Sign in to follow this  
phillysailor

Asset Forfeiture seized!

Recommended Posts

The SCOTUS just dealt a heavy blow to civil authorities seizing the property of suspected criminals, a practice which has led to rampant abuse and victimization of hundreds of thousands of Americans who have not been found guilty of crimes. Yet another way local law enforcement and prosecutors subjugate the defenseless to the grinding wheels of injustice they command has been exposed as abuse of authority and a violation of the Constitution. 

RBG must be feeling better, because her majority opinion (she wrote for 8 of the justices) cited precedents when back to the Magna Carta. Rock on, sistah!

From the NYT: "The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Constitution places limits on the ability of states and localities to take and keep cash, cars, houses and other private property used to commit crimes.

The practice, known as civil forfeiture, is a popular way to raise revenue and is easily abused, and it has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum. The court’s decision will open the door to new legal arguments when the value of the property seized was out of proportion to the crimes involved."

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” she wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”

Quoting from an earlier decision, she wrote that even absent a political motive, “fines may be employed ‘in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence,’ for ‘fines are a source of revenue,’ while other forms of punishment ‘cost a state money.’”

...

“Following the Civil War,” she wrote, “Southern states enacted Black Codes to subjugate newly freed slaves and maintain the prewar racial hierarchy. Among these laws’ provisions were draconian fines for violating broad proscriptions on ‘vagrancy’ and other dubious offenses.”

The decision will not halt civil forfeitures, said Wesley P. Hottot, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented the Land Rover’s owner (the complainant whose case prompted the decision).

“People are still going to lose their property without being convicted of a crime, they’re still going to have their property seized,” Mr. Hottot said. “The new thing is that they can now say at the end of it all, whether I’m guilty or not, I can argue that it was excessive.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another important point about this decision is that is was unanimous. If all nine SCOTUS members agree it must be a pretty strong case for the winner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piss ant cops and jurisdictions that rely on this for revenue of shitting themselves today.  Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kinda thinking dogballs would have weighed in on this but it seems he’s still waiting for   Koch/Reason to tell him what to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They got one right.    

Share this post


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

I was kinda thinking dogballs would have weighed in on this but it seems he’s still waiting for   Koch/Reason to tell him what to think.

He'll lament that his thread died and think that it's because people aren't interested in the topic, instead of him and his threads.   He'll quote himself two or three times, too. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rum Runner said:

Another important point about this decision is that is was unanimous. If all nine SCOTUS members agree it must be a pretty strong case for the winner.

Thomas and Gorsuch concurred but did disagree with the reasoning, the legal pathway .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to note that the practice itself will not end: fines and seizures are Constitutional, but the limitless reach of Police and prosecutors and excessive confiscation that was abusive will be harshly constrained. 

Apparently, one of the cases highlighted to the court involved the seizure of a woman's home... and she wasn't even the one selling drugs.

"A recent series of articles by the Greenville News examined every civil forfeiture case in South Carolina from 2014 to 2016, finding examples like that of Ella Bromell, a 72-year-old woman who had to fight off the forfeiture of her home after drug dealers conducted transactions on her property, despite Ms. Bromell’s multiple attempts to stop them." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

It is important to note that the practice itself will not end: fines and seizures are Constitutional, but the limitless reach of Police and prosecutors and excessive confiscation that was abusive will be harshly constrained. 

Apparently, one of the cases highlighted to the court involved the seizure of a woman's home... and she wasn't even the one selling drugs.

"A recent series of articles by the Greenville News examined every civil forfeiture case in South Carolina from 2014 to 2016, finding examples like that of Ella Bromell, a 72-year-old woman who had to fight off the forfeiture of her home after drug dealers conducted transactions on her property, despite Ms. Bromell’s multiple attempts to stop them." 

Cynicism alert....I wonder if her property was about to be up-zoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose that means that the Coasties won't impound your boat if one of your crews has a bit of weed in their seabag?

Nah, it's a boat. It's different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

The SCOTUS just dealt a heavy blow to civil authorities seizing the property of suspected criminals, a practice which has led to rampant abuse and victimization of hundreds of thousands of Americans who have not been found guilty of crimes. Yet another way local law enforcement and prosecutors subjugate the defenseless to the grinding wheels of injustice they command has been exposed as abuse of authority and a violation of the Constitution. 

RBG must be feeling better, because her majority opinion (she wrote for 8 of the justices) cited precedents when back to the Magna Carta. Rock on, sistah!

From the NYT: "The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Constitution places limits on the ability of states and localities to take and keep cash, cars, houses and other private property used to commit crimes.

