Civil Asset Forfeiture needs to be abolished.

[SavannahMann]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

 

[evenflow1969]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

I have been preaching this for a while now! Finally some one else notices!

 

[SavannahMann]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

I have been preaching this for a while now! Finally some one else notices!

I’ve been a believer for years, ever since I first learned of the practice.

 

[evenflow1969]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

I have been preaching this for a while now! Finally some one else notices!

I’ve been a believer for years, ever since I first learned of the practice.

We defend the 2nd ammendment and let unreasonable search and seiziere to go on like wild fire! The second amendment is for the protection of the others but here we are with the patriot act and asset forfeture. Likely the two most unamerican laws ever and no one complains, I do not get it!

 

[Pogo]

STILL more creeping fascism.

OK "creeping" isn't the right word. We're long past that by now.

Cue the board fascisti currently hanging in the NFL threads making excuses for Big State over there to ooze in and pile on the victims here, in four... three... two....

ChrisL
Correll

 

[mdk]

Just last year the government seized seven billion dollars via civil asset forfeiture. Perhaps Congress will address this issue once they are done passing resolutions that pat themselves on the back and naming government buildings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

Asset forfeiture measures are Constitutional, they do not violate the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendments (see Bennis v. Michigan (1996)).

One is at liberty to oppose such measures through the political process, to seek their repeal – but there are no Constitutional grounds for opposition.

 

[evenflow1969]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

Asset forfeiture measures are Constitutional, they do not violate the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendments (see Bennis v. Michigan (1996)).

One is at liberty to oppose such measures through the political process, to seek their repeal – but there are no Constitutional grounds for opposition.

Fuck off! It is theft and cetainly goes against innnocent until proven guilty. It is theft pure and simple! Thank you nfopr your darlk lord interpretation though.

 

[Pogo]

Just last year the government seized seven billion dollars via civil asset forfeiture. Perhaps Congress will address this issue once they are done passing resolutions that pat themselves on the back and naming government buildings.

--- and reminding each other that they haven't given themselves a raise in well over fifteen minutes.

The poor wretches. How long are they supposed to live on lobbyist fifty-dollar-a-month townhouses?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

ABsolutely.
However it doesn't need to end, just needs totally overhauled with very specific limitations and the right of a speedy trial.
Today, anywhere in the U.S., you are taking a considerable risk if you carry more than $10,000 in cash. The police can simply take it from you - just because you have it. That is unconstitutional if anything is.

 

[Pogo]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

Asset forfeiture measures are Constitutional, they do not violate the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendments (see Bennis v. Michigan (1996)).

One is at liberty to oppose such measures through the political process, to seek their repeal – but there are no Constitutional grounds for opposition.

Fuck off! It is theft and certainly goes against innnocent until proven guilty. It is theft pure and simple! Thank you nfopr your darlk lord interpretation though.

It's kinda curious that the poster claims it to be Constitutional and immediately cites exactly those Amendments that make it UNConstitutional -- the Fifth, ensuring no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", which clearly didn't occur here; the Fourteenth, which bans the states from the same thing (although not in play here as it doesn't seem to have been the state), and the Fourth, which bans illegal search and seizure without cause.

"No Constitutional grounds" my ass. Must be "opposite day"

 

[Pogo]

ABsolutely.
However it doesn't need to end, just needs totally overhauled with very specific limitations and the right of a speedy trial.
Today, anywhere in the U.S., you are taking a considerable risk if you carry more than $10,000 in cash. The police can simply take it from you - just because you have it. That is unconstitutional if anything is.

Exactly. Who gets to judge how much money is "too much"? What if you're on your way to buy a car?

 

[evenflow1969]

ABsolutely.
However it doesn't need to end, just needs totally overhauled with very specific limitations and the right of a speedy trial.
Today, anywhere in the U.S., you are taking a considerable risk if you carry more than $10,000 in cash. The police can simply take it from you - just because you have it. That is unconstitutional if anything is.

Exactly. Who gets to judge how much money is "too much"? What if you're on your way to buy a car?

I cary more money than allowable to go to the casino! What will three grand buy today?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

Asset forfeiture measures are Constitutional, they do not violate the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendments (see Bennis v. Michigan (1996)).

One is at liberty to oppose such measures through the political process, to seek their repeal – but there are no Constitutional grounds for opposition.

Fuck off! It is theft and certainly goes against innnocent until proven guilty. It is theft pure and simple! Thank you nfopr your darlk lord interpretation though.

