Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

FAIR Act to Reform Asset Seizure Laws

Recommended Posts

Hat Tip To Georgia
 

Quote

 

After years of work and compromise, Georgia passed modest asset forfeiture reforms in 2015 that strengthened protections for property owners and required law enforcement to release standardized annual reports on their asset forfeiture activity.

Republican state representative Scot Turner believe those reforms didn't go far enough. Turner introduced a bill, H.B. 505, in February that would require law enforcement in Georgia to obtain a criminal conviction for the state to keep seized assets.

If Turner's bill becomes law the state would join 14 others requiring a criminal conviction in some or all asset forfeiture cases. Nebraska, New Mexico, and North Carolina have abolished civil asset forfeiture altogether.

 

That seems significant to me because Georgia has bred the hardest-core drug warriors over the years.

To have a Republican in GA step up and suggest slaughtering the sacred cash cow of the drug war is really remarkable and encouraging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when there are routes around looters

Quote

The mayor of Castleberry, Alabama, told residents at a recent town hall meeting their three-officer police department may have to shut down because of a steep drop in traffic ticket revenue.

Mayor Henry Kirksey blamed the drop in revenue on the bad publicity from coverage of a seven-plaintiff lawsuit alleging officers in the town of 550 people set up speed traps and made other spurious stops, charging $500 to recover impounded automobiles if drugs were present and using the state's asset forfeiture law to confiscate cash and belongings when available, as an October article in Al.com reported.

J.B. Jackson, the mayor whose idea of stops and confiscation paid for the department, a municipal court judge and a prosecutor, was ousted in an election last year. His former police chief, Tracy Hawsey, resigned in February after the suit was filed.

...

"So he said why don't we set up a court system to get some money coming in."

At one point Castleberry had 5 police officers—more than 5 times the national per capita average. "We hired our own DA and own judge," Jackson continued. "The revenues started to grow and we built out the police department."

Nix said Hawsey, gloated on Facebook about what was happening. According to Nix, he posted photos of people he had arrested as well as videos purportedly showing him joking around and discussing the arrests.

The brazenness makes Jackson and Hawsey's effort (Jackson doesn't deny the department set up speed traps to generate revenue) a perfect example of "policing for profit"—how municipalities turn police departments into revenue generators rather than agencies intended to improve public safety. Alabama law permits police departments to keep 100 percent of the proceeds of asset forfeiture and has no reporting requirement.

When word of the lawsuit got around, people began avoiding Castleberry, which brought on a fiscal crisis. The town found itself with $60,000 in unpaid bills and a "six figure debt," Kirksey said.

"One thing he told me," Kirksey said of the current Police Chief Troy Stalley, "was that it was pretty easy to write 10-20 tickets a day, but once the publicity come out in the newspaper he told me sometimes it's hard to get five a day."

 

These kinds of lawsuits are usually brought with help from the Institute for Justice or similar corporations but this one appears to have been brought by individuals. This tells me that the Castleberry Police did this to someone with money. Oops.

Now they're going to either lose their police force or bankrupt the city government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to keep the flow of loot uninterrupted, Alabama law enforcement claims they will prosecute people who would not be prosecuted without the financial incentive and go further to claim that they won't enforce the law if there's not loot in it for them.

 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state's General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?

Guys, you're not supposed to actually admit publicly that the purpose of civil asset forfeiture is to keep the money for yourselves and that you only fight crime when you can cash in.


 

That quote pretty well sums up why people like me refer to civil asset forfeiture programs as policing for profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

...people like me

Let's define what this term means. Let's see the destination, and the course on your chart, if any.  I read SAILING ANARCHY. People the like of you are building a land of guns, moar machine guns, freewheeling drugs, and shitty civics. That's a pretty bad combo, IMO.

 

Your boys, your crew,  lost on Kelo but won on four others in the SC. So you made asset seizure a personal crusade, a focus, I gather. Again, I support the thrust of your cause here. But I am so burned by six years of Tom Ray antics (with myself and others)  that I am inherently distrustful of all things Tom Ray, even with Kelo.

Care to comment?

 

 

And why is this thread free of your signature race-baiting?

Quote

BIG JOY IN MUDVILLE  (Apr. 4 2015)

  • On First Base: the Black Panthers are coming with their gunz
  • Second Base: MLK's Church is now about second amendment choices, source: Brietbart.
  • Third Base (so skanky it was deleted by Tom in his own reference to his post): Judge Taney is coming.  A search shows Tom  dangles Taney for us 21 other times, and Dred Scott 12 times.
  •  The Tom Ray Racebaiter Grand SlamBloomberg throws blacks, disproportionately, against a wall, with stop and frisk policies.
  • On deck: Chicago

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4905568

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago Will Take Your Car
 

Quote

 

On June 21, 2016, Chicago police pulled Spencer Byrd over for a broken turn signal. Byrd says his signal wasn't broken, but that detail would soon be the least of his worries. Ever since, Byrd has been trapped in one of the city's most confusing bureaucratic mazes, deprived of his car and his ability to work. He now owes the city thousands of dollars for the pleasure.

Byrd, 50, lives in Harvey, Illinois, a corrupt, crime-ridden town south of Chicago where more than 35 percent of the populace lives below the poverty line. He's a carpenter by trade, but until the traffic stop, he had a side gig as an auto mechanic. Byrd says he's been fixing cars "ever since I was 16 years old and blew my first motor." Sometimes he did service calls and would give clients rides when he couldn't repair their cars on the spot.

On this early summer night, Byrd was giving a client, a man he says he had never met before, a ride in his Cadillac DeVille. Police pulled both of them out of the car and searched them. Byrd was clean, but in his passenger's pocket was a bag of heroin the size of a tennis ball.

The two were hauled off to the precinct house. Police released Byrd after a short stint in an interrogation room without charging him with a crime. But when Byrd went to retrieve his car, he found out the Chicago Police Department had seized and impounded it.

...

"There's plenty of reason to be concerned that there's injustice being done to people who are mostly poor, people who aren't in a position to fight back," says Ben Ruddell, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois. "The city has been perpetuating an exploitative system, charging exorbitant fees in a way that it knows is likely to make it so folks never get their cars out of impoundment."

 

Just more policing for profit.

 

On 2/14/2018 at 8:50 AM, jocal505 said:

Your boys, your crew,  lost on Kelo but won on four others in the SC. So you made asset seizure a personal crusade, a focus, I gather. Again, I support the thrust of your cause here. But I am so burned by six years of Tom Ray antics (with myself and others)  that I am inherently distrustful of all things Tom Ray, even with Kelo.

Care to comment?

