Loretta Lynch Reinstates Government Theft

[Clementine]

Lynch loved taking people's money and property before Obama chose her as his AG. Civil forfeiture is nothing more than government stealing from people without having to prove they were involved in any crimes. They don't even have to charge people or arrest them, just take the money and run. And so few victims get any of their money back after spending a lot of money and time to get their lives back after the government thugs robbed them. Those that do eventually win in court can only expect a portion of their assets returned to them.

It is a gross violation of our rights and Lynch just decided that it was okay and they will continue to rob people blind. I guess this is the next best thing to increasing taxes. They get to choose their victims and don't have to back up their accusations with evidence. They just instantly fine people by stealing from them and never have to face consequences.

"Should government law enforcement agents be allowed to take your stuff — property, homes, hotels, cash, or cars — without due process, without conviction, based solely on their assertion that you might be engaged in criminal activity? Common decency and the rule of law say, adamantly, Hell No. On the other hand, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, our nation’s top law enforcement officer, thinks this grossly abused practice is just fine.

The Justice Department’s "equitable sharing program" is a case study in unintended consequences, bad incentives, special interest politics, and gross abuses of power. Through this program, the federal government can partner with local law enforcement agencies to seize private property from people who have not even been charged with a crime. To anyone familiar with the Constitution, or even the basic principle of "innocent until proven guilty," this is a fundamental violation of our due process rights and basic civil liberties. The practice perverts the rule of law, and it actually undermines the men and women serving in law enforcement charged with keeping our communities safe.

The Justice Department’s "equitable sharing program" is a case study in unintended consequences, bad incentives, special interest politics, and gross abuses of power.

Now, after a four-month suspension due to budget cuts, the equitable sharing program is back in action. This should come as no surprise. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was a notorious abuser of civil asset forfeiture prior to being appointed as Eric Holder’s replacement by President Obama. Lynch’s notorious history was one of the major reasons why constitutional conservatives like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) opposed her nomination in the first place. "Mrs. Lynch has a track-record of violating the individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution," the senator said. "She considers civil asset forfeiture to be a 'useful tool,' while I consider it to be an infringement on the Fifth Amendment."

As a New York attorney, Lynch used civil asset forfeiture more than 120 times, collecting a total of more than $113 million in seized property. In fiscal year 2013, shortly before her appointment as Attorney General, her office took in an additional $904 million using asset forfeiture.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of equitable sharing, however, is the way that the very people doing the seizing are allowed to keep some of the money they steal. Rather than being deposited in a general treasury fund, forfeited assets are shared between the Justice Department and local law enforcement. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, right? Sadly, the luxury of self-funding through the seizure of private property is not one that most Americans are privy to. Taking other people’s stuff is wrong. You would be stealing, and you would likely go to jail."



https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/loretta-lynch-reinstates-government-theft?utm_source=mattkibbe&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=loretta-lynch

 

[Moonglow]

First off..Your hero Reagan and the congress made that damn law of civil forfeiture without due process, it twas part of the butt fucking Reagan gave us in the 1980, what with his progressive ideology, and Mrs. Reagan's ramping up with the War on Drugs, and the civil rights of US citizens...
Secondly....In the last budget to pass legislation for this year, included a provision for the cessation of funding of the sharing programs by the federal government, and the states could still use the law to continue to garner what booty they could in the pirate raids...

 

[Moonglow]

Now that the funding is back means that Congress appropriated the funds , and who controls the funds, Congress, which just happens to be led by the GOP.. So don't try to blame this bull shit on just Lynch, when it is both sides doing the anal intercourse of US citizens..That actually elected the assholes and keep re-electing them, even though they pass laws to violate our rights.........

 

[1stRambo]

Lynch loved taking people's money and property before Obama chose her as his AG. Civil forfeiture is nothing more than government stealing from people without having to prove they were involved in any crimes. They don't even have to charge people or arrest them, just take the money and run. And so few victims get any of their money back after spending a lot of money and time to get their lives back after the government thugs robbed them. Those that do eventually win in court can only expect a portion of their assets returned to them.

It is a gross violation of our rights and Lynch just decided that it was okay and they will continue to rob people blind. I guess this is the next best thing to increasing taxes. They get to choose their victims and don't have to back up their accusations with evidence. They just instantly fine people by stealing from them and never have to face consequences.

