Jump to content

FAIR Act to Reform Asset Seizure Laws


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 666
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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.

Not this one.

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 b

Posted Images

6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

That seems a bit of a silly place to find out the truth.  Hopefully you don't go to the Charles Schwab website to find out how many times they've been sanctioned by the SEC

So this doesn't reveal anything about their finances?

Quote

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.

I think it reflects pretty well on them.

How many Supreme Court victories do you have under your belt anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I don't pay attention to the ad hominem stuff or your folksy characterizations.  Is the IJ still part of the Koch portfolio?

Do you have some evidence that IJ was once "part of the Koch portfolio?"

What does that have to do with asset forfeiture or the Serrano case? Seems more related to the messenger than the message but I know you don't pay attention to that stuff so I'm left searching for the connection to the issue of asset forfeiture. Unfortunately, my feeble, non-legal mind can't figure it out. Please help.

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

Do you have some evidence that IJ was once "part of the Koch portfolio?"

What does that have to do with asset forfeiture or the Serrano case? Seems more related to the messenger than the message but I know you don't pay attention to that stuff so I'm left searching for the connection to the issue of asset forfeiture. Unfortunately, my feeble, non-legal mind can't figure it out. Please help.

Consider the messenger. Your elk have a way of gaming the SC, and a nifty way of gaming the Fourteenth Amendment without even blinking.

20 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

  Is the IJ still part of the Koch portfolio?

Well, yes.

--The Institute for Justice has three founders, and one is Chip Mellor. Tobacco dishonesty at the corporate level made him what he is. He tweaks laws to benefit religious schooling. He supports regressive voter districting.

--Donald Trump put IJ founder #2 Clint Bolick on the higher court of AZ. Bolick has no judicial experience or background.  Bollick is the former vice president of litigation at the Goldwater Institute  Bolick has a background acting against affirmative action.

--The Independence Institute " has David Kopel as "Research Director." He has been paid $180K/yr by the NRA for ten years. The "Independence Institute " gets big money from Coors, and has many ties to CATO.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dogballs.   I've found the intellectual trail behind your "Institute for Justice." It's the same crowd as "The Federalist Society." I am a regular Sherlock Holmes type, you see.  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/supreme-court-conservative-republicans.html.

 

And one of these clowns progressed to the founding Media Matters. Let's party away with David Brock, just like we did in our college days.

 

Quote

Call it Kavanaugh's cabal:

  • There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  • Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence;
  • House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress.
  • Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with
  • Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and
  • internet provocateur Matt Drudge.

 

At one time or another, each of them partied at my (David Brock's) Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

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

Do you have some evidence that IJ was once "part of the Koch portfolio?"

What does that have to do with asset forfeiture or the Serrano case? Seems more related to the messenger than the message but I know you don't pay attention to that stuff so I'm left searching for the connection to the issue of asset forfeiture. Unfortunately, my feeble, non-legal mind can't figure it out. Please help.

Inquiring into the source of funding of a particular message is never ad hominem.  I think you would agree that it is particularly dumb to evaluate a message without evaluating who paid for it.  That's our discussion about commercial speech regulation. 

Turns out IJ was founded entirely with Koch money and continues to have a majority of its operating expenses paid for by Koch.  Because IJ's funding is material to their motivation, it has a strong impact on their credibility or what constitutes 'justice' to them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Turns out IJ was founded entirely with Koch money and continues to have a majority of its operating expenses paid for by Koch.  Because IJ's funding is material to their motivation, it has a strong impact on their credibility or what constitutes 'justice' to them.  

I still don't see your source. "Turns out" isn't one.

But assuming you're right, what do we now know about their credibility in the Timbs case or the Serrano case, for examples?

I'd say that at least in the Timbs case, every SCOTUS justice found them credible, hence the unanimous result in favor of their client.

But maybe my partisan blinders have the best of me and they were actually lying scumbags in that case. Can you enlighten me on whether that's the case? I mean after sourcing your claim, of course. And maybe mentioning your record in front of SCOTUS so we can compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I still don't see your source. "Turns out" isn't one.

But assuming you're right, what do we now know about their credibility in the Timbs case or the Serrano case, for examples?

I'd say that at least in the Timbs case, every SCOTUS justice found them credible, hence the unanimous result in favor of their client.

But maybe my partisan blinders have the best of me and they were actually lying scumbags in that case. Can you enlighten me on whether that's the case? I mean after sourcing your claim, of course. And maybe mentioning your record in front of SCOTUS so we can compare.

Not gonna bother, they tout the source themselves, it's no mystery.

As you likely know, often the most important party in a SCOTUS case is the firm who prepared the losing appeal.   You have evidence of SCOTUS's evaluation of the orgs credibility beyond 'they won?' 

I'll share my record with you after you share yours.  Same amount of relevance.

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

Donald Trump put IJ founder #2 Clint Bolick on the higher court of AZ.

Oh dear, someone got named (by the governor of AZ, not the president) to the AZ Supreme Court. Obviously the 1st time in history that happened.

11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Bolick has no judicial experience or background.

Oh dear, that must be completely unheard of.

Oh, wait, he isn't even the only one _on_ the AZ Supreme Court with that "jocal disqualifier"

https://www.azcourts.gov/meetthejustices

I can't seem to find your posts about the confirmation of Justice Kagan, Joe? Or is this just more situational outrage?

 

 

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

AnOh dear, someone got named (by the governor of AZ, not the president) to the AZ Supreme Court. Obviously the 1st time in history that happened.

Oh dear, that must be completely unheard of.

Oh, wait, he isn't even the only one _on_ the AZ Supreme Court with that "jocal disqualifier"

https://www.azcourts.gov/meetthejustices

I can't seem to find your posts about the confirmation of Justice Kagan, Joe? Or is this just more situational outrage?

 

NOW YOU KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY. THIS IS PAUL HARVEY, GOOD DAY

You are just a youngster, bpm. Here. with Arizona, you touch on fascinating territory, and by that I mean the John Birch Society. I discovered them on the radio in the fifties...

  •  The "John Birchers" held a snake pit of snarling Jim Crow policy in the early sixties.
  • Goldwater was their standard bearer, shirley
  • And JFK was their demise. It wasn't pretty in matterz of race or guns.
  • They went ballistic over Frank Sinatra and  Billy Jack's GCA '68.
  • This AZ crowd was the new Harlon Carter faction of the NRA, and Charlton Heston was their mellow water boy by 1977.
  • David Hardy, credited with the first individua gun rights treatise in 1974, was from AZ (He spun the Federalist #26 &49 IIRC)
  • A key female lawyer for the NRA did biz with Hardy in AZ in that timeframe.
  • AZ holds a vortex of ultra-conservative gun confusion, and Fast and Furious is just a tip of the iceberg of confusion
  • AZ was bad long before Boothy ever got there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I still don't see your source. "Turns out" isn't one.

(…)

 Can you enlighten me on whether that's the case? I mean after sourcing your claim, of course.

 

 

Google>Institute for Justice>Koch Brothers. Top of the page, without further clicking:

Quote

According to a statement on IJ's website, "Charles Koch provided the initial seed funding that made it possible to launch the Institute (for Justice) in 1991. David Koch has been a generous benefactor each year of IJ’s first decade.\"Since its founding, IJ has received donations from a number of groups with links to the Koch brothers, including a donation of $15,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2001 and two donations of $250,000 each from the David H. Koch Foundation in 1999 and 2001. IJ also rece...

 

Good discussion. Whoah check out the cheap shot what a nasty little man

Quote

(Tom to Clean) And maybe mentioning your record in front of SCOTUS so we can compare.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

As you likely know, often the most important party in a SCOTUS case is the firm who prepared the losing appeal. 

Well, OK, what does the funding in the past say about the credibility of the losing side?

Your comment really doesn't answer my question above:

What do we now know about their credibility in the Timbs case or the Serrano case, for examples?

Is the Koch funding in the past something that bolsters or undermines their credibility on this issue?

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

Well, OK, what does the funding in the past say about the credibility of the losing side?

 Your comment really doesn't answer my question above:

What do we now know about their credibility in the Timbs case or the Serrano case, for examples?

Is the Koch funding in the past something that bolsters or undermines their credibility on this issue?