The practice, known as civil forfeiture, is a popular way to raise revenue and is easily abused, and it has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum. The court’s decision will open the door to new legal arguments when the value of the property seized was out of proportion to the crimes involved."

Well we finally agree on something 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

I don't suppose that means that the Coasties won't impound your boat if one of your crews has a bit of weed in their seabag?

Nah, it's a boat. It's different.

Well, for stupid boat tricks that ended up in seizure, there is always the guys who did the Vic-Maui race on daddy's boat in the 70s.   They were very surprised when US Customs came on board in Lahaina and spotted the bag of dope on the galley counter.  They forgot the race started in Canada and ended up having to make a pretty painful phone call back home when the padlock and chains came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a pretty well-balanced decision. Confiscation of crime proceeds is still allowed, which is an important deterrent because frankly there are too many people that would be willing to go to jail for a few years if they could squirrel away the money from their crimes for when they get out.

On the other hand, police cannot go around taking your house for kids selling weed in the back yard. Even if you know about it, the fact that the protection in question is related to "excessive fines". Kids selling weed might be against the law, but unless you have a grow house in your garage - it would be very hard to argue that taking one's house is a fine proportionate to the crime.

Nice touch having RBG write the opinion too. I don't think, for a second, that she didn't know that was going to be a little slap in the face to those that were hanging on her every breath hoping it was her last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:

Cynicism alert....I wonder if her property was about to be up-zoned.

In some places, if the property owner knows of illegal drugs being used/sold on their property, they can lose said property.

One reason a landlord can expedite an eviction. 5 days instead of the usual 30-plus in AZ.

It's a good decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

 

Apparently, one of the cases highlighted to the court involved the seizure of a woman's home... and she wasn't even the one selling drugs.

 

Way back when taking a property management course to add to my real-estate resume we were reviewing leases, rental agreements, legalities and responsibilities especially with illegal activity.   There was a story where a landlord/owner lost his property because the house was being use for selling drugs..  The police conduced that the landlord knew what was going on from the numerous complaints he received from the neighbors of the suspicious activity and that he needs to do something which he did nothing.

 

 

Share this post


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

I think it's a pretty well-balanced decision. Confiscation of crime proceeds is still allowed, which is an important deterrent because frankly there are too many people that would be willing to go to jail for a few years if they could squirrel away the money from their crimes for when they get out.

On the other hand, police cannot go around taking your house for kids selling weed in the back yard. Even if you know about it, the fact that the protection in question is related to "excessive fines". Kids selling weed might be against the law, but unless you have a grow house in your garage - it would be very hard to argue that taking one's house is a fine proportionate to the crime.

Nice touch having RBG write the opinion too. I don't think, for a second, that she didn't know that was going to be a little slap in the face to those that were hanging on her every breath hoping it was her last.

Well we’ll never know if she really wrote it, never the less I agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SailBlueH2O said:

Well we’ll never know if she really wrote it, never the less I agree 

You think the Supreme actually writes the full decision?

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

You think the Supreme actually writes the full decision?

Interesting.

Of course they have a large clerk staff, but yes they do write the final opinion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Way back when taking a property management course to add to my real-estate resume we were reviewing leases, rental agreements, legalities and responsibilities especially with illegal activity.   There was a story where a landlord/owner lost his property because the house was being use for selling drugs..  The police conduced that the landlord knew what was going on from the numerous complaints he received from the neighbors of the suspicious activity and that he needs to do something which he did nothing.

Whilst the landlord in question was not being a model citizen, unless those drug dealers were paying him several multiples of the rent for the area, the penalty (losing the house) is not proportionate to the crime. Fine the landlord the rent he took since the date he knew of their activities (proceeds of crime) and charge him as an accessory or similar.

I'm all for punishing people for crimes they commit. I just agree with SCOTUS that the punishment needs to be proportionate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

 Well we’ll never know if she really wrote it, never the less I agree 

You're right. It could be a cabal of lizard people taking turns wearing her skin as part of their overall plan to deliver the USA to the European Illuminati. On the other hand, Occam's Razor tends to be pretty damned accurate. If the court says that RBG wrote the opinion, I'm going to go with that. You believe whatever floats your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also know that the Chief Justice assigned the opinion to her Notoriousness.

Share this post


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

You're right. It could be a cabal of lizard people taking turns wearing her skin as part of their overall plan to deliver the USA to the European Illuminati. On the other hand, Occam's Razor tends to be pretty damned accurate. If the court says that RBG wrote the opinion, I'm going to go with that.You believe whatever floats your boat. works for you.. well then it works for me

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

works for you.. well then it works for me

Good to know. I wouldn't want you to think too hard before accepting whatever fantasy next flits through your mind. 

