Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

FAIR Act to Reform Asset Seizure Laws

Recommended Posts

Hi Tom. You left a lot of red ink behind, with a big uptick in 2018. To improve thread purity, as requested by others, just where do you want it laid out?

Where do you NOT want it laid out?  Oh yes, I love this place. :huh:

             edit. does this thread need Dred Scot pics?

Share this post


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

Hat Tip To Justice Breyer

He got the courtroom to laugh at the government's position in the Timbs case.

And it really is laughable, which is why the latest attempt at reform passed the House unanimously before being stuffed by the Senate.

 

I think making the room laugh at the government's position is a useful service. The article said:
 

Quote

 

Indeed, that's one of the issues that came up during Wednesday's oral arguments. After Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Elena Kagan had already slapped Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher around a little bit, Justice Stephen Breyer stepped up to deliver the coup de grace to the government's argument that unlimited asset forfeiture is constitutional.

Here's how he set the trap:

 

And it goes on to make me honestly feel sorry for Mr. Fisher's plight for a moment.

The other article I posted noted:

Quote

Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas (who, as is his usual oral argument practice did not speak today), wrote an opinion in which he urged the Supreme Court to take up the asset forfeiture issue and emphasized that "Modern civil forfeiture statutes are plainly designed, at least in part, to punish the owner of property used for criminal purposes" and suggested that the Court should "align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation." Presumably, that includes subjecting civil forfeitures to the constraints of the Excessive Fines Clause.

That's nice. I didn't read the opinion, but Thomas usually gets stuff like this more right than any of the rest. And almost no one will read it. And the room won't laugh at the government's position in front of the Supreme Court as a result of his writings.

Thomas doesn't participate in oral arguments because he seems to view them as entertainment, not law.

I'd say a bit of both went on when Justice Breyer got the room to laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes drug war looters are not working for their agency, they're just freelance looters.
 

Quote

 

A Texas man is accusing several police officers in Northern California of stealing three pounds of legal marijuana from him during a traffic stop, according to a federal civil rights lawsuit filed earlier this month. And he's not the only one who says he was essentially robbed by a group of rogue police officers.

...

Flatten is not the only alleged victim. The lawsuit, citing recent local news investigations, says police from the town and tribe have a pattern of using a lucrative civil asset forfeiture program to shake down motorists for marijuana and cash during traffic stops.

Rogue Rohnert Park police "conspired to expand the legitimate interdiction mission to one of personal financial gain, and over the years seized thousands of pounds of cannabis and hundreds of thousands of dollars of currency without issuing receipts for the seizures, without making arrests for any crimes, and without any official report of the forfeitures being made," the lawsuit says.

And when arrests were made, "cash and cannabis seized was significantly underreported in furtherance of the conspiracy allowing the officers to skim off the top of even otherwise legal interdictions," the suit continues.

Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize cash, cars, and even houses suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is not charged with a crime. Law enforcement groups argue that civil forfeiture is a vital tool to disrupt drug trafficking and other organized crime, but civil liberties groups say there are far too few due process protections for property owners and far too many perverse profit incentives for police.

 

Darn civil liberties groups, always screwing up law enforcement.

Share this post


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

Sometimes drug war looters are not working for their agency, they're just freelance looters.
 

Darn civil liberties groups, always screwing up law enforcement.

I hope these groups smell okay when they get there. Certain groups mis-represent the basics of the gun issue, mate.

Any past bs, or any past years of open race-baiting, is on you now. Fool me twice is what you face.

I gotta say, I love the way that you and Roger Stone are so impressed with your own tactics

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jocal505 said:
22 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Sometimes drug war looters are not working for their agency, they're just freelance looters.
 

Darn civil liberties groups, always screwing up law enforcement.

I hope these groups smell okay when they get there.

And you have no concern whatsoever about the stench of the government looters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slate usually has about as much use for libertarians as Joe does but they sometimes cite them.

 

Quote

 

After his father died, Timbs used roughly $42,000 of his father’s life insurance proceeds to buy a 2012 Land Rover. To support his heroin addiction, Timbs drove the Land Rover across Indiana to buy, transport, and sell drugs. Undercover police officers caught him in May 2013, and he was sentenced to one year of home detention, five years of probation, and roughly $1,200 in fines and court fees.