 For me a particular case doesn't have much to say about the credibility or motivation of an organization.   I believe that any organization funded entirely or largely by for-profit enterprises is suspect. If they need those funds to survive, they cannot be trusted because, well, they need the funds to survive.   For me, this is true regardless of the organization's stated goals or Mission Statement, and regardless of whether the organization has progressive or conservative goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 For me a particular case doesn't have much to say about the credibility or motivation of an organization.   I believe that any organization funded entirely or largely by for-profit enterprises is suspect. If they need those funds to survive, they cannot be trusted because, well, they need the funds to survive.   For me, this is true regardless of the organization's stated goals or Mission Statement, and regardless of whether the organization has progressive or conservative goals.

Well, OK, is there some evidence beyond the checks written decades ago that IJ has been dishonest, disreputable, legally wrong, or anything else bad on the subject of asset forfeiture? What do you suspect, exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to report there's another Koch $pon$ored assault on the American way of life.

Here's a Koch-$pon$ored report about it, which is likely not correct due to the funding source. Sorry again.

Class-Action Lawsuit Challenges Detroit's Asset Forfeiture Racket
 

Quote

 

Police twice seized 50-year-old Detroit resident Melisa Ingram's car for alleged crimes she was never suspected of committing. In fact, no one was charged with a crime at all. Nevertheless, the local prosecutor demanded Ingram pay thousands of dollars to get her vehicle back, or else the county would keep it under civil asset forfeiture laws.

Ingram is now a lead plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday against Wayne County, Michigan—which includes Detroit—by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-nutjob public interest law firm. The suit claims that the county seizes cars "simply because they are driven into, or out of, an area subjectively known for having some generalized association with crime," and that the county forces owners through a months-long, onerous process to challenge a seizure, violating their Fourth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment rights.

...

 

Obviously, cops need to seize things and these non-credible nutjobs are exhibiting typical libertarian fantasyland thinking in advocating that property owners keep their property.

(Trying to fit in a bit better around here. How am I doing?)

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

 

(Trying to fit in a bit better around here. How am I doing?)

Pretty well, Tom, all things considered.. No race-baiting for a few days. Good doggie.

Quote

Introducing THE DYLANN ROOF OLYMPICS four years of Dylann games, with our host Tom "dogballs" Ray

 let's go there: FULL RACE-BAITER for EIGHTY DAYS  with our host Tom "dogballs" Ray

         A Tom journey, from MLK on March 25th, to Dylan Roof June 17, 2015

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Is the Koch funding in the past something that bolsters or undermines their credibility on this issue?

:blink:

On 2/5/2020 at 2:29 PM, MR.CLEAN said:
(On 2/5/2020 at 1:30 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I still don't see your source. . "Turns out" isn't one.

Yep, The Koch Brothers are the very platform of the "Institute for Justice", and they failed with Kelo, but not with four other SC cases. 

Why did you ask Clean for the Koch sources, twice? Were you unaware of this connection, or wasting bandwidth? 

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

 

:blink:

Yep, The Koch Brothers are the very platform of the "Institute for Justice", and they failed with Kelo, but not with four other SC cases.  

Why did you ask Clean for the Koch sources, twice? Were you unaware of this connection, or wasting bandwidth? 

Because asking you would just prompt another inaaccurate post.

In the vain hope that you might learn to count and to read, I'll try again with the reality there...

On 4/23/2019 at 5:34 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
On 4/8/2019 at 6:34 AM, jocal505 said:
Quote

The IJ names its four major issues as "private property, economic liberty, free speech and school choice." It claims to have litigated almost 200 cases with a 70 percent victory rate, including four victories out of five Supreme Court cases.

Hmm..

Should be www.sourcenotpayingattention.org.

That would be 5 out of 6, for those of us who pay attention.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit Targets Nashville Courts for Treating Bail Money Like Down Payments for Fines, Fees
 

Quote

 

Criminal courts in Nashville are demanding that some defendants treat bail funds as down payments for any potential court fines and fees. Today, several civil rights groups filed a lawsuit to stop the practice, arguing it's unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Civil Rights Corps, and Nashville-based Choosing Justice Initiative are suing the criminal court of Davidson County, Tennessee, in federal court. They filed suit on behalf of a community bail fund and they are asking the court to rule that these garnishment demands are violations of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines and fees, as well as the 14th Amendment's right to due process.

...

 

I'm happy as usual to see ACLU Inc exercise its corporate first amendment right to express itself by filing civil rights lawsuits.

They'll likely find the Timbs case to be useful precedent, since the applicability of the 8th amendment to state and local governments was a question prior to that case.

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

Sorry to report there's another Koch $pon$ored assault on the American way of life.

Here's a Koch-$pon$ored report about it, which is likely not correct due to the funding source. Sorry again.

Class-Action Lawsuit Challenges Detroit's Asset Forfeiture Racket
 

Obviously, cops need to seize things and these non-credible nutjobs are exhibiting typical libertarian fantasyland thinking in advocating that property owners keep their property.

(Trying to fit in a bit better around here. How am I doing?)

 

 

If you're going to lie and mischaracterize, I'm done with this discussion.

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


 

I'm happy as usual to see ACLU Inc exercise its corporate first amendment right to express itself by filing civil rights lawsuits.

 

you're mixing up laws again.

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

Because asking you would just prompt another inaaccurate post.

In the vain hope that you might learn to count and to read, I'll try again with the reality there...

 

So much dancing around.

You failed to answer the question. Why did you ask Clean, twice, to source the connection between the  Kochs and the "Institute for Justice"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:
15 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Sorry to report there's another Koch $pon$ored assault on the American way of life.

Here's a Koch-$pon$ored report about it, which is likely not correct due to the funding source. Sorry again.

Class-Action Lawsuit Challenges Detroit's Asset Forfeiture Racket
 

Obviously, cops need to seize things and these non-credible nutjobs are exhibiting typical libertarian fantasyland thinking in advocating that property owners keep their property.

(Trying to fit in a bit better around here. How am I doing?)

 

 

If you're going to lie and mischaracterize, I'm done with this discussion. 

OK I will keep that in mind if I ever start doing those things.

Can you explain for me why libertarians are wrong on the issue of asset forfeiture or not? "They took money from someone I don't like" isn't an answer to that question, at least to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:


 

I'm happy as usual to see ACLU Inc exercise its corporate first amendment right to express itself by filing civil rights lawsuits.

 

you're mixing up laws again.

I am? They don't have a corporate first amendment right, recognized in NAACP v Button, to express themselves politically by filing civil rights lawsuits?

I'm pretty sure they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

why libertarians are wrong on the issue of asset forfeiture

The moment you cite a single place I wrote that, I'll be happy to explain. In lieu of such a site, I'll wait for an apology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:
8 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

why libertarians are wrong on the issue of asset forfeiture

The moment you cite a single place I wrote that, I'll be happy to explain. In lieu of such a site, I'll wait for an apology.

Sorry, where are libertarians not credible on the issue? You are using funding to question credibility, aren't you? OK, so let's see the non-credible things you have found.

Here's a site:

On 2/5/2020 at 12:37 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

Because IJ's funding is material to their motivation, it has a strong impact on their credibility or what constitutes 'justice' to them.  

Actually, it's a cite, but whatever.

Do you think things like getting Mr. Timbs' car back doesn't constitute "justice?" Or that seizing property without a conviction constitutes justice? Is "unjust" a synonym for "wrong" to you? Sure seemed like you might be talking about things that are wrong when you talked about what constitutes justice. If that's the case, I await my apology.

Still looking for something, anything, not credible or just about the IJ positions on asset forfeiture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you keep asking questions as though I have advocated any position here besides my belief that CAF should be illegal and every dime returned to the people it was stolen from.

My view on the credibility of industry-funded advocacy does not have any impact on my view of the law, and nothing the IJ ever wrote ever impacted my view of CAF one way or another.  Are you looking for some kind of endorsement of the organization, and if so, why?

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

Sorry, where are libertarians not credible on the issue?

You asked.

On the gun issue, we sorted that, together, Big Tom. Patrick Charles sourced for us the page numbers of the finest Libertarian presentations, and I was graced to drag these positions into cuts and pastes, right here. I was NEVER challenged, except by @bpm57 (we found that Sir John Knight was a Sheriff, and that shooting practice was after church).

On the gun issue, the libertarians were dead wrong with research, and dead wrong with history. They have no creds on that one, after paying for sham history, so there's that.