"Should government law enforcement agents be allowed to take your stuff — property, homes, hotels, cash, or cars — without due process, without conviction, based solely on their assertion that you might be engaged in criminal activity? Common decency and the rule of law say, adamantly, Hell No. On the other hand, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, our nation’s top law enforcement officer, thinks this grossly abused practice is just fine.

The Justice Department’s "equitable sharing program" is a case study in unintended consequences, bad incentives, special interest politics, and gross abuses of power. Through this program, the federal government can partner with local law enforcement agencies to seize private property from people who have not even been charged with a crime. To anyone familiar with the Constitution, or even the basic principle of "innocent until proven guilty," this is a fundamental violation of our due process rights and basic civil liberties. The practice perverts the rule of law, and it actually undermines the men and women serving in law enforcement charged with keeping our communities safe.

The Justice Department’s "equitable sharing program" is a case study in unintended consequences, bad incentives, special interest politics, and gross abuses of power.

Now, after a four-month suspension due to budget cuts, the equitable sharing program is back in action. This should come as no surprise. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was a notorious abuser of civil asset forfeiture prior to being appointed as Eric Holder’s replacement by President Obama. Lynch’s notorious history was one of the major reasons why constitutional conservatives like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) opposed her nomination in the first place. "Mrs. Lynch has a track-record of violating the individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution," the senator said. "She considers civil asset forfeiture to be a 'useful tool,' while I consider it to be an infringement on the Fifth Amendment."

As a New York attorney, Lynch used civil asset forfeiture more than 120 times, collecting a total of more than $113 million in seized property. In fiscal year 2013, shortly before her appointment as Attorney General, her office took in an additional $904 million using asset forfeiture.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of equitable sharing, however, is the way that the very people doing the seizing are allowed to keep some of the money they steal. Rather than being deposited in a general treasury fund, forfeited assets are shared between the Justice Department and local law enforcement. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, right? Sadly, the luxury of self-funding through the seizure of private property is not one that most Americans are privy to. Taking other people’s stuff is wrong. You would be stealing, and you would likely go to jail."



https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/loretta-lynch-reinstates-government-theft?utm_source=mattkibbe&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=loretta-lynch

Yo, it`s a Black Thang, you can see them at any street corner! This Bitch Lynch is no different then her predecessor? Both Obama Puppets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"GTP"

 

[Moonglow]

Lynch loved taking people's money and property before Obama chose her as his AG. Civil forfeiture is nothing more than government stealing from people without having to prove they were involved in any crimes. They don't even have to charge people or arrest them, just take the money and run. And so few victims get any of their money back after spending a lot of money and time to get their lives back after the government thugs robbed them. Those that do eventually win in court can only expect a portion of their assets returned to them.

It is a gross violation of our rights and Lynch just decided that it was okay and they will continue to rob people blind. I guess this is the next best thing to increasing taxes. They get to choose their victims and don't have to back up their accusations with evidence. They just instantly fine people by stealing from them and never have to face consequences.

"Should government law enforcement agents be allowed to take your stuff — property, homes, hotels, cash, or cars — without due process, without conviction, based solely on their assertion that you might be engaged in criminal activity? Common decency and the rule of law say, adamantly, Hell No. On the other hand, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, our nation’s top law enforcement officer, thinks this grossly abused practice is just fine.

The Justice Department’s "equitable sharing program" is a case study in unintended consequences, bad incentives, special interest politics, and gross abuses of power. Through this program, the federal government can partner with local law enforcement agencies to seize private property from people who have not even been charged with a crime. To anyone familiar with the Constitution, or even the basic principle of "innocent until proven guilty," this is a fundamental violation of our due process rights and basic civil liberties. The practice perverts the rule of law, and it actually undermines the men and women serving in law enforcement charged with keeping our communities safe.

The Justice Department’s "equitable sharing program" is a case study in unintended consequences, bad incentives, special interest politics, and gross abuses of power.

