Life savings stolen by DEA in civil forfeiture case

[Genx87]

How do these DEA agents and other LEO's who confiscate money on civil forfeiture grounds look themselves in the mirror when they do so on absolutely bullshit grounds? Do they even try lying to themselves that they are doing good work or even care? I just don't understand how someone could do this, it's as if they think they are above the law and we plebes are merely there to fund their existence.

I'd guess an authoritarian sociopath.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The law largely responsible for many asset forfeiture abuses--the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984--was introduced by a Democrat and passed the House with the support of 79% of Democrats, but only 64% of Republicans. Practically all of the terrible anti-drug laws from the 80's and 90's were overwhelmingly popular with Democrats, and were often written by Democrat anti-drug zealots like Joe Biden.

Yeah let's blame the law and not the individual acts themselves. To further confuse the issue lets make it a republican/democrat problem and all we have to do is vote our way out.

No I'm sick of people like you who seem to think if one more law was made or repealed that that will make men act accordingly. The law is not the arbiter of right and wrong as you seem to believe it to be. Slavery was legal but the legality doesn't negate the egregious act. In like manner this law is wrong and it doesn't take a politicians pen to figure that out.

 

[Blanky]

This just in: if you are blaming this on Obama you are a fuck stick of the highest order; the longest length and the stiffest of kind. Civil forfeiture was enhanced massively decades ago to fight the war on drugs. Just like the war on drugs many innocents have been taken out in the crossfire:

Asshole comments like maybe you shouldn't had had sixteen grand on you mark you as a useful idiot of the government.

If civil forfeiture doesn't piss you off you don't understand it, or you're a shit gobbler. There is no third option.

 

[waggy]

ugh those blaming libs, obama, bush.. etch are insane.

Civil Forfeiture started as a good idea. to take drug lords money and use it for good. The issue is it has gotten to the point they now take from anyone they can to fund the small military they now have.

they steal because they think everyone is a criminal. they steal to buy more equipment so they can do more raids.

cops were put on a pedastal. We gave them far more power then they need. We gave them more and more military equipment to "protect" them. Now we have police departments that could go toe to toe with some small armies.

 

[Mai72]

Sounds as bad as Thailand. I remember when I got shook down for 500 baht by the police. 500 baht is only less than $15 but it was the principal. America is just as bad.

 

[Nebor]

The fact that the DEA's idea of relevant, successful interdiction is randomly boarding trains and looking for suspicious people is laughable. These are highly paid, highly trained federal agents, and instead of working cases towards large suppliers or dealers, they're snatching small sums of cash from nobodies on trains? We're talking less cash than they could pull off a street level dealer in Albuquerque. I guess this is safer.

 

[piasabird]

Anyone that carries that money in cash should have their head examined.

 

[Venix]

Libruuls libruul libruuls, libruuls, libruuls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYWS7udm0yg

shira claimed that the War on Drugs was a "right-wing agenda item." I explained that it was overwhelmingly popular with and often directed by Democrats.

The obvious implication is that both shitty freedom-hating parties are to blame for the disastrous failure that is the War On Drugs, not that "liebruuuuls" (or whatever childish term you used) are solely responsible. It was a rare instance of bipartisan cooperation in destroying the country.

 

[Linux23]

wow, just wow.

 

[who?]

The fact that the DEA's idea of relevant, successful interdiction is randomly boarding trains and looking for suspicious people is laughable. These are highly paid, highly trained federal agents, and instead of working cases towards large suppliers or dealers, they're snatching small sums of cash from nobodies on trains? We're talking less cash than they could pull off a street level dealer in Albuquerque. I guess this is safer.

In order to find the higher level offenders they have to find a low level offender to point the way.Since nobody calls the cops to report that they've been a victim of drug possession they have to look hard to find a place to start an investigation. I once read that 80% of drug investigations start when drugs or paraphernalia is spotted during a traffic stop.

 

[Jaskalas]

Anyone that carries that money in cash should have their head examined.

Yeah... crazy people think we live in a nation where they have rights and due process.

 

[shira]

In order to find the higher level offenders they have to find a low level offender to point the way.Since nobody calls the cops to report that they've been a victim of drug possession they have to look hard to find a place to start an investigation. I once read that 80% of drug investigations start when drugs or paraphernalia is spotted during a traffic stop.