Tom is a libertarian who scoffs at peer review, there's that. He mis-represents the federal ban on GVP research. He presents the fatal flaw of the MIller decision as a strength. We have that.

And Citizen's United smells bad. There's that, too.

Disturbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 2:00 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

 I believe that any organization funded entirely or largely by for-profit enterprises is suspect. If they need those funds to survive, they cannot be trusted because, well, they need the funds to survive.

 

On 2/5/2020 at 12:37 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

Turns out IJ was founded entirely with Koch money and continues to have a majority of its operating expenses paid for by Koch.  Because IJ's funding is material to their motivation, it has a strong impact on their credibility or what constitutes 'justice' to them.  

 

15 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

you keep asking questions as though I have advocated any position here besides my belief that CAF should be illegal and every dime returned to the people it was stolen from.

Actually, you have advocated a position in the above two posts. IJ "cannot be trusted" is a position. So is their credibility or what constitutes 'justice' to them.

Since I frequently cite them (mostly for lack of other activists in this area) I want to know more about what they've said or done on this issue that "cannot be trusted."

They've been active on this issue for quite some time. Surely there must be something they've said or done that is not credible on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 4:39 AM, jocal505 said:
On 2/7/2020 at 12:02 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Sorry, where are libertarians not credible on the issue?

You asked.

On the gun issue, we sorted that, together, Big Tom. Patrick Charles sourced for us the page numbers of the finest Libertarian presentations, and I was graced to drag these positions into cuts and pastes, right here. I was NEVER challenged, except by @bpm57 (we found that Sir John Knight was a Sheriff, and that shooting practice was after church).

On the gun issue, the libertarians were dead wrong with research, and dead wrong with history. They have no creds on that one, after paying for sham history, so there's that.

Tom is a libertarian who scoffs at peer review, there's that. He mis-represents the federal ban on GVP research. He presents the fatal flaw of the MIller decision as a strength. We have that.

And Citizen's United smells bad. There's that, too.

Disturbing.

Thanks for the honest response, Joe.

Summarizing: the problem with IJ's position on asset forfeiture is that our elk say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs. Pretty much the same as the problem on any other issue.

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

Thanks for the honest response, Joe.

Summarizing: the problem with IJ's position on asset forfeiture is that our elk say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs. Pretty much the same as the problem on any other issue.

Cut the bullshit, and the stream of nonsense. You asked why the IJ might have no creds, after twice asking for Kock affiliations, like a dummy. The IJ is a tea party delivery vehicle.

And shove "Team D" up your ass.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2020 at 5:35 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Thanks for the honest response, Joe.

Summarizing: the problem with IJ's position on asset forfeiture is that our elk say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs. Pretty much the same as the problem on any other issue.

Summarizing: Tom's problem with criticism of the IJ is that Tom thinks money should always be able to purchase power with no repercussions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Summarizing: Tom's problem with criticism of the IJ is that Tom thinks money should always be able to purchase power with no repercussions.

Odd that you can make all sorts of claims about what others think, yet seem to be unable to answer a straightforward question about your particular issues about IJ.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 4:39 AM, jocal505 said:

we found that Sir John Knight was a Sheriff

We did? I seem to recall that your sources said nothing of the sort, you just started calling him a sheriff.

Making shit up seems to be common when you stop directly quoting and instead start trying to give a condensed version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 11:39 PM, jocal505 said:

 

NOW YOU KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY. THIS IS PAUL HARVEY, GOOD DAY

You are just a youngster, bpm. Here. with Arizona, you touch on fascinating territory, and by that I mean the John Birch Society. I discovered them on the radio in the fifties...

So more off topic blah, blah, blah from Joe. Imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

So more off topic blah, blah, blah from Joe. Imagine.

no he is dead on topicwith

 

  On 2/5/2020 at 11:39 PM, jocal505 said:

 

NOW YOU KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY. THIS IS PAUL HARVEY, GOOD DAY

You are just a youngster, bpm. Here. with Arizona, you touch on fascinating territory, and by that I mean the John Birch Society. I discovered them on the radio in the fifties...''

 

the birchers were funded by the bro's K daddy

the birchers were sure IKE was a commie

nut con's can't stand their own history so lie about everthing

the BIG LIE is all they have t-RUMP fits perfectly the rightwing dogma lie lie lie

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Summarizing: Tom's problem with criticism of the IJ is that Tom thinks money should always be able to purchase power with no repercussions.

Actually, my problem with your criticism of IJ on this issue is that it seems mostly baseless.

The funding source aroused your suspicion, which is fine, but that suspicion seems to have led nowhere.

They have a long record in this area and you can't name a single thing that they've said about asset forfeiture that isn't credible. Their sense of what constitutes justice on this issue seems pretty well aligned with this.

On 2/7/2020 at 2:24 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

CAF should be illegal and every dime returned to the people it was stolen from.

So

On 2/5/2020 at 12:37 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

I think you would agree that it is particularly dumb to evaluate a message without evaluating who paid for it. 

Not really, I read all kinds of publications without knowing the funding sources. I just don't see where you've evaluated the message on this issue at all. You noticed the funding source, declared that it makes the message and sense of justice wrong, and that was the end of the evaluation. I think that's a pretty foolish approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

move along, dummy.

Another empty response from our resident stoned conspiracy theorist. 

On 2/10/2020 at 1:41 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

Summarizing: Tom's problem with criticism of the IJ is that Tom thinks money should always be able to purchase power with no repercussions.

So the IJ is bad because of your opinion about Tom. Gotcha.

Yet nothing specific about IJ itself, beyond the normal whining about certain rich people donating funds to them. Funny how that same hatred never applies to orgs that Bloomberg or Soros support. 

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

Yet nothing specific about IJ itself, beyond the normal whining about certain rich people donating funds to them. Funny how that same hatred never applies to orgs that Bloomberg or Soros support. 

It never applies here, but go say something bad about the stupid drug war on Free Republic and you'll encounter the same hatred that saying bad things about gun prohibition evokes here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2020 at 2:50 PM, bpm57 said:

We did? I seem to recall that your sources said nothing of the sort, you just started calling him (Sir John Kni8ght)a sheriff.

Sir John Knight had written orders in his pocket to arrest a certain priest.

  • Those orders, from the Duke of XYZ, were produced by historian Patrick J. Charles.
  • I plugged them right into a cut-and-paste, while feeling a sense of pride and satisfaction. Read SAILING ANARCHY
  • Then I did it again for you. If you had tits I would hold your hand, buddy.
  • King James the II was pro-Catholic and he lost it, and came after Sir John Knight in court, for weapons violations
  • But Knight was found innocent, cuz Article vii, since he was a justice of the Peece… and well, he got a pat on the back from the Parliament.
  • In Heller, the Libertarians tried to use this innocent Knight verdict as case law for individual gun rights.
  • So far, the nuances are lost on DeadEye Dick. He fell for the Libertarian manipulation.

 

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

Those orders, from the Duke of XYZ, were produced by historian Patrick J. Charles.

Can't find it, feel free to cite it.

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

King James the II was pro-Catholic and he lost it, and came after Sir John Knight in court, for weapons violations

Yeah, while you are at it, feel free to cite the King becoming personally involved in the case.

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

But Knight was found innocent, cuz Article vii, since he was a justice of the Peece

Yet that was not what he argued in court. Read SAILING ANARCHY

Since you won't look: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/31/wrenn-history/

Short version: John Knight, who was supposedly "cloaked in gov't authority" - never claimed so in court. He called it "a private matter"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:
14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Those orders, from the Duke of XYZ, were produced by historian Patrick J. Charles.

Can't find it, feel free to cite it.

I object. We went through this TWICE>  go watch your goldfish something.

3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Yeah, while you are at it, feel free to cite the King becoming personally involved in the case.

I also quoted that for you, in the words of Patrick Charles, when you asked the first time. Come back with those links for further discussion. You will locate all three conversations by doing Search>Knight>jocal; then you will either gain a clue, or not.

3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Short version: John Knight, who was supposedly "cloaked in gov't authority" - never claimed so in court. He called it "a private matter"

He may have said that, which does not exclude the other, defining, evidence, and the context of his mission. Knight escaped the prosecution when letters were produced confirming his formal mission. Knight reminisced on our boards, expressing gratefulness for the recognition of his service.

