Which is why it is total and complete bullshit. |
However, that's where we are going to disagree. The state, as the state, has unlimited power and as such should be held to the highest standard. The state should not be in the business of suing citizens. Either the person committed a crime and the state can prove it, or not. Otherwise, with politicians being what they are, the potential for abuse is profound. See Bloomburg and his attempted suits against gun manufacturers. 
|
The point of AF is to deal with scenarios where you can prove to a preponderance of the evidence that the property is proceeds of illegal activity, but cannot prove beyond a reasonable dout that the individual it was siezed from is guilty of the same If you can prove in civil court that it's siezable, that is A-OK with me, regardless of what happens to the the criminal case... Similar to 'Not guilty of murder in Criminal court, Liable for wrongful death in Civil court'... The OJ principle, so to speak... What I would *change* about the current system is: 1) Government sues the property owner to sieze the property (not the property itself) 2) Government must prove to PE standard that the property is proceeds of or was used in illegal activity 3) No proceeds from the seizure may be used in any way that benefits any agency involved in the seizure, nor may any agency involved in seizures be funded or compensated based on the number of seizures or the value of property seized... That right there removes any profit motive or 'mercenary' motivations for the police to use forfeiture... While preserving it as a tool to 'reach' otherwise unreachable organizations... ETA: Another point, is that I'm a big supporter of 'Looser pays' for all civil cases... Including AF... If you win your case, the govt should be required to pay all of your expenses... With the right safeguards, AF can be kept from being used on legit citizens... |
So, like I said, its a way to fuck someone without having to go through all that hassle of convicting them. Gotcha. |
Understood... That said, Bloomberg's suits aren't AF, and thanks to federal law, they are illegal... Another example of why we need 'Looser Pays' for all civil cases... |
So what is your opinion on what happened to Mr Simpson, then? I see this as no different... If we add the safeguards pointed out above (including the ETA not in your quote) then it will not be used against law abiding citizens due to the costs involved, and the impossibility of any benefit to the involved agencies... |
|
|
Actually seizure of property and the resulting civil cases that result from them can be very problematic and unfairly so. Actual case in point. A young man sold his truck to a person who contacted him out off a classified add he ran. The man paid cash for the truck and signed a bill of sale and the title was handed over. The person who had just bought the truck then loaned it to a "friend" who used the truck in the commission of a felony. The truck was seized along with 8K in cash and a stolen gun. The vin # was still registered to the original owner who was 19 at the time. He was arrested and later released with no charges filed however he was named in the civil suit filed for property forfeiture. 6 years later the young man applies for a job and is denied employment due to being named as an accessory in the civil case finding. He had nothing to do with the crime and thought his sale was valid but is stuck now with this on his record. It shows in the public doc search for felonies arrests or court cases filed. There is no "governor" placed on the seizure of property by a law enforcement entities. Essentially, if it is suspected that a felony is being committed they can take anything they want to and the burden of proof that it was not used in the process of a crime falls on the owner of the property. If you get some unsavory individuals like this guy in the mix the line between LAW and THIEF become blurred. This guy is a thief and gets away with it by inducing fear and abusing the badge. |
Oh well then, that makes it all OK. 