Share this post


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

Whilst the landlord in question was not being a model citizen, unless those drug dealers were paying him several multiples of the rent for the area, the penalty (losing the house) is not proportionate to the crime. Fine the landlord the rent he took since the date he knew of their activities (proceeds of crime) and charge him as an accessory or similar.

I'm all for punishing people for crimes they commit. I just agree with SCOTUS that the punishment needs to be proportionate.

The purpose of this was to teach us the lesson on the due diligence of being a property manager. I can't speak to the particulars of this specific situation...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

I was kinda thinking dogballs would have weighed in on this but it seems he’s still waiting for   Koch/Reason to tell him what to think.

it's either past dogballs bed time  or he's stoned to the bejesus ;-)   he'll chirp in in the morning, possibly chiming in on 10 other dead threads he'll resurrect for your reading pleasure....thanks Tom ;-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dacapo said:

it's either past dogballs bed time  or he's stoned to the bejesus ;-)   he'll chirp in in the morning, possibly chiming in on 10 other dead threads he'll resurrect for your reading pleasure....thanks Tom ;-) 

Tom's soliloquy is starting to infect more and more of the threads on the first page of PA. Some days I look at the index and there's a dozen ancient threads that Tom's keeping alive all by himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

Way back when taking a property management course to add to my real-estate resume we were reviewing leases, rental agreements, legalities and responsibilities especially with illegal activity.   There was a story where a landlord/owner lost his property because the house was being use for selling drugs..  The police conduced that the landlord knew what was going on from the numerous complaints he received from the neighbors of the suspicious activity and that he needs to do something which he did nothing.

It would not matter. The proceeding is against the property, not the individual, who must prove the property innocent.

This is why those annoying libertarians at the Institute for Justice (and pretty much no one else) has been opposing this practice for the past few decades.

Glad to see another instance of the Duopoly types finally agreeing we've been right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who dissented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind..... I see now that it was RBG writing for the other 8 justices, and herself..... My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Tom's soliloquy is starting to infect more and more of the threads on the first page of PA. Some days I look at the index and there's a dozen ancient threads that Tom's keeping alive all by himself.

And he's turned up to claim a victory in an argument no-one here was actually having with him. Very predictable.

Share this post


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

I was kinda thinking dogballs would have weighed in on this but it seems he’s still waiting for   Koch/Reason to tell him what to think.

Give him a little time. He's looking for something one of us posted on this subject 15 or so years ago.

 

Share this post


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

And he's turned up to claim a victory in an argument no-one here was actually having with him. Very predictable.

He's posted solo 7 times in the other Forfeiture thread since the last time someone else posted back in January.

I see it a fair bit.

He reminds me of an old Annual Performance Rating Guide I once had when I wrote a lot of PA's.

Outstanding - Walks on Water

Commendable - Walks with a Limp

Satisfactory - Talks To Self

Improvement Required - Argues With Self

Unsatisfactory - Loses Those Arguments.

dogballs appears to be Improvement Required. I'd know with more certainty if I actually read his drivel but, like most here, I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Never mind..... I see now that it was RBG writing for the other 8 justices, and herself..... My bad.

Actually she was assigned, and wrote the majority opinion, with the usual help of her clerks, for seven of the Justices.  Thomas and Gorsuch wrote, with the usual help of their clerks, a concurring opinion using a different clause of the constitution to come to the same conclusion.  So it came out 9-0.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

He's posted solo 7 times in the other Forfeiture thread since the last time someone else posted back in January.

There was, at least as of this morning, one of his "drag a post in here to bait an argument" threads with the last fourteen posts all by him. At some point he will learn that it is indeed the messenger and not the message people don't care for in his trolling. I won't be holding my breath though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So if I steal a $10 lotto ticket that wins millions, I only get penalised the $10?

No, as that would be proceeds of a crime. This ruling does not prevent police from confiscating that. Nor should it.

The ruling reaffirms the constitutional protections against excessive fines and penalties that some judicial departments have been using to take property that was not a proceed of the crime used to justify the confiscation. So if you buy a nice car from the proceeds of your crime, they can take that; but if you are living with your mother at the time - they can't take her house because you spent all your money and the police station gets nothing from you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lark said:

They got one right.    

Helpful link added.

The Supreme Court would/could never get this right if not for pesky libertarians who raise the issue in the first place.

Sorry for the interruption. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of what a terrible messenger I am.

