The Justice Department just shut down a huge asset forfeiture program

[Svnla]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ies_wonk-assetforfeiture-530pm:homepage/story

I don't care if you are D or R or I or dazed and confused, this is good for a typical citizen.

Good news everyone <Prof. F.'s from Futurama voice>

 

[Fayd]

no it didn't... it just said "we're keeping all the proceeds". So that means that police instead move to state laws concerning asset forfeiture, which may be slightly tougher and may result in slightly less profit to the law enforcement entity.

it doesn't mean asset forfeiture is gone. it's just slightly less profitable.

and they also didn't end it for good. the fact it's closed in this way (read: not legally, just by budgetary constraints), means that it can be re-opened.

 

[Jhhnn]

no it didn't... it just said "we're keeping all the proceeds". So that means that police instead move to state laws concerning asset forfeiture, which may be slightly tougher and may result in slightly less profit to the law enforcement entity.

it doesn't mean asset forfeiture is gone. it's just slightly less profitable.

and they also didn't end it for good. the fact it's closed in this way (read: not legally, just by budgetary constraints), means that it can be re-opened.

All true. OTOH, it's a deft way to run up a trial balloon to gauge public opinion.

There's no way that the DoJ can disallow forfeiture under state law. They can only refuse to participate & facilitate.

It's also not the first time that the Obama Admin has moved in the right direction, either-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ounces-new-limits-on-civil-asset-forfeitures/

 

[Darwin333]

Umm, how does them saying "we aren't going to split the proceeds with you anymore and instead will keep it all for ourselves due to budget cuts" actually ending anything? Not to mention that most states have their own forfeiture laws but they aren't as generous in the revenue sharing as the Feds. 66% isn't as good as 80% but it's always a hell of a lot better than 0%.

This won't even cause a speedbumb in the state sponsored highway robbery/armed robbery.

 

[Darwin333]

All true. OTOH, it's a deft way to run up a trial balloon to gauge public opinion.

There's no way that the DoJ can disallow forfeiture under state law. They can only refuse to participate & facilitate.

It's also not the first time that the Obama Admin has moved in the right direction, either-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ounces-new-limits-on-civil-asset-forfeitures/

How about "the DOJ will no longer participate in ANY asset forfeiture until after a conviction has been secured and the assets have been proven to be used or gained through illicit and illegal means"?

That seems like a rather rational policy to me.

Or heck, how about "Hey popo's armed robbery is not cool, mmkay?"

 

[Jhhnn]

Umm, how does them saying "we aren't going to split the proceeds with you anymore and instead will keep it all for ourselves due to budget cuts" actually ending anything? Not to mention that most states have their own forfeiture laws but they aren't as generous in the revenue sharing as the Feds. 66% isn't as good as 80% but it's always a hell of a lot better than 0%.

This won't even cause a speedbumb in the state sponsored highway robbery/armed robbery.

How about "the DOJ will no longer participate in ANY asset forfeiture until after a conviction has been secured and the assets have been proven to be used or gained through illicit and illegal means"?

That seems like a rather rational policy to me.

Or heck, how about "Hey popo's armed robbery is not cool, mmkay?"

Making the perfect the enemy of the good, I see.

I suspect that the feds won't be getting many cases from states anymore. The bar for federal forfeiture has been very low, which is why states have gone that way, also the non-expense of having the feds do the work made it very attractive.

 

[Darwin333]

Making the perfect the enemy of the good, I see.

I suspect that the feds won't be getting many cases from states anymore. The bar for federal forfeiture has been very low, which is why states have gone that way, also the non-expense of having the feds do the work made it very attractive.

Umm no. I think that armed robbery is wrong. Wanting to ban state sponsored armed robbery is FAR from perfect, it's barely even "good" because it should be freaking outright expected.

Perfect wouldn't even be Congress passing a law that prevents states from stealing peoples shit without even accusing them of a crime. Why you ask? The state isn't supposed to be able to just steal your shit with the threat of violence, incarceration and even death. Your shit shouldn't be considered guilty before innocent anymore than you are.

This is like saying "we are still going to rape you but we are only going to put the tip in". At the end of the day you're still getting fucked. Forgive me for not considering that "good".


Edit: The costs are generally on the poor sap that got robbed at gunpoint. They don't have to prove shit, you are required to prove that your money/stuff is not guilty. There are literally cases like "$12,000 versus the state" with zero proof that the "defendant" has ever committed a crime or came from any sort of illicit means. So no, the Feds saying "Hey we are going to keep all the shit you steal" isn't even in the realm of good. You are smarter than this...