It appears that Knight provided the impetus for the probable cause, so they smeared him for the investigation itself. This was a political mess based on religion. Sound familiar?

To conclude, Sir john Knight was allowed to ride about armed, not because of individual gun rights in that period, but because he was acting as the de facto Sheriff. The half-assed Libertarian law brief fib, that Knight had individual gun rights, has been exposed, by the peer-reviewed authors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 10:02 PM, jocal505 said:

He may have said that, which does not exclude the other, defining, evidence, and the context of his mission.

So feel free to cite evidence for why someone "cloaked in gov't authority" would actually claim in court that it was "a private matter"

Please cite an explanation for why someone "cloaked in gov't authority" would be required to post a bond for behaviour in the fallout of this case.

Funny how your hero avoids these questions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 8:13 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Sorry to report there's another Koch $pon$ored assault on the American way of life.

Here's a Koch-$pon$ored report about it, which is likely not correct due to the funding source. Sorry again.

Class-Action Lawsuit Challenges Detroit's Asset Forfeiture Racket

Detroit Gives In To Nutjobs
 

Quote

 

Today, after illegally seizing and holding Robert Reeves’s 1991 Chevrolet Camaro for the last seven months, Detroit police agreed to return it along with $2,280 in cash they seized from him in July 2019. He picked up the car this morning.

The police’s sudden change of heart comes on the heels of a federal class action lawsuit filed earlier this month by the Institute for Justice (IJ) on behalf of Robert and others whose cars were illegally seized by Wayne County prosecutors using a controversial practice called civil forfeiture. The lawsuit challenges the county’s use of civil forfeiture to take vehicles—often from innocent owners like Robert—and hold them ransom until the owners pay exorbitant fines.

“It shouldn’t take a federal class action lawsuit for an innocent driver to get his car out of one of Detroit’s notorious impound lots,” said Wesley Hottot, a senior nutjob at IJ. “The return of Robert’s property is too little, too late. Robert’s life was upended when he lost his car for seven months. Detroit’s car forfeiture program is fundamentally unconstitutional, and our lawsuit on behalf of Robert, Melisa Ingram and others victimized by the practice will proceed through the courts.”

 

Glad Mr. Reeves got his car back. I don't think noted heroin dealer Tyson Timbs has gotten his back yet, though, and I'm glad to see the Koch-$pon$ored nutjobs are not giving up the assault on American law enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 5:45 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

More on the case of Terrence Rolin and his daughter, Rebecca Brown, who was flying with $82k in cash.

Good news for Mr. Rolin and Ms. Brown
 

Quote

 

Terry Rolin’s life savings of $82,373 will finally be returned to him, nearly six months after it was wrongfully seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from his daughter Rebecca Brown as she traveled through Pittsburgh International Airport to her home in Boston. Without offering any apology for the harm caused by confiscating Terry’s life savings for six months, the DEA informed the Institute for Justice (IJ) via letter that: “After further review, a decision has been made to return the property.”

In January, Terry and Rebecca teamed up with IJ to file a lawsuit against the DEA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) seeking return of the money and an end to the agencies’ unconstitutional and unlawful practice of seizing cash from air travelers without probable cause.  Because Terry and Rebecca’s suit includes class action claims and an individual claim for damages against the DEA agent who wrongly seized the money, it will continue to be litigated in federal court.

...

 

It's too bad that they couldn't find credible legal representation, but at least the result was good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that lawsuit will continue and hope for more good news.
 

Quote

 

..."I'm grateful that my father's life savings will soon be returned, but the money never should have been taken in the first place. I can't believe they're not even offering an apology for the stress and pain they caused for my family," Brown said in a press release today. "Without this money, my father was forced to put off necessary dental work—causing him serious pain for several months—and could not make critical repairs to his truck."

...

In 2016, a USA Today investigation found the DEA seized more than $209 million from at least 5,200 travelers in 15 major airports over the previous decade.

A 2017 report by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General found that the DEA seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of drug activity over the previous decade, but $3.2 billion of those seizures were never connected to any criminal charges.

The report reviewed 100 cash seizures and found that only 44 of those were connected to or advanced a criminal investigation. The majority of seizures occurred in airports, train stations, and bus terminals, where the DEA regularly snoops on travel records and maintains a network of travel industry employees who act as confidential informants.

"When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution," the Inspector General warned.

That warning has not been heeded, and Brown and the Institute for Justice plan to continue pursuing their lawsuit.

"The government shouldn't be able to take money for no reason, hang on to it for months, and then give it back like nothing happened, which is why the lawsuit we filed will continue," Brown said. "No one should be forced to go through this nightmare."

 

An apology would be nice, but repayment with penalties and interest would be even better.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wyoming Supreme Court: State Must Return Over $470,000 To Driver Who Was Never Charged With A Crime

Speaking of looters who should have to pay penalties and interest...
 

Quote

 

Wyoming violated an innocent motorist’s constitutional rights when it seized nearly half a million dollars from him and then “unreasonably delayed filing” a civil forfeiture lawsuit against his cash, the state’s supreme court ruled on Tuesday. By taking nine months to file, “the state’s delay in instituting proceedings violated his due process rights under the United States Constitution,” Justice Lynne Boomgaarden wrote for a unanimous court. Such a lengthy delay, coupled with the lack of judicial oversight, increased “the risk that the seizure was an arbitrary encroachment on his property right,” Boomgaarden added.

The Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision caps a six-year-long legal battle Robert Miller waged to win back $470,040 he lost during a highway traffic stop.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 10:56 AM, bpm57 said:

So feel free to cite evidence for why someone "cloaked in gov't authority" would actually claim in court that it was "a private matter"

How would I know? This is your angle, and it's an interesting one, from one of your sources. You should develop it, not me.

Quote

Please cite an explanation for why someone "cloaked in gov't authority" would be required to post a bond for behaviour in the fallout of this case.

I already did that for you, on Oct. 30th,  and dogballs challenged it (until he slinked away without further comment). @Plenipotentiary Tom

The FACT is that surety bonds were issued for gun carriage throughout five centuries for the officials who had to pack in Engkand.

Quote

Funny how your hero avoids these questions.

He doesn't. Rather, you reek of ignorance, and you could just read SAILING ANARCHY instead. Patrick Charles and I both took the effort to explain this to you.

Quote

P 9, footnote 3      Patrick Charles Does NY

 The surety process originally developed out of Anglo-Saxon practice as a means to enforce the king’s peace. David Feldman, The King’s Peace, the Royal Prerogative and Public Order: The Roots and Early Development of Binding over Powers, 47 Cambridge L.J. 101, 111-12 (1988). In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the Anglo-Saxon surety process was updated and codified in several statutes. Id. at 111-26. From the fourteenth century through the early nineteenth century, the surety process remained a staple of Anglo-American law. See, e.g., 4 ST. GEORGE TUCKER, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES 251-56

 and accompanying notes (1803)…

 

 One of the key functions of the surety process was preventing public affrays, assaults, and injuries. As it pertained to the precautionary carrying of dangerous weapons in public places, the surety process required individuals to first seek sureties with a constable, justice of the peace, or other official before being permitted to do so. See, e.g., 1 HAWKINS, supra, at 158, ch. 65, § 10 (providing that “an Assembly of a Man’s Friends for the Defence of his person, against those who threaten to beat him if he go to such a Market is unlawful…

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles%20Brief.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden's Leadership On Asset Forfeiture

Back in the early 80's, that pesky requirement of a conviction prior to seizure and some other issues were plaguing law enforcement authorities who wanted to seize property. Demonstrating a sense of what constitutes "justice" that is the direct opposite of nutjob libertarians, and so must be good, a young Joe Biden, joined by other helpful leaders like Bill Weld and Ed Meese, set about fixing those problems.

Quote

 

...

Meese, Weld, and everyone else seemed to agree that forfeiture laws didn’t go nearly far enough. By requiring an indictment, the government still had to meet some standard of reasonable guilt before seizing property, which allowed far too many criminals that law enforcement knew to be guilty (but couldn’t build a case against) to keep their ill-gotten gains.

To take things further, the Justice Department argued that law enforcement should be allowed to take “substitute” property; they knew they wouldn’t be able to take everything that was paid for with drug money, so it stood to reason that they should be able to take legally acquired assets of equal value (however that was determined). And finally, with real estate off limits, the government was unable to seize marijuana farms, drug warehouses, and criminal homes.