Share this post


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

In some places, if the property owner knows of illegal drugs being used/sold on their property, they can lose said property.

In other places, such as the USA, it doesn't matter what the property owner knows because the property is charged with a crime. There's a thread about this somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Actually she was assigned, and wrote the majority opinion, with the usual help of her clerks, for seven of the Justices.  Thomas and Gorsuch wrote, with the usual help of their clerks, a concurring opinion using a different clause of the constitution to come to the same conclusion.  So it came out 9-0.

 

And actually actually, there's reality, in which

Quote

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, and KA-VANAUGH, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Tom's soliloquy is starting to infect more and more of the threads on the first page of PA. Some days I look at the index and there's a dozen ancient threads that Tom's keeping alive all by himself.

Wow, who knew Ish's browser could view threads that are not about guns?

News to me. Sorry about all the clutter, Ish. I had no previous clue it was visible to you at all.

Yeah, if there's an existing thread on a topic, I don't start a new one. But if I did, that would somehow be a problem too.

Share this post


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

He's posted solo 7 times in the other Forfeiture thread since the last time someone else posted back in January.

I see it a fair bit.

He reminds me of an old Annual Performance Rating Guide I once had when I wrote a lot of PA's.

Outstanding - Walks on Water

Commendable - Walks with a Limp

Satisfactory - Talks To Self

Improvement Required - Argues With Self

Unsatisfactory - Loses Those Arguments.

dogballs appears to be Improvement Required. I'd know with more certainty if I actually read his drivel but, like most here, I don't.

Hmmm. Not so fast.

First off, this is a debate forum, and Toms posts are often much better researched than the average in that they contain links to relevant court precedents.

Secondly, a sign of intelligence and creative thinking is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in one’s mind at the same time. I’m often at odds with myself, and occasionally use this forum to try out opinions, and modify them based on debate. 

(Sidenote, right now I’m wondering where I’m gonna end up on the issue of repatriating US ISIS followers)

I’m frequently annoyed by Tom’s incessant yammering on 2nd Amendment rights and such, but he isn’t toxic about supplying contradictory arguments, merely annoyingly steadfast and observant to niggling flaws in arguments.

Call him the fucking rock in the middle of the channel, if you will. He’s part of the landscape & not going anywhere, and he’s not boring or puerile. No memes for him, he’d rather fight you with court opinion.

Please lay off the anti-Tom rhetoric, for at times, are we not all Contimacious? (what the heck does that mean, anyways?)

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

...the property is charged with a crime. There's a thread about this somewhere.

 

What, this one?

Share this post


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

The SCOTUS just dealt a heavy blow to civil authorities seizing the property of suspected criminals, a practice which has led to rampant abuse and victimization of hundreds of thousands of Americans who have not been found guilty of crimes. Yet another way local law enforcement and prosecutors subjugate the defenseless to the grinding wheels of injustice they command has been exposed as abuse of authority and a violation of the Constitution. 

RBG must be feeling better, because her majority opinion (she wrote for 8 of the justices) cited precedents when back to the Magna Carta. Rock on, sistah!

From the NYT: "The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Constitution places limits on the ability of states and localities to take and keep cash, cars, houses and other private property used to commit crimes.

The practice, known as civil forfeiture, is a popular way to raise revenue and is easily abused, and it has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum. The court’s decision will open the door to new legal arguments when the value of the property seized was out of proportion to the crimes involved."

+ a bunch! 

Law enforcement shouldn't be used as revenue generation - period, end. 

 

Share this post


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

Hmmm. Not so fast.

First off, this is a debate forum, and Toms posts are often much better researched than the average in that they contain links to relevant court precedents.

Secondly, a sign of intelligence and creative thinking is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in one’s mind at the same time. I’m often at odds with myself, and occasionally use this forum to try out opinions, and modify them based on debate. 

(Sidenote, right now I’m wondering where I’m gonna end up on the issue of repatriating US ISIS followers)

I’m frequently annoyed by Tom’s incessant yammering on 2nd Amendment rights and such, but he isn’t toxic about supplying contradictory arguments, merely annoyingly steadfast and observant to niggling flaws in arguments.

Call him the fucking rock in the middle of the channel, if you will. He’s part of the landscape & not going anywhere, and he’s not boring or puerile. No memes for him, he’d rather fight you with court opinion.

Please lay off the anti-Tom rhetoric, for at times, are we not all Contimacious? (what the heck does that mean, anyways?)

You don't post 6, 8, 10 posts in a row on the same thread with no response.

dogballs, NG, J28 and a couple of others are the only ones.