But the fact is they're not offering these people a "deal." They're just taking the money and saying "fuck you."

Here's another story of civil forfeiture in action, in this case by the IRS. Notice how federal agencies in many cases clearly know they're in the wrong, but they still try to keep some of the money they've wrongfully seized.

The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. $107,702.66 in United States Currency, Defendant.

That's the Kafkaesque title of a civil asset forfeiture complaint filed in a U.S. District Court last December. The complaint, and the attendant peculiarity of the federal government filing suit against its own currency, illustrates the legal problems at the heart of the civil asset forfeiture system. As a DEA agent succinctly described it to the Albuquerque Journal: "We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty. It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."

Other asset forfeiture complaints read similarly:

United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. thirty-two thousand eight hundred twenty dollars and fifty-six cents ($32,820.56), Defendant.

United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, Defendant.

The Department of Justice defines it like this: in civil forfeiture cases, "the property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary." Money, of course, can't actually be guilty of anything. But local, state and law enforcement agents use the convenient construct of monetary guilt to seize people's property without convicting them of a crime -- or even charging them.

In seizing property, law enforcement agencies tend to prefer these civil forfeitures to criminal ones, because the standard of proof is considerably lower in civil cases. Some numbers that speak to that point: in 2014, U.S. attorneys seized $679 million in assets through criminal actions, and $3.9 billion through civil actions.

Once seized, it can be prohibitively expensive to get your money back. Many asset forfeiture victims simply give up the fight completely, a Washington Post investigation found last year. But 41 percent of victims who challenged the government's actions were able to get some or all of their money back, suggesting that government agencies are casting a wide net when it comes to whom they target for these actions.

But in at least one case this week -- the case involving the $107,000 mentioned above -- the federal government relented and agreed to return all of the money it seized from a small business owner last summer.

Lyndon McLellan has owned and operated L&M Convenience Mart in rural Fairmont, N.C., for more than 10 years, according to the Institute for Justice. The institute is a national civil liberties law firm that advocates for asset forfeiture reform, and it represented McLellan pro bono in court. One day last July, a group of state and federal officers showed up at his store to inform him that they had emptied his entire bank account -- all $107,702.66 of it.

Like many small retail operations, McLellan conducts much of his business in cash. But the Internal Revenue Service didn't like the way he deposited it in his bank account. On the advice of a bank teller, McLellan made most of his cash deposits in chunks of $10,000 dollars or less. There's less paperwork involved with sub-$10,000 deposits, and some companies have insurance policies that only cover up to $10,000 in cash losses.

It is, quite obviously, 100 percent legal to make make deposits of less than $10,000. But it is illegal to do so with the express purpose of avoiding the closer IRS scrutiny that comes with larger deposits -- a practice known as "structuring." McLellan had no reason to want to hide his cash, or to avoid scrutiny. His business was completely legitimate, and he paid his taxes in full. He was just trying to avoid some hassle for the bank tellers and everyone else involved.

Had IRS officials spoken with McLellan before raiding his account, they probably would have realized right away that he had nothing to hide. But the IRS didn't speak with him, and instead went directly to a federal judge to obtain a seizure warrant.

In its complaint against McLellan, the IRS noted a pattern of bank deposits "which appeared to be structured to evade the Currency Transaction Report (CTR) threshold of $10,000" (emphasis added). The IRS also had informed McLellan several years prior that "structuring bank deposits to avoid federal reporting requirements was a violation of the law," and warned him that any future violations "could result in prosecution and/or seizure and forfeiture of all property involved in, or traceable to, such violations."

So McLellan was warned, but he continued to make smaller cash deposits: he believed he was in compliance with the law because he was not attempting to hide anything from the government. Note the key clause in the IRS letter: to avoid federal reporting requirements. If you're depositing sub-$10,000 amounts because that's all you have on you, or because you don't want to have big piles of cash sitting around your office, or for literally any reason other than "trying to hide it from the IRS," you are doing nothing wrong.

But the IRS took his money anyway. As McLellan put it, "It took me 13 years to save that much money, and 13 seconds for the government to take it away."