Sure. Just like Kelo, this is an issue on which you can listen to libertarians or no one.

Just look at who is interested in both threads. And who isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Chicago Will Take Your Car
 

Just more policing for profit.

 

Sure. Just like Kelo, this is an issue on which you can listen to libertarians or no one.

Just look at who is interested in both threads. And who isn't.

It seems you've had a bad few weeks (having been put on ignore by some solid local characters). A few others have disengaged from you.

You now flex between "battlefield weapons, our .22's." and bad faith discussions. You are Tom Ray, and I too am weary of bad faith discussions

. @Bent Sailor tossed us this, indirectly. Read it and get back to me. 

 http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to put those evil drug kingpins out of business through property seizures one of these days.

Meanwhile, let's fuck with a nurse.
 

Quote

 

Anthonia Nwaorie says she knew travelers entering the United States with more than $10,000 in cash are legally required to report that fact to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). But the Texas nurse, who was born in Nigeria and became a U.S. citizen in 1994, says she did not realize the same obligation applies to people leaving the United States. That mistake cost her $41,377, most of which was earmarked for a medical clinic she planned to build in her native country, during an aborted trip from Houston to Nigeria last October.

Because the Justice Department declined to pursue civil forfeiture of the money, CBP was required to return it. Yet the agency has refused to do so unless Nwaorie signs a waiver forgoing interest on the money, renouncing any legal claims in connection with the seizure, assuming responsibility for claims by third parties, and promising to reimburse the government for any expenses it incurs while enforcing the agreement.

That demand is illegal and unconstitutional, according to a federal class action lawsuit that the Institute for Justice filed last week on behalf of Nwaorie and other travelers who have found themselves in the same situation. The complaint "challenges CBP's systematic policy or practice of demanding that owners of seized property waive their constitutional and statutory rights, and accept new legal liabilities, as a condition of returning property that should be automatically returned."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We're going to put those evil drug kingpins out of business through property seizures one of these days.

Meanwhile, let's fuck with a nurse.
 

 

Thanks for sharing that Tom - I plan to follow this story.  I hope that the CBP gets a legal boot up its collective ass for this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks for sharing that Tom - I plan to follow this story.  I hope that the CBP gets a legal boot up its collective ass for this. 

Oh dear. Cheering another Libertarian assault on the judicial system? Jocal will be along to scold you shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Oh dear. Cheering another Libertarian assault on the judicial system? Jocal will be along to scold you shortly.

Well, his favorite history authors & lawyers most likely haven't written anything about it yet - we may have to wait a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Oh dear. Cheering another Libertarian assault on the judicial system? Jocal will be along to scold you shortly.

That's fine - I'm good owning my opinions and sharing the reasons for them.   I absolutely despise authoritarian over-reach, no matter what form it takes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's fine - I'm good owning my opinions and sharing the reasons for them.   I absolutely despise authoritarian over-reach, no matter what form it takes. 

This one is particularly egregious because it's not even a civil asset forfeiture case.

Those are bad enough and it's similar enough that I put it in this thread. One similarity is that the real power players in politics won't mess with this kind of operation of the system, so it falls to the libertarians again.

In this case, the government declined to pursue forfeiture, meaning they're holding her money and trying to put extra conditions on its release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 8:42 PM, SloopJonB said:
On 5/25/2018 at 8:11 PM, mad said:

How did we go from UK knife law to Tom’s.22 discussion?

Every thread ends up discussing his fucking .22


Not this one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A teacher and a janitor managed to save up $58,100 and our government stole it
 

Quote

 

...

Kazazi and his family today filed a formal motion for return of property under Rule 41(G) against U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and some of its authorities and agents hoping to get his stolen life savings back. The motion was filed with the assistance of consistent civil-forfeiture-justice fighters from the Institute for Justice, and the preceding details were gleaned from it.

The money is hard-earned. Kazazi, now 64 years old, and his family had the (at the time apparent) good fortune to win a visa to enter the U.S. from the State Department in 2005, and has been a citizen since 2010. His wife Lejla has lately been teaching English to immigrants, while Kazazi has worked a series of jobs including busboy, custodian, and parking lot attendant. (He'd been a police officer in Albania himself.)

Customs has chosen to assert that Kazazi's money is criminal for a grab bag of reasons that don't necessarily go together and for which they have no proof: "involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation" or you know, something bad that means they can steal it.

Was Mr. Kazazi guilty of smuggling, drug trafficking, or money laundering? Money can't commit a crime by itself, one might think, but requires a human accomplice. Lacking any evidence whatever for any such crime on Kazazi's part, he's accused or convicted of none of them. Thanks to the sinister legal magic of "civil asset forfeiture," the feds can just steal the money without proving any crime at all on the owners part.

Except even that evil power, which shouldn't exist at all, has its procedural limits thanks to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, as Kazazi's lawyers argue. According to that law, Customs in order to keep the stolen loot must officially initiate either civil forfeiture or criminal proceedings within 90 days of the complainant demanding an official federal court procedure regarding the property. That deadline, the motion says, expired back in April, but CBP haven't returned the money. The feds should have no legal recourse but to do that, promptly. But they haven't, hence the motion filed today.

...

 

As usual, Duopoly types are disinterested in inhibiting this kind of government cash cow, so it's up to those darn libertarians at the Institute for Justice to press his case.

We're going to win the stupid drug war any day now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole issue comes down to one solid constitutional principle. The fact that CAF has been so hard to kill, is a chilling scary problem.

image.thumb.png.e4d38b678bedf470f5b8626fa6466400.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawaiian Asset Forfeiture Mismanagement
 

Quote

 

According to the audit, the Office of the Attorney General, which administers the program, has failed to account for property obtained by forfeiture, inadequately managed program funds and failed to allocate some $2 million for drug prevention as required by law.

In addition, the audit said, the AG’s office has failed to promulgate administrative rules needed to provide guidance to law enforcement and county prosecutors, who initiate forfeitures, and the public, who might have their assets seized.

“With the bar to seize and forfeit private property in Hawai‘i so low, the department must manage the program with a heightened degree of transparency and accountability,” State Auditor Les Kondo said in a statement. “We found that not to be the case.”

 

So maybe raise the bar and end the financial incentives to seize property?

Nah.
 

Quote

 

Hawaii isn’t the only state with an asset forfeiture law.

But the state gets low marks for how it runs the program. A report last year by the Institute for Justice, a civil rights law firm, gave Hawaii a grade of D+ for its civil asset forfeiture program overall and an F on its accounting for how seized cash and property proceeds are later spent by law enforcement agencies.