It smacks of arguing with oneself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are interested, here's wiki on how SC decisions actually get handed down.

Clerks write the vast majority, and the longer a clerk's relationship with their justice, the less the justice typically has to edit.

 

The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[19] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining Justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.

Votes at conference are preliminary; while opinions are being circulated, it is not unheard of for a justice to change sides. A justice may be swayed by the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the opinion or dissent, or as a result of reflection and discussion on the points of law at issue.

The evolution of the justices' views during the circulation of draft opinions can change the outcome of the case; an opinion that begins as a majority opinion can become a dissenting opinion, and vice versa. At the conference for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy is said to have initially voted with Chief Justice Rehnquist, but then changed his mind, feeling unable to join Rehnquist's draft opinion.[20]While working for the Justice Department, present-day Chief Justice John Roberts—a former Rehnquist law clerk—wrote an analysis of Wallace v. Jaffree[21] in which he indicated his belief (based on the length and structure) that Rehnquist's dissent had started out as an opinion for the court, but lost its majority; similar speculation is often heard of Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. New London.[22]Justice Kennedy is known within the Court for changing his mind subsequent to the conference, and Justice Thomas is known for having the tendency to lose a majority.[23] Justices may change sides at any time prior to the handing down of the Court's opinion. Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined. In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position. In this circumstance, in order to determine what the decision is lawyers and judges will analyze the opinions to determine on which points a majority agrees. An example of a case decided by a plurality opinion is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson set down for the majority opinion later in Brown v. Board of Education.

Share this post


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

You don't post 6, 8, 10 posts in a row on the same thread with no response.

dogballs, NG, J28 and a couple of others are the only ones.

It smacks of arguing with oneself.

I’m not paying for the server space, so I feel folks should feel free to post all they like.... i can sweep past the stuff to ignore pretty quick.

NG, NM & J28 (& to a lesser extent JZK) bring memes and proud ignorance to threads,  I would not accuse Tom of being at their level.

Everybody’s got a hobby. I think dogballs has several. Arguing with oneself is interesting but not fatal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dogballs likes to brag about being a trolling asshole to people with political positions he doesn't like, dogballs likes to lie distort and be dishonest to them in their response, then dogballs is a whiny bitch when people ignore him.

Fuck that. Use the ignore list and dynamite that worthless fucking rock in the channel. Every so often piss on where the worthless piece of shit rock was. 

Share this post


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

First off, this is a debate forum, and Toms posts are often much better researched than the average in that they contain links to relevant court precedents.

I don't disagree (entirely). However, being "better researched than average" is not mutually exclusive with "being disingenuous, dishonest, trolling, and/or off-topic". It's the fact he likes mixing at least two of the latter in with the majority of his posts that tends to turn people off him. 

That said, this isn't a "debate forum". It's the ass-end of a SAILING forum that is used t keep political commentary, arguments, trolling, and shit-posting out of the rest of the forum. Sometimes debate occurs, but that is not the purpose of this place. It is merely somewhere other than the boating part of SailingAnarchy to confine the shit they don't want elsewhere. 

Do feel free to take up any of his arguments you care to engage. No-one is stopping you. Just don't blame us when you realise we've been there, done that, and came to the same conclusion we expect you'll get to eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

dogballs likes to brag about being a trolling asshole to people with political positions he doesn't like, dogballs likes to lie distort and be dishonest to them in their response, then dogballs is a whiny bitch when people ignore him.

I try to avoid finding myself in agreement with you Jiblet, but I agree this is worth noting.

Tom has stated, outright, that he enjoys annoying people and that it is the purpose of his posts on certain subjects here. Regardless of his researching chops (and no-one who has had him dig out of context quotes up from a decade ago will argue he isn't good at research), seeking & succeeding to annoy people is why Tom is treated the way he is. And if this were a "debating forum", he'd have been kicked off it some time ago for doing so.

Share this post


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

I try to avoid finding myself in agreement with you Jiblet, but I agree this is worth noting.

Tom has stated, outright, that he enjoys annoying people and that it is the purpose of his posts on certain subjects here. Regardless of his researching chops (and no-one who has had him dig out of context quotes up from a decade ago will argue he isn't good at research), seeking & succeeding to annoy people is why Tom is treated the way he is. And if this were a "debating forum", he'd have been kicked off it some time ago for doing so.

He'll ratchet it up to full-on stalking if you guys keep pushing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Fuck that. Use the ignore list and dynamite that worthless fucking rock in the channel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

He'll ratchet it up to full-on stalking if you guys keep pushing.

