The Justice Department just shut down a huge asset forfeiture program

[Darwin333]

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.

The same law enforcement interests that you speak of have far more power at the state level then at the Federal level. Frankly this has at least as much of an opportunity to get them to start successfully lobbying states to vastly expand their forfeiture laws and rules. Hell the states want the revenue just like the DOJ does. So now they get to push the "law enforcement" aspect of it AND tell states that it will cure some of their budget shortfalls.

As far as Congress is concerned, why does everybody make excuses for assholes not taking a stand on the right side of issues? So far nothing has been done so the absolute worst case scenario is nothing continues to be done. Pie in the sky hope would be that something does happen and if not at the very least public awareness is vastly increased. All of this from a few minutes of the Presidents time, isn't that time well spent in your opinion? What potential danger is there?

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.

The opportunity is still there. It might remove incentive but the opportunity hasn't changed a single bit, which is something you fail to acknowledge. I guarantee that there will still be departments that will continue it's use even if its purely for punitive reasons.

I will grant you that this is a very small baby step in the right direction, and iirc Obama has previously made another one on the issue, but as I keep saying it is a long way from anything resembling "good".

 

[senseamp]

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.

Republicans voted 2:1 for it back then and Reagan signed it and his administration drove the drug hysteria that fueled these kinds of legislations.
I know you want to convince yourself that chocolate and shit are the same because they are both brown. Even if that makes eating Republican shit on a continuous basis more palatable for you, that doesn't mean they are the same.

 

[shady28]

Republicans voted 2:1 for it back then and Reagan signed it and his administration drove the drug hysteria that fueled these kinds of legislations.
I know you want to convince yourself that chocolate and shit are the same because they are both brown. Even if that makes eating Republican shit on a continuous basis more palatable for you, that doesn't mean they are the same.

Are you fucking stupid or just so wrapped up in your precious partisan politics that you can't add? Democrats voted for it 4:1 That by the way is double the ratio that Republicans voted for it (2:1).

I threw you a bone when I noted that it was bi-partisan, but the reality is it was mostly backed by Democrats when it hit the floor. The numbers prove that. Get over it and learn something.

Edit : Maybe your tag should be 'senseless-amp', might be more 'sensible'?

 

[Jhhnn]

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

Civil forfeiture has its roots in maritime law from hundreds of years ago. The Wiki link does bring up other situations where civil forfeiture isn't exactly robbery, like wrt the international banking community. The ability to make a case against any particular person for institutional money laundering in support of tax evasion, drug cartels & terrorist organizations is quite limited. Only the fact that Uncle Sam can take their money keeps 'em in line at all. You can't put a corporation in prison.

Or Freedumb!, right?

 

[shady28]

Civil forfeiture has its roots in maritime law from hundreds of years ago. The Wiki link does bring up other situations where civil forfeiture isn't exactly robbery, like wrt the international banking community. The ability to make a case against any particular person for institutional money laundering in support of tax evasion, drug cartels & terrorist organizations is quite limited. Only the fact that Uncle Sam can take their money keeps 'em in line at all. You can't put a corporation in prison.

Or Freedumb!, right?

Only a lefty like you would advocate this. It's part of your 'All power to the state, as long as the state is the party that I vote for and I think they're out for MEEEEEEEE!!!" mentality.

In actual practice, most civil forfeiture occurs as a result of traffic stops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

One of the primary ways police departments are able to seize money and share in the proceeds at the federal level is through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing. Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.
...
There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.
Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.
Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008.

 

[Jhhnn]

Only a lefty like you would advocate this. It's part of your 'All power to the state, as long as the state is the party that I vote for and I think they're out for MEEEEEEEE!!!" mentality.

In actual practice, most civil forfeiture occurs as a result of traffic stops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

I haven't supported forfeiture at that level so you really shouldn't pretend that I have. Quite the contrary. It needs to be limited to a very, very narrow set of circumstances. I don't think that "suspicious" amounts of cash should be confiscated at all, that the cops should be able to confiscate people's autos over a quarter oz of marijuana that they brought back from CO even if they are convicted or that innocent third parties should be subject to civil forfeiture.

Other than civil forfeiture, how else do we deal with the Banksters & the urban gangsters who move into abandoned properties, for example? What would you suggest?

Or just cling to mindless positions based on Libertopian "principles" of utter foolishness.

 

[Darwin333]

I haven't supported forfeiture at that level so you really shouldn't pretend that I have. Quite the contrary. It needs to be limited to a very, very narrow set of circumstances. I don't think that "suspicious" amounts of cash should be confiscated at all, that the cops should be able to confiscate people's autos over a quarter oz of marijuana that they brought back from CO even if they are convicted or that innocent third parties should be subject to civil forfeiture.

Other than civil forfeiture, how else do we deal with the Banksters & the urban gangsters who move into abandoned properties, for example? What would you suggest?

Or just cling to mindless positions based on Libertopian "principles" of utter foolishness.

The banksters recently tied us up, raped us and then robbed us blind. How many times was civil forfeiture used against the banksters in this very recent atrocity? I'll remind you that both Republican and Democrat presidents have had the ability to sick the DOJ on them and their criminal actions are many.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Well said. If only we had a major political party that agreed.

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

This is right up there with New London and Dread Scott.

The Dems are openly all about empowering government and dis-empowering individuals, so this is hardly unexpected. However, the Republicans are supposedly about smaller, limited government. Their votes are miles away from their rhetoric.

 

[ivwshane]

Well said. If only we had a major political party that agreed.


This is right up there with New London and Dread Scott.

The Dems are openly all about empowering government and dis-empowering individuals, so this is hardly unexpected. However, the Republicans are supposedly about smaller, limited government. Their votes are miles away from their rhetoric.

Oh yeah? In what ways are dems dis-empowering individuals?

 

[werepossum]

Oh yeah? In what ways are dems dis-empowering individuals?

Well, one very obvious way would be writing and passing a bill allowing government to take the individual's property without due process.

 

[Jhhnn]

The banksters recently tied us up, raped us and then robbed us blind. How many times was civil forfeiture used against the banksters in this very recent atrocity? I'll remind you that both Republican and Democrat presidents have had the ability to sick the DOJ on them and their criminal actions are many.

Civil forfeiture was used against the banksters at least this many times-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#Notable_forfeitures

Threat of forfeiture undoubtedly played a part in many other large settlements, as well-

http://www.ibtimes.com/mortgage-cri...65b-largest-single-company-settlement-1665098

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, one very obvious way would be writing and passing a bill allowing government to take the individual's property without due process.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has defined due process differently than what you want it or imagine it to be, thus enabling chickenshit prosecutors everywhere.

They've also defined it largely in terms of States' Rights so that's where the battle must be fought to be effective.

 

[senseamp]

This needs to be banned legislatively, Obama's executive order is only applicable to his administration and could be overturned by the next one. Republican Congress needs to get off its ass, hold off on repealing Obamacare for the 60th time and do something useful for once.

 

[werepossum]

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has defined due process differently than what you want it or imagine it to be, thus enabling chickenshit prosecutors everywhere.

They've also defined it largely in terms of States' Rights so that's where the battle must be fought to be effective.

That is true, although the federal government also plays a big part in civil forfeiture and must be reined in.

This needs to be banned legislatively, Obama's executive order is only applicable to his administration and could be overturned by the next one. Republican Congress needs to get off its ass, hold off on repealing Obamacare for the 60th time and do something useful for once.

Republicans have no more interest in limiting government than do Democrats. Remember, this is the party that is fine with the government having veto power over two competent adults' decision to marry. It is perhaps slightly more likely that Republicans would fix this, but if so it will be only to save their own political careers because their voters are slightly more likely to demand it. If the people will lead, the leaders will follow. Otherwise we get what they wish us to have, and it ain't pretty.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, one very obvious way would be writing and passing a bill allowing government to take the individual's property without due process.

Which bill or amendment was this that was exclusively created by Democrats? I ask because if you can't point to a particular piece of legislation that was known to be written by a Democrat then you are talking out of your ass.

 

[ivwshane]

That is true, although the federal government also plays a big part in civil forfeiture and must be reined in.


Republicans have no more interest in limiting government than do Democrats. Remember, this is the party that is fine with the government having veto power over two competent adults' decision to marry. It is perhaps slightly more likely that Republicans would fix this, but if so it will be only to save their own political careers because their voters are slightly more likely to demand it. If the people will lead, the leaders will follow. Otherwise we get what they wish us to have, and it ain't pretty.

Lol, I'm sure you have a poll or other facts to back up your claim.

I've seen efforts of reform from both sides of the isle.

 

[Darwin333]

Civil forfeiture was used against the banksters at least this many times-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#Notable_forfeitures

10 times???? Did you see the above stats about how many times civil forfieture was used against people with less than $8,800???

Sorry but keeping this unconstitutional piece of shit legislation around that is largely used against people to poor to fight the government so that it can be used against a whole 10 banksters since 1965 is a pretty shitty reason to keep it around.