 

So what did happen to the $2 million after it was supposed to go to drug prevention? No telling.

If I took $2 million and did something illegal with it, I'd say I should be locked up. And I'd say the same thing about whoever did take it. Not that we're likely to learn who that might have been, let alone lock them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the 8th amendment apply to the states?

Looks like we're going to find out.
 

Quote

 

Determined to keep his truck, Tyson argued that forfeiting the Land Rover would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “excessive fines.” A trial judge agreed, and rejected the forfeiture as “grossly disproportional.” Under Indiana law, a felony conviction could trigger a maximum fine of $10,000—less than a quarter of what Tyson’s Land Rover was worth. That decision was upheld by an appellate court.
 

But in November, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed that decision, and instead ruled that the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause provided no protection to Hoosiers. “The Excessive Fines Clause does not bar the State from forfeiting Defendant’s vehicle,” the court ruled, “because the United States Supreme Court has not held that the Clause applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cash covered with glitter might or might not be compelling evidence.

Of, you know, something.

Glad she got her money and guns back. I hope someday the whole "we smelled some weed so now we own your stuff" thing goes away. Seems unlikely at this point that it can happen in the decades I have left on the planet. Any kind of change like that takes many decades to work through from "outcast libertarian notion" to "mainstream policy." The number of participants in this thread shows where we are on that timeline. Waiting for that starting gun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS to hear civil forfeiture case
 

Quote

 

The case is Timbs v. Indiana. It arose in 2013 when a man named Tyson Timbs was arrested on drug charges and sentenced to one year on home detention and five years on probation. A few months after his arrest, the state of Indiana also moved to seize Timbs' brand new Land Rover LR2, a vehicle worth around $40,000. A state trial court rejected that civil asset forfeiture effort, however, on the grounds that it would be "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of [Timbs'] offense" and therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the imposition of "excessive fines."

The state's forfeiture effort clearly qualifies as excessive. Timbs' original crime carried a maximum financial penalty of just $10,000. And as the trial court observed, "a forfeiture of approximately four (4) times the maximum monetary fine is disproportional." The trial court was right to deem the state's actions unconstitutional.

But the Indiana Supreme Court took a different view when it decided the case in 2017. "We conclude the Excessive Fines Clause does not bar the State from forfeiting Defendant's vehicle because the United States Supreme Court has not held that the Clause applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment," that court said.

Timbs, represented by the libertarian lawyers at the Institute for Justice, then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify that the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines does indeed apply in all 50 states. That is the case that SCOTUS agreed to hear today.

 

Those Institute for Justice fuckers just won't stop attacking our system of government. Or something.

A case about incorporation may not reach all the detsils of the practice of civil forfeiture, which might be just as well.

My understanding of the "logic" of civil forfeiture is that the seizure at issue isn't a fine at all. If you fine me, you collect my money from me. But once it's suspected in a crime, that Land Rover at issue in this case was no longer his. It belonged to the state and he had to prove it his in order to retrieve it.

If the state takes "their" property from me, that's not a fine of any kind, is it?

I kinda hope the case does reach the merits and that Justice Thomas breaks his traditional silence at oral arguments. He says stuff like this:
 

Quote

 

As Thomas explained in Leonard v. Texas, "this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses." For one thing, "because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture." For another, this sort of police abuse disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups. "These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings," he observed. "Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home."

To make matters worse, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court's previous rulings in this area do not line up with the text of the Constitution, which "presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation." Those other doctrines, Thomas noted, impose significant checks on the government, such as heightened standards of proof, various procedural protections, and the right to a trial by jury. Civil asset forfeiture proceedings, by contrast, offer no such constitutional safeguards.

 

And he's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the shakedown works in Michigan
 

Quote

 

The Wayne County Sheriff's Office reported in 2016 that it surveilled 32 medical marijuana dispensaries, performed 634 investigatory stops of cars leaving dispensaries, and impounded 467 vehicles as part of Operation Push-Off, a local law enforcement initiative targeting drugs, prostitution, and drag racing funded by licensing fees collected from the state's medical marijuana program.

...

"Our common practice is to offer to the claimant three choices: 1) contest, 2) redeem, or 3) relinquish (forfeit) their interest," a spokesperson for the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office wrote in an email. "We leave the ultimate decision to the claimant. A redemption is a settlement short of going to trial since we are in the civil arena."

William Maze, a Detroit attorney who handles asset forfeiture cases, says Nichols' three-year wait for a hearing is an outlier. Most cases, he says, only take three to four months, but more problematic are the suspicionless seizures of cars made by police and out-of-court settlements offered by the prosecutor's office.

"The bigger issue with Wayne County forfeiture is—for drugs, prostitution and drag racing—they're seizing the vehicles on sometimes the flimsiest of evidence or no evidence at all, just the mere allegation that someone went to a drug house or dispensary," Maze says. "They don't find anything in the car or on the person, but they take the vehicle and offer to settle with the owner for $900. They set the number at $900 because they know it's low enough that the person can't afford to hire an attorney to fight it for that."

...

Law enforcement groups say asset forfeiture is a vital tool to disrupt drug trafficking and other organized crime by cutting off the flow of illicit proceeds.

 

Seizing cars that leave dispensaries isn't cutting off any illicit proceeds. It is, in my view, generating them for Wayne County.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2016 at 9:24 AM, jocal505 said:

Interesting. Here's a thread with Pooplius talking to himself.

Most of the thread is Tom posts, responding to other Tom posts.

Yes. Odd, isn't it? It's almost like people don't reply if I am talking about this subject. And some others. Most others. Except one.

I don't care, it's still an interesting subject to me, if not to others.

Georgia Sheriff Uses Forfeiture Loot To Buy Assault Car

We have already seen that giving a car too much horsepower and an aggressive name like "Charger" leads to mass murder. Now he wants to steal from people to turn cops into mass murderers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, lasal said:

“Not only do white supremacists gangs subscribe to a repugnant, hateful ideology, they also engage in significant, organized and violent criminal activity,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has targeted every violent criminal gang member in the United States. The quantities of drugs, guns, and money seized in this case are staggering."


So the prohibition that Sessions loves is providing a lucrative business for these people and the government is seizing more property than ever before.