But that was not the end of the case. Under Indiana law, the state may seize any vehicle used in drug trafficking. So Indiana initiated a forfeiture action against Timbs’ Land Rover. The vehicle is itself a party to the case, leading to one of the more entertaining case titles in recent memory: Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2 v. Indiana. While the name is unusual, forfeiture actions of this sort are quite common; by one count, states generated more than $250 million through forfeiture actions in 2012 alone.

 

Dastardly! The bolded link goes straight to tobacco lobbyists who want to trash children. Or something.

Anyway, they at least usually have informed and interesting reasons like these:

 

Quote

 

This should be the perfect case for a libertarian originalist like Neil Gorsuch. But it turns out there is an antecedent constitutional question in the case, and the historical evidence on that front points strongly in Indiana’s favor. That question is whether what Indiana has done—seize a vehicle used to traffic drugs through civil proceedings—can be said to constitute a fine.

There is ample evidence that the original meaning of the term “fine,” as it was used when the Eighth and 14th Amendments were ratified, did not extend to these kinds of civil forfeitures. After all, the federal government had a tradition of routinely seizing private property in ways that seem excessively harsh to the modern ear.

Consider the 1818 case of the Little Charles, a ship that the federal government seized after it sailed to Antigua in violation of an American embargo. In an opinion written by none other than Chief Justice John Marshall, the court reasoned that the ship could be subject to forfeiture even if it violated the embargo “without the authority, and against the will of the owner.”

Or take the Louisa Barbara case. Under an 1819 federal law, a ship could only carry a certain number of passengers based on its weight. The Louisa Barbara violated the limit by carrying 178 passengers—one more than it was authorized to carry. Yet the federal government proceeded to seize the entire ship. Federal courts were unmoved by the owner’s defense that many of the 178 passengers were children.

Stories of similarly harsh civil forfeitures fill Indiana’s brief in this case.

 

Bolding is mine. That's the tradition that continues.

 

Quote

 

This history is what makes this case so hard for someone like Neil Gorsuch. If he follows the history and tradition of the Eighth Amendment to its logical extreme, the excessive fines clause would have nothing to say about an excessively harsh civil forfeiture. So, according to this thinking, Indiana could have seized Timbs’ vehicle due to its involvement in small scale drug trafficking even if it was the tawdriest of Ferraris. At the same time, there is the trouble of the aforementioned case called, Austin v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held in 1993 that the excessive fines clause does in fact cover civil forfeitures, at least when initiated by federal authorities. Yet Gorsuch has shown little reluctance to overrule settled precedent in his time on the bench so far. Finally, there is some evidence that the term “fine” was historically used interchangeably with “forfeiture,” which means that an ordinary member of the public in 1791 or 1868 may well have thought the latter encompassed by the former.

The court should acknowledge that both understandings of “fine” are plausible—one that includes forfeitures and one that does not. At that point, it seems wiser to decide which is the correct understanding of the Eighth Amendment by looking to the broader principles undergirding the Constitution, precedent, and the dire consequences of a rule authorizing limitless civil forfeitures for petty crimes. Each of those considerations weighs in Timbs’ favor. Or more precisely, they weigh in favor of a certain 2012 Land Rover and its odds of being reunited with its owner.

 

And in favor of the Institute for Justice winning the case that we would not be discussing without them.

MSN isn't as informative about the law but interviewed Mr. Timbs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-taking-drug-dealers-land-rover-is-excessive/ar-BBQbvwe

He started out joking about going to SCOTUS, then the joke became real, thanks to meddlesome libertarians.

Other realities:

Quote

Timbs’ Land Rover remains in the state’s possession, which has created complications. Timbs and his aunt share her vehicle, and because of this, she has to take the city bus to kidney dialysis appointments three days a week.“I have to rely on people occasionally.

For me, a lot of times, it’s been more of a self-esteem thing,” Timbs said. “That’s a thing that bothers me the most, that it’s not always the people that have made the mistake that have to pay. It’s the people around them that are put out too.”

Mr. Timbs has been sober for a while, has a normal job and a normal life. And might get his Land Rover back soon if those evil bastards at IJ get their way.