It's kinda curious that the poster claims it to be Constitutional and immediately cites exactly those Amendments that make it UNConstitutional -- the Fifth, ensuring no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", which clearly didn't occur here; the Fourteenth, which bans the states from the same thing (although not in play here as it doesn't seem to have been the state), and the Fourth, which bans illegal search and seizure without cause.

"No Constitutional grounds" my ass. Must be "opposite day"

No, it’s the Supreme Court determines what is or not Constitutional day – a day that started in 1787.

And asset forfeiture laws are Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules they aren’t.

Setting aside the kill the messenger fallacy, that a law or measure might be Constitutional doesn’t mean it’s a good law or otherwise appropriate.

Again, citizens are at liberty to repeal asset forfeiture laws through the political process, consistent with the First Amendment.

But to argue those laws violate the right to due process is as ignorant as it is wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Someone tell me how it is different for a criminal to scam a family out of money, and the police who seize the money under the color of law?

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this? Simple, they live in terror of being labeled soft on crime. So these abominations, these thefts, continue uninterrupted.

Yeah, the cops are out there protecting us, from the dangers inherent in the life savings of a family. Thank God the cops are out there doing the job, what would we do if this man had been able to keep his damned money.

Asset forfeiture measures are Constitutional, they do not violate the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendments (see Bennis v. Michigan (1996)).

One is at liberty to oppose such measures through the political process, to seek their repeal – but there are no Constitutional grounds for opposition.

Fuck off! It is theft and certainly goes against innnocent until proven guilty. It is theft pure and simple! Thank you nfopr your darlk lord interpretation though.

It's kinda curious that the poster claims it to be Constitutional and immediately cites exactly those Amendments that make it UNConstitutional -- the Fifth, ensuring no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", which clearly didn't occur here; the Fourteenth, which bans the states from the same thing (although not in play here as it doesn't seem to have been the state), and the Fourth, which bans illegal search and seizure without cause.

"No Constitutional grounds" my ass. Must be "opposite day"

No, it’s the Supreme Court determines what is or not Constitutional day – a day that started in 1787.

And asset forfeiture laws are Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules they aren’t.

Setting aside the kill the messenger fallacy, that a law or measure might be Constitutional doesn’t mean it’s a good law or otherwise appropriate.

Again, citizens are at liberty to repeal asset forfeiture laws through the political process, consistent with the First Amendment.

But to argue those laws violate the right to due process is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Ah, so your argument is that "the Constitution does not say what it clearly says".

Good luck with that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is one of those things that look very good on paper but go horrendously wrong in real life.

Civil forfeiture was sold as the way to take away the drug kingpin assets. The mansions and yachts bought with drug money could just be taken away just like that and the bad people justly punished.

It never worked out that way. As soon as government agencies saw this as a way to get free money it exploded into disaster. It has been used in government scams, grabs and outright thefts. Cities began to rely on forfeiture money and figure the income into budgets. Predictably the need soon outpaced the source and the order was given to expand takings.

It's a monster. It is no longer effective at what it was intended to do if it ever was. It needs to end and all assets now held in forfeiture returned.n

 

[dblack]

Why hasn’t either Party come out against this?

Because we keep voting for them regardless.

 

[dblack]

It's kinda curious that the poster claims it to be Constitutional and immediately cites exactly those Amendments that make it UNConstitutional -- the Fifth, ensuring no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", which clearly didn't occur here; the Fourteenth, which bans the states from the same thing (although not in play here as it doesn't seem to have been the state), and the Fourth, which bans illegal search and seizure without cause.

"No Constitutional grounds" my ass. Must be "opposite day"

C is an SC "fundamentalist". His catch-phrase is "The SC said, I believe it, that settles it."

You can't really drag him out of that ditch.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ABsolutely.
However it doesn't need to end, just needs totally overhauled with very specific limitations and the right of a speedy trial.
Today, anywhere in the U.S., you are taking a considerable risk if you carry more than $10,000 in cash. The police can simply take it from you - just because you have it. That is unconstitutional if anything is.

Wrong.

That’s not how forfeiture laws work.

Clearly the problem is ignorance of the law – one cannot oppose a law he has no understanding of.

And yet again, asset forfeiture laws are Constitutional – if you don’t like it dig up Chief Justice Rehnquist and argue it with him.

 

[SavannahMann]

ABsolutely.
However it doesn't need to end, just needs totally overhauled with very specific limitations and the right of a speedy trial.
Today, anywhere in the U.S., you are taking a considerable risk if you carry more than $10,000 in cash. The police can simply take it from you - just because you have it. That is unconstitutional if anything is.

Most seizures are less than $200.