Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on July 19, 2017, 12:24:47 PM
-
Sessions is introducing policy today that will EXPAND asset forfeiture and make it easier for LE to seize property and keep the proceeds, including not only pre-conviction, but pre-indictement.
I'm absolutely fuming at this. It's the exact opposite of what my expectation was for a Trump administration. There seems to be plenty of outrage across the aisle, so hopefully it will be stopped. I haven't seen yet what Trump's take is, but I will be sorely disappointed if he praises it. Perhaps his sons, lurking on gun forums, will talk some sense into him, because I have one scary scenario for the Sessions defense of "only the bad people":
Year = 2021
President Hillary Clinton
AG Kamala Harris
Guns=drugs.
I've just posted a Google search link so that you can see that the outrage runs left to right.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sessions+asset+forfeiture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
-
Seems to me that the libs would love this if Obama/Clinton/Carter/INSERT LIB OF CHOICE HERE had done this.
I like Sessions. Overall I think he will be a good AG.
BUT THIS STINKS.
-
Not that I think it'll actually accomplish anything, but here we go:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-civil-forfeiture
-
Trump has been pretty clear from the outset that he thinks the fed.gov (under him) is the answer to our ills. He's also been pretty clear he's not overly concerned about how it treats those he thinks are causing those ills. He also has a history of being OK with .gov stealing *expletive deleted*it for his own personal gain.
So not a big surprise.
-
Trump has been pretty clear from the outset that he thinks the fed.gov (under him) is the answer to our ills. He's also been pretty clear he's not overly concerned about how it treats those he thinks are causing those ills. He also has a history of being OK with .gov stealing *expletive deleted*it for his own personal gain.
So not a big surprise.
And yet, he has by executive order been taking out many regulations and other govt decreed rules that have been choking off business and people getting ahead since he took office.
Give him some credit.....
-
Gee. I'm so surprised. So super surprised.
-
I like Sessions. Overall I think he will be a good AG.
BUT THIS STINKS.
"I like this soup. Overall, I think it's tasty. But this thing floating in it is an actual turd. "
=D
-
I long ago came to the conclusion there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties in their desire to expand the size and scope of the Federal government and reduce the liberty of citizens.
-
Sessions is the worse thing about the Trump administration, by far.
-
"I like this soup. Overall, I think it's tasty. But this thing floating in it is an actual turd. "
=D
Ok, pick a politician or public official you like, and show me you have always agreed 100% with everything he's done or said.
-
Sessions is the worse thing about the Trump administration, by far.
:facepalm: Should be " worst," not "worse." :police:
And by the way, while the menagerie here at APS might not love Sessions, what is being done has put some hurdles in front of the govt for forfeiture as well. There's also a lot of BS being circulated about this as well. Still not a great thing to do though.
Sessions has a good record in Alabama as a conservative.
-
what is being done has put some hurdles in front of the govt for forfeiture as well.
I'm not sure that there are any acceptable hurdles for pre-conviction forfeiture. While you can legally circumvent "innocent until proven guilty", you can't do so constitutionally.
-
I long ago came to the conclusion there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties in their desire to expand the size and scope of the Federal government and reduce the liberty of citizens.
Quoted for truth /emphatic cough
Well, there is a difference.
In the lies they speak to curry votes.
Forfeiture of assets sans criminal conviction in a court of law is nothing more than the acts of a highwayman. If there were justice in this world, those who perpetrate such crimes would meet a highwayman's end, hanging in chains under the hot sun as amusement for people and nourishment for the corvids.
-
I'm not sure that there are any acceptable hurdles for pre-conviction forfeiture. While you can legally circumvent "innocent until proven guilty", you can't do so constitutionally.
??? If it were "legal" to circumvent "innocent until proven guilty," would it not also be constitutional? Or are you subtly taking a poke at the concept that not all laws are consistent with the constitution?
I'm sorta thinkin' the later. But I still want to look into this decision more thoroughly.
-
Or are you subtly taking a poke at the concept that not all laws are consistent with the constitution?
Not even being subtle about it. :)
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if half the laws on the books don't pass constitutional muster.
-
I don't want to hear that their new plan for unconstitutional bullshit now has some roadblocks
The only acceptable answer for pre-conviction asset forfeiture is "it should be immediately and totally ceased "
-
Ok, pick a politician or public official you like, and show me you have always agreed 100% with everything he's done or said.
I don't have one like that.
I'm not going to call any of them "good overall", though.
-
I don't want to hear that their new plan for unconstitutional bullshit now has some roadblocks
The only acceptable answer for pre-conviction asset forfeiture is "it should be immediately and totally ceased "
I agree. I don't care what the supreme court says, this is exactly the sort of *expletive deleted*it the founders wrote the constitution to prevent.
-
Sessions is a typical conservative. Sometimes that is good (guns). He does have the typical conservative hatred of criminals (which I usually share). This leads him to a disdain for the 4th Amendment (which I adamantly disagree with).