Practices like this one have come under intense scrutiny in the past year. The Washington Post ran a six-part series last summer on asset forfeitures on the nation's highways, where local police seize drivers' cash and goods, sometimes on as small a pretext as a broken taillight and an empty energy drink can. And last fall, the New York Times highlighted the IRS practice that Lyndon McLellan fell victim to.

To its credit, the federal government has been somewhat responsive to the public outcry over these policies. The IRS announced last fall that it would no longer pursue cases like McLellan's, where there was no indication of any wrongdoing other than the bank deposit amount. And this year, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced modest restrictions on some types of asset forfeiture highlighted in the Washington Post series, and reemphasized the restrictions already put in place by the IRS.

But in spite of all this, the IRS continued to prosecute its claims against Lyndon McLellan's money. When the Institute for Justice publicized the case earlier this year, and it took front and center in a congressional hearing, the U.S. attorney in charge of McLellan's case sent a letter to his lawyers. It read, in part:

Whoever made [the case documents] public may serve their own interest but will not help this particular case. Your client needs to resolve this or litigate it. But publicity about it doesn’t help. It just ratchets up feelings in the agency. My offer is to return 50% of the money. The offer is good until March 30th COB.

When the government turns up no evidence of wrongdoing, it often attempts to settle with asset forfeiture victims, often for amounts far less than the original amount seized. Often, these settlements come with strings attached that prevent the victims from countersuing the federal government for damages or for the payment of lawyer and court fees.

Many people accept -- the Post investigation found more than 1,000 such settlements in its investigation of highway forfeitures alone -- because the cost of litigating against the federal government is prohibitively high. And almost by definition, asset forfeiture victims have been stripped of most or all of their wealth to begin with.

"Another word for it would be extortion," lawyer Robert Everett Johnson said in an interview. He's one of the Institute for Justice lawyers working on McLellan's case. The IRS has your money, but they realize you did nothing wrong. "'We're not going to prosecute,'" Johnson said, explaining the IRS' position in settlement offers, "'but we think you should give us half your money anyway.'"

McLellan decided not to settle. It was the right choice: this week, the U.S. attorney filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, citing "no probable cause" that McLellan's money came from "unlawful activity."

"The big picture here is that we're elated that Lyndon is getting back his money," Johnson said. "The government's pursuit of this case was wrong and unconstitutional from the beginning, and we're glad that the government recognizes that and is giving Lyndon back his money."

But McLellan's court battles aren't over yet -- there's the tricky question of his legal fees to resolve. Shortly after having his money seized, he had hired a lawyer at a cost of several thousand dollars. He also hired an accountant to go through his financial records with a fine-toothed comb and demonstrate, without a doubt, that his money was obtained by legitimate means. All told, he's still out about $22,000.

In passing the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act in 2000, Congress declared that when a government agency seizes a person's property wrongfully, it must also compensate that person for the interest, fees and other costs involved with getting the money back. But according to Johnson, the IRS has become adept at finding ways around this.

"The government will often seek to evade that obligation," he said. The details get really technical, but in McLellan's case, the IRS has filed a particular type of motion to give him back his money that allows it to sidestep the question of whether or not it needs to compensate him for his troubles.

"We're going to litigate that," Johnson said, "and make sure he does get that."

 

[OutHouse]

because this country is still filled with people who think their party is right and will never allow it to be self admittedly wrong and the two worthless parties have both sold out on this issue.

This forum...

 

[Linux23]

she breaks it down quite well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P75cbEdNo2U

 

[Triumph]

I post this in all of these threads, because I guess it is completely forgotten about:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Linux23]

yep ^this.

seems either the people we put in power completely forgot that or we the people prefer more security over freedom.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I post this in all of these threads, because I guess it is completely forgotten about:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

While I think you're right and the majority of people would also agree with you, the powers that be are pulling a "legal" end around. They aren't charging you with a crime but rather the object itself. According to blanky's video link they are charging your cash with being in cahoots with drugs. Meanwhile you are free to go and your dastardly money will have to stay behind and be interrogated until they decide to trade that hostage for "something that would be nice to have, but we can't get in the budget".

What about object Rights? Who represents it/them?