Edit 2: Is it really so much to ask that the Federal government (along with state and local) not commit literal armed robbery upon it's citizens? Is that really something that you would call "perfect"? Personally I just call it fucking decent and not being a horrible government, I can't even call not stealing from your citizens at gunpoint a "good government"...

 

[Jhhnn]

Umm no. I think that armed robbery is wrong. Wanting to ban state sponsored armed robbery is FAR from perfect, it's barely even "good" because it should be freaking outright expected.

Perfect wouldn't even be Congress passing a law that prevents states from stealing peoples shit without even accusing them of a crime. Why you ask? The state isn't supposed to be able to just steal your shit with the threat of violence, incarceration and even death. Your shit shouldn't be considered guilty before innocent anymore than you are.

This is like saying "we are still going to rape you but we are only going to put the tip in". At the end of the day you're still getting fucked. Forgive me for not considering that "good".


Edit: The costs are generally on the poor sap that got robbed at gunpoint. They don't have to prove shit, you are required to prove that your money/stuff is not guilty. There are literally cases like "$12,000 versus the state" with zero proof that the "defendant" has ever committed a crime or came from any sort of illicit means. So no, the Feds saying "Hey we are going to keep all the shit you steal" isn't even in the realm of good. You are smarter than this...


Edit 2: Is it really so much to ask that the Federal government (along with state and local) not commit literal armed robbery upon it's citizens? Is that really something that you would call "perfect"? Personally I just call it fucking decent and not being a horrible government, I can't even call not stealing from your citizens at gunpoint a "good government"...

You ignore the future. As current cases wind down, States won't take it to the feds because there's nothing in it for them. It's not like the DoJ can end state level forfeiture so you're barking up the wrong tree with the rest of it. Civil forfeiture has been made more difficult in several states. If you can't acknowledge that it's a move in the right direction you have your head up your ass.

http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/grading-state-federal-civil-forfeiture-laws/

 

[master_shake_]

Ah the patriot act the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Ah the War on Drugs the gift that keeps on giving.

Fixed.

 

[Darwin333]

You ignore the future. As current cases wind down, States won't take it to the feds because there's nothing in it for them. It's not like the DoJ can end state level forfeiture so you're barking up the wrong tree with the rest of it. Civil forfeiture has been made more difficult in several states. If you can't acknowledge that it's a move in the right direction you have your head up your ass.

http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/grading-state-federal-civil-forfeiture-laws/

Oh I acknowledge that it's a tiny step in the right direction but to call it "good" is bullshit and you know it.

They literally said "hey, we have a budget shortfall so instead of letting you keep some of the money that you steal at gunpoint we are instead going to keep all of the money that you steal at gunpoint". Do you understand that? They didn't stop it and they didn't even tell locals to stop. One could argue that the locals have far less incentive to commit armed robbery for the feds but they didn't actually stop shit when they easily could have.

Good would be "Hey, you assholes have gone way to far so we are no longer going to allow you to use Federal law to commit armed robbery".

BTW, has anyone who got robbed without so much as even a criminal charge ever taken it to the Supreme Court? This can't possibly pass muster with the 4th amendment...

 

[ivwshane]

It's the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Darwin333]

Ah the patriot act the gift that keeps on giving.

This has nothing to do with the patriot act.... Civil forfeiture has been around since Reagan but for the most part was used as intended back then. It's been somewhat recent that they really ramped up their abuse of it. There are some highways in the country that if you have out of town plates you better not drive over it with much cash on you. They will literally tell you to sign over your cash or they are going to arrest you on a bunch of trumped up charges and put you in front of one of their good ole boy juries. You might beat the charges but it's going to cost a ton in defense and then you still have to fight to get your money back. Instead of drug sniffing dogs they have money sniffing dogs.

In another area someones kid sold a small amount of drugs out of his parents home, something that the parents had no idea was going on, and the police jacked the parents home. Under the letter of the law in that state someone could break into your house while on vacation, make a single drug deal from your house and the police can jack the house from you. Oh yeah, you still have to keep making your payments to the bank and you can't get insurance on your house being stolen.

 

[Darwin333]

It's the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons.

What exactly about the conclusion is "right"? That they are going to keep all of the proceeds from robbing it's citizens at gunpoint without so much as charging them with a crime much less convicting them of anything? No proof that you are guilty or that whatever they stole came from illicit means is necessary. Your money is assumed guilty and you must prove it's innocence at great and unrecoverable cost to yourself.

I do give Obama credit for slowing it down a bit but to say that this is "good" is being disingenuous, it's obviously better but it is by no means good. I'd give Obama a lot more credit if he at least called on Congress to pass a law forbidding states to do it even if Congress gives him the finger.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons.

It's just a good way to sell it to law enforcement.