For further reading:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-court-appears-ready-to-rule-that-constitutions-bar-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last link explains why it will still be a while before Timbs gets his Land Rover back, which it seems likely he will.
 

Quote

 

At one point during Fisher’s time at the lectern, Kagan noted that, when the Supreme Court decides that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, “there are always going to be questions about the scope of the right” that applies. But when the justices “have decided whether to flip the switch” and decide whether a right applies, it hasn’t decided those questions, instead leaving them “for another day,” she explained.

Given the near consensus on the Supreme Court that the excessive fines clause applies to the states, the justices are likely to say so, but without much more. That could still be good news for Timbs, because two lower courts agreed with him that the forfeiture of the Land Rover was excessive; the Indiana Supreme Court ruled only that the excessive fines clause does not apply to the states at all.

 

About all they will say is "reversed and remanded."

That means, "no, think about it some more and return a different result."

Getting consensus for more will run up against this brick wall:
 

Quote

 

There seemed to be significantly less agreement among the justices on the scope of the right – that is, whether fines like the forfeiture of Timbs’ car do indeed violate the excessive fines clause. Chief Justice John Roberts was unsympathetic, telling attorney Wesley Hottot, who represented Timbs, that Timbs’ Land Rover “was an instrumentality of the crime. This is how he got to the deal place and how he carried the drugs.” If a defendant was carrying the drugs in his car, Roberts stressed, “I think it’s pretty well-established” that the car can be forfeited.

Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also expressed concern about how courts would decide whether a fine was excessive. Alito asked Hottot whether a forfeiture would be excessive if, instead of a Land Rover, Timbs had been driving a 15-year-old Kia or a $250,000 Bugatti. Roberts chimed in, asking Hottot whether it would matter if a defendant were very wealthy or very poor, so that the same fine would affect him differently.

 

The bolded part is where things get blurry in this case, because Mr. Timbs was himself the drug dealer. But the exact same reasoning was used to seize the boats noted above in daze of yore and to seize the infamous yacht Monkey Business more recently. Monkey Business was seized because a crew member had some stems and seeds. The boat carried contraband. It was guilty. The guilt of the owner or the crew member was not an issue in the seizure.

A friend's dad had his yacht seized a long time ago for the same reason. He gave a Bahamian (who he sort of knew for a long time) a ride from Bimini to Miami. Upon arrival, the guy jumped ashore and ran like hell. Friend's dad was NOT happy about this, but that didn't matter. Everyone agreed that his boat committed the crime of carrying that guy. Guilty property. Seized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I see the problem as more that the people who find it compelling, rather than appealing, are inflexible authoritarian types whose sense of authoritarianism makes them really really hate to follow anybody else's instructions. That's why the emotional need to overturn established, functioning policies; and the inflexible and ultimately impractical attempt to make a vague philosophical guideline into some kind of strict commandment.

and

36 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Libertarians aren't any different than hippies in a commune. Their approach works only among a group vastly more benign than the average. The real world countries lacking central government authority are shitholes, not Ayn Rand paradise.

 

John Rogers > Quotes >

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”

I think these critiques are worth discussing here, in a thread in which there are numerous examples of that emotional need to overturn established, functioning policies, the latest involving Mr. Timbs and his Land Rover.

So I'd guess that you guys think the long-established system of seizing guilty property shouldn't be overturned by these meddlesome libertarians, right? Odd, I never figured either of you for big John Roberts fans, but he seems to agree with you above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom

Libertarians are not always wrong.  Asset seizure reform is one area I support 100%

Too bad we can combine the best of each perspective into something that actually works for the people, eh? 

Share this post


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

Tom

Libertarians are not always wrong.  Asset seizure reform is one area I support 100%

That's nice, thanks.

Maybe I should take it to the Kelo thread?

Or how about the recent one on marijuana and gay marriage?

The objections seem to boil down to "they like Ayn Rand," who is a controversial objectivist, not a libertarian and certainly not loved by all libertarians.

I'm trying to figure out how that objection translates into the policies we support. So which would be a good thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gorsuch said something interesting during oral arguments in the Timbs case
 

Quote

 

...Now here is where things start to get interesting. "We all agree that the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the states," Gorsuch said during the Timbs oral arguments. But he then acknowledged that not everyone on the Court agrees on exactly how it should be done. "Whether you want to do it through the Due Process Clause and look at history and tradition," he continued, "or whether one wants to look at privileges and immunities, you might come to the same conclusion."