Threat of forfeiture undoubtedly played a part in many other large settlements, as well-

http://www.ibtimes.com/mortgage-cri...65b-largest-single-company-settlement-1665098

Why in the hell would the government "settle" for something when they can just take it all? They don't settle with the poor asshole driving down a highway who has his life savings to buy a car. They just take that shit and threaten to charge you with all sorts of shit if you don't sign it over. Even if you don't sign it over, your now ass out of your life savings and somehow have to find a way to get a lawyer to try and prove your money innocent (versus them proving it guilty).

There is not and never will be anything "good" about doing an end around on the 4th amendment in order to relieve citizens of their very hard earned cash and/or property. Once a person is found guilty in a court of law I am all for them seizing property but never without due process. Anyone who even has a small amount of respect for the constitution would do everything in their power to end this program, not slow it down or stem the tide but completely end it. If people want to fight back and be on the wrong side of the issue then so be it, that's their right. I don't care how many people say slavery is OK, I will always say bullshit it's not ok in the least regardless of the potential push back. Right is right and wrong is wrong in my book. This shit is wrong and anyone who has the power to put a stop to it or might have the slightest ability to influence it's reversal and doesn't is on the wrong side of the issue in my book. Saying that Obama did "good" on this issue is akin to saying your rapist did "good" by only sticking 3/4 of his dick in your ass instead of the entire thing. At the end of the day you are still getting fucked against your will.

 

[Darwin333]

This needs to be banned legislatively, Obama's executive order is only applicable to his administration and could be overturned by the next one. Republican Congress needs to get off its ass, hold off on repealing Obamacare for the 60th time and do something useful for once.

I personally see this as a huge issue that can be remedied with a very very short bill from Congress. When Obama was elected and the Dems enjoyed a majority in the house and senate, why do you suppose they didn't take a few minutes to end this fucked up practice?

 

[Darwin333]

Republicans have no more interest in limiting government than do Democrats. Remember, this is the party that is fine with the government having veto power over two competent adults' decision to marry. It is perhaps slightly more likely that Republicans would fix this, but if so it will be only to save their own political careers because their voters are slightly more likely to demand it. If the people will lead, the leaders will follow. Otherwise we get what they wish us to have, and it ain't pretty.

Yeah, other than the 2nd amendment I have observed that the Republicans really don't give a shit about our rights any more than the Dems (sometimes less).

 

[ivwshane]

I personally see this as a huge issue that can be remedied with a very very short bill from Congress. When Obama was elected and the Dems enjoyed a majority in the house and senate, why do you suppose they didn't take a few minutes to end this fucked up practice?

Did you bring it up to your congressman or bring it up on these boards when dems held both branches of office? Did you complain when repubs held all three branches of government under bush? Civil forfeiture is rarely talked about now and you want our representatives to tackle an issue that has gotten little to no attention since it's inception and are blaming them for not doing anything?

You can hate government all you want but at least place the blame where it belongs and that's squarely in the hands of the uniformed voter who hasn't raised the issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

I personally see this as a huge issue that can be remedied with a very very short bill from Congress. When Obama was elected and the Dems enjoyed a majority in the house and senate, why do you suppose they didn't take a few minutes to end this fucked up practice?

Might as well ask why the Repubs didn't do it after they won the 2002 midterms.

Mindless partisan raving isn't constructive because it's not a partisan issue. Take this recent bill that went nowhere-

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr5212

Congress won't touch it with a pole, whatever their reasons. Therefore, the only constructive action we've seen is from the DoJ & at the state level. The DoJ could have compensated for a lack of funding with cutbacks in other areas but that's not what happened.

Support for reform comes from across the spectrum, from Freedom Works to John Oliver.

 

[right_to_know]

I thought this was what the 2nd amendment was for?

 

[werepossum]

I thought this was what the 2nd amendment was for?

Can't stand asset forfeiture but I don't think it rises to the level of armed insurrection, dude.

 

[Darwin333]

Did you bring it up to your congressman or bring it up on these boards when dems held both branches of office? Did you complain when repubs held all three branches of government under bush? Civil forfeiture is rarely talked about now and you want our representatives to tackle an issue that has gotten little to no attention since it's inception and are blaming them for not doing anything?

You can hate government all you want but at least place the blame where it belongs and that's squarely in the hands of the uniformed voter who hasn't raised the issue.

Most uniformed voters have never had to deal with civil forfeiture and yes, I do expect our legislators to fix blatantly wrong things without having to be pressured into it. It's called doing the right thing even when no one is looking. I do agree that neither party seems to want to do the right thing unless it somehow benefits themselves.

 

[Darwin333]

Can't stand asset forfeiture but I don't think it rises to the level of armed insurrection, dude.

I guess that would depend on how much of your stuff they were seizing. If they were trying to take your car and house, both of which you still owe the bank for and will continue owing the bank for, you might be a bit more willing.