Civil Forfeiture

[Arkady]

One of the issues I'd hope would cross the partisan divide is civil forfeiture. If you've never watched the excellent John Oliver segment on it, I highly recommend doing so:

Civil forfeiture is a bizarre area of law that has grown up outside the normal Constitutional requirement for due process. Police can simply seize a person's property without so much as charging him with a crime, if they suspect he's engaged in illegal behavior. Then, to make matters worse, the police departments are often allowed to keep that property. This creates an incentive for police departments to steal money from ordinary citizens in order to fund their budgets.

The way the courts have reasoned their way around the need for due process is by creating a legal fiction, where it isn't a matter of the government prosecuting a criminal suspect (which would trigger the Constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants), but instead is a matter of the police suing the property itself, which lacks the same rights. For example, the police will sue your house, instead of bringing charges against you. This then transfers the burden of proof to the person who has had his property stolen by the police -- it's up to him to prove that the property wasn't involved in a crime.... even if the police haven't proven that a crime was even committed.

I say this is an issue that I would hope could cross the partisan divide, because there's a reason to hate civil forfeiture from both a liberal and a conservative perspective. For a liberal, it's a clear due process issue, and it's also a way that authorities prey on poorer and less powerful communities. The authorities aren't going to seize Donald Trump's tower because it was the base of operations for his plan to defraud Trump "University" students. Civil forfeiture doesn't get used against corporate criminals, but instead against those suspected involvement in recreational drugs. Meanwhile, it should also be an issue from a traditional conservative perspective, since it's a way that government has moved beyond its proper Constitutional limits and acquired the ability to feed itself -- thanks to civil forfeiture, government budgets can expand beyond the scope assigned to them by the political process, simply by way of seizing people's money and then spending it on whatever they like. For those who speak so often of liberty and property rights and the dangers of an out-of-control government, civil forfeiture should be an outrage.

Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "conservative" in this country are typically not traditional conservatives, but rather white supremacists who are fine with civil forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to keeping the brown people in line. For example, when Trump heard about a Texas senator who was trying to limit civil forfeiture (so that in most cases a criminal conviction was required before the state could seize a person's property), rather than applaud that senator for reigning in an outrageous government abuse, Trump's immediate response was to "joke" about destroying the senators career.

Here's more on civil forfeiture in Texas:

https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/

 

[marvin martian]

For a liberal, it's a clear due process issue, and it's also a way that authorities prey on poorer and less powerful communities.

If only your imaginary liberals who care about due process were around when Obama was executing American citizens on a phone call order. Laughable...

 

[Arkady]

If only your imaginary liberals who care about due process were around when Obama was executing American citizens on a phone call order. Laughable...

Many of us were criticizing Obama harshly for that. I accused him of nothing short of murder, on those grounds, repeatedly in this forum. But Obama's not president any more. Trump is. Will you show the character so many of us on the left did and criticize Trump? Or are you content to simply change the subject to Obama when your so-called president acts up.

 

[UPNYA2]

One of the issues I'd hope would cross the partisan divide is civil forfeiture. If you've never watched the excellent John Oliver segment on it, I highly recommend doing so:

Civil forfeiture is a bizarre area of law that has grown up outside the normal Constitutional requirement for due process. Police can simply seize a person's property without so much as charging him with a crime, if they suspect he's engaged in illegal behavior. Then, to make matters worse, the police departments are often allowed to keep that property. This creates an incentive for police departments to steal money from ordinary citizens in order to fund their budgets.

The way the courts have reasoned their way around the need for due process is by creating a legal fiction, where it isn't a matter of the government prosecuting a criminal suspect (which would trigger the Constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants), but instead is a matter of the police suing the property itself, which lacks the same rights. For example, the police will sue your house, instead of bringing charges against you. This then transfers the burden of proof to the person who has had his property stolen by the police -- it's up to him to prove that the property wasn't involved in a crime.... even if the police haven't proven that a crime was even committed.

I say this is an issue that I would hope could cross the partisan divide, because there's a reason to hate civil forfeiture from both a liberal and a conservative perspective. For a liberal, it's a clear due process issue, and it's also a way that authorities prey on poorer and less powerful communities. The authorities aren't going to seize Donald Trump's tower because it was the base of operations for his plan to defraud Trump "University" students. Civil forfeiture doesn't get used against corporate criminals, but instead against those suspected involvement in recreational drugs. Meanwhile, it should also be an issue from a traditional conservative perspective, since it's a way that government has moved beyond its proper Constitutional limits and acquired the ability to feed itself -- thanks to civil forfeiture, government budgets can expand beyond the scope assigned to them by the political process, simply by way of seizing people's money and then spending it on whatever they like. For those who speak so often of liberty and property rights and the dangers of an out-of-control government, civil forfeiture should be an outrage.

Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "conservative" in this country are typically not traditional conservatives, but rather white supremacists who are fine with civil forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to keeping the brown people in line. For example, when Trump heard about a Texas senator who was trying to limit civil forfeiture (so that in most cases a criminal conviction was required before the state could seize a person's property), rather than applaud that senator for reigning in an outrageous government abuse, Trump's immediate response was to "joke" about destroying the senators career.

Here's more on civil forfeiture in Texas:

https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/

Whenever you are actually presenting facts in a manner that invokes serious considerations of agreeing with your stated position, whatever it may be at the time you damned near always mess it up by electing to throw in a personal insult before you get through.

This being a prime example. You make very good points early on but then have to throw in some dumbassed personal opinions of people whose core beliefs do not mirror your own. For example, take this statement;

"Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "conservative" in this country.."

"Call themselves"? Meaning what, that YOU somehow just magically know what people really are inside better than they do?

"... are typically not traditional conservatives, but rather white supremacists who are fine with civil forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to keeping the brown people in line."

Really Mr. "facts"? And you know they are typically "white supremacists" how exactly?
AND you know it is all about "keeping the brown people in line.", how exactly?

Why present your personal opinions of others, (and quite confrontational opinions at that), in a post where you begin by presenting legitimate arguments for your position on a matter?

It would be akin to me posting something that begins well enough but ends with me stating;
"Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "liberals" in this country are typically not traditional liberals, but rather white apologist who are fine with civil obedience forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to allowing the brown people to go around the line to legally immigrate to the US".

Bet you wouldn't be swayed despite anything else I had to say.

Same here. Sadly.

 

[Arkady]

Whenever you are actually presenting facts in a manner that invokes serious considerations of agreeing with your stated position, whatever it may be at the time you damned near always mess it up by electing to throw in a personal insult before you get through.

By comparison, you skip right to the personal insults from the opening paragraph, and never bother getting around to saying anything worth serious consideration.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

and never bother getting around to saying anything worth serious consideration.

The pot calls the kettle black

 

[freyasman]

One of the issues I'd hope would cross the partisan divide is civil forfeiture. If you've never watched the excellent John Oliver segment on it, I highly recommend doing so:

Civil forfeiture is a bizarre area of law that has grown up outside the normal Constitutional requirement for due process. Police can simply seize a person's property without so much as charging him with a crime, if they suspect he's engaged in illegal behavior. Then, to make matters worse, the police departments are often allowed to keep that property. This creates an incentive for police departments to steal money from ordinary citizens in order to fund their budgets.

The way the courts have reasoned their way around the need for due process is by creating a legal fiction, where it isn't a matter of the government prosecuting a criminal suspect (which would trigger the Constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants), but instead is a matter of the police suing the property itself, which lacks the same rights. For example, the police will sue your house, instead of bringing charges against you. This then transfers the burden of proof to the person who has had his property stolen by the police -- it's up to him to prove that the property wasn't involved in a crime.... even if the police haven't proven that a crime was even committed.

I say this is an issue that I would hope could cross the partisan divide, because there's a reason to hate civil forfeiture from both a liberal and a conservative perspective. For a liberal, it's a clear due process issue, and it's also a way that authorities prey on poorer and less powerful communities. The authorities aren't going to seize Donald Trump's tower because it was the base of operations for his plan to defraud Trump "University" students. Civil forfeiture doesn't get used against corporate criminals, but instead against those suspected involvement in recreational drugs. Meanwhile, it should also be an issue from a traditional conservative perspective, since it's a way that government has moved beyond its proper Constitutional limits and acquired the ability to feed itself -- thanks to civil forfeiture, government budgets can expand beyond the scope assigned to them by the political process, simply by way of seizing people's money and then spending it on whatever they like. For those who speak so often of liberty and property rights and the dangers of an out-of-control government, civil forfeiture should be an outrage.

Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "conservative" in this country are typically not traditional conservatives, but rather white supremacists who are fine with civil forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to keeping the brown people in line. For example, when Trump heard about a Texas senator who was trying to limit civil forfeiture (so that in most cases a criminal conviction was required before the state could seize a person's property), rather than applaud that senator for reigning in an outrageous government abuse, Trump's immediate response was to "joke" about destroying the senators career.

Here's more on civil forfeiture in Texas:

https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/

Civil forfeiture sucks and should be done away with.



And that last paragraph is just you being an ass hole.

 

[UPNYA2]

By comparison, you skip right to the personal insults from the opening paragraph, and never bother getting around to saying anything worth serious consideration.

Well, yeah, but that is ok because I, unlike yourself, have no real desire to, and am under no illusion that I ever actually could, sway the opinion of anyone on the left today. I come here to amuse myself by agitating others. I LONG AGO gave up on the notion liberals could actually be reasoned with when it comes to social and political positions. Too many opt to adopt a position based upon how it makes them "feel" as opposed to if it is correct or not. I do it because too many, like yourself, are actually convinced that their views and opinions are set in stone, some sort of undeniable facts and therefore if not accepted by others it can ONLY be because of some genetic/intellectual defect in said others.

And I almost want to refrain from doing it these days because, lets be honest here, it is so damned EASY. Anyone can insult a dem/lib. All that is required is the ability to repeat whatever it is that THEY say. They make themselves look so simple, so often, they have nearly taken all of the fun out of it for me.

NEARLY mind you.

; -)

 

[marvin martian]

Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "conservative" in this country are typically not traditional conservatives, but rather white supremacists who are fine with civil forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to keeping the brown people in line. For example, when Trump heard about a Texas senator who was trying to limit civil forfeiture (so that in most cases a criminal conviction was required before the state could seize a person's property), rather than applaud that senator for reigning in an outrageous government abuse, Trump's immediate response was to "joke" about destroying the senators career.

This smacks of projection, and the type of fear you probably live with every day in the all-white neighborhood you call home.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

One of the issues I'd hope would cross the partisan divide is civil forfeiture. If you've never watched the excellent John Oliver segment on it, I highly recommend doing so:

Civil forfeiture is a bizarre area of law that has grown up outside the normal Constitutional requirement for due process. Police can simply seize a person's property without so much as charging him with a crime, if they suspect he's engaged in illegal behavior. Then, to make matters worse, the police departments are often allowed to keep that property. This creates an incentive for police departments to steal money from ordinary citizens in order to fund their budgets.

The way the courts have reasoned their way around the need for due process is by creating a legal fiction, where it isn't a matter of the government prosecuting a criminal suspect (which would trigger the Constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants), but instead is a matter of the police suing the property itself, which lacks the same rights. For example, the police will sue your house, instead of bringing charges against you. This then transfers the burden of proof to the person who has had his property stolen by the police -- it's up to him to prove that the property wasn't involved in a crime.... even if the police haven't proven that a crime was even committed.

I say this is an issue that I would hope could cross the partisan divide, because there's a reason to hate civil forfeiture from both a liberal and a conservative perspective. For a liberal, it's a clear due process issue, and it's also a way that authorities prey on poorer and less powerful communities. The authorities aren't going to seize Donald Trump's tower because it was the base of operations for his plan to defraud Trump "University" students. Civil forfeiture doesn't get used against corporate criminals, but instead against those suspected involvement in recreational drugs. Meanwhile, it should also be an issue from a traditional conservative perspective, since it's a way that government has moved beyond its proper Constitutional limits and acquired the ability to feed itself -- thanks to civil forfeiture, government budgets can expand beyond the scope assigned to them by the political process, simply by way of seizing people's money and then spending it on whatever they like. For those who speak so often of liberty and property rights and the dangers of an out-of-control government, civil forfeiture should be an outrage.

Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "conservative" in this country are typically not traditional conservatives, but rather white supremacists who are fine with civil forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to keeping the brown people in line. For example, when Trump heard about a Texas senator who was trying to limit civil forfeiture (so that in most cases a criminal conviction was required before the state could seize a person's property), rather than applaud that senator for reigning in an outrageous government abuse, Trump's immediate response was to "joke" about destroying the senators career.

Here's more on civil forfeiture in Texas:

https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/

I think it's obscene to seize funds in this way. I also know for fact they can seize your money and not even charge you with a crime. At the very least, I would expect assets frozen or suspended upon criminal charges being filed, assuming good cause can be shown as to why these assets were used in a crime. Short of that, tough luck for the law.