It's hard to believe that either one is considered good news by anyone, but they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US Border Seizes $500,000 Inheritance Mailed from Canada to USA

Jul 26, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

An Ottawa man, David Saikaley,  acting as executor of a will obtained a bank draft for $500,000and mailed it to family members in the United States to settle an estate. Bank checks are regarded as “cash” and the money was seized by customs. Almost a year later, the money is still stuck at the border. This is highlighting the Hunt for Money which has simply gone totally insane. Governments now assume ALL money is illegal gains and they will confiscate 100% forcing the burden to you to PROVE it is yours and was obtained legally. If you are ever going to send money to someone overseas, you can mail a check from your account, but NEVER get a bank check/draft. If you are in the USA and try to wire money to an individual overseas, you will quickly discover the limit is not $10,000, but $3,000.

NEVER send anything of value internationally using FedEx. They will be extremely difficult to deal with, to say the least in trying to get things through customs. Even when the valuable item is not subject to tax, they want you to still fill out all sorts of forms to receive it plus give them your Tax ID number so the government will know you just received something worth whatever.

As if that is not bad enough internationally, now they want a PHOTO ID just to mail something domestically. What comes next? A DNA sample because the PHOTO ID is a possible fake? Where does all this insanity end? The only way to end this confiscation of money from innocent people is to ELIMINATE income taxes and customs duties.

The various governments are becoming so desperate for cash, we are losing ALL our liberty just for the privilege of being born. Whatever happened to the rights that were articulated by Thomas Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

US Border Seizes $500,000 Inheritance Mailed from Canada to USA

Jul 26, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

An Ottawa man, David Saikaley,  acting as executor of a will obtained a bank draft for $500,000and mailed it to family members in the United States to settle an estate. Bank checks are regarded as “cash” and the money was seized by customs. Almost a year later, the money is still stuck at the border. This is highlighting the Hunt for Money which has simply gone totally insane. Governments now assume ALL money is illegal gains and they will confiscate 100% forcing the burden to you to PROVE it is yours and was obtained legally.

Sounds like this guy has just discovered this issue but it really got out of control under Saint Ronald's administration, was slightly reined in in 2000 by Bill Clinton and Bob Barr (mostly) but has continued in various forms ever since. The 2000 CAFRA tried to stop a lot of it but wound up creating the "equitable sharing" monstrosity instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
22 hours ago, lasal said:

“Not only do white supremacists gangs subscribe to a repugnant, hateful ideology, they also engage in significant, organized and violent criminal activity,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has targeted every violent criminal gang member in the United States. The quantities of drugs, guns, and money seized in this case are staggering."


So the prohibition that Sessions loves is providing a lucrative business for these people and the government is seizing more property than ever before.

It's hard to believe that either one is considered good news by anyone, but they are.

Without going into the inanity of you quoting a quote I quoted from a different thread, I'll just point out that you ain't no libertarian. You can pretend that's what you is, but it ain't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Judge Says Policing For Profit Is Unconstitutional
 

Quote

 

The city of Albuquerque "has an unconstitutional institutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases, because, in practice, the forfeiture program sets its own budget and can spend, without meaningful oversight, all of the excess funds it raises from previous years," U.S. District Judge James O. Browning wrote in an order filed Saturday. "Thus, there is a 'realistic possibility' that forfeiture officials' judgment 'will be distorted by the prospect of institutional gain'—the more revenues they raise, the more revenues they can spend."

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, filed the lawsuit in 2016 on behalf of Arlene Harjo, whose car was seized after her son drove it while drunk.

...

In a statement, Institute for Justice attorney Robert Everett Johnson said the Institute "will undoubtedly use this decision to attack civil forfeiture programs nationwide."

"Today's ruling is a total victory for fairness, due process and property owners everywhere," Johnson continued. "The court ruled the government must prove that an owner did something wrong before it can take away their property. Beyond that, the judge ruled that law enforcement cannot benefit financially from revenue generated by a forfeiture program. Together, these rulings strike at the heart of the problem with civil forfeiture."

Law enforcement groups say civil forfeiture is a vital tool to disrupt drug trafficking and other organized crime. But civil libertarians note that there are far too few safeguards for property owners and that the profit incentive leads police and prosecutors to go just as often after everyday citizens rather than cartel bosses.

 

Apologies for once again posting Koch-$pon$ored propaganda on this issue but it seems this victory is only really local news and Reason was the only national publication to notice. Search for Albuquerque harjo forfeiture and you'll see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even more surreal in the Land Of The Free is allowing the IRS to have US Citizens passports revoked without going though a court. From Time magazine "362,000 Americans Could Be Denied a Passport Because They Owe Taxes" http://time.com/money/5331714/irs-taxes-passport/. I wish I knew if we want to keep citizens in as prisoners or foreigners out; it's making my head spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Expatriated said:

Even more surreal in the Land Of The Free is allowing the IRS to have US Citizens passports revoked without going though a court. From Time magazine "362,000 Americans Could Be Denied a Passport Because They Owe Taxes" http://time.com/money/5331714/irs-taxes-passport/. I wish I knew if we want to keep citizens in as prisoners or foreigners out; it's making my head spin.

There's a difference:

Quote

The IRS has the power to block passports thanks to a law passed by Congress in 2015, which authorizes the move in cases where more than $51,000 is owed.

Withholding a passport because of an unpaid debt is a bit different from taking property and then asking the owner to prove his innocence. The debt is established. The "guilt" of the property, in my view, is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Sorta Victory
 

Quote

 

A local multi-agency narcotics task force seized $55,000 from the Fullertons, along with 22 pounds of processed marijuana and several firearms. It had all the appearances of a major drug bust, except for the targets: a retired fire captain and a hospice nurse.

Now, after two years of protracted court proceedings that nearly ruined the Fullertons' lives and careers, and briefly led to their separation from their child, Yolo County law enforcement will walk away with around $2,000, split between several agencies, and a misdemeanor marijuana conviction and to show for its efforts.

The Yolo County District Attorney finalized a settlement on Monday to return $53,000 that the Yolo Narcotics Enforcement Team (YONET) seized from the Fullertons. The Fullertons mostly prevailed, and all it cost them was around $100,000 in legal fees, fines, and other costs.

 

Unlike most of these cases, the Fullertons were actually charged with various crimes related to drug dealing, child endangerment, and gun possession.

They wound up pleading to one misdemeanor.

Wrecking their lives was pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

A Sorta Victory
 

Unlike most of these cases, the Fullertons were actually charged with various crimes related to drug dealing, child endangerment, and gun possession.

They wound up pleading to one misdemeanor.

Wrecking their lives was pointless.

No kidding.

All posturing aside, from my POV 2 really big indicators that the USA has lost the plot are civil asset forfeitures and that Kelo decision by the Supreme Court.

Both mean that property is at severe risk of State confiscation any time they feel like it.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

No kidding.

All posturing aside, from my POV 2 really big indicators that the USA has lost the plot are civil asset forfeitures and that Kelo decision by the Supreme Court.