Enter New Legislation

The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act fixed all of these problems. The new bill was introduced by Senator Joe Biden in 1983 and it was signed into law the next year. With this law, federal agents had nearly unlimited powers to seize assets from private citizens. Now the government only needed to find a way to let local and state police join the party.

This came with the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act. In addition to a slew of new powers for prosecutors, the burden of proof for asset seizure was lowered once again (agents had to only believe that what they were seizing was equal in value to money believed to have been purchased from drug sales). More significantly, the bill started the “equitable sharing” program that allowed local and state law enforcement to retain up to 80 percent of the assets seized.

...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

young Joe Biden, joined by other helpful leaders like Bill Weld and Ed Meese

 

and of course they did it by voice vote so we only know who were the co-sponsors but not who voted for it.

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-03-07 at 4.42.11 PM.png

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

He doesn't. Rather, you reek of ignorance, and you could just read SAILING ANARCHY instead. Patrick Charles and I both took the effort to explain this to you.

Oddly enough, your "he was a sheriff" didn't need one until _after_ the case, Joe. It is truly amazing how you claim to read this stuff yet don't seem to notice that.

Then again, the only person making the "he was a sheriff" claim seems to be you.

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

How would I know? This is your angle, and it's an interesting one, from one of your sources. You should develop it, not me.

Develop what, Joe? The fact is - the person you keep claiming was "cloaked in gov't authority" did not defend himself in court by saying "I was working for the gov't", he said "it was a private affair" Why would someone avoid making a slam dunk defense? It wasn't like he was some secret agent.

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

Then again, the only person making the "he was a sheriff" claim seems to be you.

You have haggled and squirmed about this, miserably, for a few years. Justice of the Peace works for me, or de facto Sheriff works for me...but I would love to hear Knight's job description from you. I would like you to lay out your version of what happened with Knight. Here's my best understanding.

 

Sir John Knight, the loyall, somehow knew of unspecified misbehavior by a certain priest. Knight provided evidence of the alleged mis-behavior to an official, and was granted the authority and paperwork to arrest the priest. Riding forth with armed entourage, with written orders, Knight arrested the priest at a known location of scheduled religiousservices. The priest was a Catholic, and the arrest came to the attention of King James II. Knight was formally prosecuted for the commotion, and for weapons violations, but was found innocent.

Knight came through with flying colors, when it was demonstrated that Knight was a landed Protestant (ahem, therefore covered by Joyce Lee Malcom's own Article VII, as featured in Heller) acting under the law, to enforce the law. Since the local official and Knight had the backing of the Duke, it was case closed. To tidy up the matter near the end of this affair, Knight took out a surety bond upon request. 

Any corrections would be delightful, if sourced. If you want me to fill in the name of the official, and the name of the Duke of XYZ, I'll just come back and do it for you. If you want to point out that the Duke was actually an Earl...I will be proven wrong once more. 

 

You must be a Malcolm man. Joyce Lee Malcolm came across this story, and went full hyperbolic. She spun the innocent verdict itself, maintaining that Sir John Knight had individual gun rights, therefore all of England had individual gun rights at that time. As demonstrated, both these conclusions are bogus. It was disinformation, DeadEye, and she never corrected it.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

and of course they did it by voice vote so we only know who were the co-sponsors but not who voted for it.

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-03-07 at 4.42.11 PM.png

Looks like they achieved blessed bipartisan unity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You have haggled and squirmed about this, miserably, for a few years. Justice of the Peace works for me, or de facto Sheriff works for me...but I would love to hear Knight's job description from you. I would like you to lay out your version of what happened with Knight. Here's my best understanding.

As is normal, followed by a nominal quote that google can't find. Imagine.

In any event, Joe, do continue to ignore what little exists of the court record. It has been linked before, and we all know how often you read things like court opinions or anything that is contrary to what your approved lawyers write.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 8:18 AM, bpm57 said:

As is normal, followed by a nominal quote that google can't find. Imagine.

All these facts were published in, and can be found within, SAILING ANARCHY. You missed the details, and you missed the drift. Show me your sailing trophies.

 

On 3/8/2020 at 8:18 AM, bpm57 said:

In any event, Joe...

No way. The event we are waiting for is for you to tell us the story of Sir John Knight. Be rich in detail, in conclusion, and in source for us.

On 3/8/2020 at 8:18 AM, bpm57 said:

It has been linked beforeFU

We either want your version of whatever, with a source, or we want you to STFU about armed, rich Protestants out and about, enforcing the law, per Article VII.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... posts 477 and 485 linked to articles about the Salgado case, but only from Koch-$pon$ored nutjobs, so nothing credible.

Now the Miami Herald has taken an interest.
 

Quote

 

...

It would take two years for Salgado to recover her money from the DEA, which did not arrest her husband because agents discovered he had not been selling drugs after all. The lead DEA agent admitted in a court deposition that there was no evidence supporting the allegation.

However, there was a catch: Before a critical ruling in the civil forfeiture dispute with Salgado, Justice Department lawyers on their own decided to return her money. But at the same time, they argued that Salgado had not really won because a judge granted the feds the right to refile their civil case in the future — even though they probably had no intention of doing so. As a result, the government argued it did not have to pay her attorney’s fees, which she said amounted to $5,000.

Now, Salgado is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to make her whole for the misguided May 11, 2015, raid on her home, arguing that a forfeiture law allows victims of wrongful money seizures to recover attorney’s fees in addition to their actual losses from the government. The outcome of a petition brought by the 57-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Colombia could affect thousands of people nationwide whose money is seized by federal agencies without criminal charges ever being filed against them.

“This is a game that the Justice Department plays — it’s a war of attrition,” said nutjob Justin Pearson with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which is representing Salgado free of charge. “This is a cash grab by the government to take money away from people who don’t have the ability to fight back.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in April whether to hear Salgado’s petition. After the solicitor general for the Trump administration signaled that he was not going to respond to her claim, the high court ordered his office to do so. In a recent filing, Solicitor General Noel Francisco asserts that Salgado had not “substantially prevailed” against the government, reasoning that when the feds returned her money, they did not lose the right to refile their civil forfeiture case and therefore did not owe her attorney’s fees.

...

The scotusblog page has the case docs so far, including three amicus briefs that have already come in.

Salgado v. United States

Quote

Issues: (1) Under what circumstances a civil forfeiture claimant “substantially prevail” under 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1); and (2) whether, in civil forfeiture lawsuits, when a district court has ordered the United States to return the seized money and the lawsuit will never be refiled, it is an abuse of discretion for the dismissal to be without prejudice.

The 11th Circuit opinion being challenged said:

Quote

A voluntary dismissal without prejudice "renders the proceedings a nullity and leaves the parties as if the action had never been brought."

The thing about that is, if the action had never been brought, Salgado wouldn't have a $5,000 invoice from a lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

This one could also belong in the Qualified Immunity thread but...

Police stole $225k in cash and coins and the courts say OK
 

Quote

 

Seven years ago, police officers in Fresno, California, executed search warrants on the homes and business of Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian, who owned a business operating and servicing ATMs. Police were investigating a report of illegal gambling. Although neither was ever charged with a crime, police seized nearly $275,000 in rare coins the men owned and cash they used to restock their business’ ATMs. When the investigation was over, police said they’d seized only approximately $50,000 in cash; they kept the remaining cash and the coins for themselves.

Most Americans would say this was a clear-cut case of theft, but when Jessop and Ashjian sued the police, the federal courts threw out their case, citing a controversial legal doctrine called “qualified immunity.” Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear their case, and the Institute for Justice (IJ), as part of its recently launched Project on Immunity and Accountability, has filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take up the case and put an end to this dangerous doctrine once and for all.

“No one should be above the law, least of all those who are supposed to be enforcing it,” said IJ nutjob Patrick Jaicomo. “And yet, according to the federal courts, police officers who steal money from people cannot be held accountable because the courts have never ruled that it is unconstitutional for the police to steal from someone. No one really believes that theft is a reasonable seizure permitted by the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit’s decision shows how absurd qualified immunity has become.”

After the search, Jessop and Ashjian filed a lawsuit, claiming that government theft violates the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures. But both the trial court and the Ninth Circuit held that they did not need to address the issue because—even if the theft was a constitutional violation—the officers were immune under the qualified immunity doctrine.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michigan County Prosecutor Charged With Embezzling Asset Forfeiture Funds
 

Quote

 

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced Tuesday that her office had charged Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith and three other county officials with a "litany" of felony crimes for embezzling and misusing funds seized through asset forfeiture.