Too late. He's been doing that for months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I’m frequently annoyed by Tom’s incessant yammering on 2nd Amendment rights and such, but he isn’t toxic about supplying contradictory arguments, merely annoyingly steadfast and observant to niggling flaws in arguments.

Call him the fucking rock in the middle of the channel, if you will. He’s part of the landscape & not going anywhere, and he’s not boring or puerile. No memes for him, he’d rather fight you with court opinion.

Please lay off the anti-Tom rhetoric, for at times, are we not all Contimacious? (what the heck does that mean, anyways?)

I've never been called a rock in the channel before but for some reason it cracks me up.

Without gossip about me, it looks like several in this thread would have nothing at all to say. And then what would happen to The Ed's revenue and our playground? Careful what you wish for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 3:15 AM, Raz'r said:

I don't suppose that means that the Coasties won't impound your boat if one of your crews has a bit of weed in their seabag?

Nah, it's a boat. It's different.

I don't think "impound" is the same as "forfeiture".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

dogballs likes to brag about being a trolling asshole to people with political positions he doesn't like, dogballs likes to lie distort and be dishonest to them in their response, then dogballs is a whiny bitch when people ignore him.

Fuck that. Use the ignore list and dynamite that worthless fucking rock in the channel. Every so often piss on where the worthless piece of shit rock was. 

I see r'iblet is off his psych meds again.  Hopefully his mom will put one of his pills in a nice PB&J sandwich so he can stop acting so violent all the time.  

Share this post


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

I don't think "impound" is the same as "forfeiture".  

I think  impound is the first step in a forfeiture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, pond sailor said:
56 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't think "impound" is the same as "forfeiture".  

I think  impound is the first step in a forfeiture

Of course it is, but it's not the same thing.  If I get pulled over for suspected DUI, they will impound my car.  If I successfully have the charges dismissed, I will get it back.  Ergo, it's not been forfeited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Thomas, concurring in judgement but making the case that freedom from excessive fines is a "privilege and immunity" (aka "right") and not a part of any process, due or otherwise.
 

Quote

 

The  39th  Congress  focused  on  these  abuses  during  its debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act  of  1866,  and  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau  Act.    During  those  well-publicized  debates,  Members  of  Congress  consistently  highlighted  and  lamented  the  “severe  penalties”  inflicted  by  the  Black  Codes  and  similar  measures,  Cong.Globe,  39th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  474  (1866)  (Sen.  Trumbull),suggesting  that  the  prohibition  on  excessive  fines  was  understood to be a basic right of citizenship.

For  example,  under  Mississippi  law,  adult  “freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes” “without lawful employment” faced $50 in fines and 10 days’ imprisonment for vagrancy.Reports  of  Assistant  Commissioners  of  Freedmen,  and  Synopsis of Laws on Persons of Color in Late Slave States, S. Exec. Doc. No. 6, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., §2, p. 192 (1867).Those  convicted  had  five  days  to  pay  or  they  would  be arrested and leased to “any person who will, for the shortest  period  of  service,  pay  said  fine  and  forfeiture  and  all  costs.”  §5, ibid.  Members of Congress criticized such laws“for  selling  [black]  men  into  slavery  in  punishment  of  crimes  of  the  slightest  magnitude.”    Cong.  Globe,  39th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  1123  (1866)  (Rep.  Cook);  see  id.,  at  1124  (“It  is  idle  to  say  these  men  will  be  protected  by  theStates”).

Similar examples abound.  One congressman noted thatAlabama’s  “aristocratic  and  anti-republican  laws,  almost  reenacting  slavery,  among  other  harsh  inflictions  impose  . . . a fine of fifty dollars and six months’ imprisonment on any  servant  or  laborer  (white  or  black)  who  loiters  away his  time  or  is  stubborn  or  refractory.”  Id.,  at  1621  (Rep.Myers).    He  also  noted  that  Florida  punished  vagrants with  “a  fine  not  exceeding  $500  and  imprison[ment]  for  a term  not  exceeding  twelve  months,  or  by  being  sold  for  a  term not exceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the court.”  Ibid.  At  the  time,  such  fines  would  have  been  ruinous for laborers.  Cf. id., at 443 (Sen. Howe) (“A thou-sand dollars!  That sells a negro for his life”).

These  and  other  examples  of  excessive  fines  from  the  historical  record  informed  the  Nation’s  consideration  of  the Fourteenth Amendment.  Even those opposed to civil-rights legislation understood the Privileges or ImmunitiesClause to guarantee those “fundamental principles” “fixed” by  the  Constitution,  including  “immunity  from  .  .  .  excessive  fines.”    2  Cong.  Rec.  384–385  (1874)  (Rep.  Mills);

 

He's right, whether the others want to wander into that swamp or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that what goes on in many small towns amounts to sheriffs and prosecutors essentially imprisoning poor civilians to maximize civic and private profit.

