Asset Forfeiture?

[OnePercenter]

Asset seizures have their roots in the RICO laws and were expanded with The Patriot Act. Sadly, the courts have upheld most instances of these laws. They need to be scrapped but I don't see that happening.

Criminals (the five percent) have screwed it up for the rest of us.

 

[OnePercenter]

Martha Stewart was a dog and pony show, just something to make is look like action was being taken.

Did she violate the law?

 

[Judicial review]

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 don't even think the irs or student loan department of education should be able to garnish wages, so what do you think I think about this?

 

[OnePercenter]

Criminals tend to have large amounts of cash.

If you don't want another financial crisis stop voting for Republicans.

Oh blah blah blah Booooshhhh blah blah blah. You are a moron.

Criminals don't tend to have large amounts of cash?

Weren't the last two stock market crashes under Republican administrations?

 

[boedicca]

Criminals tend to have large amounts of cash.

If you don't want another financial crisis stop voting for Republicans.

Oh blah blah blah Booooshhhh blah blah blah. You are a moron.

Criminals don't tend to have large amounts of cash?

Weren't the last two stock market crashes under Republican administrations?

Your sophistry is showing, hun.

 

[OnePercenter]

947"]
And you have to pay for an attorney to make your case and probably court fees...

Again, criminals.

 

[OnePercenter]

And that's the calculus.

I'll also note that OneBrainCell makes the logically flawed insinuation that because criminals hold large amounts of cash, then everyone who holds large amounts of cash must have gained said cash through criminal activity.

I never wrote that.

 

[OnePercenter]

Please quote the specific law that makes this so.

FAQs Regarding Reporting Cash Payments of Over 10 000 Form 8300

 

[OnePercenter]

You actually like the idea that police can strong arm a person into signing away their property?

What a fascist asshole.

In every case that's been presented a criminal act has taken place. The police have to apply to the courts for any forfeiture. A hearing is held. What's so 'fascist' about being pro in catching criminals?

 

[Judicial review]

You actually like the idea that police can strong arm a person into signing away their property?

What a fascist asshole.

In every case that's been presented a criminal act has taken place. The police have to apply to the courts for any forfeiture. A hearing is held. What's so 'fascist' about being pro in catching criminals?

Guys if you commit a criminal act and the debtor goes through the courts and files and wins a judgment and the debt is deemed valid then you should have your credit destroyed as a punishment for neglect. If you fail to pay after all of this then the option is bankruptcy. It's not full seizure but a give and take for a fresh start. That's the only way I believe a debtor or government can seize your assets.

Now onepercentor, the irs doesn't need to go through the courts to garnish wages and seize assets. They just start with an assessment on taxes not paid on time, then if you don't communicate and pay they can just go ahead and seize your paycheck and if that doesn't work and you owe millions in severe cases put you in jail.

Now with taxes you can't file bankrupt and get out of it, but you can settle. My experience with this is personal. Some people can't afford to pay back taxes due to hardship and file a hardship settlement also known as a oic. Sometimes even 8 yea r s later. The irs has an 10 year statute of limitations meaning tax debt is written off after 10 years, so my question for you is why give the irs the option to put you in jail or seize what little you have after a hardship, when there is a statute of limitations after 10 years and ways to get out of it? It's a contradiction. The irs btw is a criminal organization in my opinion because they will never tell you about these way to get out of it because they aren't required by law even though you have these resources or rights according to the law. That makes it unconstitutional. The police has to read you your rights but the irs doesnt? You are full of shit. I'm a political and financial genius onep ercet. Don't **** with me.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Guys if you commit a criminal act and the debtor goes through the courts and files and wins a judgment and the debt is deemed valid then you should have your credit destroyed as a punishment for neglect. If you fail to pay after all of this then the option is bankruptcy. It's not full seizure but a give and take for a fresh start. That's the only way I believe a debtor or government can seize your assets.