Smith is charged with 10 criminal counts, including embezzling, official misconduct, evidence tampering, conspiracy to commit forgery, and conducting a criminal enterprise.

The charges follow a year-long investigation that was launched after a successful public records lawsuit revealed more than $100,000 in questionable expenditures from Macomb County's asset forfeiture fund. Authorities now estimate the Smith and other officials embezzled roughly $600,000 since 2012.

According to the attorney general's office, the investigation "found that Smith and other defendants used the money to buy flowers and make-up for select secretaries, a security system for Smith's residence, garden benches for staffers' homes, country club catering for parties, campaign expenditures and more."

 

The article goes on to list several other cases involving officials looting the drug war loot. The fact that it took a public records lawsuit to bring this one to light illustrates a common reason why: no transparency nor proper accounting for the loot is required in lots of places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 7/11/2019 at 5:18 AM, Steganographic Tom said:

Mr. Ficken's case survived the obligatory motion to dismiss.
 

Quote

 

Yesterday, Jim Ficken— a Dunedin, Fl. homeowner facing $30,000 in fines and even foreclosure for letting his grass get too long—won round one in court. A judge in the Middle District of Florida denied the city’s motion to dismiss Jim’s lawsuit. Now the lawsuit, which argues the city’s imposition of $500 daily fines for trivial home maintenance issues violates the Excessive Fines clauses of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions, will proceed to final judgment.

“Nobody should incur tens of thousands of dollars in fines and risk losing their property because their grass grew too long,” IJ Nutjob Ari Bargil said. “The constitution expressly protects against fines that are excessive—and excessive is precisely what these penalties are. No one should have to pay $30,000 for tall grass. Yesterday’s decision takes us one step closer to vindicating Jim’s constitutional rights in court.”

...

 

It's too bad he could not find credible representation but I hope he wins his case.
 

Quote

 

All told, Dunedin told Jim he owed the city $30,000 in fines. But $30,000 is a significant amount of money for Jim, and because he did not pay it, the city voted to foreclose on his home.

“When I found out how much Dunedin said I owed in fines, I was stunned,” said Jim. “They never even told me that I was going to be fined until I already owed them almost $30,000. I’m willing to pay a fine for violating the ordinance, but the punishment should fit the offense.”

 

Unkempt properties affect the value of neighboring properties so rules involving penalties to protect those neighboring properties are reasonable. $500 per day and foreclosure are excessive penalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 5:59 AM, Steganographic Tom said:

Anyone remember noted heroin dealer Tyson Timbs?

Yeah, he still has not gotten his car back, but he did come a step closer last week.

14 Months After U.S. Supreme Court Victory, Tyson Timbs Wins Civil Forfeiture Case
 

Quote

 

...

Yesterday, April 27, 2020, Judge Jeffrey D. Todd, of the Grant County Superior Court, ruled in Tyson’s favor, holding that forfeiting Tyson’s $35,000 Land Rover violates the 8th Amendment. Having charged Tyson with a low-level drug crime—the court noted—“the State sought forfeiture of his only asset; an asset he purchased using life insurance proceeds rather than drug money, and a tool essential to maintaining employment, obtaining treatment, and reducing the likelihood that he would ever again commit another criminal offense.” That mismatch between crime and punishment meant that Tyson could prove “by a significant margin” that the forfeiture was excessive. The court’s judgment directs the State to return Tyson’s car “immediately.”

READ THE TRIAL-COURT RULING

“For years, this case has been important not just for me, but for thousands of people who are caught up in forfeiture lawsuits,” said Tyson. “To me, the State’s refusal to give back my car has never made sense; if they’re trying to rehabilitate me and help me help myself, why do you want to make things harder by taking away the vehicle I need to meet with my parole officer or go to a drug recovery program or go to work? Forfeiture only makes it more challenging for people in my position to clean up and be contributing members of society.”

“As the court correctly recognized, the State’s campaign to take Tyson’s car is just the sort of abusive forfeiture that the Excessive Fines Clause is designed to curtail,” said Sam Gedge, a nutjob for the Institute for Justice (IJ), which represents Tyson. “The State of Indiana has spent over a half-decade trying to confiscate a vehicle from a low-income recovering addict. No one should have to spend seven years fighting the government just to get back their car, and we look forward to the Indiana Attorney General’s restoring Tyson’s property to him without further delay.”

 

It's unfortunate that Mr. Timbs could not find credible legal representation but at least the nutjobs working for him got a unanimous SCOTUS decision and may, after a brief seven year delay, get him his car back. I think he should be paid for the depreciation that occurred during that time, any repair bills caused by 7 years of neglect, and 7 years of lease payments on such a car, but I doubt any of that will happen.

Of course, there may yet emerge an "emergency" need to keep his car due to the panicdemic. If that happens, I'll view it the way I view a lot of unrelated PANIC situations that have been brought up in "response" to the COVID 19 virus.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 4/16/2017 at 6:24 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Arizona seems to have a better Governor on this issue.

 

Quote

Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey has decided not to follow in Republican Idaho Gov. Butch Otter's footsteps and has instead made the correct choice to help protect the property rights of its citizens.

 

Ducey has just signed into law a bill that should seriously restrict the ability of law enforcement officers in Arizona to abuse the process of civil asset forfeiture as a way of generating revenue rather than fighting crime.

 

 

It's good to see that a Republican thinks he can defy the prohibition/law enforcement lobby and survive politically.

 

Also good to see that state legislatures have noticed the "Equitable Sharing" workaround and put a stop to it. G

This year's answer is Arizona:

We Can't Stop The Looting Because We Need The Money
 

Quote

 

...

when the full House voted on Thursday afternoon, all 29 Democrats, plus 8 Republicans, voted against the legislation.

The partisan politics of asset forfeiture are not exactly cut and dried. In most states where reforms have passed, many Democrats support them in order to stop police from targeting minorities and the poor; other Dems side with police and prosecutors. Conversely, some Republicans support reforms, citing the abandonment of due process and the violation of people's property rights. But again, some Republicans take the other side.

What's extremely unusual is for all the Democrats to vote against a forfeiture reform bill, especially after the same legislation passed out of the Senate unanimously. In their explanation for why they voted no, a couple of legislators said the quiet part loud: The pandemic is hurting government budgets, and they don't want to give up the revenue.

Rep. Kirsten Engel (D–Tucson) said that she understands that asset forfeiture abuse occurs but—in the words of the Arizona Capitol Times—"she could not support such a change without also finding a way to ensure that counties have the money they need. She said the state is in no position to do that now, partly because it already has adopted a budget for the coming fiscal year and partly because the COVID-19 pandemic is going to slash anticipated state revenues by $1 billion or more." In other words, she wants to use civil forfeiture to finance police departments even if it means the disadvantaged get the blunt end of the stick.

Another lawmaker, Diego Rodriguez (D–Phoenix), said that the money from asset forfeiture proceedings also helps fund public defenders, so cutting that financial stream might cause county supervisors to cut funding for those offices. Paul Avelar, managing nutjob for the Institute for Justice's Arizona office, tells Reason that asset forfeiture money does not, in fact, pay for public defenders in Arizona. Indeed, regulations around forfeiture funds actually prohibit the money from going to anybody but law enforcement.

...

 

Engel did later figure out that her "we can't stop looting because we need the money" line wasn't politically popular and went back to the usual (and false) justifications.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2020 at 5:58 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

14 Months After U.S. Supreme Court Victory, Tyson Timbs Wins Civil Forfeiture Case
 

It's unfortunate that Mr. Timbs could not find credible legal representation but at least the nutjobs working for him got a unanimous SCOTUS decision and may, after a brief seven year delay, get him his car back. I think he should be paid for the depreciation that occurred during that time, any repair bills caused by 7 years of neglect, and 7 years of lease payments on such a car, but I doubt any of that will happen.

Of course, there may yet emerge an "emergency" need to keep his car due to the panicdemic. If that happens, I'll view it the way I view a lot of unrelated PANIC situations that have been brought up in "response" to the COVID 19 virus.