We have to move away from for-profit justice and imprisonment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I see r'iblet is off his psych meds again.  Hopefully his mom will put one of his pills in a nice PB&J sandwich so he can stop acting so violent all the time.  

He has been inordinately cranky of late hasn't he?

Share this post


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

I have no doubt that what goes on in many small towns amounts to sheriffs and prosecutors essentially imprisoning poor civilians to maximize civic and private profit.

We have to move away from for-profit justice and imprisonment.

Just a variation on the old reliable speed trap.

Do you still have those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Just a variation on the old reliable speed trap.

Do you still have those?

Emporia, VA - where I95 crosses the VA/NC line - it's big business for that town. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I’d say it’s a bit more injurious than speeding tickets

The money is different but the concept is the same. Crooked "Justice" as a revenue source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I’d say it’s a bit more injurious than speeding tickets

Yes but the principle is the same and speeding tickets can be expensive what with the expense, the points and insurance hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Of course it is, but it's not the same thing.  If I get pulled over for suspected DUI, they will impound my car.  If I successfully have the charges dismissed, I will get it back.  Ergo, it's not been forfeited.

Never said it was the same thing. I stated it was the first step in forfeiture

Share this post


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

The money is different but the concept is the same. Crooked "Justice" as a revenue source.

It's not the same.

We still have South Bay, a notorious speed trap town. Speed limit drops to 30 for no reason, and you'd better obey.

The difference is: people going over 30 are breaking the law and are fined. Asset forfeiture victims are often never accused, let alone convicted, of breaking any law. The PROPERTY is charged with a crime. Cars aren't charged in speed trap towns.

(If Sloopy read my posts, he might not spout ignorant stuff like that. But he doesn't, so he does.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The things we have to explain to our resident Fakebertarian.

The point of equating speed traps and civil asset forfeiture is that speed traps are arbitrarily locally enforced zones set up for revenue purposes. Civil asset forfeiture is also arbitrarily locally enforced for revenue purposes. Speed traps stem from a law just as civil asset forfeiture does. Yes, speed traps have the same whiff of legal legitimacy that civil asset forfeiture has, that the perps have done wrong, and then since the enforcement is 'legal', it is incumbent on the perps to prove themselves innocent at considerable time and expense. Presumption of innocence doesn't pay the lawyer nor does it show up in court.

For intent and purpose, these are the same thing. Different laws, same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

Yes but the principle is the same and speeding tickets can be expensive what with the expense, the points and insurance hit.

Ya I know, but depriving whole groups of their freedom, imprispning them for profit, saddling them with a record and a hit to their credit score, causing them to lose their possessions, kids...

a speeding trap isn’t inhumane. This pattern of for-profit incarceration is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all varying degrees of corrupt justice.

None is acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 12:00 AM, SloopJonB said:

He's posted solo 7 times in the other Forfeiture thread since the last time someone else posted back in January.

I see it a fair bit.

He reminds me of an old Annual Performance Rating Guide I once had when I wrote a lot of PA's.

Outstanding - Walks on Water

Commendable - Walks with a Limp

Satisfactory - Talks To Self

Improvement Required - Argues With Self

Unsatisfactory - Loses Those Arguments.

dogballs appears to be Improvement Required. I'd know with more certainty if I actually read his drivel but, like most here, I don't.

Looks like Tom's been holding the winning position all along and you can't stand that.  Eh?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The things we have to explain to our resident Fakebertarian.

The point of equating speed traps and civil asset forfeiture is that speed traps are arbitrarily locally enforced zones set up for revenue purposes. Civil asset forfeiture is also arbitrarily locally enforced for revenue purposes. Speed traps stem from a law just as civil asset forfeiture does. Yes, speed traps have the same whiff of legal legitimacy that civil asset forfeiture has, that the perps have done wrong, and then since the enforcement is 'legal', it is incumbent on the perps to prove themselves innocent at considerable time and expense. Presumption of innocence doesn't pay the lawyer nor does it show up in court.

For intent and purpose, these are the same thing. Different laws, same thing.

The big difference is that in one case, you have to be proven guilty.  In the other, you don't. It's your 'stuff' that's guilty.

Here's a nice lefty explanation

 

Share this post


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

The big difference is that in one case, you have to commit a crime.  In the other, you don't. 