Both mean that property is at severe risk of State confiscation any time they feel like it.

FKT

If so, I'm not sure exactly when the plot was lost. The deodand is very old. As for Kelo, as I said in the appropriate thread,

On 7/31/2010 at 4:56 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 7/21/2010 at 9:02 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Kelo is the worst case I have ever seen decided by the Court.

 

 

It really can't be, because it's a simple derivative of the Berman case. The issues are the same. Similarly, Raich was bad, but is just a derivative of Wickard. Citizens United is a derivative of 1st National of Boston v Bellotti.

Looks like that post was written before I read NAACP v Button and found how much fun it could be, but anyway, the Berman and Midkiff cases really were very similar. O'Connor tried to distinguish them but couldn't do it in a way that convinced Kennedy. That's why Justice Thomas was right that the court needs to revisit the question of whether every public purpose is also a public use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philadelphia Ends The Looting, Pays Off Victims
 

Quote

 

The Institute for Justice filed the suit in 2014 on behalf of the Sourovelises, a couple whose house was seized without warning after their son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs outside. The same day the Sourovelises dropped their son off for court-ordered rehab treatment, they returned to find police had locked them out of their own home, even though there was no evidence they were aware of the drug activity.

The lawsuit alleged that the city was seizing 300 to 500 homes a year, violating residents' constitutional rights and creating an illegal profit incentive, since forfeiture revenue directly funds police and district attorney budgets.

...

Four years after Philadelphia police seized the home of Markela and Chris Sourovelis for a minor drug crime committed by their son, the city has agreed to almost completely dismantle its controversial civil asset forfeiture program and pay $3 million to its victims.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, announced today that the city had agreed to a settlement in a federal civil rights class-action lawsuit challenging its forfeiture program.

...

A 2015 report by the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union found that almost a third of cash forfeiture cases in Philadelphia involved money owned by people who had not been found guilty of a crime. In one of the worst examples, police seized $2,000 from an 87-year-old pensioner after finding two joints (her husband, a retired dock worker, smoked marijuana to relieve his chronic arthritis) in their apartment.

 

Under the settlement, the seized loot will go back to the rightful owners instead of going to pad police payrolls. It's always good news when the drug war's cash cow gets gored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2 vs State of Indiana
 

Quote

 

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

A bit off topic for this thread, since Mr. Timbs was actually punished for a crime in addition to having his property taken, but it sorta fits.

He sold drugs to undercover cops, pleaded guilty, got a year of house arrest and five years of probation, plus court costs.

And they took his Land Rover, valued at $40k at the time. Lower courts pointed out that this was several times the maximum fine for his crime and said it was an excessive fine.

Ultimately, they decided that didn't matter because the Supreme Court never actually said that the prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states.

So they're asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 2:17 PM, jocal505 said:
Quote

In 2011, Institute for Justice Executive Director Lee McGrath introduced the "Asset Forfeiture Process and Private Property Protection Act" to the Public Safety and Elections Task Force meeting at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in New Orleans.[9]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice

Vultures gather around such carnage, all the time.

Odd to see you take an interest in asset forfeiture, or anything other than attacking me, but a pleasant relief.

And you're right, vultures do flock to the loot generated by the drug war's cash cow. I call them drug warriors.

What they're doing is straight up stealing under color of authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Odd to see you take an interest in asset forfeiture, or anything other than attacking me, but a pleasant relief.

And you're right, vultures do flock to the loot generated by the drug war's cash cow. I call them drug warriors.

What they're doing is straight up stealing under color of authority.

I am assuming that CATO is screwing poor people again. Ity's how they do. See Citizens United FFS. Kinda transparent, Tom.

Shit, look at this thread. It's all Tom, talking to Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I am assuming that CATO is screwing poor people again. Ity's how they do. See Citizens United FFS. Kinda transparent, Tom.

Shit, look at this thread. It's all Tom, talking to Tom.

No, there's one other guy.

Unfortunately, a non-reader, so unaware that civil asset forfeiture MOSTLY means stealing small piles of loot from people who are too poor to mount a protest. The ones who do mount a protest generally do so with the help of the evil libertarians at the Institute for Justice since no similar Duopoly org would ever take on the drug war's cash cow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I am assuming that CATO is screwing poor people again.

Joe, do try to stay on topic. ALEC is not CATO.

15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Citizens United FFS.

So give us the jocal patented "feelings" argument about why citizens united is wrong. Be sure to include your analysis of what parts of the CATO amicus brief made it wrongly into the final opinion. Be sure to include your take on why it is wrong for CATO to write what they did, but not for any of the other groups that wrote amicus briefs for the appellant.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

All of the SCOTUS briefing can be found there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

John Oliver thinks it's kind of a big deal.. does that matter?

Not really. I agree with him, and have said as much in the past, but it clearly doesn't matter who thinks it's a big deal unless Tom hears you say it as often as he does.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Odd to see you take an interest in asset forfeiture, or anything other than attacking me, but a pleasant relief.

Well, it is jocal, so now he has no interest in pursuing this topic. He must of used the wrong cut-n-paste last month - when he 1st posted it.

Or he is busy looking up every "progressive" website to attack ALEC, while never actually posting anything related to the model legislation he first cut-n-pate complained about.

So far, all of his ALEC hit pieces come from the same source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bpm57 said:
 

Odd to see you take an interest in asset forfeiture, or anything other than attacking me, but a pleasant relief.

Some messengers prance around, begging to be corrected.

The Kelo Whiz called me a liar three times recently, when I clearly wasn't lying. (Can cite the Kelo Whiz) The Kelo Whiz race-baited me all week, except Sunday, yesterday. Can cite.

What's up with The Kelo WHiz? On voting day, this was  his MO

dred, voting day 2018.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Joe, do try to stay on topic. ALEC is not CATO.

So give us the jocal patented "feelings" argument about why citizens united is wrong. Be sure to include your analysis of what parts of the CATO amicus brief made it wrongly into the final opinion. Be sure to include your take on why it is wrong for CATO to write what they did, but not for any of the other groups that wrote amicus briefs for the appellant.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

All of the SCOTUS briefing can be found there.

I don't trust CATO or ALEC. The former produced laughable history and got it thru the SC, and they gave us Citizen's United. The latter cranks out deadly gun legislation, and exports it to state legislature. They share a cause, which is benefiting rich people, by preying upon the gullible. Both groups share a Koch Brother$ influence.

Their boy is Tom Ray, who enjoys race-baiting, and finds value in it. His Libertarian writers discuss race a lo.t while manipulating gun polcies which devastate blacks, and  in a fratricidal manner, I might add.

