FAIR Act to Reform Asset Seizure Laws

[MR.CLEAN]

No, you attached the wrong link. See the address bar at bottom of screenshot with your wrong link purportedly to Mississippi article

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

No, you attached the wrong link. See the address bar at bottom of screenshot with your wrong link purportedly to Mississippi article

View attachment 570462

You are mistaken and should check again, being sure to scroll down past the first story and past the one on qualified impunity.

There are multiple stories on that page, leading off with the DOJ vs Google one, but that's not the only one noticed by readers.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

No, you attached the wrong link. See the address bar at bottom of screenshot with your wrong link purportedly to Mississippi article

View attachment 570462

And, I might add, scrolling down would have taken less time than posting a screenshot.

Of course, it would have first required you to read and consider my previous reply instead of just knowing you're right about everything, so I guess kind of a non-starter.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You're in violation when it's over 8 inches. No one has to deliver a notice for you to be violating a code, and ignorance of the law is no excuse or defense, as you know. Assuming you have a ruler, of course.

I'm still assuming you have a source for this claim, but that assumption is growing weaker and weaker with each day that you neglect to provide it.

As you have noted, people who present information that has no source, appears wrong, and appears to have been made up, are not very credible. You're one of those people. Want to change?

Post your source for that 8 inch claim or admit you made it up.

And that's how you get fussy about a source when you're actually right about it!

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

This was a good idea back in 2000 and would still be a good idea today:

1. H.Amdt.239 to H.Amdt.237 — 106th Congress (1999-2000)

Description: Amendment to the Hutchinson substitute amendment (A002) sought to replace the original text with language that specifies that no property may be forfeited under any civil asset forfeiture law unless the property's owner has first been convicted of the criminal offense that makes the property subject to forfeiture.
Sponsor: Rep. Paul, Ron [R-TX-14] (Offered 06/24/1999)
Latest Action: 06/24/99 On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A004) Failed by voice vote. (All Actions)

Drug war looters won in a voice vote and seem to still retain that overwhelming popularity. They're still wrong. Ron Paul was right.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

I'm still assuming you have a source for this claim,

the statute, dumbass, as any first year law student would have told you in july, when posted. Do you know how to read a statute? Do you understand what the concept "ignorance of the law is no excuse" means?

You should go to law school Tom, you'd enjoy it. You'd also quickly understand why your sovereign citizen schtick is so amusing.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

They're still wrong. Ron Paul was right.

Morally, perhaps. Factually and in a reality-based world, he was clearly wrong and his proposal a failure.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

if you're talking to me about the post above yours, you are mistaken and should check again, being sure to scroll down past the first story and past the one on qualified impunity on that page.

Ah thanks. This is why a critical reader would link the original source material rather than a coal-industry funded political propaganda site unable to split up stories with individual links. Guess they weren't looking to spotlight that one too tightly, given Mississippi's issues.

 

[jocal505]

Ah thanks. ...a coal-industry funded political propaganda site...*

*Research by Tom Dogballs Ray

 

[Olsonist]

This was a good idea back in 2000 and would still be a good idea today:



Drug war looters won in a voice vote and seem to still retain that overwhelming popularity. They're still wrong. Ron Paul was right.

Why didn't your boys Ron and Justin trouble themselves with getting any cosponsors? Was it too much trouble? It's almost as if failing was the point.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

At which part of Dunedin's argument do you think SCOTUS will laugh? Ficken's failure to avail himself of due process afforded him, the Florida legislature authorizing $500/day fines, or something else?

Also, why are you always linking news reporter words instead of the decisions themselves? You do read the decisions, right?

I read the decision you linked, as you learned earlier when I corrected one of your misstatements of the case events.

It says this, among other things:

he is a repeat violator of the ordinance prohibiting grass exceeding ten inches.

the statute, dumbass, as any first year law student would have told you in july, when posted. Do you know how to read a statute? Do you understand what the concept "ignorance of the law is no excuse" means?