I saw the same clip of that Sheriff with Trump. While I am fine with assets being frozen (and thus not sold off) under the conditions described above, I see no reason whatsoever to ridicule someone who wants to introduce due process into the equation.

 

[Arkady]

Civil forfeiture sucks and should be done away with.



And that last paragraph is just you being an ass hole.

The last paragraph was "Here's more on civil forfeiture in Texas"

 

[Arkady]

Well, yeah, but that is ok because I, unlike yourself, have no real desire to, and am under no illusion that I ever actually could, sway the opinion of anyone on the left today. I come here to amuse myself by agitating others. I LONG AGO gave up on the notion liberals could actually be reasoned with when it comes to social and political positions. Too many opt to adopt a position based upon how it makes them "feel" as opposed to if it is correct or not. I do it because too many, like yourself, are actually convinced that their views and opinions are set in stone, some sort of undeniable facts and therefore if not accepted by others it can ONLY be because of some genetic/intellectual defect in said others.

And I almost want to refrain from doing it these days because, lets be honest here, it is so damned EASY. Anyone can insult a dem/lib. All that is required is the ability to repeat whatever it is that THEY say. They make themselves look so simple, so often, they have nearly taken all of the fun out of it for me.

NEARLY mind you.

; -)

I don't imagine for a minute I could sway the conservatives here. That's why I stopped coming back for a while. But then I realized I really like rattling the monkey cages, so I returned. That's not going to educate the monkeys, but it's awfully fun listening to them screech.

 

[Arkady]

I think it's obscene to seize funds in this way. I also know for fact they can seize your money and not even charge you with a crime. At the very least, I would expect assets frozen or suspended upon criminal charges being filed, assuming good cause can be shown as to why these assets were used in a crime. Short of that, tough luck for the law.

I saw the same clip of that Sheriff with Trump. While I am fine with assets being frozen (and thus not sold off) under the conditions described above, I see no reason whatsoever to ridicule someone who wants to introduce due process into the equation.

Agreed. It definitely makes sense to freeze assets in some situations while due process is happening. But short of a criminal conviction, they shouldn't be permanently seized by the government. And even then, they should go to general revenues, not to whatever police departments or cops were involved in the seizure, since that creates perverse incentives. The budget for the police should be set as a matter of public policy, rather than putting them in a position where balancing the books involves trying to identify possible crooks with property they can take.

 

[freyasman]

The last paragraph was "Here's more on civil forfeiture in Texas"

My mistake; second to last....

(The link to the Texas Observer article was actually pretty informative.)

 

[Capitalist]

I don't imagine for a minute I could sway the conservatives here. That's why I stopped coming back for a while.

Nope. Gonna raise the ol' bullshit flag here. You inferred after the election that you weren't getting paid to "sway opinions" on this or perhaps any forum anymore and that you were seeking greener pastures elsewhere where you could ply your (cough) craft.

 

[Spamature]

One of the issues I'd hope would cross the partisan divide is civil forfeiture. If you've never watched the excellent John Oliver segment on it, I highly recommend doing so:

Civil forfeiture is a bizarre area of law that has grown up outside the normal Constitutional requirement for due process. Police can simply seize a person's property without so much as charging him with a crime, if they suspect he's engaged in illegal behavior. Then, to make matters worse, the police departments are often allowed to keep that property. This creates an incentive for police departments to steal money from ordinary citizens in order to fund their budgets.

The way the courts have reasoned their way around the need for due process is by creating a legal fiction, where it isn't a matter of the government prosecuting a criminal suspect (which would trigger the Constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants), but instead is a matter of the police suing the property itself, which lacks the same rights. For example, the police will sue your house, instead of bringing charges against you. This then transfers the burden of proof to the person who has had his property stolen by the police -- it's up to him to prove that the property wasn't involved in a crime.... even if the police haven't proven that a crime was even committed.

I say this is an issue that I would hope could cross the partisan divide, because there's a reason to hate civil forfeiture from both a liberal and a conservative perspective. For a liberal, it's a clear due process issue, and it's also a way that authorities prey on poorer and less powerful communities. The authorities aren't going to seize Donald Trump's tower because it was the base of operations for his plan to defraud Trump "University" students. Civil forfeiture doesn't get used against corporate criminals, but instead against those suspected involvement in recreational drugs. Meanwhile, it should also be an issue from a traditional conservative perspective, since it's a way that government has moved beyond its proper Constitutional limits and acquired the ability to feed itself -- thanks to civil forfeiture, government budgets can expand beyond the scope assigned to them by the political process, simply by way of seizing people's money and then spending it on whatever they like. For those who speak so often of liberty and property rights and the dangers of an out-of-control government, civil forfeiture should be an outrage.

Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "conservative" in this country are typically not traditional conservatives, but rather white supremacists who are fine with civil forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to keeping the brown people in line. For example, when Trump heard about a Texas senator who was trying to limit civil forfeiture (so that in most cases a criminal conviction was required before the state could seize a person's property), rather than applaud that senator for reigning in an outrageous government abuse, Trump's immediate response was to "joke" about destroying the senators career.

Here's more on civil forfeiture in Texas:

https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/

I can't say it enough. If the people in those areas would only cooperate with the gangs. They could prevent this kind of crime from running rampant in their communities

 

[resident_evil]

One of the issues I'd hope would cross the partisan divide is civil forfeiture. If you've never watched the excellent John Oliver segment on it, I highly recommend doing so:

Civil forfeiture is a bizarre area of law that has grown up outside the normal Constitutional requirement for due process. Police can simply seize a person's property without so much as charging him with a crime, if they suspect he's engaged in illegal behavior. Then, to make matters worse, the police departments are often allowed to keep that property. This creates an incentive for police departments to steal money from ordinary citizens in order to fund their budgets.

The way the courts have reasoned their way around the need for due process is by creating a legal fiction, where it isn't a matter of the government prosecuting a criminal suspect (which would trigger the Constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants), but instead is a matter of the police suing the property itself, which lacks the same rights. For example, the police will sue your house, instead of bringing charges against you. This then transfers the burden of proof to the person who has had his property stolen by the police -- it's up to him to prove that the property wasn't involved in a crime.... even if the police haven't proven that a crime was even committed.

I say this is an issue that I would hope could cross the partisan divide, because there's a reason to hate civil forfeiture from both a liberal and a conservative perspective. For a liberal, it's a clear due process issue, and it's also a way that authorities prey on poorer and less powerful communities. The authorities aren't going to seize Donald Trump's tower because it was the base of operations for his plan to defraud Trump "University" students. Civil forfeiture doesn't get used against corporate criminals, but instead against those suspected involvement in recreational drugs. Meanwhile, it should also be an issue from a traditional conservative perspective, since it's a way that government has moved beyond its proper Constitutional limits and acquired the ability to feed itself -- thanks to civil forfeiture, government budgets can expand beyond the scope assigned to them by the political process, simply by way of seizing people's money and then spending it on whatever they like. For those who speak so often of liberty and property rights and the dangers of an out-of-control government, civil forfeiture should be an outrage.

Unfortunately, the kinds of people who call themselves "conservative" in this country are typically not traditional conservatives, but rather white supremacists who are fine with civil forfeiture being used, as long as it's confined to keeping the brown people in line. For example, when Trump heard about a Texas senator who was trying to limit civil forfeiture (so that in most cases a criminal conviction was required before the state could seize a person's property), rather than applaud that senator for reigning in an outrageous government abuse, Trump's immediate response was to "joke" about destroying the senators career.

Here's more on civil forfeiture in Texas:

https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/

I agree.

Civil asset forfeiture policies are criminal and clearly unconstitutional.

Those policies need to be changed or completely gotten rid of. There should be a look back and law enforcement officers should be subject to losing their jobs and going to prison.

 

[resident_evil]

Many of us were criticizing Obama harshly for that. I accused him of nothing short of murder, on those grounds, repeatedly in this forum. But Obama's not president any more. Trump is. Will you show the character so many of us on the left did and criticize Trump? Or are you content to simply change the subject to Obama when your so-called president acts up.

What has Trump got to do with the issue of civil asset forfeiture? I thought you were keeping this non-partisan? I accept this thread in the spirit intended.

 

[freyasman]

I can't say it enough. If the people in those areas would only cooperate with the gangs. They could prevent this kind of crime from running rampant in their communities

What do you mean?

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Many of us were criticizing Obama harshly for that. I accused him of nothing short of murder, on those grounds, repeatedly in this forum. But Obama's not president any more. Trump is. Will you show the character so many of us on the left did and criticize Trump? Or are you content to simply change the subject to Obama when your so-called president acts up.

You're a lying sack of sh it. I've not seen one post where you criticized obama, hell you've defended him every time you and I have discussed him and his illegal actions.