Just stop! You're guessing and that's a terrible habit in any discussion. Civil asset forfeiture laws allow government to seize property, vehicles, cash, or anything else of value if you're SUSPECTED of a crime. It's as insidious as it comes, and your blind faith in the goodness of government and naive belief that if somebody obeys the law nothing bad will happen to them is exasperating and saddening. People have their property taken away all the time without going into debt. A woman had her house taken by eminent domain so a rich developer could put in a shopping center, and that was held up by the Supreme Court. Others fail to pay their property taxes and there goes their house. The concept of personal property has been so eroded as to be virtually non existent and you are a perfect example of Americans who need to wake the hell up.

 

[Judicial review]

Guys if you commit a criminal act and the debtor goes through the courts and files and wins a judgment and the debt is deemed valid then you should have your credit destroyed as a punishment for neglect. If you fail to pay after all of this then the option is bankruptcy. It's not full seizure but a give and take for a fresh start. That's the only way I believe a debtor or government can seize your assets.

Just stop! You're guessing and that's a terrible habit in any discussion. Civil asset forfeiture laws allow government to seize property, vehicles, cash, or anything else of value if you're SUSPECTED of a crime. It's as insidious as it comes, and your blind faith in the goodness of government and naive belief that if somebody obeys the law nothing bad will happen to them is exasperating and saddening. People have their property taken away all the time without going into debt. A woman had her house taken by eminent domain so a rich developer could put in a shopping center, and that was held up by the Supreme Court. Others fail to pay their property taxes and there goes their house. The concept of personal property has been so eroded as to be virtually non existent and you are a perfect example of Americans who need to wake the hell up.

I know that's not the law, but it's what it should be. That's my point.

 

[Judicial review]

Look,

If you want to get someone like you mentioned to pay threaten jail time. Hmm.. pay money or go or stay in jail? What does your common sense say?

Seizure of assets shouldn't be an option. Why? Because it isn't done on a case by case basis. They don't ask your financial situation or care, because they aren't required by law to.

 

[Judicial review]

As for property taxes - jail time. Make it stiff. What's the point in keeping a home if your in jail or paying a mortgage payment? She'll sell the home, but that's where I'd be ok with the government putting a lein on it and they'd get paid at closing. If there's no equity then the government experience s something common a loss. Happens all the time just like this every year.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Look,

If you want to get someone like you mentioned to pay threaten jail time. Hmm.. pay money or go or stay in jail? What does your common sense say?

Seizure of assets shouldn't be an option. Why? Because it isn't done on a case by case basis. They don't ask your financial situation or care, because they aren't required by law to.

Debtor's prison is a human rights violation. Let's move on to the next suggestion. Quickly!

 

[Judicial review]

Look,

If you want to get someone like you mentioned to pay threaten jail time. Hmm.. pay money or go or stay in jail? What does your common sense say?

Seizure of assets shouldn't be an option. Why? Because it isn't done on a case by case basis. They don't ask your financial situation or care, because they aren't required by law to.

Debtor's prison is a human rights violation. Let's move on to the next suggestion. Quickly!

Have you ever heard of leins? You know that credit affects your ability to establish an electric account to turn on the lights from being abe to get a loan? Take out 1 loan and don't pay that gets reported to prevent you from taking out another. I also ask a very relevant question in if someone is rich like you claim they won't take out a debt. If they do it will be a 1 time deal and the company debtor takes a risk in doing so. If someone takes advantage it's bad business company looses money. Happens every day. However, usually with people that can't afford to pay it back. Very rare with people that can.

In the case with busineSS taxes fail to pay taxes can result in not legally able to do business.

Personal income taxes leins are placed credit is crushed, can't open up simple accounts just like I posted above. Also most mortgage loans require you pay property taxes. Can't survive. Gotta file bankruptcy which should be only way to seize assets and allows for review of situation. The way it should be. In the 1 example you gave which is so rare you only posted 1... that woman now a days would be crushed in other ways that she'd pay it and look elsewhere to live. Her kids could be prevented from attending public school. She could be prevented from attending local pool or zoo or banned from the park. She'd be so isolated from the comm unity that she'd truly be stuck in her home and get her wish aND die in it sooner than later. So ridiculous who gives a **** if she doesn't pay?

Asset seizure isn't needed. Property taxes are so overrated. Give it to the state.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Look,

If you want to get someone like you mentioned to pay threaten jail time. Hmm.. pay money or go or stay in jail? What does your common sense say?

Seizure of assets shouldn't be an option. Why? Because it isn't done on a case by case basis. They don't ask your financial situation or care, because they aren't required by law to.

Debtor's prison is a human rights violation. Let's move on to the next suggestion. Quickly!

Have you ever heard of leins? You know that credit affects your ability to establish an electric account to turn on the lights from being abe to get a loan? Take out 1 loan and don't pay that gets reported to prevent you from taking out another. I also ask a very relevant question in if someone is rich like you claim they won't take out a debt. If they do it will be a 1 time deal and the company debtor takes a risk in doing so. If someone takes advantage it's bad business company looses money. Happens every day. However, usually with people that can't afford to pay it back. Very rare with people that can.

In the case with busineSS taxes fail to pay taxes can result in not legally able to do business.

Personal income taxes leins are placed credit is crushed, can't open up simple accounts just like I posted above. Also most mortgage loans require you pay property taxes. Can't survive. Gotta file bankruptcy which should be only way to seize assets and allows for review of situation. The way it should be. In the 1 example you gave which is so rare you only posted 1... that woman now a days would be crushed in other ways that she'd pay it and look elsewhere to live. Her kids could be prevented from attending public school. She could be prevented from attending local pool or zoo or banned from the park. She'd be so isolated from the comm unity that she'd truly be stuck in her home and get her wish aND die in it sooner than later. So ridiculous who gives a **** if she doesn't pay?

Asset seizure isn't needed. Property taxes are so overrated. Give it to the state.

Civil asset forfeiture is needed by a vast, overgrown government untethered to its original constitutional moorings. It's money, billions of dollars, that government law enforcement agencies won't let go of easily. It's one of the reasons I don't think anything short of another revolution will get us back to a limited government republic.

 

[FA_Q2]

You actually like the idea that police can strong arm a person into signing away their property?


What a fascist asshole.

In every case that's been presented a criminal act has taken place. The police have to apply to the courts for any forfeiture. A hearing is held. What's so 'fascist' about being pro in catching criminals?

That is because you didn’t even bother to do a cursory search of the blatant abuse of civil forfeiture. If you had you would have seen the dozens of cases where NO CRIME WHATSOEVER had taken place and even more cases where the property seized had nothing to do with the crime at all.



They fought the law. Who won The Washington Post

Over the next two hours, he would be detained without charges, handcuffed and taken to a nearby police station. He also would be stripped of $17,550 in cash — money that he had earned through the Smoking Roosters, a small barbecue restaurant he owned in Staunton, Va. Stuart said he was going to use the money that night for supplies and equipment.


The reason for the police stop: Stuart’s SUV had tinted windows and a video was playing in his sightline. He was never charged with a crime, and there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But police took his money because they assumed it was related to the drug trade.

No crime at all. Mere 'suspicion' and they took his assets.

Costello told Ashby the couple had visited a relative and were heading to Pompano Beach, Fla., to fix up a house they had bought in foreclosure. As Ashby listened, he claimed he noticed the odor of marijuana. Based on his “training and experience,” Ashby decided Costello was probably involved in criminal or drug-related activity and sought a search of the van, according to court records.


Ashby asked how much currency was in the van. Costello gave a low-ball estimate of $5,000 to $10,000, records show. He agreed to a search because he believed he had done nothing wrong, he told The Post. Ashby did not find any drugs, but he turned up more than $32,000 in the van and seized it through the federal Equitable Sharing Program.


Ashby called a fellow deputy who was assigned to a regional U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration task force. The second officer asked Costello why he didn’t leave the money in a bank. Costello said he needed it to buy supplies to fix up the Florida house. In court papers, the police justified their seizure by claiming that Costello was unusually nervous. They also said that Florida is a source of drugs for New York and that drug smugglers often use large amounts of cash.