Now, after a four-month suspension due to budget cuts, the equitable sharing program is back in action. This should come as no surprise. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was a notorious abuser of civil asset forfeiture prior to being appointed as Eric Holder’s replacement by President Obama. Lynch’s notorious history was one of the major reasons why constitutional conservatives like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) opposed her nomination in the first place. "Mrs. Lynch has a track-record of violating the individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution," the senator said. "She considers civil asset forfeiture to be a 'useful tool,' while I consider it to be an infringement on the Fifth Amendment."

As a New York attorney, Lynch used civil asset forfeiture more than 120 times, collecting a total of more than $113 million in seized property. In fiscal year 2013, shortly before her appointment as Attorney General, her office took in an additional $904 million using asset forfeiture.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of equitable sharing, however, is the way that the very people doing the seizing are allowed to keep some of the money they steal. Rather than being deposited in a general treasury fund, forfeited assets are shared between the Justice Department and local law enforcement. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, right? Sadly, the luxury of self-funding through the seizure of private property is not one that most Americans are privy to. Taking other people’s stuff is wrong. You would be stealing, and you would likely go to jail."



https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/loretta-lynch-reinstates-government-theft?utm_source=mattkibbe&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=loretta-lynch

Yo, it`s a Black Thang, you can see them at any street corner! This Bitch Lynch is no different then her predecessor? Both Obama Puppets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 69592

What's worse,,,I hear they play dominoes......Mexican dominoes, just to piss off da hombre blanco...

 

[waltky]

Asset forfeiture is also a cool way for the narcs to end up with cars they can use for undercover work...

... at the criminals' expense...

... to catch more drug dealers and other criminals.

 

[Dale Smith]

First off..Your hero Reagan and the congress made that damn law of civil forfeiture without due process, it twas part of the butt fucking Reagan gave us in the 1980, what with his progressive ideology, and Mrs. Reagan's ramping up with the War on Drugs, and the civil rights of US citizens...
Secondly....In the last budget to pass legislation for this year, included a provision for the cessation of funding of the sharing programs by the federal government, and the states could still use the law to continue to garner what booty they could in the pirate raids...

Which group of corporate thieves controlled both houses when Reagan took office? I believe they were demcrats as I recall. Not that Reagan or repubs are any better. I notice that leftards never, ever see anything wrong when it comes to "their side" because it's all about waving that rainbow colored demcrat flag. (snick)

 

[Clementine]

First off..Your hero Reagan and the congress made that damn law of civil forfeiture without due process, it twas part of the butt fucking Reagan gave us in the 1980, what with his progressive ideology, and Mrs. Reagan's ramping up with the War on Drugs, and the civil rights of US citizens...
Secondly....In the last budget to pass legislation for this year, included a provision for the cessation of funding of the sharing programs by the federal government, and the states could still use the law to continue to garner what booty they could in the pirate raids...

It doesn't matter who came up with it. Some have tried to eliminate this outrageous breach of the constitution, but it has support and won't go away. Having the federal government assist local police means more money for all and I thought things were going in the right direction when the feds stopped making it easier to ruin people for no reason. Now the Obama administration has reinstated it. The number of victims each year has sharply increased. Don't be afraid to give Dems credit since they clearly love this easy method of stealing cash from innocent people.

They take in more money than burglars and aren't about to give up this flow of money.

It's so wrong in every way.

It made sense when people convicted of crimes lost their money and property. Allowing police to confiscate the money out of your wallet during traffic stops is something that has increased dramatically in recent years. If you have a large sum of money on you, that alone can be used as an excuse to take it. The twisted logic is that no honest person would have so much cash and, therefore, they must be a criminal. Without charging the person or even arresting them, the officer takes the "suspicious" cash and sends the person on their way. If they thought for one second the person was actually guilty of something, why wouldn't they at least investigate? They don't even bother to question the person. Despite perfectly reasonable explanations, they take the money anyway and don't give a shit that they may be ruining a person financially. Many have lost everything because of either carrying cash or depositing cash in their bank accounts. Never mind that many have cash-only businesses and are only depositing profits in their accounts. Big Brother is watching and waiting to pounce when they see large sums of money to steal.

We now are being ruled by tyrants who no longer have to abide by the Bill of Rights and can do whatever the hell they want to us.

Like many other things, this started out as a way for government to give itself more authority with the promise that they will use it as intended and respect our rights. Now it's being abused and out of control.