YMMV. If you like CATO and ALEC, go read their stuff. It's not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

No, there's one other guy.

Unfortunately, a non-reader,

I think I'll go do some reading on Lee McGrath. Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As reported by the Detroit Metro Times, People for the American Way described IJ as one of the litigation groups that "have eagerly sought out potential court challenges in lower-income urban communities and loudly claim the mantle of supporters of education for the disadvantaged. In the past, Clint Bolick's Institute for Justice was better known for his vehement animosity towards virtually every proposed civil rights bill. He even opposed those bills supported by Presidents Nixon and Bush. For example, he branded the 1991 Civil Rights Act as a 'quota' bill, even after it was supported by President Bush and 90 percent of the Congress."[2]

IJ was cofounded by William "Chip" Mellor, previously president of the State Policy Network-member Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy[3] and 2012 recipient of the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation's Bradley Prize.[4] IJ's other co-founder, Clint Bolick, joined the Goldwater Institute in 2007.[5] John Blundell was also a founding director.[6]

IJ is currently an "associate" member of the State Policy Network.[7]

 

Ties to the Koch Brothers

  • 2Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council
  •  
  • HISTORY
    • Jane Mayer in her book Dark Money describes how the Institute for Justice began,

      "By 1990, enterprising conservative and libertarian activists were wearing a path to Wichita, where they, like (Rich) Fink before them, would pitch their proposals to Charles Koch in hopes of patronage. Typical was the experience in 1991 of two former Reagon administrations lawyers, Clint Bolick, a former aide to Clarence Thomas, and William "Chip" Mellor III, in search of seed money for a new kind of aggressive, right-wing public interest law firm that would litigate against government regulations in favor of "economic liberty." Mellor recalled thinking, "Who else would give us enough money to be serious?" According to Mellor, after lower-level aides initially turned down the proposal, Charles Koch himself committed $1.5 million on the spot, but with strings attached

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
10 hours ago, cmilliken said:

John Oliver thinks it's kind of a big deal.. does that matter?

Not really. I agree with him, and have said as much in the past, but it clearly doesn't matter who thinks it's a big deal unless Tom hears you say it as often as he does.

On which forum have you said as much in the past?

A couple of years ago, you claimed to have "a couple" of thoughts on the thread topic in this thread, but never shared those.

I'd be interested in your opinion on the thread topic if you have indeed shared it anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

On which forum have you said as much in the past?

A couple of years ago, you claimed to have "a couple" of thoughts on the thread topic in this thread, but never shared those.

I'd be interested in your opinion on the thread topic if you have indeed shared it anywhere.

This forum and others I don't care for you to spoil.
You are incorrect that I haven't shared thoughts on the subject (you are not the only person to discuss such things with).
I am not interested in your opinion of my opinion.

This is about the time you make something up, claim I believe that, and then declare your moral superiority over the arguments you imagine I might make. Get it over with and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

If you like CATO and ALEC, go read their stuff. It's not for me.

So, _you_ bring up a specific topic (asset forfeiture), bitch about model legislation, and when asked to point out the issue(s) with the topic you brought up... Your answer is... "I don't trust them"?

What a fucking copout.

You bitch about citizens united and CATO, yet you cannot be bothered to give any detail beyond.. CATO. Is invoking the name of a DC lobbying group supposed to be a discussion ender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

This forum and others I don't care for you to spoil.
You are incorrect that I haven't shared thoughts on the subject (you are not the only person to discuss such things with).
I am not interested in your opinion of my opinion.

This is about the time you make something up, claim I believe that, and then declare your moral superiority over the arguments you imagine I might make. Get it over with and move on.

Ah, another secret opinion like your opinion in Kelo v New London.

BS. This is another issue like that one on which there aren't partisan points to score and so you've said nothing. When asked, you'll attack the questioner.

No substance at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Ah, another secret opinion like your opinion in Kelo v New London.

Not secret. Just not something I'm interested in discussing with you, specifically. Which was why I made my earlier comment to someone else. 

You take pride in being a pedantic twat. Take pride in the consequences of that. 

 

Quote

BS. This is another issue like that one on which there aren't partisan points to score and so you've said nothing. When asked, you'll attack the questioner.

No substance at all.

If it were a requirement to talk to you about the subject to have opinion or substance on a matter, you'd have a point. As it is not, you don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
26 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Ah, another secret opinion like your opinion in Kelo v New London.

Not secret. Just not something I'm interested in discussing with you, specifically.

I wonder how many posts I can get you to make commenting on me instead of the thread topic?

This isn't a private message, you know. If you were to offer an opinion on the thread topic, there's no telling who might come along to discuss it with you.

Well, yeah, there is telling. Because this issue lacks partisan shitfight point potential almost no one here will post in it, as has been the case for several years.

But do keep reinforcing the point that you're part of the chorus. It's funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, I know that your point in most threads is that I'm a bad messenger.

I just don't see how that relates to the drug warriors in both of our countries looting private property under color of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yes, I know that your point in most threads is that I'm a bad messenger.

Incorrect, but I thank you for proving it here anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For any Aussies inclined to address the topic:

Do you have the same political dynamic down under, in which your equivalent of TeamR won't stop this practice because doing so would be a heretical attack against a Sacred Prohibition Program and your equivalent of TeamD won't stop it because doing so reduces government power and funding, two things that go against their instincts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

For any Aussies inclined to address the topic:

Do you have the same political dynamic down under, in which your equivalent of TeamR won't stop this practice because doing so would be a heretical attack against a Sacred Prohibition Program and your equivalent of TeamD won't stop it because doing so reduces government power and funding, two things that go against their instincts?

We don't have asset seizure laws like you do - even our politicians weren't quite *that* venal/greedy/stupid.

So the question is moot.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

We don't have asset seizure laws like you do - even our politicians weren't quite *that* venal/greedy/stupid.

So the question is moot.

FKT

I see.

So can an Aussie who is aware of this similarity comment?

Quote

 

Victoria’s Confiscation Act has been used to confiscate and sell property owned by convicted drug traffickers like Tony Mokbel, and recent reports suggest Victoria Police is considering using the act to seize up to $10 million in assets from suspected crime boss Rocco Arico, who was arrested earlier this year.

Most schemes provide a two-pronged power; assets can be restrained after an individual has been charged with particular criminal offences, but can also be taken under so-called civil asset forfeiture mechanisms – whereby no charge is made, but property is restrained as it is suspected to be the proceeds of crime or an instrument in crime.

 

That's pretty darn similar and the article is about just the kind of seizure of "drug dealer" assets that we see here. What's the difference, if any, FKT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I see.