Gorsuch was likely thinking about McDonald v. Chicago, the 2010 case in which the Court confronted these questions: Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply against the states via the 14th Amendment, and if it does apply, is that because the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege or immunity of U.S. citizenship, or because it is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause?

The Court ultimately ruled 5-4 in favor of Second Amendment incorporation. But only four justices (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito) embraced the Due Process Clause. In a lone concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that fidelity to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment required incorporation via the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead.

What explains this split among the Court's right-leaning justices? The short answer is the fear of "judicial activism." Some conservatives worry that if the Supreme Court embraces the Privileges or Immunities Clause, that clause will then be used to justify greater judicial meddling in future cases. Thomas, by contrast, waved away those concerns in his McDonald concurrence. "The mere fact that the [Privileges or Immunities] Clause does not expressly list the rights it protects," he wrote, "does not render it incapable of principled judicial application."

 

Trying to go down that road in the McDonald case at oral arguments did not go well for Alan Gura.

This is how Scalia told him to shut up and sit down and let the guy from the NRA argue due process:

Quote

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Gura, do you think it is at all easier to bring the Second Amendment under the Privileges and Immunities Clause than it is to bring it under our established law of substantive due?

MR. GURA: It's -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it easier to do it under privileges and immunities than it is under substantive due process?

MR. GURA: It is easier in terms, perhaps, of -- of the text and history of the original public understanding of -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: No, no. I'm not talking about whether -- whether the Slaughter-House Cases were right or wrong. I'm saying, assuming we give, you know, the Privileges and Immunities Clause your definition, does that make it any easier to get the Second Amendment adopted with respect to the States?

MR. GURA: Justice Scalia, I suppose the answer to that would be no, because -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: Then if the answer is no, why are you asking us to overrule 150, 140 years of prior law, when -- when you can reach your result under substantive due -- I mean, you know, unless you are bucking for a -- a place on some law school faculty -­

(Laughter.)

MR. GURA: No. No. I have left law school some time ago and this is not an attempt to -- to return.

JUSTICE SCALIA: What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it's also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. Why do you want to undertake that burden instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I think it's wrong, I have -- even I have acquiesced in it?

 

Ouch. As I've noted elsewhere, when a Justice makes the room laugh at you, you haven't much of a shot.

But now Scalia is gone and Thomas may have an ally in thinking those words in the 14th amendment may have a practical meaning after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 2:21 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom

Libertarians are not always wrong.  Asset seizure reform is one area I support 100%

before and / or WITHOUT A CONVICTION ?

IF SO YOU ARE A PIG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, nota said:
On 12/5/2018 at 2:21 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom

Libertarians are not always wrong.  Asset seizure reform is one area I support 100%

before and / or WITHOUT A CONVICTION ?

IF SO YOU ARE A PIG

I think you might want to re-read the thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nota said:

before and / or WITHOUT A CONVICTION ?

IF SO YOU ARE A PIG

I am not in fact a pig, pigs can't type. Also you seem quite confused on who is reforming what. May want to rethink......

194077065162202033_qYOR0s3H_f.jpg

Share this post


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

He's really only mildly corrupt compared to many, as noted toward the end of the article.
 

Quote


Top prosecutor Paul Howard’s solution was to conjure up his own federal bailout — with money that is primarily intended to fight crime and drugs.

Along the way, Howard dipped into these same federal funds to buy $8,200 worth of security equipment for his home; a trip for him and his top lieutenants to a civil rights celebration in Alabama; and attendance at a celebrity basketball showcase featuring his NBA star nephew Dwight Howard and entertainers such as Atlanta music icon Cee Lo Green.

Thousands more went to food, gala tickets and office bashes, even as the county slashed the office’s budget, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution examination found.

 

The home security cameras were probably the least defensible aspect. My mother faced some threats as a prosecutor. A fence appeared in front of our house. Paid for by? Us.
 

Quote

 

Other reports of controversial spending also raise serious concerns about the potential for abuses, as seizures in the billion-dollar Justice Department program have tripled in the past decade.