Obviously I am being facetious here but this is so draconian and out in your face that its hard to believe its real. Not only can they charge an object that cannot object (heh, couldn't resist) but they also have a kangaroo court on the back end without a presiding judge. To top it off? How about you have to win a "court" battle against the very ones that took it from you in the first place. This is beyond absurd.

 

[Harabec]

Or maybe not start killing people over this yet, and find another solution that does not involve death.

Heh, if you have any ideas, go ahead. Real life isn't so easy, however.
Technological advancement does not change the nature of man and standing for your freedom must often be done in the same way it was done 50-100-150-200 years ago - someone was willing to risk it all.

If you don't fight against people in power (no matter how they are elected), nature dictates they will seek more power to themselves and less for you - until you are a criminal for simply breathing in the wrong manner.
Absurd? See OP.

 

[senseamp]

I post this in all of these threads, because I guess it is completely forgotten about:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Seems as clear as day. Why hasn't the Roberts court ruled these seizures unconstitutional?

 

[Kwatt]

It has moved on from the "War on Drugs" to the "War on Cash".

Cash is being portrayed as Evil. Only used by Terrorist and Drug Lords.

There has been calls for banning cash completely. Spain and France already have banned transactions over certain amounts.
England has banned any cash for certain transactions.

It has to be done away with because when interest rates at banks go negative people will start using their mattress's again.

Also, once you can only use a centrally controlled debit card think of the health benefits. Obamacare victims Doctors can prohibit alcohol, tobacco, sugary, and high fat food purchases.

Well they can start with them anyway....

.

 

[Darwin333]

Civil forfeiture, as used in the last decade, is just another name for armed robbery. How it is considered even remotely, kinda sorta, maybe just a little teensy weeny bit constitutional is completely beyond me.

The mere act of being in possession of some shit the government wants gives them the right to, without merit or trial, take your shit. Your shit is then declared guilty until you hire a lawyer and at great expense prove your shit legally gained.

I understand the taking of ill-gotten gains, which was the intent of civil forfeiture, but it is being used quite literally as highway robbery and armed robbery. To make matters worse, some LEO departments depend on the funds from forfeiture for their payroll which means the officer you might encounter quite literately depends on stealing peoples shit, literally at gunpoint, in order to remain employed.

 

[Wreckem]

Seems as clear as day. Why hasn't the Roberts court ruled these seizures unconstitutional?

Mainly because the conservative Rehnquist court declared(reaffirmed repeatedly actually) it constitutional...

The only way to stop civil forfeiture is to pass legislation forbidding the practice. It will require legislative reform not judicial decisions because a Robert's court is unlikely to overturn prior precedent of a conservative court.

Same goes for the stopping the militarization of the police force/police state. Legislation is required to stem that.

Its Joe Q Public vs Police unions so uhhh Joe Q Public is going to lose 9/10 times when it comes to legislative reform.

 

[Darwin333]

Anyone that carries that money in cash should have their head examined.

Perhaps one day you will have as much liquid capital as that black man and I guarantee if that day comes you will argue that you should be allowed to transport it in any legal way that you see fit, as this man was doing.

I know it's an issue that you will likely never have to deal with but that makes it a much larger problem for you than me. If they take your $2,000 car it will place a much larger burden on you than them taking my $20,000 truck. I can buy, rent or lease a new one tomorrow whereas a person that can't contemplate traveling with $16,000 couldn't possibly have the financial wherewithal to do much more than juggle a few payday loans.

Just to help you out a bit, every morning that I go to work I get there in an asset that can be seized under civil forfeiture laws yet is worth more than the cash he had on him. Perhaps you think I shouldn't drive my truck to work, as it would be foolish to put myself in a position for the government to rob me at gunpoint while on the way to work?

 

[Triumph]

I wouldn't carry $16,000 either but I have bought and sold motorcycles before with cash, maybe $4-6,000, and I certainly wouldn't want that taken from me by some shake-down artist posing as a cop.

 

[Blanky]

I post this in all of these threads, because I guess it is completely forgotten about:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

SCOTUS has already ruled civil forfeiture is legal. http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-civil-forfeiture-2014-11

I'd love to see this go back to SCOTUS and not have fuck wads make the decision. it is an abomination.