|
Apples and oranges. Simpson was charged criminally for a specific offense, and the state failed to prove it's case. He was then sued in civil court for damages he was alleged to have done to another party. If you can prove how a person driving on a public highway does damage to another party by carrying $5000 of his own money, I'll eat my hat. |
Some think that the law-abiding citizen doesn't exist -everybody's guilty of something if you just dig deep enough. |
Why not just make the seizure part of the criminal trial? If the person isnt convicted of a crime dont take his stuff. Keep it as evidence during the trial. Not guitly....agency has 10 working days to delivery defendants property. Guilty.....take the seized property. I dont really who cares who gets the money as long as its not just a simple process. Adding a few hurdles wont stop anything. I dont mind that the agency who made the arrest, and followed it through trial should get the money. Carrying money should not be a crime nor used as suspicion of a crime. I see it as no different than someone having lots of money in the bank. Id go so far as to say theres more dirty money in banks than people carrying it around in cash. Seizing cash is just easy. Side of the road, given an ultimatum of jail or just letting it go. A monkey court wont help anything. |
|
To my mind, asset forfeiture is bullshit in almost any case. However, I would be okay with asset forfeiture in the following case: The assets in contest remain the property and in the possession of the person from whom forfeiture is being considered. Asset forfeiture may ONLY be brought about in conjunction with simultaneous criminal charges. The assets may ONLY be seized if they are, in a criminal court, not just proven beyond reasonable doubt but conclusively and totally proven - as in, they absolutely could not have come from any other source - to have been gained as the direct result of the criminal activities for which the person is being charged. They may also not be seized unless the person is convicted of the crime with which he is being charged. An example: A person is charged with dealing marijuana. His car and house are under consideration for forfeiture. The prosecutors would then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he sold marijuana, and completely and conclusively prove that the car and house were paid for solely and directly with money gained from his marijuana sales. If they could not, the assets remain his. Furthermore, the assets may not be seized until all avenues for appeal have been used or the defendant declines further appeal, and may at any time be sold by the defendant to provide money for his defense. Finally, the assets, if seized, may not be used by the department which seized them, directly or indirectly. |
cars are also seized in prostitution/$20 blowjob cases and I've seen 'sting' operations were people buying $5 and $10 bags of pot had their vehicles stolen/seized.  edit for spelling |
|
Yes... Damn weak card, 100% based on emotion... Cav could be 100% guity of (whatever) or 100% innocent... Since we don't know what (whatever) is, we can't LOGICALLY decide weather the ATF's actions are legit - although many here have taken the 'I feel' route on that one... Their situation is 100% invalid as a 'point' of argument... Only they & the ATF know what's going on, and I'm damn sure their lawyers told them not to discuss it in public... The ATF isn't talking either... And I, personally, refuse to take a side until the actual situation becomes public... |
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. Should be that way at least. That is why a lot of us are in support of them. They've been raped, with nary a charge. |
Which makes it moot, as by the time all that is done the assets will be gone... Further, it's a little much to say 'Only if it's 100% directly related to the crime'... CRIMINAL forfeiture (What you are describing above) is there to enhance the penalty for the offense... There's nothing wrong with busting someone for a felony pot charge & siezing everything but the clothes on their back, IF they are convicted... Tougher standard to sieze... But if that standard is met, take it ALL... He knew he was breaking the law, time to pay the piper.... |
Thats another peice of the pie. The "punishment" just doesnt add up to the crime. A few dollars in illegal activity adds up to what could be an expensive car. And buying marijuna doesnt mean, at all, that drug funds were used to buy the car. If you're buying something you're not making money off it as an end user. You're losing money in reality. But I dont really agree with the "war on drugs" so I dont see the point in making a criminal out of someone buying a joint in the first place. Far more money would be made off regulating its sale than seizing cars and houses. For instance tobacco taxes add up to far more money than prosecuting people for violating import laws like smuggling cigs into NYS/NYC. Police departments would have more money than they knew what to do with it. |
The point of banning drugs isn't to 'make money'... It's to keep as many people as possible from using drugs... And to punish the rest severely... |
 Hilarious... absolutely hilarious! Dave A folks, give him a hand! He'll be here all week! Try the veal! |
Fine by me. I'd far rather they didn't seize assets at all except as direct restitution to the victims or family of victims of crimes such as theft, murder, rape... and no, I do not count the People of the State of [fill-in-name-here] as the victims of things like drug use, etc.