 

[Jhhnn]

What exactly about the conclusion is "right"? That they are going to keep all of the proceeds from robbing it's citizens at gunpoint without so much as charging them with a crime much less convicting them of anything? No proof that you are guilty or that whatever they stole came from illicit means is necessary. Your money is assumed guilty and you must prove it's innocence at great and unrecoverable cost to yourself.

I do give Obama credit for slowing it down a bit but to say that this is "good" is being disingenuous, it's obviously better but it is by no means good. I'd give Obama a lot more credit if he at least called on Congress to pass a law forbidding states to do it even if Congress gives him the finger.

There's hope for you yet. Such a gesture wrt Congress would be quixotic at best, merely energizing law enforcement interests to action. You can't win at that level & anybody with much cognition of reality knows it. It opens the door for reform at the state level where some victories are possible, I'm sure.

As I pointed out & as you failed to acknowledge it also functionally reduces opportunities for forfeiture in states having a POV more like what we both want. It's no great leap forward but we should welcome even baby steps & work for more. Raving won't get us anything but scorn.

 

[mrjminer]

There's hope for you yet. Such a gesture wrt Congress would be quixotic at best, merely energizing law enforcement interests to action. You can't win at that level & anybody with much cognition of reality knows it. It opens the door for reform at the state level where some victories are possible, I'm sure.

As I pointed out & as you failed to acknowledge it also functionally reduces opportunities for forfeiture in states having a POV more like what we both want. It's no great leap forward but we should welcome even baby steps & work for more. Raving won't get us anything but scorn.

Instead, you accept the equivalent of "oh yea... we'll um... stop abusing the law to steal property... because... um... we have a track record of being honest... I mean... we have a track record of not abusing the law... errr.... FUCK YOU PEONS, WE WILL TAKE YOUR SHIT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AS WE SEE FIT" as a legitimate solution on some level. It is not a solution on any level because there is nothing remotely constitutional about civil asset forfeiture.

Raving won't get us anything but scorn? We're the fucking citizens of the country, dickhead. You are part of the problem. Like we can't possibly just completely 100% disagree with the shithead politicians from both parties, mind you, on anything because they will feel scorned. ROFL. Get your head out of your ass and realize this: we put these fuckheads into office, and there's no reason we should be sitting around accepting them constantly fucking everyone in the ass on every issue.

The only acceptable solution to asset forfeiture is complete repeal on federal and state level because it obviously does not permit due process. If you are willing to accept anything else, you are a moron.

 

[Jhhnn]

Instead, you accept the equivalent of "oh yea... we'll um... stop abusing the law to steal property... because... um... we have a track record of being honest... I mean... we have a track record of not abusing the law... errr.... FUCK YOU PEONS, WE WILL TAKE YOUR SHIT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AS WE SEE FIT" as a legitimate solution on some level. It is not a solution on any level because there is nothing remotely constitutional about civil asset forfeiture.

Raving won't get us anything but scorn? We're the fucking citizens of the country, dickhead. You are part of the problem. Like we can't possibly just completely 100% disagree with the shithead politicians from both parties, mind you, on anything because they will feel scorned. ROFL. Get your head out of your ass and realize this: we put these fuckheads into office, and there's no reason we should be sitting around accepting them constantly fucking everyone in the ass on every issue.

The only acceptable solution to asset forfeiture is complete repeal on federal and state level because it obviously does not permit due process. If you are willing to accept anything else, you are a moron.

Raving even turns off people who are on your side of the real argument, people like me.

If we want to accomplish anything other than venting we need to use this as an opportunity to push for reform at the state level where we can have some effect, just as with MMJ & legalization. In that, we need to pitch it differently, make it a case for honesty, fair play & the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Those things are hard to argue against.

We also need to remember that civil forfeiture is sometimes the only method whereby liabilities to the community can be reduced, as with some of the abandoned property scenarios we've seen in the wake of the late great Ownership Society.

 

[mrjminer]

Raving even turns off people who are on your side of the real argument, people like me.

If we want to accomplish anything other than venting we need to use this as an opportunity to push for reform at the state level where we can have some effect, just as with MMJ & legalization. In that, we need to pitch it differently, make it a case for honesty, fair play & the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Those things are hard to argue against.

We also need to remember that civil forfeiture is sometimes the only method whereby liabilities to the community can be reduced, as with some of the abandoned property scenarios we've seen in the wake of the late great Ownership Society.

Advocating for the government to just take something without due process in any circumstance is stupid, and permitting the government to ignore our rights at its discretion is stupid.

Pitch it differently to include things that are already inherent and explicitly written in a document that preserves our rights, and of which civil asset forfeiture clearly violates? Why would you sit around floating along the idea of keeping our rights instead of just outright demanding it? No shit things like "the assumption of innocence until proven guilty" are hard to argue against -- because no law is supposed to exist that violates the due process through which this assumption is rooted. If they went ahead and ignored various other "inconvenient" rights and freedoms, do you think that would be acceptable to go on at all -- or at length as you permit in this instance? We could go ahead and let them pass some more laws to go ahead and re-institute slavery and no longer allow the public to vote. No need to worry, though, they'd never actually do anything with those laws because, hey, we can trust them to be responsible!

Our sides are nowhere near the same. A law currently exists that so obviously usurps due process that it is indefensible. I happen to like having rights and freedoms, you don't seem to feel preserving them is of any consequence.

 

[theeedude]

Why did the Republican Congress not ban it legislatively? Why does Obama have to do it by executive action?

 

[Jhhnn]

Advocating for the government to just take something without due process in any circumstance is stupid, and permitting the government to ignore our rights at its discretion is stupid.

Pitch it differently to include things that are already inherent and explicitly written in a document that preserves our rights, and of which civil asset forfeiture clearly violates? Why would you sit around floating along the idea of keeping our rights instead of just outright demanding it? No shit things like "the assumption of innocence until proven guilty" are hard to argue against -- because no law is supposed to exist that violates the due process through which this assumption is rooted. If they went ahead and ignored various other "inconvenient" rights and freedoms, do you think that would be acceptable to go on at all -- or at length as you permit in this instance? We could go ahead and let them pass some more laws to go ahead and re-institute slavery and no longer allow the public to vote. No need to worry, though, they'd never actually do anything with those laws because, hey, we can trust them to be responsible!

Our sides are nowhere near the same. A law currently exists that so obviously usurps due process that it is indefensible. I happen to like having rights and freedoms, you don't seem to feel preserving them is of any consequence.

I've advocated no such thing. Owners of property in the scenario I mention have the option of repair or demolition & are duly notified many times thru subpoena. Other than that, I can't think of any situations where I support civil forfeiture. Communities have the right to demand responsible ownership. Other than that, I don't support civil forfeiture at all.

 

[shady28]

...
BTW, has anyone who got robbed without so much as even a criminal charge ever taken it to the Supreme Court? This can't possibly pass muster with the 4th amendment...

Still thinking you're free? This is the kind of thing that happens when people think the constitution doesn't matter - which is a very common mindset here. Backtrack on one right, backtrack on them all...


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...preme_court_decision_lets_the_government.html

Writing for a six-justice majority in Kaley v. United States, thus concluded Justice Elena Kagan that a criminal defendant indicted by a grand jury has essentially no right to challenge the forfeiture of her assets, even if the defendant needs those very assets to pay lawyers to defend her at trial. In an odd ideological lineup, the dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts and the more liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

 

[shady28]

Why did the Republican Congress not ban it legislatively? Why does Obama have to do it by executive action?

Funny you bring up the usual mind-numbingly ignorant partisanship in this, like everything.

As a point of fact, this asset forfeiture is based on a law passed in 1984 by a Democrat controlled congress. It was passed with 210 Democrat Yea's, 109 Republican Nays, 43 Democrat Nays and 48 Republican Nays.

Fact : Your precious Democrat party put this in place 31 years ago.

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984



House : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/98-1984/h869

Senate : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/98-1984/s658

 

[theeedude]

Funny you bring up the usual mind-numbingly ignorant partisanship in this, like everything.

As a point of fact, this asset forfeiture is based on a law passed in 1984 by a Democrat controlled congress. It was passed with 210 Democrat Yea's, 109 Republican Nays, 43 Democrat Nays and 48 Republican Nays.

Fact : Your precious Democrat party put this in place 31 years ago.

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984



House : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/98-1984/h869

Senate : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/98-1984/s658

Nope, 109 Republican Yeas, not Nays. And signed by St. Reagan.
In any case, it's Obama's executive action that's doing away with it today, not this Republican Congress that keeps complaining about Obama's use of executive power while doing nothing.

 

[shady28]

Nope, 109 Republican Yeas, not Nays. And signed by St. Reagan.
In any case, it's Obama's executive action that's doing away with it today, not this Republican Congress that keeps complaining about Obama's use of executive power while doing nothing.

Yep typo on my part. 210 Dem Yeas and 109 Rep Yeas. The point is still valid, Dems had major control of the House in 1984.

In any case, this is bi-partisan legislation. It had equal numbers of sponsors on both sides of the aisle, even if the Reps voted against it. It was bundled into a spending bill with over 1300 amendments, so my guess is they voted against it for other reasons than this.

But it would be incorrect and ignorant to believe that the Dems did not support it.

The lesson here that keeps escaping you is that there is no substantive difference between these 2 parties, and there hasn't been for a very very long time.