This is completely standard for conservatives, unfortunately. Trump is also pro-asset forfeiture.
-
Ok, pick a politician or public official you like, and show me you have always agreed 100% with everything he's done or said.
Well, I currently fully endorse Ted Kennedy's most recent position.
-
The Federalist blog has called this "an exercise in swamp-filling."
-
The Federalist blog has called this "an exercise in swamp-filling."
Ayep. Plus you have to love the extreme anti-marijuana stuff as well. Because screw the states and its voters.
-
Well, I currently fully endorse Ted Kennedy's most recent position.
=D So do I! =D
-
I'm not sure that there are any acceptable hurdles for pre-conviction forfeiture. While you can legally circumvent "innocent until proven guilty", you can't do so constitutionally.
It appears that The Institute for Justice is making some type of headway. http://ij.org/press-release/philadelphia-forfeiture-victims-can-continue-lawsuit-state-court-administrators-judges/ (http://ij.org/press-release/philadelphia-forfeiture-victims-can-continue-lawsuit-state-court-administrators-judges/)
Back story here: http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/ (http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/)
The most terrifying place in Philadelphia is Courtroom 478 in City Hall. This is where property owners enter Philadelphia’s Civil Forfeiture Machine. Civil forfeiture is a little-known legal device that allows law enforcement officials to take your property, sell it and pocket the proceeds—even if you have done nothing wrong.
Philadelphia’s automated, machine-like forfeiture scheme is unprecedented in size. From 2002 to 2012, Philadelphia took in over $64 million in forfeiture funds—or almost $6 million per year. In 2011 alone, the city’s prosecutors filed 6,560 forfeiture petitions to take cash, cars, homes and other property. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office used over $25 million of that $64 million to pay salaries, including the salaries of the very prosecutors who brought the forfeiture actions. This is almost twice as much as what all other Pennsylvania counties spent on salaries combined.
-
No conflict of interest there. The more the Philly prosecutors steal, the more they pay themselves. Yep.
-
No conflict of interest there. The more the Philly prosecutors steal, the more they pay themselves. Yep.
Interestingly, I heard an interview on Fox Business where they were grilling Session's deputy (I forget his name) on this. One of the things he used to justify forfeiture and show that they were getting "the bad people" was that there was a procedure for filing paperwork to try and get your money back, but "most didn't do it, so that shows they were guilty and forfeiture works" (I'm paraphrasing, but the gist is pretty accurate to what he meant).
The problem of course was that he mentioned nothing about how difficult and/or expensive that "procedure" was. Attorney and other fees could easily have people saying "You can't fight city hall" and just sucking up the unjust loss.
-
It's just part of the plan to drain the swamp
-
Trump had to give Sessions something because he was one of the early Trump supporters and it had to be something good. Plus Sessions hates the Clintons from what I understand so having him around is a constant threat to that particular pack of dogs.
Not that that makes his chub-chub for forfeiture any less of a problem.
-
Trump had to give Sessions something because he was one of the early Trump supporters and it had to be something good. Plus Sessions hates the Clintons from what I understand so having him around is a constant threat to that particular pack of dogs.
Not that that makes his chub-chub for forfeiture any less of a problem.
So Trump had to sell out Americans and build up the swamp in order to pay off a corrupt official. What else could the man do? Stand up for the Constitution? Do something positive for America? Fight government corruption? Be reasonable now. Man's gonna support his corrupt buddies. And not just some chump change either!
-
So Trump had to sell out Americans and build up the swamp in order to pay off a corrupt official. What else could the man do? Stand up for the Constitution? Do something positive for America? Fight government corruption? Be reasonable now. Man's gonna support his corrupt buddies. And not just some chump change either!
This
If only someone had warned us that Trump was scum
-
Well you know: Presidents are like healthcare bills; You have to elect them to see what's in them.
-
Well you know: Presidents are like healthcare bills; You have to elect them to see what's in them.
I know you're being funny, but there were folks warning of things like this for a while
some of my friends who were calling rand Paul's foreign policy "crazy" are now genuinely dumbfounded at the things trump is doing. I just don't get how people didn't see it coming
-
I know you're being funny, but there were folks warning of things like this for a while
some of my friends who were calling rand Paul's foreign policy "crazy" are now genuinely dumbfounded at the things trump is doing. I just don't get how people didn't see it coming
I'm only sorta being funny. I was one of the folks saying Trump was a bog government not really conservative, New Yorker.
It's one thing to resignedly vote for Trump because there's nothing better. It's another to delude yourself into thinking he's something he's never been in his [literally] decades of public life.
Lots of Americans are delusional.
-
I'm only sorta being funny. I was one of the folks saying Trump was a bog government not really conservative, New Yorker.
It's one thing to resignedly vote for Trump because there's nothing better. It's another to delude yourself into thinking he's something he's never been in his [literally] decades of public life.