I disagree. You're basically taking a person and fucking them over so hard they can't possibly live a normal life afterwards. You might as well just make any case like that into life in prison or execution if you're going to do that. |
You also have to take into consideration the nature of the offense. Taking someones car and house is a very severe penalty for a small grow operation. In fact in some place that might not even yield a prison sentence but probation and community service. My wife has some extended relatives that are a bit off, and her uncle just got convicted for dealing marijuana. He has to wear an ankle bracelet, probation, community service, and pay a fine. He was disabled and was relying on SS for his living expenses which didnt cover how much he needed so he resorted to drug sales to supplement his income. Now he has to pay 60 a week for his bracelet, and doesnt have enough money for his insulin shots. My MIL has to buy them for him now. Not trying to make this a sob story but I think we need to keep penalties within reason and not totally destroy a persons life for a crime without a victim. If they took his house and car he'd be homeless and nothing but a burden on society. Might even face death if he doesnt get his insulin shots. Is that something you'd be ok with for a low level pot seller? And if you talk to any drug dealer they will tell you marijuana isnt where money is made. Its to get people to buy hard drugs and that is where the money is at. That is why we see so much laced marijuana. |
Then why has drug usage and profits not even been nicked with a multi decade war on drugs? |
you're are so full of shit, you squish when you walk.  least that's the saying 'round here. |
Its by far the least costly drug. Someone addicted to a hardcore drug can spend a $100 a day on their habit easily. A pot head will spend a fraction of that. ETA: And also look at the hardcore drug cartels south of the border. They dont specialize in weed. They're making BILLIONS of dollars every year in the hard stuff. The domestic and Canadian grow operations are but a drop in the bucket to those guys. |
to be fair, most ATMs have an emergency backup battery for just those reasons. Now if the SHTF, having a small (1-2k) cash reserve ready to go could be handy |
|
Because we don't take it seriously enough, and don't punish severely enough.... |
If the penalty for mere posession was death there would still be drug users, dealers, and cartels. Money is the root of all evil. |
  Please, stop... I can only take so much in one thread. |
Now, how does that work? We can't prove you were dealing drugs but we know that your money came from dealing drugs so were going to take it. |
full of shit AND factually incorrect - that means WRONG. eta: "MEXICO CITY — Marijuana is now the biggest source of income for Mexico's drug cartels and the U.S. is committed to cracking down harder on traffickers, U.S. drug czar John Walters said Thursday. "We're trying to increase the force with which we're attacking this problem," Walters said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This is a focus because of the overlooked importance marijuana has in the violence." Walters made the comments following a meeting with Mexican officials who want the U.S. to prosecute marijuana cases more zealously to reduce the amount of cash gangs can spend on guns. Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora discussed the subject with Walters and U.S. federal prosecutors from the border region Thursday during a meeting in the Baja California resort of Los Cabos. Walters said the U.S. government is seeking additional resources to prosecute traffickers of marijuana, which now earns cartels about $8.5 billion or about 61 percent of their annual estimated income of $13.8 billion. Cocaine sales earn the cartels about $3.9 billion, and methamphetamine about $1 billion, he said." have a big cup.
|
|
Not something I often advertise but the company I work for pays per diem upfront to us on some occasions before we go out of town. Depending on where the job is and how long we are going to be out of town that amount might be a nice chunk of change. Now, I know better than to drive around with that money; it goes right into the bank (yes, they give me cash). However I also have had them give me an upfront amount of petty cash. Sometimes this happens before we have a bank account setup where the work is. So I can see myself driving through one of these places to get to work (which I often do) and with out of state plates I'm probably watching extra hard for the local LE because I'm an easy target. He finds my company's money. Sure, I've got a receipt but anyone could have made that up on MS Word. Now the money is gone. At least it won't have to be my lawyers, just my company's trying to get it back. |
He's right. Pot isn't the profit center for most low-mid level drug dealers. It's usually like he said the harder drugs. |
How much does locking up low level drug users cost the taxpayers of this country every year? You really have no clue.....then again you're still young. |
Expert are you? Anyway, I think O_H_C was referring to the highlighted part as bullshit. |
they're 'low level' 'cause they be stoopid to begin wit. They even suck as criminals... 
|
Well, it all depends on what kind of area you're talking about. I've known a lot of dealers, who made a shit load of money selling weed. And, they did it in the middle-class, white, suburbs, where the chances of getting busted were nearly zero. Not too "stoopid". Let's face it... there's a lot of folks getting high in the burbs and, for the most part, the cops don't care. They're too busy rousting people off the corners in the ghetto. |
And? Most of the hardcore drugs arent produced in Mexico. ETA:
ETA 2:
ETA3:
ETA4:
|
Just wanted to correct your post... Though some ATMs have a battery backup, it isn't to provide power so the terminal will function in a power outage. It is there to provide a soft shutdown on the terminal CPU so that the software isn't accidentally corrupted. It is also there to condition the incoming power so as to prevent power spikes from damaging the CPU. Just didn't want people having the misconception that they can expect to get their money in the event the power is out and not planning accordingly. |
I think that would be a difficult position to defend. Google Rockefeller drug laws. |
Severe means different things to different people. DaveA probably wants to cut off drug users feet, or worse... |
wrong again- that doesn't say anything about the U.S., nor about income. (not counting shit friom the 70's/80's )
|
You're welcome to think and/or believe anything you wish.....
|