Police in Bal Harbour, Fla. paid more than $700,000 in salaries and benefits not allowed by federal rules. They also bought a $100,000 boat and $225,000 surveillance truck. A 2012 audit found no record of arrests related to the seizures.

And in 2011, a Kentucky sheriff pleaded guilty to theft-related charges after prosecutors said he used funds “like a personal checking account.”

In Georgia’s Troup County, a sheriff who lost a primary election used federal forfeiture funds for a $2 million spending spree during the final months of his term, a county audit found.

 

But 8k for a security system makes this guy a piker in the drug war loot world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 5:06 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Ouch. As I've noted elsewhere, when a Justice makes the room laugh at you, you haven't much of a shot.

SEE THE LIBERTARIAN NORMALIZE THE CORRUPTION, read SAILING ANARCHY 

Hmmm, Scalia walked Gura, like a poodle on a leash, in front of God, the Supreme Court, and even the transcriber..  NIce

Thanks for the evidence of the SC Justice who openly acted as an advocate to spin the Second Amendment.

Thanks, dummy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 11:21 AM, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom

Libertarians are not always wrong.  Asset seizure reform is one area I support 100%

*1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 7:05 AM, dogballs Tom said:

How the shakedown works in Michigan
 

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

And Wayne County Gets Sued Again
 

Quote

 

A Detroit woman is suing Wayne County, Michigan, after police seized her car for possession of $10 worth of marijuana under the state's civil asset forfeiture laws.

Crystal Sisson alleges in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed Wednesday that she was pulled over by Wayne County Sheriff's deputies this July after they surveilled her going into a Detroit medical marijuana dispensary, where she had bought a small amount of marijuana for $10. After discovering the marijuana, which is decriminalized in Detroit, the sheriff's deputies cited her for "illegally occupying a place where controlled substances are sold" and seized her 2015 Kia Soul.

Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property—cash, cars, and even houses—suspected of being connected to criminal activity. Law enforcement groups say it is a vital tool for disrupting organized drug trafficking and other crimes, but civil liberties groups say it has too few protections for innocent property owners and far too many perverse profit incentives for police and prosecutors.

To get her car back, Sisson had to pay the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office $1,200 to settle the forfeiture case, a typical practice in the county. Sisson's lawsuit, however, argues that the seizure and settlement was unconstitutionally excessive.

 

The same argument as the Timbs case, so what happens to him will happen to her.

They are distinct because Timbs was actually dealing heroin at the time and Sisson was apparently "being in a bad place."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 2:29 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
On 12/5/2018 at 2:21 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom

Libertarians are not always wrong.  Asset seizure reform is one area I support 100%

Too bad we can combine the best of each perspective into something that actually works for the people, eh? 

and

22 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 12/5/2018 at 2:21 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom

Libertarians are not always wrong.  Asset seizure reform is one area I support 100%

*1.

Agreement is broad indeed.

Last month, I posted about how the House unanimously approved some reforms, which the Senate then ignored.

By any chance does this 100% support include writing to any Senators about why they ignored the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 6:21 AM, dogballs Tom said:

and

Agreement is broad indeed.

Last month, I posted about how the House unanimously approved some reforms, which the Senate then ignored.

By any chance does this 100% support include writing to any Senators about why they ignored the issue?

Yup. 

 

Share this post


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

Yup. 

 

Awesome. A few tens of millions more like you and maybe the looting will stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2018 Was A Bad Year For Looters

Philly and Albuquerque will have to look to taxpayers instead of stealing property to meet their budgets and the Supreme Court is having a look at the issue in the Timbs case.

Quote

Until recently, a major roadblock to all these reforms was Jeff Sessions. The former U.S. attorney general rolled back Obama-era restrictions and emboldened state and local law enforcement to ramp up seizures—and bypass stricter state laws—by partnering with federal authorities. How much longer that loophole remains open depends on Congress.

Specifically, on the FAIR Act, since there's no hope a replacement AG will reverse this policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olsonist said:

There's profit in throwing people in prison for drugs as well.


Nah, the lawyers and prisons are expensive.

The real profit from the drug war comes from looting property from people who are never convicted of a crime.