Lots of Americans are delusional.
Yep
-
What's real funny is, some of the same people who blamed obama for even the most minor of things by a low level flunkie because it was "his administration" are now trying to separate trump from the actions of his statist doucheknuckle appointee
-
What's real funny is, some of the same people who blamed obama for even the most minor of things by a low level flunkie because it was "his administration" are now trying to separate trump from the actions of his statist doucheknuckle appointee
I'm actually open to giving Trump the benefit of the doubt until I see or hear a statement from him on this. Someone above alluded that he has come out in favor, but I just haven't seen anything concrete yet.
I do recall seeing him nod his head some months back when he had some kind of LE roundtable that was televised and some moron Texas sheriff was going off on the need to expand asset forfeiture, so I don't have high hopes of his disagreeing with his AG.
The other thing that is bothersome to me is that Sessions keeps defending this on the federal level, but we know this is not going to be operationally enforced by feds, it will be implemented by local LE, and that's where all the problems really arise. You have your redneck deputies siezing assets because they find a coffee can in someone's back seats, and you have SJW city cops seizing assets because somebody has an NRA sticker on their bumper.
While I'm still against it and still find it unconstitutional on the federal level, I do believe they are targeting drug cartels. On the local level though, too many of these asset forfeiture incidents have targeted getting a new Bearcat for the local constabulary.
While I'm still 100% against pre-conviction forfeiture, I still maintain what I have mentioned before - that assets seized go to whatever the opposite of LE is on the local level, otherwise it's nothing more than an alternate income for the police budget. Also, we need to put laws in place that stop local police from monetarily benefiting through "partnering" with feds in areas where decent politicians have banned asset forfeiture at the local / state level.
-
1. Asset seizure (holding assets until after trial) I'm okay with.
2. Asset forfeiture AFTER conviction. I'm good with that also.
3. All assets forfeited go to the Public Defenders office, not any LE or prosecutors offices. And none go the the feds.
-
Asset forfeiture is something that sounds like a good and just tool (e.g. it's just like going after Capone for tax evasion! You gotta get criminals however you can get them), but on inspection fails horribly.
Among all the other problems, it creates opportunities for corruption, and we ought to avoid those especially for the police.
I've got a compromise: Nothing can be seized that is less that $10,000 in value. Makes the "it'll cost me more to get it back than it is worth!" mostly go away.
-
1. Asset seizure (holding assets until after trial) I'm okay with.
2. Asset forfeiture AFTER conviction. I'm good with that also.
3. All assets forfeited go to the Public Defenders office, not any LE or prosecutors offices. And none go the the feds.
I almost agree. I could live with your #1, but I would prefer "freezing" to "seizing" pre-conviction. (Although I'm not sure how to do that with cash, or physical assets such as boats or motor vehicles.)
-
Asset forfeiture is something that sounds like a good and just tool (e.g. it's just like going after Capone for tax evasion! You gotta get criminals however you can get them), but on inspection fails horribly.
I can't think of any way asset forfeiture could possibly sound like a good and just tool. The Fourth Amendment:
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.
There is simply nothing at all reasonable about allowing the seizure of assets without even a finding of probable cause, let alone a conviction and judgment.
-
I almost agree. I could live with your #1, but I would prefer "freezing" to "seizing" pre-conviction. (Although I'm not sure how to do that with cash, or physical assets such as boats or motor vehicles.)
Seizing. Bank accounts frozen, Physical assets held (think impound lot, but LE responsible for protecting the property and liable for any damages+ there would be fines for fail to maintain property in working order). Once found not guilty, you get it all back.
Oh, and if drug related, then all assets go to drug treatment programs upon conviction.
-
I agree with most of what was said here.
But there was a long and very detailed discussion of this by a couple of real legal beagles on another board.
It turns out that by some weird principle of the law going back to Blackstone, the asset used in a crime or obtained through criminal action, is considered an actual criminal in and of itself under the law. (You figure out how to pluralize that.)
As such, in order to be tried and possibly released, it has to go through its own trial with its own lawyer.
Now, I'm going by recollection from that legal quagmire which involved citations piled upon citations all the way back to whenever, but that's the way I understood it.
Therefore, Sessions may actually be following long-established precedent of law, in spite of how ridiculous it may seem to thee and me.
Terry, 230RN
-
It turns out that by some weird principle of the law going back to Blackstone, the asset used in a crime or obtained through criminal action, is considered an actual criminal in and of itself under the law. (You figure out how to pluralize that.)
Which is why I keep coming back to the idea that Dick the butcher, while misguided in his interpretation, may have been right all along.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_kill_all_the_lawyers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_kill_all_the_lawyers)
-
Which is why I keep coming back to the idea that Dick the butcher, while misguided in his interpretation, may have been right all along.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_kill_all_the_lawyers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_kill_all_the_lawyers)
Yeah, but...
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=55151.msg1121823#msg1121823