So can an Aussie who is aware of this similarity comment?

That's pretty darn similar and the article is about just the kind of seizure of "drug dealer" assets that we see here. What's the difference, if any, FKT?

Absolutely nothing like your RICO laws and if you can't tell the difference, that's not my problem.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, VOA said:

Yeah, Australia does have asset seizure laws. Catch too many crabs and they'll take your boat and the car you towed it with. Get caught with some pot and they'll seize anything they can as proceeds of crime.

Sure - after you're convicted in a court of law and the magistrate/judge applies a penalty they consider appropriate. Not just some law official confiscating stuff and forcing you to court to get it back. We don't attribute crimes or criminal intent to property (*).

Do try to follow the dots.

FKT

(*) well most people don't but the anti-gun brigade seem convinced to the contrary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Sure - after you're convicted in a court of law and the magistrate/judge applies a penalty they consider appropriate. Not just some law official confiscating stuff and forcing you to court to get it back. We don't attribute crimes or criminal intent to property (*).

Do try to follow the dots.

FKT

(*) well most people don't but the anti-gun brigade seem convinced to the contrary.

So you're saying the bolded part below is false? I didn't realize you had a FAKE NEWS problem with SBS. Don't they have government appointed directors? How can they get away with publishing lies like this:

Quote

Most schemes provide a two-pronged power; assets can be restrained after an individual has been charged with particular criminal offences, but can also be taken under so-called civil asset forfeiture mechanisms – whereby no charge is made, but property is restrained as it is suspected to be the proceeds of crime or an instrument in crime.

The "restraint" of property without any charge against a person (the property is charged there, as it is here, because we both inherited the deodand from England) is exactly the same as our civil asset forfeiture abuse, which is different from the governmental abuses spawned by our RICO laws. If you don't know those differences, maybe you should start a thread in which people could explain them to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More fake news from down under, it seems.

Australian police under fire for seizing funds from victims of money-laundering
 

Quote

 

Australian federal police, who took over proceeds of crime cases from the commonwealth director of public prosecutions several years ago, use restraining orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act to freeze funds and recover them. But they are increasingly targeting funds from innocent parties of smurfing operations.

...

The AFP’s approach was thwarted last week in a Western Australian supreme court case involving Malaysian couple Ganesh Kalimuthu and Macquelene Patricia Michael Dass, who had $3m seized after falling victim to a laundering scheme.

Justice Jeremy Allanson found that the couple’s position “is relevantly no different from that of a person who sells property to a stranger and is paid by direct debit into his bank account”. He struck out the AFP’s freezing order on the basis that the couple were a “third party”, not linked to the criminal action.

“It is not alleged that either respondent was party to any offence in Australia, or knew that the property was the proceeds or the instrument of an offence,” Allanson ruled.

 

Now they've named a real judge and alleged that he's spouting this craziness about seizing property from people who have not been alleged to be involved in crime.

I hope the judge sues them for defamation. If FKT is right, I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 5:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Cite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 12:10 AM, bpm57 said:
On 11/12/2018 at 5:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Cite.

Hah! Good one!

https://ij.org/about-us/
 

Quote

 

IJ has litigated over 200 cases, including five before the U.S. Supreme Court. Of those five cases, IJ won four of the cases  before the Supreme Court and won the fifth case (the Kelo eminent domain case) in the court of public opinion.

Additionally, since its founding, the Institute for Justice has been an excellent steward of the resources entrusted to it by donors across the nation. That is why IJ has earned Charity Navigator’s top 4-star rating every year since 2001, which puts the Institute for Justice in the highest one percentile of the more than 9,000 nonprofits ranked each year by Charity Navigator.

 

They $pon$ored a poll on the thread topic issue:
 

Quote

 

Conducted by the Institute for Justice and YouGov, the poll found that 76 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who wants to require a criminal conviction or raise the standard of proof to forfeit property. A majority of Americans across all gender, age, marital status, income level, and geographical location brackets would be more likely to back a member of Congress who supports forfeiture reform.

“With politics deeply divided, it’s encouraging to see so many Americans unite against civil forfeiture, one of the greatest threats to private property rights today,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Darpana Sheth, who spearheads IJ’s National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse.

The IJ/YouGov poll also found that 59 percent of American opposed civil forfeiture, with only 25 percent in favor. Opposition was even stronger against the financial incentives that drive civil forfeiture: 63 percent opposed letting law enforcement keep the proceeds from forfeited property, a practice currently allowed by the federal government and more than 40 states.

Likewise, 69 percent of Americans oppose equitable sharing, a program that lets local and state agencies work with federal officials to confiscate property and bypass tougher state laws. Last year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions expanded equitable sharing, which triggered unanimous votes in the House of Representatives to defund the expansion. Unfortunately, those efforts were ultimately killed this past spring.

 

I wonder if the seizing agencies get to keep the loot in Australia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 5:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Maybe you missed this, Joe. Still looking for a cite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much does your state suck?

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

policing-for-profit-web_pdf__page_27_of_

This caused me to wonder whether there's sailing in New Mexico.

Turns out, there is! In a place called Heron Reservoir. It's a bit over two miles in the longest dimension.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 2:21 PM, bpm57 said:

Maybe you missed this, Joe. Still looking for a cite.

I once found a connection, IIRC. In looking, I found certain liberal supporters for the "Institute for Justice" as well. Found that outfit operates across the lake from Seattle.

I'll keep looking, to help  detatch DeadEye from any alleged misery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 3:14 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Not as funny this time around.

I'll try harder, and yo KELO TOM IS THE SHIT

 

who are these others. this is a shakey crew.

  • JAPAN TOM, on suicide
  • CDC TOM (shits on the CDC, unless cherry picking them)
  • ROAD KILL TOM (will stamp out mass shootings for us)
  • JUDGE TANEY TOM (had a big eureka, and long did it last)
  • MILLER-EXTOLS-THE-PEOPLE TOM (permanently confused by his own cover sheet)
  • GANGSTAS-DISPROVE-WHITE-GUN-OWNERSHIP-PROBLEMS TOM (with the racebater slide job)
    • (on holiday, but should be in the big house): STANDARD MODEL TOM
    •                                                                               MLK TOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 5:21 PM, bpm57 said:
On 11/12/2018 at 5:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Maybe you missed this, Joe. Still looking for a cite.

 

16 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I once found a connection, IIRC.

BS. Your shaky memory or Charity Navigator?

I'll take Charity Navigator since they can always recall where they got their information.