You should go to law school Tom, you'd enjoy it. You'd also quickly understand why your sovereign citizen schtick is so amusing.

Now you say that your source is "the statute" but I find no link supplied by you. So I'm just using the one you already supplied. Are you saying that your source is wrong?

Can I see a link to this statute just so I know you didn't invent it?

Also, quote any post of mine advocating the "sovereign citizen" nonsense. You can't because you made that up too.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Ah thanks. This is why a critical reader would link the original source material rather than a coal-industry funded political propaganda site unable to split up stories with individual links. Guess they weren't looking to spotlight that one too tightly, given Mississippi's issues.

I guess that's as close as you can come to just saying, "I didn't read your link but acted like I did, even after being corrected."

So thanks.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Why didn't your boys Ron and Justin trouble themselves with getting any cosponsors? Was it too much trouble? It's almost as if failing was the point.

In a Congress filled with drug war looters like Biden and Sessions, they did the best they could, but the drug war looters won.

I guess that means they were right to you. It doesn't to me. I don't mind being in an unpopular minority on this issue.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Morally, perhaps. Factually and in a reality-based world, he was clearly wrong and his proposal a failure.

I understand the reality that drug war looters are popular and libertarian proposals to rein them in are not. That makes his proposal a failure in reality.

But what part of wanting a conviction before looting is not factual? What part of it is "clearly wrong?" I think it's clearly right. Was then, is today. Why am I wrong to want a conviction before property is taken?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Ah thanks. This is why a critical reader would link the original source material rather than a coal-industry funded political propaganda site unable to split up stories with individual links. Guess they weren't looking to spotlight that one too tightly, given Mississippi's issues.

Let me just fact check that source for you.

You're welcome.

 

[hasher]

Impertinent Tom,

It works to take away the profit from their poison business.

Even the Oligarchs feel the pinch when you take away their multi-million dollar yachts.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Impertinent Tom,

It works to take away the profit from their poison business.

Even the Oligarchs feel the pinch when you take away their multi-million dollar yachts.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Duopoly party line on this issue.

Unfortunately, I'm also familiar with the average size of a forfeiture.

Are you? Or do you really buy that it's all about drug lord riches?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

CAFRA Legislative History May 2000

On page 360 noted drug war dinosaur Jeff Sessions makes essentially the same argument that hasher makes, thanking Senator Biden for his help in making it.

He also pretends it's about yachts and millions of dollars from drug lords.

The thing about that is,

Proponents argue forfeiture fights crime by hitting criminals where it hurts—in their wallets. Our data cast doubt on this claim, suggesting forfeiture instead often targets ordinary people. The data also show people rarely fight back.

• The median currency forfeiture is small, averaging just $1,276 across 21 states with available data. In some states, the median forfeiture is only a few hundred dollars. These low values suggest forfeiture often is not targeting kingpins or major financial fraudsters.
• More than that, it may not make economic sense for people to contest such low-dollar forfeitures. Conservatively, hiring an attorney to fight a relatively simple state forfeiture case costs at least $3,000—more than double the national median currency forfeiture.
• This may help explain why available data suggest forfeitures are frequently uncontested, resulting in nearly automatic wins for the government. In the four states that track this information, people seek return of their property in 22% of cases or fewer.

1.2 boat bucks. That's the average forfeiture. Because drug war looting isn't about cartel kingpins at all.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The current proposal in Mississippi, which clickers and scrollers might have already seen,

Rep. Dana Criswell, a Republican, has introduced a bill that would end the current asset forfeiture regime and require the state to obtain a criminal conviction before seizing assets in most cases.

I'm going to guess that, since this is the same proposal as the one decades earlier, it also suffers from being factually wrong and realistically impossible.

But why is it wrong to suggest getting a conviction before looting?

 

[MR.CLEAN]

But why is it wrong to suggest getting a conviction before looting?

What do you mean by 'wrong'?