Looks like no suitable "emergency" could be conjured up and noted heroin dealer Tyson Timbs finally got his car back.

tyson-timbs-1200x675.jpg
 

Quote

 

...

Although the Indiana Attorney General is still appealing Timbs' case at the Indiana Supreme Court—the third time the court has been asked to consider the tangled case of Timbs' SUV—his car has been returned for the moment, according to the Institute for Justice, a nutjob-leaning public interest law firm that represents Timbs and has challenged forfeiture laws in several states. 

"For years, this case has been important not just for me, but for thousands of people who are caught up in forfeiture lawsuits," Tyson said in a press release. "To me, the State's refusal to give back my car has never made sense; if they're trying to rehabilitate me and help me help myself, why do you want to make things harder by taking away the vehicle I need to meet with my parole officer or go to a drug recovery program or go to work? Forfeiture only makes it more challenging for people in my position to clean up and be contributing members of society."

Last February, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Eighth Amendment and its protections against excessive fines and fees applied to states. "For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the Court's opinion. The ruling opened up a new avenue for plaintiffs like Timbs trying to challenge asset forfeiture in court.

The Supreme Court, however, did not rule on what constituted an "excessive" fine. It kicked that question back to the Indiana Supreme Court, which created a three-prong test last October to determine when a government fine or seizure is disproportionate to the alleged offense. The Indiana Supreme Court in turn sent Timbs' case back to a state trial court to be reconsidered.

In April, an Indiana judge ruled that, under the new test, the seizure of Timbs' Land Rover—"a tool essential to maintaining employment, obtaining treatment, and reducing the likelihood that he would ever again commit another criminal offense"—was unconstitutionally excessive and ordered the vehicle returned.

The Indiana Attorney General is now appealing that decision to the state supreme court, again.

"Tyson's case has gone through every level of the American judicial system—in some instances, twice," Institute for Justice senior nutjob Wesley Hottot said in a statement. "The state's relentless use of its forfeiture machine is—and continues to be—a profoundly unjust exercise of power, and it underscores that civil forfeiture is one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today."

 

Well, at least he got it back for now. I hope the Indiana Supreme Court doesn't reverse this outcome on the coming appeal.

It would be nice if the Indiana AG were scared to pursue that appeal because of voter backlash but there are really only a handful of libertarian nutjobs in the world who have a problem with our forfeiture laws and it's not a topic that's going to generate a lot of political interest. As Eva Dent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/14/2019 at 8:31 PM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The veil of secrecy covering how Pennsylvania District Attorneys spend forfeiture loot has been lifted.

Judge Declares Lancaster District Attorney Forfeiture Records Subject to Right to Know Law Request
 

Quote

 

In a newly released decision, Lancaster County Judge Leonard Brown determined that forfeiture records being sought by reporter Carter Walker and the media group LNP are subject to a Pennsylvania Right to Know Law request.

...

Today’s ruling should also pave the way for members of the media and the public to get similar information from DAs across the Commonwealth.”

Walker filed a request for civil forfeiture records with the district attorney in September 2018 and was denied. Upon appeal, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records concluded that the records were subject to the Commonwealth’s Right to Know Law and ordered the district attorney to make them available. Rather than respect the office’s decision, District Attorney Craig Stedman appealed in court.

 

Gee, I wonder whether the spending reports will reveal why DA took the matter to court rather than comply with the open records law?

Update: Looters Gonna Loot
 

Quote

 

Who took $150,000 in cash out of a Lancaster County Drug Task Force safe? That is a question that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania will now consider after Lancaster County District Attorney Heather Adams recently revealed that the money was missing. At a press conference this week Adams stated, “This appears in every aspect to be an internal theft.” To avoid any conflict of interest, Adams asked the commonwealth AG to lead the investigation and possible prosecution.

The theft was revealed after Adams ordered a thorough review of task force accounts upon taking office earlier this year. The forfeiture and spending practices of the task force were a major issue last year after reporting by LancasterOnline revealed that former Lancaster DA Craig Stedman was using forfeiture funds from the task force to lease an SUV for his exclusive use. The newspaper documented instances where the vehicle appeared to be used for activities not related to the task force.

The questionable spending prompted LancasterOnline reporter Carter Walker to widely request records of law enforcement forfeitures and spending. While neighboring counties provided Carter with access to similar records, the DA Stedman fought against transparency. Despite a state agency ruling that Carter and the newspaper should have access under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law, DA Stedman appealed the decision in court, drawing the newspaper into a potentially expensive legal battle. Fortunately, the Institute for Justice (IJ), whose nutjobs also make similar Freedom of Information Act requests, agreed to take on the newspaper’s case pro bono.

However, eventually DA Stedman saw the writing on the wall and made most of the records available. While the records did not reveal additional questionable spending, what the records could not uncover was the fact that there was a substantial amount of cash missing from the task force safe.

Only new DA Adams’ review could force the task force to actually look into the safe and count every dollar. The missing cash was both from ongoing cases and money forfeited by court order. The theft in Lancaster is just another example of the misuse of funds taken by civil forfeiture, a process that allows law enforcement to take money and other property with a lower standard of proof and without a criminal trial.

...

 

Yes, even when the looters in question have uniforms and badges.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/20/2019 at 6:57 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Lawsuit Challenges Chicago Towing Racket After City Destroyed Disabled Woman's Van

Not exactly asset forfeiture related, but it's nutjob libertarians standing up for property rights when no one else will once again and I didn't feel like starting a new thread.
 

Different issue but I do love it when my meddlesome elk screw with looters operating under the cloak of government power.

Some good news.

Proposed Reforms of Chicago’s Impound Program Are “Strong First Step,” But More Must Be Done
 

Quote

 

...

Institute for Justice Nutjob Diana Simpson released the following statement in response to Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s proposed reforms to the impoundment program:

“The mayor’s proposed reforms are a strong first step to improving the city’s impound racket that ensnares tens of thousands of Chicagoans each year. People whose cars are towed face a bureaucratic maze and often must fork over thousands of dollars in an effort to get their cars back. The scheme violates the U.S. and Illinois constitutions in myriad ways, and it is gratifying to see the mayor introduce measures to improve the system. Her proposed ordinance extends greater innocent owner protection and reduces fines and fees, both of which are sorely needed.

“Unfortunately, her proposed ordinance does not go far enough to right the wrongs of the city’s impound scheme. It still does not fix the burdensome and confusing system that owners must traverse to get their cars back. The city still unconstitutionally ransoms people’s cars, refusing to release them until owners have paid all fines and fees that might be due—even without a judge finally determining the car was properly impounded. And the reforms do nothing to help most people who have already been victimized by the impound program, including those whose cars the city has destroyed. We hope the legislative process will address these remaining issues. Regardless, we brought our case to vindicate the rights of Chicagoans, and we will not stop until everyone is protected from having their cars unjustly impounded.”

 

Looters gonna loot, nutjobs gonna sue, and so it goes on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Chicago's Impound Racket

Quote

 

...Lightfoot's proposed ordinance would reduce impound fines and cap storage fees, end impoundments for many non-driving offenses, and add an "innocent owner" defense for those whose cars were used without their knowledge.

...

For example, Reason profiled the case of Spencer Byrd, a Chicago-area auto mechanic whose Cadillac was seized and impounded after he was pulled over by the police. Byrd was giving a customer, a man he said he'd never met before, a ride, and when police searched the passenger they discovered heroin in his pocket. Byrd was never charged with a crime, and he in fact beat a civil asset forfeiture case against his car in Illinois state court, where a judge ruled he was an innocent owner.

However, Chicago refused to release Byrd's car, which the city was simultaneously claiming under its municipal code. Byrd was forced to go through the Chicago's Byzantine impound hearing process, where an administrative law judge found he was liable for having illegal drugs in his car

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel steeply raised impound fines in 2011 as part of a larger strategy of using fines and fees to close the city's budget gaps, but Lightfoot's press release notes that revenues from the impound program actually declined after 2011. WBEZ's investigation found that the city sells impounded cars to its sole towing contractor at scrap prices—far below their actual value. Meanwhile, Chicago has become a national leader in Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings by residents, which allows those with regular incomes to develop payment plans to repay their debts.

"The evidence is clear: when cities rely on police to generate revenue through fines and fees, it's a lose-lose situation for both residents and their local government," Priya Sarathy Jones, national policy and campaigns director at the Fines and Fees Justice Center, said in a statement. "This is an important step to improve Chicago's economy and to roll back policies that result in unnecessary encounters between police and residents."