Costello told The Post he could not believe that Ashby and his colleague disregarded the fact that they found no marijuana in the van. Before the couple were permitted to leave, Ashby made Costello hand over the money in his pocket, Costello said.


“He turned around and he says, ‘Give me the money out of your back pocket,’” Costello said. “I said, ‘What if the car breaks down?’ The guy has such an attitude with me. He said, ‘You have a debit card. Go find an ATM.’ ”

Outright ROBBERY. And they didn’t even bother to hide it. They even stole the cash in his pocket. Then, they manage to recover a whopping 7k of that 32k. And you support this kind of asinine law...



Time For Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws To Meet The Same Fate As Jim Crow - Forbes

What about when the person isn’t even the owner of the property, the crime is not committed anywhere near the property, there is zero scale with the property versus the crime committed or that the property has any connection to the crime whatsoever. Oh well, they STILL seize it.

They were evicted from their home because their son had been arrested for selling $40 worth of illegal drugs outside of the house. But because he lived there, the house was fair game for seizure. It’s Bennis on steroids.


Mr. and Mrs. Sourovelis have been through a regulatory nightmare trying to get their property back. That has entailed numerous trips to a “courtroom” where no independent judge is in charge, but only city prosecutors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/u...list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html

Then, they don’t target assets because it serves a legal purpose but rather target them based on WHAT THE COPS WANT.

But in the video, Mr. McMurtry made it clear that forfeitures were highly contingent on the needs of law enforcement. In New Jersey, the police and prosecutors are allowed to use cars, cash and other seized goods; the rest must be sold at auction. Cellphones and jewelry, Mr. McMurtry said, are not worth the bother. Flat screen televisions, however, “are very popular with the police departments,” he said.

I wonder why flat screen TV's are targeted? Maybe because they are regularly used in breaking the law - that’s it. Let’s say that....



Of course, the reality is that people have very little recourse and the entire system is established to ensure the smallest oversight possible. Essentially, oversight is nonexistent, mostly because this is a budgeting supplement for departments to acquire things they can’t get otherwise:

Moreover, in most states, if property is used illegally without the owner’s knowledge or consent, the burden is placed on the property owner to establish her innocence in court, not the government to prove otherwise. In other words, a property owner is guilty until proven innocent.



In reality, few property owners, especially low-income individuals, can meet the burdens of civil forfeiture proceedings and often do not challenge seizures of their property. This is especially true when government seizes property the value of which would be greatly exceeded by the time, attorney fees and other expenses necessary to fight the forfeiture. As a result, many property owners do not and cannot challenge forfeitures, and the government obtains the property by default.

Incredibly, given the ability of law enforcement through civil forfeiture to raise off-budget funds, often without limitation, many states do not even require law enforcement agencies to report how much money has been raised and on what items the money has been spent. As of 2003, only 29 states required this basic level of public oversight—and only 19 of those states responded to freedom of information requests with reliable information. And those states that did respond often provided very limited data.

And here is an officer openly admitting that there is essentially no oversight on what they spend this money on. IOW, this is a slush fund (even used to buy a margarita machine for one lucky department).









In this video, the cop outright LIES about stops and then takes money from the stopped individuals, AGAIN, without actually charging anyone or finding any laws broken. Interesting that the cops are also avoiding drugs but focusing on finding money. I wonder why that is. Well, no I really don’t.



When did you become a totalitarian one percent? This is nothing short of that.

 

[OnePercenter]

Going to buy kitchen equipment with $17,550 in cash. Sure he was.

The second was a criminal act. Do you really want these guys living next door?

 

[Judicial review]

Going to buy kitchen equipment with $17,550 in cash. Sure he was.

The second was a criminal act. Do you really want these guys living next door?

If she's hot, yes of course I do. She'll have money to take care of her damn property if she wants and loves it so damn much. Unlike these pot growers next door. I live in such a nice neighborhood with big homes and nice properties and I get stuck with the neighbors who have their blinds down all the damn time. Shit.