On 11/16/2018 at 7:13 AM, dogballs Tom said:

https://ij.org/about-us/
 

Quote

 

IJ has litigated over 200 cases, including five before the U.S. Supreme Court. Of those five cases, IJ won four of the cases  before the Supreme Court and won the fifth case (the Kelo eminent domain case) in the court of public opinion.

Additionally, since its founding, the Institute for Justice has been an excellent steward of the resources entrusted to it by donors across the nation. That is why IJ has earned Charity Navigator’s top 4-star rating every year since 2001, which puts the Institute for Justice in the highest one percentile of the more than 9,000 nonprofits ranked each year by Charity Navigator.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 4:59 AM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

We don't have asset seizure laws like you do - even our politicians weren't quite *that* venal/greedy/stupid.

So the question is moot.

FKT

Actually, you do.

13 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

,,, keeps dragging his determination to be right into other threads on things like civil forfeiture, water rights and pretty much any other topic Tom posts on.

And if you show up and say that a question I posed is "moot" because the premise is false, I might just have a bit of fun proving the premise was true and that your only authority for your statement was your own ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 2:11 AM, dogballs Tom said:
On 11/12/2018 at 2:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Maybe you missed this, Joe. Still looking for a cite.

Could this be the connection I remember?  A red flag from Sourcewatch:

Quote

 IJ is currently an "associate" member of the State Policy Network.[7]

 

But Tom, you have no right to ask for corrections, since you owe me many.

  • Miller has nothing to do with gun rights for The People
  • Gun control is demonstrably effective.
  • American guns introduce a yuge danger for women.
  • Guns in homes are feeding un-necessary and unwarranted suicides.
  • American colonists confiscated guns, from the town councils up to the White House.
  • A long-term research ban exists on gun violence, your creds suffer if you say otherwise
  • You  got caught cooking the books to deny the double digit murder increases in Missouri; you offered no retraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 11/12/2018 at 2:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Maybe you missed this, Joe. Still looking for a cite.

Seriously, I can navigate among these clowns by sense of smell.

Okay, Chip Mellor III founded the "Institute for Justice." And he tweaks laws to benefit religious schooling. Goldwater Foundation. Has Koch incolvement. Does ALEC too. Mellor's background wits within the PRI (just the same as many CATO gun writers).

Quote

PRI and the tobacco industry

In February 1987 Philip Morris executive Roy E. Marden sent a memo to other PM staff following a discussion with the then PRI President Chip Mellor "concerning their project on advertising and the market process." Marden noted the project was partially funded by Philip Morris."[23]

In 1998 Philip Morris was canvassing possible organizations that might be an ally in its Youth Smoking Prevention programs. A memo from Roy Marden described the Pacific Research Institute as "I am vice chairman of this SF policy group. They have recently begun an effort on child development/reduction of welfare dependency/etc., & I could explore with them if/where YSP could be involved. We are long-time donors."[24]

Chip Mellor was whoring for Big Tobacco, while trashing children, in 1998. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Could this be the connection I remember?  A red flag from Sourcewatch:

You need to find some alternate sources, Joe. sourcewatch, prwatch, and alecexposed are all the same "progressive" organization. This has been mentioned before.

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Chip Mellor III founded the "Institute for Justice."

So? Do you have anything other then a "progressive" conspiracy theory? Hell, I can find sources that badmouth the group behind your 3 favorite anti-libertarian & anti-conservative websites. If you were even mildly curious, you could find it as well.

This all started because _you_ brought up asset forfeiture, then _you_ moved on to citizen's united. You badmouth every libertarian group involved, yet are completely unable to articulate your issues with 1) ALEC's model legislation on asset forfeiture, 2) Your exact issues with the amici on the "winning" side of citizens.

Your only answer is "I don't trust them." Well damn, that is a reason. So completely non-specific, you never have to worry about actually giving a detailed answer about why your cut-n-pasting on the topic even applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Your only answer is "I don't trust them." Well damn, that is a reason. So completely non-specific, you never have to worry about actually giving a detailed answer about why your cut-n-pasting on the topic even applies.

fuck I love you gun nuts and your double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

fuck I love you gun nuts and your double standards.

Another meaningful jiblet post. Maybe you can be slightly more specific next time. Or possibly help Joe with his mission to show that everything awful in the world was caused by 2 libertarian groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Another meaningful jiblet post. Maybe you can be slightly more specific next time. Or possibly help Joe with his mission to show that everything awful in the world was caused by 2 libertarian groups.

another ironic content free dismissal from the gun-nut republican leg humper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 8:43 AM, jocal505 said:
On 11/22/2018 at 8:14 AM, jocal505 said:
On 11/12/2018 at 5:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Maybe you missed this, Joe. Still looking for a cite.

Seriously, I can navigate among these clowns by sense of smell.

Okay, Chip Mellor III founded the "Institute for Justice." And he tweaks laws to benefit religious schooling. Goldwater Foundation. Has Koch incolvement. Does ALEC too. Mellor's background wits within the PRI (just the same as many CATO gun writers).

Quote

PRI and the tobacco industry

In February 1987 Philip Morris executive Roy E. Marden sent a memo to other PM staff following a discussion with the then PRI President Chip Mellor "concerning their project on advertising and the market process." Marden noted the project was partially funded by Philip Morris."[23]

In 1998 Philip Morris was canvassing possible organizations that might be an ally in its Youth Smoking Prevention programs. A memo from Roy Marden described the Pacific Research Institute as "I am vice chairman of this SF policy group. They have recently begun an effort on child development/reduction of welfare dependency/etc., & I could explore with them if/where YSP could be involved. We are long-time donors."[24]

Chip Mellor was whoring for Big Tobacco, while trashing children, in 1998. 

The guy who tosses Kool cigarettes out is badmouthing youth smoking prevention programs?

And what does any of that tell us about the thread topic? The assets in question are generally not tools, so I know I'm asking the wrong person who will know nothing, but the answer should be funny if one appears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:
On 11/22/2018 at 5:43 AM, jocal505 said:

I was repeatedly hounded for a PRI connection to big tobacco. I found one, and catch an ad hominem.

The guy who tosses Kool cigarettes out is badmouthing youth smoking prevention programs?

Tossing out a pack or two of Kools was relating, and it worked. Then I visited myself a prisoner. And then I baited them with food. What was your approach to the street gang which adopted you, in Detroit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Tossing out a pack or two of Kools was relating, and it worked. Then I visited myself a prisoner. And then I baited them with food. What was your approach to the street gang which adopted you, in Detroit?

And what does any of that tell us about the thread topic?

How is this evil fight against police looting property without charging anyone with a crime harming America?

    <