No, in neither case do you have to commit a crime. You've only legally committed a crime when a court has determined that. Until then you have the presumption of innocence. However, the point of a civil asset forfeiture is that it essentially diminishes that presumption of innocence. That's the same with a speed trap. These are the same.

24 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Ya I know, but depriving whole groups of their freedom, imprispning them for profit, saddling them with a record and a hit to their credit score, causing them to lose their possessions, kids...

a speeding trap isn’t inhumane. This pattern of for-profit incarceration is.

A $500 speeding ticket is debilitating to a working class family. It can set in motion a spiral to incarceration having absolutely nothing to do with a crime.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-st-louis-woman-did-days-in-jail-for-speeding/article_3aca26a5-dca7-5103-8b0e-0fd1b6179b82.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Of course it is, but it's not the same thing.  If I get pulled over for suspected DUI, they will impound my car.  If I successfully have the charges dismissed, I will get it back.  Ergo, it's not been forfeited.

That is after you pay the impound, towing, storage, processing, and release fees... 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The big difference is that in one case, you have to be proven guilty.  In the other, you don't. It's your 'stuff' that's guilty. 

The difference between guilty people and guilty property is only important to libertarians who don't understand this issue nor the importance of gossip about people who do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Looks like Tom's been holding the winning position all along and you can't stand that.  Eh?

 

I posted repeatedly about this topic in a thread about this topic, with no gossip at all. It's pretty deplorable behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

No, in neither case do you have to commit a crime. You've only legally committed a crime when a court has determined that. Until then you have the presumption of innocence. However, the point of a civil asset forfeiture is that it essentially diminishes that presumption of innocence. That's the same with a speed trap. These are the same.

A $500 speeding ticket is debilitating to a working class family. It can set in motion a spiral to incarceration having absolutely nothing to do with a crime.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-st-louis-woman-did-days-in-jail-for-speeding/article_3aca26a5-dca7-5103-8b0e-0fd1b6179b82.html

Presumption of innocence is nice but you can very well have committed a crime even if not convicted of one.

 

Share this post


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

Presumption of innocence is nice but you can very well have committed a crime even if not convicted of one.

Oh boy... Dog is going to hate you for that one. :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Looks like Tom's been holding the winning position all along and you can't stand that.  Eh?

Yeah, that must be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see the subject matter of civil asset forfeiture is, as I thought, interesting to quite a few people. And, it would appear, that they all seem to agree that it's been used beyond reasonable limits and agree with the SCOTUS decision to rein it in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's abused here too, with no end in sight.

Share this post


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

No, in neither case do you have to commit a crime. You've only legally committed a crime when a court has determined that. Until then you have the presumption of innocence. However, the point of a civil asset forfeiture is that it essentially diminishes that presumption of innocence. That's the same with a speed trap. These are the same. 

A $500 speeding ticket is debilitating to a working class family. It can set in motion a spiral to incarceration having absolutely nothing to do with a crime.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-st-louis-woman-did-days-in-jail-for-speeding/article_3aca26a5-dca7-5103-8b0e-0fd1b6179b82.html

This is why lefties are bad at reining in government abuse: misunderstanding the nature of it. Of course, a person who looks at this thread and sees Trump cheerleading is not likely to understand much of anything.

Speeding is a crime. The fine is a punishment.

In the topic case, the argument was made that the forfeiture was not any kind of punishment directed at Timbs.

That kind of argument isn't made in a speeding case because the fine IS a punishment for a crime and everyone knows it.

It just took a bunch of libertarians to make the world admit that taking his car IS punishing Mr. Timbs and admit that the fancy big government fiction that no one was being punished because "guilty" property was being claimed by the rightful owner, the state, is just that: fiction.

It takes people who understand what is happening to make a case like this come to SCOTUS, which is why libertarians are the only ones who manage it.

1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's good to see the subject matter of civil asset forfeiture is, as I thought, interesting to quite a few people. And, it would appear, that they all seem to agree that it's been used beyond reasonable limits and agree with the SCOTUS decision to rein it in. 

You're welcome.

Amazing that no one figured out to start a thread or post on the topic in the past several years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nacradriver said:
18 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Of course it is, but it's not the same thing.  If I get pulled over for suspected DUI, they will impound my car.  If I successfully have the charges dismissed, I will get it back.  Ergo, it's not been forfeited.

That is after you pay the impound, towing, storage, processing, and release fees... 

I never said it was cheap to get it back.  But at least there is a mechanism to do so.  In civil asset forfeiture, there seems no real avenue to get your house back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites