FAIR Act to Reform Asset Seizure Laws

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
Rather than continuing to hijack the Aussie Slingshot Control thread, I decided to bring this here:

If you have a person whose crime you can't prove, you have a not proven allegation, not a lucky criminal. Cause actually proof is fundamental.

Seizing someone's property is, of course a punishment. But the right to prove that that property is not the result of criminal activity is not diminished.
A person paying for their defence with their proceeds of crime seems to be self defeating, does it not?
I just don't believe in punishing people who have not been proven guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't want a right to prove that my property is innocent. I want the government to prove that I'm guilty before taking it.

Your last question is the argument always used by drug warriors to justify this policy since Saint Ronald started expanding its use in the 1980s. The question implies that the law is actually used to go after big time drug dealers and the like. Read this thread if you have not. You'll learn that the targets used to justify the law and the actual people who have their stuff taken are very, very rarely the same people.

Anyway, how do you know we're talking about the "proceeds of a crime" in the first place? We are discussing the seizure of property from people who have not been convicted of any crime at all. So my question would be: what crime?

The one the government suspects, but didn't prove is the answer. I think it's a bad answer, especially in light of the "equitable sharing" programs in both of our countries that give law enforcement a financial incentive to be suspicious.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
IRS Returns Seized Money After 3 Years

...the IRS refused to believe Vocatura’s Bakery was operating on the up and up. Agents said the business raised red flags because of a series of cash deposits in sums under $10,000, the amount at which banks are required to report transactions to the federal government. They said this behavior was consistent with a crime known as structuring, which the IRS defines as making calculated financial transactions in order to skirt reporting requirements. The agents had no evidence of other wrongdoing, but thanks to a controversial law enforcement tool known as civil asset forfeiture, they didn’t need any to seize every penny in the Vocaturas’ bank account: $68,382.22.

...

On Tuesday, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of Vocatura’s Bakery, demanding that the IRS promptly return their money. The suit argued that the Vocaturas were just the latest example of the government hastily seizing property, and then going to extreme and even unconstitutional lengths to justify it after the fact.

Hours after the suit was filed, the IRS said it would finally give the Vocaturas their money back. But the prosecutor didn’t drop the case. Instead, he now plans to mount an expansive investigation into the bakery’s finances, looking for a reason to bring criminal charges against the brothers.

...
Maybe they're crooks and the belated criminal investigation will prove it in court. If a reason to bring charges can be found.

I think the seizure of money should happen after such a reason is found.

This thread is littered with small businesses that are similarly situated but the larger story is all the ones who don't manage to attract the attention of the Institute for Justice. The ones who never get their money back. The ones who are the real reasons this policy persists even though the IRS dropping this one like a hot potato shows just how politically defensible it is.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
Visit the FAIR thread sometime then. It shows how anonymous allegations create suspicion and how that leads to seizure of property, which the owner must then prove innocent.

I like my property. I don't want to have to prove it innocent because some fucktard thinks he's funny. I have patience for lots of things around here but allegations of criminal activity can have real consequences.
How could that be Tom? After all you have spent countless hours telling us how superior the US is because your rights are protected. Oh my god! could it be that you are full of shit?

It can be because we have drug warriors who want to profit from prohibition and because people like me virtually never actually get elected so our senseless drug war continues.

I haven't spent any hours telling anyone how the US is superior because our rights are protected.

I have spent a little time explaining to you that, despite your delusions of greater protections in Aus, you also have a senseless drug war that also features civil asset forfeiture for those without a criminal conviction. After realizing you were full of shit in saying your country is superior, you dropped it.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
It can be because we have drug warriors who want to profit from prohibition and because people like me virtually never actually get elected so our senseless drug war continues.
People like you running for election would be fucking funny. Just imagine the campaign debates!

Q: "Mr Tom Ray, the unemployment rate has spiked in recent months - what as President would you do about it?"

A: "Scalia talked about the rights of the pre$$, firearms in self defence, and the fourth amendment. Let me recount the ways..."

Q: "I'm sorry, that's really not the point. But we're out of time any way. Would you like to leave the nation with any last words before we finish this?"

A: "Favre! P.S. Tools"

Tom Ray and Vermin Supreme, running in an election near you! :D

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
It can be because we have drug warriors who want to profit from prohibition and because people like me virtually never actually get elected so our senseless drug war continues.
People like you running for election would be fucking funny. Just imagine the campaign debates!

Q: "Mr Tom Ray, the unemployment rate has spiked in recent months - what as President would you do about it?"

A: "Nothing."

...
It is too easy to imagine a journalist who thinks managing the unemployment rate is something a President should try to do.

I corrected your post to show what my actual answer would be.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
It can be because we have drug warriors who want to profit from prohibition and because people like me virtually never actually get elected so our senseless drug war continues.
People like you running for election would be fucking funny. Just imagine the campaign debates!

Q: "Mr Tom Ray, the unemployment rate has spiked in recent months - what as President would you do about it?"

A: "Nothing."

...
It is too easy to imagine a journalist who thinks managing the unemployment rate is something a President should try to do.

I corrected your post to show what my actual answer would be.
And that is why "people like you" would not get elected.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
Yeah, I know. People want to think that a President can just declare prosperity. Throwing cold water on that delusion is not a path to election but I still can't bring myself to embrace the delusion.

Any thoughts on the thread topic or any topic unrelated to me personally?

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,406
5,551
De Nile
Yeah, I know. People want to think that a President can just declare prosperity. Throwing cold water on that delusion is not a path to election but I still can't bring myself to embrace the delusion.

Any thoughts on the thread topic or any topic unrelated to me personally?
All threads lead to Favre.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
Yeah, I know. People want to think that a President can just declare prosperity. Throwing cold water on that delusion is not a path to election but I still can't bring myself to embrace the delusion.
Imagine the question was whether you as President would "just declare prosperity". Sorry to throw cold water on that delusion, but that wasn't what I wrote.

Any thoughts on the thread topic or any topic unrelated to me personally?
A couple, but I long since learnt that you're not interested in what the rest of us think, only what you can turn into one of your well-worn and somewhat tedious rants. So I'll leave my contribution here to the humorous aside about "people like you" running for president.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
No need to carry heavy cash around with you now - cops can now lift money off any gift cards, or pre-payed credit cards you have. Saves everyone time and effort.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/cops_can_skim_your_cards/
Umm hmmm. This legacy of Saint Ronald's expansion of the drug war is darn hard to kill because of the profit involved for government.

"We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting," he said. "We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story; if there's some way that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business. I know that a lot of people are just going to focus on the seizing money. That's a very small thing that's happening now."

...

State Senator Kyle Loveless (R-OK) has promised new legislation to require that police obtain a conviction before taking funds. He said he has had multiple reports of police abusing their powers for profit.
Yeah, it's a "very small thing" right up until someone starts talking about shutting off the cash flow. Then it becomes a big thing.

I'm not "just going to focus on seizing the money" because I have no problem with seizing money from criminals. I'm going to focus on the standard used to seize the money: the suspicion of one officer whose agency benefits if he is suspicious but loses money if he is not.

If Senator Kyle is successful, Lt Vincent will no longer have to complain about annoying people looking at where that money is coming from and why.

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,498
4,266
New Oak City
OHP Uses New Device To Seize Money During Traffic Stops

http://www.news9.com/story/32168555/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-used-during-the-commission-of-a-crime

You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture.

That's where police can seize property and cash without first proving a person committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting them, as long as they suspect that the property is somehow tied to a crime.

Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money on prepaid cards.

It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and OHP began using 16 of them last month.

Here's how it works. If a trooper suspects a person may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan and seize money from prepaid cards. OHP stresses troopers do not do this during all traffic stops, only situations where they believe there is probable cause.

"We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. “We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's someway that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business."

Troopers insist this isn't just about seizing cash.



...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Saorsa

Super Anarchist
36,800
422
OHP Uses New Device To Seize Money During Traffic Stops

http://www.news9.com/story/32168555/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-used-during-the-commission-of-a-crime

You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture.

That's where police can seize property and cash without first proving a person committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting them, as long as they suspect that the property is somehow tied to a crime.

Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money on prepaid cards.

It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and OHP began using 16 of them last month.

Here's how it works. If a trooper suspects a person may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan and seize money from prepaid cards. OHP stresses troopers do not do this during all traffic stops, only situations where they believe there is probable cause.


"We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. “We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's someway that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business."

Troopers insist this isn't just about seizing cash.



...
Cash is soo passe'.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
Cash is soo passe'.
I think the smartest thing the Bitcoin people could do would be to buy a whole bunch of these scanners for police departments everywhere.

Don't want the police to seize your money and then demand you prove it innocent? Get different money and don't give them your password. Problem SOLved.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
A Step Forward In California

The bill is back this session and a newly announced compromise has law enforcement officials finally dropping their objections. It appears to be a pretty good compromise when you look at the worst of the law enforcement abuses. Police say they use civil asset forfeiture to target big drug dealers, but the reality is that many asset forfeitures are for smaller amounts in the thousands, often from poor people who cannot afford the costs to fight back. This compromise will require that police will have to get convictions for underlying crimes and prove that the property was connected to crime—but only for total assets that are valued at less than $40,000.

For assets over $40,000 the looser evidentiary standard of "clear and convincing evidence" applies and criminal conviction will not be required. This still seems clear a violation of the property rights and due process of people who pass the threshold, but it is nevertheless still an improvement on what currently exists.

As for the ability for law enforcement agencies to bypass the state and go to the feds, the same rules apply. In order to seize property under $40,000, even when participating in a joint investigation with a federal agency, an underlying criminal conviction will be required. It does not forbid law enforcement agencies from participating in joint operations with federal law enforcement or even using the federal "equitable sharing" asset forfeiture program; it requires that there be an underlying conviction before they can receive payment from the federal program for property valued at less than $40,000.
I think a criminal conviction should be required in every case but at least requiring it sometimes is a bit better than never requiring it.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
DEA Chasing Cash

...Of the 87 cases USA TODAY identified in which the DEA seized cash after flagging a suspicious itinerary, only two resulted in the alleged courier being charged with a crime.

...

“We want the cash. Good agents chase cash,” said George Hood, who supervised a drug task force assigned to O’Hare International Airport in Chicago before he retired in 2007. “It was just easier to get the asset, and that’s where you make a dent in the criminal organization.”
Those criminal organizations must have more dents than my old truck. Which also still works just fine, btw.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
Albuquerque Being Sued For Ignoring Asset Forfeiture Reform Law

Albuquerque resident Arlene Harjo, 56, is paying off a loan for a car she doesn't have, because the city seized it for a crime it readily admits she didn't commit, under an asset forfeiture program that is supposed to be banned.

...

...Harada has said in the past that "about half of the vehicles that APD seizes are not owned by the offender that we confiscate it from. It's the mothers, the fathers, the wives, the girlfriends, the brothers, the uncles, the next door neighbor, and the stranger on the street."

Harada refused to release the car, and Harjo challenged the seizure in district court, which was the only reason she came onto the Institute for Justice's radar.

If Harjo had settled, the money would have gone to pay for the salaries of prosecutors and police who administer the DWI seizure program. Groups like the Institute for Justice argue those sort of perverse incentives are one of the worst aspects of civil asset forfeiture, driving police departments to go fishing for seizures.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,140
1,899
Punta Gorda FL
Trump wants to use asset forfeiture to fund the stupid wall

The plan would uniquely incentivize both nations to ramp up efforts to degrade and destroy the illegal drug trafficking market.
Because bureaucracies everywhere just love to cut off their funding sources.

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

 

tuk tuk Joe

Super Anarchist
8,757
0
SEA
Trump wants to use asset forfeiture to fund the stupid wall

The plan would uniquely incentivize both nations to ramp up efforts to degrade and destroy the illegal drug trafficking market.
Because bureaucracies everywhere just love to cut off their funding sources.

The incentives will be the same as always: to seize more property regardless of the guilt or innocence of the owners.
Nobody ever accused Trump of being a libertarian or a constitutionalist. :ph34r:

 




Top