Asset Forfeiture?

[The Rabbi]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

 

[westwall]

Nope. Asset forfeiture is the most unconstitutional thing to come down the pike in years.

 

[mdk]

I think seizing the assets of citizens on the mere suspicion of a crime is a travesty and gross violation of due process. These laws need to be scrapped either by the courts or by the legislators.

 

[The Irish Ram]

We don't pay attention to what our gov. does and it comes back to bite us in the form of a loss of rights. The seizure law was sold to us under the guise of seizing Mexican drug lord property. It didn't take long for the law to be used against us.

We need to start paying attention to the treaties we are making with the UN for the same reason. They will come back to bite us here.

 

[martybegan]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

Like anything with government, it was an idea of limited scope, that was expanded and abused. A law used to help get major drug dealers is applied to fund law enforcement,

It is a terrible idea, that has gotten worse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

Bad idea.
If you aren't charged with a crime, or found not guilty, you should get back your assets
and any legal fees spent to get it back.

 

[S.J.]

We let it happen through our complacency.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks. Of course I agree.
btw Obama's new nominee for AG is one of the biggest proponents of asset forfeiture.

 

[zeke]

History[edit]
Congress has incrementally expanded the government's authority to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises and their money laundering activities since the early 1970s. They have done this by enacting various anti-money laundering and forfeiture laws such as the RICO Act of 1970 and the US Patriot Act of 2001.

Thanks. Of course I agree.
btw Obama's new nominee for AG is one of the biggest proponents of asset forfeiture.

You punk ass bitch. I knew you were gonna blame Obama for this law. Instead of George Bush who expanded the law under the Patriot Act. And as I said back when Republicans supported Bush doing this, you assholes won't like it when the next President uses this power. And now you want to bitch.

But don't you worry none rabbit. You got nothing to seize way down in your rabbit hole.

 

[occupied]

History[edit]
Congress has incrementally expanded the government's authority to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises and their money laundering activities since the early 1970s. They have done this by enacting various anti-money laundering and forfeiture laws such as the RICO Act of 1970 and the US Patriot Act of 2001.

Thanks. Of course I agree.
btw Obama's new nominee for AG is one of the biggest proponents of asset forfeiture.

You punk ass bitch. I knew you were gonna blame Obama for this law. Instead of George Bush who expanded the law under the Patriot Act. And as I said back when Republicans supported Bush doing this, you assholes won't like it when the next President uses this power. And now you want to bitch.

But don't you worry none rabbit. You got nothing to seize way down in your rabbit hole.

Yes, the drug warrior crowd are entirely responsible for this shit continually escalating the law beyond all reason for no other purpose than to be able to say they got tough on drugs.

 

[jon_berzerk]

no it is a criminal and unconstitutional act

 

[Old Rocks]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

I think that asset seizure is used far too few times. When it came out how Enron had screwed over every person they did business with, including their own employees, the whole of the upper management should have had 100% of their assets seized and sold to pay those people some of the financial damage to them that management had done.

 

[martybegan]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

I think that asset seizure is used far too few times. When it came out how Enron had screwed over every person they did business with, including their own employees, the whole of the upper management should have had 100% of their assets seized and sold to pay those people some of the financial damage to them that management had done.

Before they were convicted of anything? So the government should be able to go up to anyone accused of a crime and take all their stuff?

 

[occupied]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

I think that asset seizure is used far too few times. When it came out how Enron had screwed over every person they did business with, including their own employees, the whole of the upper management should have had 100% of their assets seized and sold to pay those people some of the financial damage to them that management had done.

Before they were convicted of anything? So the government should be able to go up to anyone accused of a crime and take all their stuff?

It is practically impossible to convict individuals involved in white collar crime no matter how clearly guilty they are. We have sent people to their deaths on far less evidence than it takes to get a serious investigation into corporate wrongdoing that all too often end in a negligible fine and no recompense to victims.

 

[zeke]

We have sent people to their deaths on far less evidence than it takes to get a serious investigation into corporate wrongdoing that all too often end in a negligible fine and no recompense to victims.

And chances are the wrongdoing corporations made so much damn money off their wrongdoing that they could care less about some piddly ass fine from the government. Take our wonderful bankers for instance. Collapse the economy, make hundreds of millions doing it and pay a few million in fines. Decent trade off if you can get it.

 

[martybegan]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

I think that asset seizure is used far too few times. When it came out how Enron had screwed over every person they did business with, including their own employees, the whole of the upper management should have had 100% of their assets seized and sold to pay those people some of the financial damage to them that management had done.

Before they were convicted of anything? So the government should be able to go up to anyone accused of a crime and take all their stuff?

It is practically impossible to convict individuals involved in white collar crime no matter how clearly guilty they are. We have sent people to their deaths on far less evidence than it takes to get a serious investigation into corporate wrongdoing that all too often end in a negligible fine and no recompense to victims.

So the answer is to say "fuck the law" and allow law enforcement to seize a person's/companies assets on a whim?

 

[TooTall]

History[edit]
Congress has incrementally expanded the government's authority to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises and their money laundering activities since the early 1970s. They have done this by enacting various anti-money laundering and forfeiture laws such as the RICO Act of 1970 and the US Patriot Act of 2001.

Thanks. Of course I agree.
btw Obama's new nominee for AG is one of the biggest proponents of asset forfeiture.

You punk ass bitch. I knew you were gonna blame Obama for this law. Instead of George Bush who expanded the law under the Patriot Act. And as I said back when Republicans supported Bush doing this, you assholes won't like it when the next President uses this power. And now you want to bitch.

But don't you worry none rabbit. You got nothing to seize way down in your rabbit hole.

No one blamed Obama for this law, dickweed! The Rabbi is merely furnishing information to you low, or should I say NO information voters about who supports this unjust law. And, It was in the Patriot Act that was passed by Congress and signed by Bush and renewed by this President who has abused the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

History[edit]
Congress has incrementally expanded the government's authority to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises and their money laundering activities since the early 1970s. They have done this by enacting various anti-money laundering and forfeiture laws such as the RICO Act of 1970 and the US Patriot Act of 2001.

Thanks. Of course I agree.
btw Obama's new nominee for AG is one of the biggest proponents of asset forfeiture.

You punk ass bitch. I knew you were gonna blame Obama for this law. Instead of George Bush who expanded the law under the Patriot Act. And as I said back when Republicans supported Bush doing this, you assholes won't like it when the next President uses this power. And now you want to bitch.

But don't you worry none rabbit. You got nothing to seize way down in your rabbit hole.

I dont see any post where I blame Obama for asset forfeture. Are you seeing pink elephants again, Zeke?
But his AG nominee is a big fan of it. Shouldn't that be a concern for anyone?

 

[The Rabbi]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

I think that asset seizure is used far too few times. When it came out how Enron had screwed over every person they did business with, including their own employees, the whole of the upper management should have had 100% of their assets seized and sold to pay those people some of the financial damage to them that management had done.

Before they were convicted of anything? So the government should be able to go up to anyone accused of a crime and take all their stuff?

It is practically impossible to convict individuals involved in white collar crime no matter how clearly guilty they are. We have sent people to their deaths on far less evidence than it takes to get a serious investigation into corporate wrongdoing that all too often end in a negligible fine and no recompense to victims.

There are legions of people doing time for white collar crime. Look at Martha Stewart, who was jailed for basically tlaking to someone.
That dog wont hunt.

 

[OnePercenter]

Can anyone name a truly innocent person who had their assets forfeited? Seems every case I can find had a CRIMINAL act occurring.