 9:35:20 AM11/20/15
to
The measure that will stop the abuse is to remove the incentive. Change the law so that seized property must be destroyed. Cash goes back to the federal reserve.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 20, 2015, 9:39:20 AM11/20/15
to
But sometimes even I agree that politics is the art of the possible.
--
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance,
unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited
memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to
create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even
implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated.
Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are,
after all, anonymous. -- Barry Ritholtz
michael anderson
Nov 20, 2015, 9:50:00 AM11/20/15
to
I partly agree with you guys. perhaps we do need a higher standard for LE to 'prove' that the assets were drug assets.
A also like the idea of having LE have to place the money in general govt coffers for things like an overage reduction in property tax. We pay far too much in taxes, so I'd like to use anything that can be used to bring that down.
But on the overall question of whether the money and cars and whatnot should be seized, I definately think it should be. Maybe we just need to go about it better and put the money to better use for hard working taxpayers.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Nov 20, 2015, 10:31:30 AM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 05:53:18 -0800 (PST), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
<agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't have the right to his private property until there's a judgment.
Why shouldn't a guy transporting illegal drugs in his car lose his
<agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't have the right to his private property until there's a judgment.
car? Or selling in his house lose his house? Would you say that
"until" must be prospective? Or can that sort of judgement already be
in place?
Hugh
agavi...@gmail.com
Nov 20, 2015, 11:00:14 AM11/20/15
to
better yet, it should be held as evidence. property - such as homes, boats, cars, etc. - must be appropriately maintained as to not lose additional value from neglect.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 20, 2015, 11:05:31 AM11/20/15
to
good tactics. They started ticketing boom-car stereo boys up to
$500.00 for loud car stereo. Normally a lot of those guys would
just blow off the ticket, as it is not a moving violation.
But the tactic was that if they didn't pay on the spot, they would
impound the car so they could do testing to make sure the stereo was
capable of putting out the sound levels necessary to break the law.
Boom. You stopped hearing those damn things.
--
The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on my
life. ... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90%
how I react to it. And so it is for you... we are in charge of our
attitudes. -- Charles Swindoll
agavi...@gmail.com
Nov 20, 2015, 11:40:07 AM11/20/15
to
Because a guy transporting drugs, even when captured 'red-handed' is only under suspicion by we the people. The cops aren't the government. The cops work for us - we the people. They represent us, but they aren't our final arbiters of justice. The government's attorney brings charges and we the people adjudicate - either through an elected judiciary (oft-appointed* at certain levels, but by an elected official) or by a jury of peers. We don't leave it to 1 or 2 police officers to decide innocence or guilt, and especially to inflict punishment (which this is).
Under suspicion means we think he did it, but we haven't established proof among we the people. There are too many opportunities for abuse, etc.
When we start believing the government is a moral entity, only doing what is right, we feel comfortable ceding our rights to it. This is a case where we've done just that. There are already too many incidents where presumably innocent people have lost cash and assets have been seized because the law puts all the power in the hands of 1 or 2 men.
These people are victims of our government.
Victims.
This was a bad law to begin with. That it has turned into an abusive tactic to fund police departments just adds sunshine to point out its wrongness.
None of us would be too thrilled if our next door neighbor, moreso ourselves, were to lose real property based on the findings of one or two police officers.
How do you feel about laws that limit the value of the cash you carry or the size of financial transaction; and if you exceed either, the government can investigate you?
Under suspicion means we think he did it, but we haven't established proof among we the people. There are too many opportunities for abuse, etc.
When we start believing the government is a moral entity, only doing what is right, we feel comfortable ceding our rights to it. This is a case where we've done just that. There are already too many incidents where presumably innocent people have lost cash and assets have been seized because the law puts all the power in the hands of 1 or 2 men.
These people are victims of our government.
Victims.
This was a bad law to begin with. That it has turned into an abusive tactic to fund police departments just adds sunshine to point out its wrongness.
None of us would be too thrilled if our next door neighbor, moreso ourselves, were to lose real property based on the findings of one or two police officers.
How do you feel about laws that limit the value of the cash you carry or the size of financial transaction; and if you exceed either, the government can investigate you?
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Nov 20, 2015, 11:56:57 AM11/20/15
to
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-6, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This was a bad law to begin with. That it has turned into an abusive tactic to fund police departments just adds sunshine to point out its wrongness.
Similar:
> This was a bad law to begin with. That it has turned into an abusive tactic to fund police departments just adds sunshine to point out its wrongness.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/north-county-cities-sue-to-block-law-that-limits-revenue/article_842a6e6b-562b-5045-9458-a5d2901a3ae4.html
♪...Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich
Stupid bitch
swangdb
Nov 20, 2015, 12:14:33 PM11/20/15
to
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 20, 2015, 12:23:05 PM11/20/15
to
On 2015-11-20, swangdb <swa...@auburn.edu> wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:31:30 AM UTC-6, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 05:53:18 -0800 (PST), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
>> <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't have the right to his private property until there's a judgment.
>>
>> Why shouldn't a guy transporting illegal drugs in his car lose his
>> car? Or selling in his house lose his house? Would you say that
>> "until" must be prospective? Or can that sort of judgement already be
>> in place?
>
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:31:30 AM UTC-6, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 05:53:18 -0800 (PST), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
>> <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't have the right to his private property until there's a judgment.
>>
>> Why shouldn't a guy transporting illegal drugs in his car lose his
>> car? Or selling in his house lose his house? Would you say that
>> "until" must be prospective? Or can that sort of judgement already be
>> in place?
>
> Why should they? A guy is doing a crime, you catch him. Stealing his
> belongings isn't necessary.
The rationale is that it is likely to be the proceeds of crime.
> belongings isn't necessary.
> I guess you could take drug money maybe,
> though how do you know it's all drug money?
> Police are so eager to steal from people now, if you get caught
> carrying money around, they're liable to take it and claim it was
> drug money.
Good luck getting rid of it now, though. I think we should take some
measures to prevent law-abiding citizens from being affected.
--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison
J. Hugh Sullivan
Nov 20, 2015, 1:00:58 PM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:40:03 -0800 (PST), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
<agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Because a guy transporting drugs, even when captured 'red-handed' is only u=
>nder suspicion by we the people. The cops aren't the government. The cops=
> work for us - we the people. They represent us, but they aren't our final=
> arbiters of justice. The government's attorney brings charges and we the =
>people adjudicate - either through an elected judiciary (oft-appointed* at =
>certain levels, but by an elected official) or by a jury of peers. We don'=
>t leave it to 1 or 2 police officers to decide innocence or guilt, and espe=
pre-judgement of certain conditions, such as confiscation of the
instrument used in the assistance of committing a crime - unless that
judgement is declared unconstitutional.
>When we start believing the government is a moral entity, only doing what i=
>s right,
I felt that way at one time but there is no justification for that any
longer. I do think pre-judgement of certain illegal acts when caught
red-handed is justified.
>This was a bad law to begin with. That it has turned into an abusive tacti=
we are human. That makes your thought essentially credulous.
>How do you feel about laws that limit the value of the cash you carry or th=
>e size of financial transaction; and if you exceed either, the government c=
>an investigate you?
I'm sorta different - in case you had not noticed. :) I carry a credit
card, not much cash. An investigation of me would be a major waste of
time - I might even volunteer. I no longer itemize deductions on
income tax. And, naively enough, I don't see how a person can be
irresponsible except when TALKING politics or football.
I think the difference between us is that I still have some residue of
faith in people generally.
Hugh
<agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Because a guy transporting drugs, even when captured 'red-handed' is only u=
>nder suspicion by we the people. The cops aren't the government. The cops=
> work for us - we the people. They represent us, but they aren't our final=
> arbiters of justice. The government's attorney brings charges and we the =
>people adjudicate - either through an elected judiciary (oft-appointed* at =
>certain levels, but by an elected official) or by a jury of peers. We don'=
>t leave it to 1 or 2 police officers to decide innocence or guilt, and espe=
>cially to inflict punishment (which this is).
I have no argument with your statement. I think it doesn't address
pre-judgement of certain conditions, such as confiscation of the
instrument used in the assistance of committing a crime - unless that
judgement is declared unconstitutional.
>When we start believing the government is a moral entity, only doing what i=
>s right,
I felt that way at one time but there is no justification for that any
longer. I do think pre-judgement of certain illegal acts when caught
red-handed is justified.
>This was a bad law to begin with. That it has turned into an abusive tacti=
>c to fund police departments just adds sunshine to point out its wrongness.
That's the problem - every good thing is bent on destruction because
we are human. That makes your thought essentially credulous.
>How do you feel about laws that limit the value of the cash you carry or th=
>e size of financial transaction; and if you exceed either, the government c=
>an investigate you?
I'm sorta different - in case you had not noticed. :) I carry a credit
card, not much cash. An investigation of me would be a major waste of
time - I might even volunteer. I no longer itemize deductions on
income tax. And, naively enough, I don't see how a person can be
irresponsible except when TALKING politics or football.
I think the difference between us is that I still have some residue of
faith in people generally.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
Nov 20, 2015, 2:18:57 PM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:14:28 -0800 (PST), swangdb <swa...@auburn.edu>
wrote:
>On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:31:30 AM UTC-6, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 05:53:18 -0800 (PST), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
>> <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> >i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't hav=
>> Hugh
>
>Why should they? A guy is doing a crime, you catch him. Stealing his belo=
>ngings isn't necessary. I guess you could take drug money maybe, though h=
>ow do you know it's all drug money? Police are so eager to steal from peop=
>le now, if you get caught carrying money around, they're liable to take it =
have no doubt that my reputation would protect me from such.
A car or a house used in the commission of a crime is no different (in
principle) from a gun used for murder. I believe people who do bad
things forfeit certain rights.
I think we see "everyone" getting into the act because punishment is
not severe enough. I always ask, "Is it worth it?" Harsh punishment is
not a panacea, it is a deterrent.
Hugh
wrote:
>On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:31:30 AM UTC-6, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 05:53:18 -0800 (PST), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
>> <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >i disagree. i don't care if the guy has 50 prior felonies, we don't hav=
>e the right to his private property until there's a judgment.
>>=20
>> Why shouldn't a guy transporting illegal drugs in his car lose his
>> car? Or selling in his house lose his house? Would you say that
>> "until" must be prospective? Or can that sort of judgement already be
>> in place?
>>=20
>> car? Or selling in his house lose his house? Would you say that
>> "until" must be prospective? Or can that sort of judgement already be
>> in place?
>> Hugh
>
>Why should they? A guy is doing a crime, you catch him. Stealing his belo=
>ngings isn't necessary. I guess you could take drug money maybe, though h=
>ow do you know it's all drug money? Police are so eager to steal from peop=
>le now, if you get caught carrying money around, they're liable to take it =
>and claim it was drug money.
Your last sentence is the flaw in my persuasion. At the same time I
have no doubt that my reputation would protect me from such.
A car or a house used in the commission of a crime is no different (in
principle) from a gun used for murder. I believe people who do bad
things forfeit certain rights.
I think we see "everyone" getting into the act because punishment is
not severe enough. I always ask, "Is it worth it?" Harsh punishment is
not a panacea, it is a deterrent.
Hugh
swangdb
Nov 20, 2015, 3:59:58 PM11/20/15
to
I know a guy who got mixed up in the illegal drug trade. This was over 25 years ago. It's hard for me to believe he needed the money. He was a GS12 for the feds, single, no kids. But he agreed to let someone mail drugs to his address, presumably for a fee. Then I guess he'd pass the package to someone. He said when the police caught up with him, they took all of his money, including money he had before he was involved with this. I know the guy was a dumbass and shouldn't have done it. But the police still robbed him. He was in the hoosegow for a while, now he's an engineer again (but not for the feds).
Thomas R. Kettler
Nov 20, 2015, 4:13:22 PM11/20/15
to
In article <2db6c720-23f1-4361...@googlegroups.com>,
Also, Tulia, Texas used forfeiture laws to take assets of people who a
convicted perjurer claimed sold drugs to him.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
convicted perjurer claimed sold drugs to him.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 20, 2015, 4:35:20 PM11/20/15
to
On 2015-11-20, swangdb <swa...@auburn.edu> wrote:
As far as "took all his money", if he was keeping it in cash, I am
afraid I simply don't believe him. If he is telling the truth, he should
partly blame himself because that was stupid.
If they raided his investments, I would be surprised. Except for a
lot of those crimes they can take your cash anyway with something
called a "fine".
--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you
make it. -- unknown
xyzzy
Nov 20, 2015, 4:47:25 PM11/20/15
to
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Nov 20, 2015, 4:52:30 PM11/20/15
to
The truly pernicious part of seizures like this, is that when they seize all your money *before* you've been charged with a crime, you've got no money to hire an attorney to get your money back
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 20, 2015, 5:00:01 PM11/20/15
to
On 2015-11-20, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
as cash, because you have to have a court order prior and at least
some semblance of due process. With cash, they just take it and give
you a receipt.
--
The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln
xyzzy
Nov 20, 2015, 5:08:03 PM11/20/15
to
J. Hugh Sullivan
Nov 20, 2015, 5:36:22 PM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:59:55 -0800 (PST), swangdb <swa...@auburn.edu>
wrote:
>I know a guy who got mixed up in the illegal drug trade. This was over 25 =
>years ago. It's hard for me to believe he needed the money. He was a GS12=
> for the feds, single, no kids. But he agreed to let someone mail drugs to=
> his address, presumably for a fee. Then I guess he'd pass the package to =
>someone. He said when the police caught up with him, they took all of his =
>money, including money he had before he was involved with this. I know the=
> guy was a dumbass and shouldn't have done it. But the police still robbed=
> him. He was in the hoosegow for a while, now he's an engineer again (but =
>not for the feds).
The first rule of thumb is that anyone can make a mistake - more now
than ever before in my experience. I'll bet there was no way he could
demonstrate that some of the money was pre-crime OR that he still had
it because he had crime money to use. No conclusion is safe w/o
knowing all the circumstances.
What I read is that more than 75% of people in prison go back. In
spite of that they should be given a second chance. What 75% means is
that 25% DO succeed.
I believe with the right leadership anyone can succeed at some level.
Unfortunately the right leadership prevails in too few homes and too
few public schools.
Hugh
wrote:
>I know a guy who got mixed up in the illegal drug trade. This was over 25 =
>years ago. It's hard for me to believe he needed the money. He was a GS12=
> for the feds, single, no kids. But he agreed to let someone mail drugs to=
> his address, presumably for a fee. Then I guess he'd pass the package to =
>someone. He said when the police caught up with him, they took all of his =
>money, including money he had before he was involved with this. I know the=
> guy was a dumbass and shouldn't have done it. But the police still robbed=
> him. He was in the hoosegow for a while, now he's an engineer again (but =
>not for the feds).
The first rule of thumb is that anyone can make a mistake - more now
than ever before in my experience. I'll bet there was no way he could
demonstrate that some of the money was pre-crime OR that he still had
it because he had crime money to use. No conclusion is safe w/o
knowing all the circumstances.
What I read is that more than 75% of people in prison go back. In
spite of that they should be given a second chance. What 75% means is
that 25% DO succeed.
I believe with the right leadership anyone can succeed at some level.
Unfortunately the right leadership prevails in too few homes and too
few public schools.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
Nov 20, 2015, 5:40:59 PM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:13:20 -0500, "Thomas R. Kettler"
<tket...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>Also, Tulia, Texas used forfeiture laws to take assets of people who a
>convicted perjurer claimed sold drugs to him.
Sounds like an iceberg - the main part doesn't show. Unless you were
<tket...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>Also, Tulia, Texas used forfeiture laws to take assets of people who a
>convicted perjurer claimed sold drugs to him.
part of the investigating team, of course.
Hugh
0 new messages