But that's a Duopoly program and only libertarians are going to say bad things about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entertaining myself this morning by searching the oral arguments in the Timbs case for the word "laughter."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-1091_1bn2.pdf

A couple of times it was just because Justice Breyer is funny and self-deprecating.

A couple of other times it was because he made the room laugh at the government's position. Sotomayor did too, with this rather blunt question:
 

Quote

 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  Because that's the only way that you can win with a straight face?  

MR. FISHER:  No, I don't -­

(Laughter.) 

 

Ouch.

Gorsuch got in on the fun too.

Justice Ginsburg asked Timbs' lawyer an interesting question about the defunct "privileges and immunities" part of the 14th amendment.
 

Quote

 

MR. HOTTOT:  Yes, Your Honor.  And we also have an alternative argument under Section 1's Privileges Or Immunities Clause. And -­

JUSTICE GINSBURG:  That would leave out non-citizens?  

MR. HOTTOT:  Yes, textually, Justice Ginsburg, that would leave out non-citizens, but, of course, Petitioner is a citizen, and that could be a decision for another day. It's also true that the fundamental and deeply rooted rights that are currently incorporated under the Due Process Clause apply to non-citizens and they would continue to do so  regardless of the Court's reasoning in this case.


 

If the court ever does reach into the dustbin of history and grab that one, it's true that it would apply only to citizens, at least at first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mid said:
Quote

 

He surrounded himself with border agents, victims of horrible crimes, a display of methamphetamine and heroin, an AK-47 and an AR-15 rifle, and a trash bag stuffed with $362,062 in cash that had been confiscated by law enforcement officials.

In his view, it all added up to a single word, “crisis,” with a lone solution, building a wall — a point he emphasized in a discussion with the crime victims, law enforcement officers and McAllen residents.

“That says it all,” Mr. Trump said of the contraband. “They didn’t have to go very far. This is all very recent.”

But there was another reality. The display of drugs, weapons and cash was mainly the product of law enforcement actions stopping criminals at international bridges, where most drugs are smuggled, and conventional ports of entry.

In a place where a wall is already in place, law enforcement officials boasted of apprehending criminals who had built a tunnel. The money was taken from a suspect who had overstayed a visa.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/trump-mcallen-border-crisis.html

I was hoping the article had more details on that subject.

Hundreds of thousands sounds like kind of a steep penalty for overstaying a visa, possibly worse than taking Mr. Timbs' Land Rover.

But it's probably not a penalty at all. The cash is likely charged with being improperly acquired and it is presumed guilty of that crime unless the suspect can prove the cash innocent.

If he can't, JACKPOT! Equitable sharing of the loot can begin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rein In Government

It will continue to go nowhere but at least might make a few people stop posting about reigning in government.

Share this post


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

Anyone remember fun times when the "war on drugs" meant your boat or airplane could be destroyed or confiscated for almost any reason?

Vaguely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap, too late to edit.

The right answer would have been, of course, "Like it was yesterday."

Share this post


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

I don't bother discussing *this topic* with him because I basically agree with his position. What's the point of posting stuff like 'Yeah me too'......

Now on other topics I think he's an obsessive fuckwit.

FKT

BS.

You don't discuss issues where we disagree either. For example:

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

I disagree with this. Your laws seem similar to me in the most important way: you also seize "guilty" property from owners who are known to be innocent.

Share this post


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

BS.

You don't discuss issues where we disagree either. For example:

I disagree with this. Your laws seem similar to me in the most important way: you also seize "guilty" property from owners who are known to be innocent.

As I said, obsessive fuckwit.

FKT

Share this post


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

As I said, obsessive fuckwit.

FKT

Aw, come on. I know that you know how to visit sailing forums if you tire of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2016 at 6:17 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Trump wants to use asset forfeiture to fund the stupid wall

 

Quote
The plan would uniquely incentivize both nations to ramp up efforts to degrade and destroy the illegal drug trafficking market.

 

 

Because bureaucracies everywhere just love to cut off their funding sources.

 

The incentives will be the same as always: to seize more property regardless of the guilt or innocence of the owners.

I wonder what happened to this grand plan from 2016?

The Mexicans didn't buy us a wall and drug warriors don't seem to have looted the populace enough to avoid shutting down a bit of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this