Last April, the Institute for Justice, a nutjob public interest law firm, filed a civil rights lawsuit against Chicago, alleging that the city's impound scheme violates the Illinois and U.S. Constitution's protections against excessive fines and unreasonable seizures, as well as due process protections.

Byrd is one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Two of the other plaintiffs, Jerome Davis and Veronica Walker-Davis, had their car seized by the city after they dropped it off at a mechanic, who drove it on a suspended license and was pulled over.

"I'm thinking that I'm just going to go and give a statement, show proof that my car wasn't in my possession, and everything will be okay, but in fact it turned into a last year. "I felt like I was pretty much in The Twilight Zone."

Because there is currently no innocent owner defense, the couple was found liable for fines and fees. Here's what happened next:

The couple managed to find a pro bono lawyer and negotiate their fine down to $1,170, but when they arrived with cash in hand, they were told the registration on their car had lapsed in the more than six months it had been sitting in an impound lot, and the city would not release it without a current registration.

Walker-Davis rushed the next day to get their registration renewed, which cost another $101, and got the city to agree to extend the deadline for the couple to pay their impound fines. In an email provided to Reason, a lawyer for Chicago's law department wrote to the couple: "The City will agree to extend the time for you to pay the settlement agreement to 4/12/19."

But when the couple showed up to retrieve their car on April 10, it was gone. The city had already sold it off.

 

That would be, sold it off for scrap value to a pet contractor who could then make a buck selling it for its real value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FAIR Act Is Back

Quote

Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Mike Lee (R–Utah), Mike Crapo (R–Idaho), and Angus King (I–Maine) reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act this week to significantly restrain the federal use of civil asset forfeiture, a practice that lets police and prosecutors seize and keep property they claim are associated with criminal activity.

It will probably get nowhere. A handful of Senators but without any TeamD cosponsors, I suspect for the same reason that reform in Arizona failed as noted in post 573 above. TeamD types don't want to hear about things that reduce government revenue.

Meanwhile, in TeamR,
 

Quote

 

...

Paul attempted to get this bill passed back in 2014, but it languished at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Rep. Tim Walberg (R–Mich.) has sponsored the House version, which has attracted co-sponsors from both major parties, but it has also been stuck in committee since May 2019.

This time Paul says he'll be attempting to attach the FAIR Act as an amendment to any police reform bill the Senate might consider. Unfortunately, it's not clear that the Senate will actually be considering any of them. Senate Democrats refused to support a Republican-sponsored bill organized by Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.) because it didn't go far enough for them. Meanwhile, the bill Democrats pushed through the House last night included a provision that would strip officers of qualified immunity, an idea that Senate Republicans don't want to consider.

...

 

The TeamR players don't wish to hear about any kind of law enforcement reform, especially one directed at gutting their source of drug war loot.

So following the money leads to the same old place: Duopoly powers that be will keep looting and a handful of libertarians and other nutjobs will be the only ones to object.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

South Carolina Supreme Court To Hear Looting Case
 

Quote

 

Civil forfeiture is one of the biggest threats to property rights in South Carolina. It allows law enforcement to take cash, cars, homes and other property from South Carolinians without so much as charging —let alone convicting—the owner with a crime and then profit from the proceeds. Now, the Institute for Justice (IJ)—a nutjob law firm—is representing a property owner in an ongoing forfeiture lawsuit to ask the South Carolina Supreme Court to end the controversial practice once and for all.

Last year, prosecutors seized and then tried to permanently take Travis Green’s money. The judge in that case asked both parties to address whether South Carolina’s forfeiture statutes pass muster under the federal and state constitutions. After hearing both sides, the judge ruled that those statutes violate people’s rights to due process and to be free from excessive fines. As a result, the judge concluded that officials couldn’t try to forfeit Green’s or anyone else’s money in his judicial circuit. Prosecutors quickly appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which prompted the Institute for Justice to get nutty.

...

the most pernicious aspect of South Carolina’s forfeiture system is that when police and prosecutors prevail, they get to sell the owner’s property and keep at least 95% of the proceeds for their agencies. As a report by the Institute for Justice demonstrates, the financial incentive posed by civil forfeiture lures officials away from the impartial pursuit of justice and toward policing for profit.

A recent series of articles in the Greenville News shows how, in just three years, South Carolina law enforcement agencies seized and kept more than $17 million from citizens. As the reporting by the News’ Nathaniel Cary indicates, this isn’t the result of pulling over a few kingpins: Over half of cash seizures are for less than $1,000, and one-third involve less than $500. To pull in that cash, South Carolina law enforcement agencies have organized large-scale events like “Operation Rolling Thunder,” where they give trophies to the officers who seize the most property. And those agencies have spent forfeiture proceeds in questionable ways: One sheriff spent over $11,000 to send himself, his chief deputies and their wives on an all-expenses paid trip to Reno, Nevada. Another officer decided he wanted to keep the Ford Raptor he seized as his official car, so he spent an additional $20,000 in forfeiture funds to pay off its loan.

“Recent reporting has exposed the terrible, real-world consequences of South Carolina’s forfeiture laws,” said Robert Frommer, a senior nutjob at the Institute for Justice. “The ‘eat what you kill’ financial incentive these laws create causes officials to violate people’s constitutional rights by treating them like ATMs.”

South Carolina’s forfeiture laws also undermine official accountability. The law requires that forfeiture proceeds be put into accounts dedicated exclusively to seizing and forfeiting agencies. Those agencies typically don’t have to ask anyone for permission before they spend the money in those accounts. And since agencies don’t need to report to the state how much they have spent in forfeiture proceeds, or on what, the true scale of South Carolina’s “policing for profit” problem is impossible to measure.

 

I guess the allure of Travis Green's money has blinded SC authorities to the humiliating defeat suffered by Indiana in the Timbs case. I hope they meet the same fate.

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

South Carolina Supreme Court To Hear Looting Case
 

I guess the allure of Travis Green's money has blinded SC authorities to the humiliating defeat suffered by Indiana in the Timbs case. I hope they meet the same fate.

I need to take a very sizeable sum of money today to be deposited in my credit union.  My wife is nervous that if I have it in the car and am pulled over, they could potentially seize it.  The circumstances for that that sequence of events to actually happen would have to be extraordinary.  But then, I never thought I would be threatened with a misdemanor and jail time when I hit a deer, called the police to report it, and discovered my drivers license was a week outside the renewal date (perfect driving record for 29 years prior to that).

Scary Scary stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 8:21 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Michigan Supreme Court Rebukes County That Seized Home Over $8.41 Tax Debt
 

Quote

 

...While Oakland County was allowed to seize Rafaeli's property to satisfy the tax debt and "any interest, penalties, and fees" associate with it, Justice Brian Zahra wrote in the opinion that accompanied the 6–1 decision, the county is not entitled to the full value of the home. "Defendants were required to return the surplus proceeds to plaintiffs, and defendants' failure to do so constituted a government buyback under the Michigan Constitution entitling plaintiffs to just compensation," Zahra wrote.

Exactly how much compensation Rafaeli is due will be hashed out in a lower court. Still, Friday's decision is a "momentous" victory for homeowners in Michigan, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, the nutjob law firm that represented Rafaeli.

...

As Reason reported last year, Rafaeli was just one victim of a 1999 state law that gave county treasurers the power to seize properties with unpaid taxes, settle the debt, and keep the remainder for their own budgets. Some of them have used this law quite effectively. Wayne County, for example, has funneled more than $382 million in delinquent tax surpluses into its general fund since 2012. Oakland County, where Rafaeli's house was located, has hundreds of millions of dollars in its Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund.

Tax asset forfeiture has been particularly pernicious in Detroit. Rather than helping to more quickly get vacant homes back on the market, it has contributed to an increase in the number of abandoned and blighted properties, according to a report by the Quicken Loans Community Fund. "Most Detroit homes that have been tax foreclosed do not return to productive use," the group concluded.

The process has created a perverse incentive for local governments to seize homes rather than allow homeowners to pay off tax debts. When Cass County was going through the process of seizing a multi-million-dollar home over a small, unpaid tax bill, the county treasurer and other looters exchanged emails joking about using the lakefront property for cookouts.

...

 

Hah hah. Looting is always such good comedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites