## civil forfiture

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
ed
Posts: 33430
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 788 times

### civil forfiture

amazing.
ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than$10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/la ... v=top-news
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

jacks
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:55 am
Title: double dipshit
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 36 times

### Re: civil forfiture

There is no such thing known as the Mafia,
Mafia is a type of organized crime syndicate that primarily practices protection racketeering — the use of violent intimidation to manipulate local economic activity,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia

shemp
Posts: 5195
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:16 pm
Title: stooge
Has thanked: 663 times
Been thanked: 469 times

### Re: civil forfiture

How can you tell that the scum who "represent" the people don't want to do right by them? Because if they did, they'd all get into a bus and drive themselves right off a high fucking cliff.
"It is not I who is mad! It is I who is crazy!" -- Ren Hoek

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

Skeeve
Posts: 10539
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 81 times

### Re: civil forfiture

...
On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the IRS announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”

Richard Weber, chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, said in a written statement, “This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.’s mission and key priorities.” He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources. The new policy will not affect seizures that already have occurred. So, all you boys with paper routes or girls with baby sitting money, better keep it under your pillow... or else! What are these 'Reporting Requirements' anyway, and will the banks tell you about it? ... Banks are not permitted to advise customers that their deposit habits may be illegal or educate them about structuring unless they ask, in which case they are given a federal pamphlet, Ms. Van Steenwyk said. “We’re not allowed to tell them anything,” she said. Oh great... Yes, a success, a flaming success... Then Skank Of America could start in... DrMatt BANNED Posts: 29811 Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm Location: Location: Location! Has thanked: 143 times Been thanked: 70 times ### Re: civil forfiture Sounds like a field day for lawyers. Seems like a slam-dunk 4th Amendment class action. Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense. WildCat Posts: 14099 Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago Has thanked: 34 times Been thanked: 364 times ### Re: civil forfiture DrMatt wrote:Sounds like a field day for lawyers. Seems like a slam-dunk 4th Amendment class action. Nope, they've already weighed in on this nonsense. And apparently this fits the definition of "due process". Do you have questions about God? you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj Nyarlathotep Posts: 47728 Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm Has thanked: 787 times Been thanked: 1489 times ### Re: civil forfiture Yeah, it's always baffled me how seizing people les property without even charging them with a crime, much less proving one passes constitutional muster, but somehow it does. Pretty much shows that the constitution is just for show and they ignore it at will, IMO. Bango Skank Awaits The Crimson King! Pyrrho Posts: 26060 Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am Title: Man in Black Location: Division 6 Has thanked: 2727 times Been thanked: 2814 times ### Re: civil forfiture http://www.wsaw.com/news/headlines/Atto ... 78482.html A Marathon County man is suing the Town of Stettin for$4.5 million after two dozen deputies and an armored vehicle showed up at a home earlier this month because the family owed $86,000. Roger Hoeppner, 75, is seeking damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress inflict, damage to reputation and economic loss. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. Anaxagoras Posts: 21968 Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan Has thanked: 1425 times Been thanked: 1274 times ### Re: civil forfiture John Oliver had a good bit on Civil Forfeiture recently. He highlights the absurdity of it. [video][/video] BTW, simply carrying a large amount of cash can be enough for them to seize it. Then you have to prove that you didn't come by it illegally. A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare Skeeve Posts: 10539 Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am Has thanked: 69 times Been thanked: 81 times ### Re: civil forfiture There have been hearings about this for some time now, w/o much more than that. Here is some testimony from 1996 for HR 1916. My name is Roger Pilon. I am a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies. ... About the only people who defend forfeiture law today are those in law enforcement who benefit from it, either as a “tool of their trade” or, more directly, by keeping the goods they seize—a conflict of interest so stark that it takes us to another age. ... The very styling of the relatively few cases that make it to court tells the story: United States v.$405,089.23 U.S. Currency[2]; United States v. 92 Buena Vista Avenue[3]; United States v. One Mercedes 560 SEL.[4] Civil forfeiture actions are brought against the property, not against the person. They are in rem proceedings —not for the purpose of gaining jurisdiction over a real person but for the purpose of seizing property for forfeiture to the government. Fantastic as it may sound, it is the property that is charged.
...
Thus, officials today can seize a person’s property, real or chattel, without notice or hearing, upon an ex parte showing of mere probable cause to believe that the property has somehow been “involved” in a crime. Neither the owner nor anyone else need be charged with a crime, for the action, again, is against the thing. The allegation of “involvement” may range from a belief that the property is contraband to a belief that it represents the proceeds of crime (even if the property is in the hands of someone not suspected of criminal activity), that it is an instrumentality of crime, or that it somehow “facilitates” crime. And the probable cause showing may be based on nothing more than hearsay, innuendo, or even the paid, self-serving testimony of a party with interests adverse to the property owner.
Theres lots more, if you really wanna get pissed off its a good read.

Oh yea, the house bill in question? HR 1916?
9. H.R.1916 : Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act
Committees: House Judiciary; House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 7/22/1996 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.
Yep, our tax dollars at play.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

Skeeve
Posts: 10539
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 81 times

### Re: civil forfiture

Obama just gave cops the OK to simply take your stuff
When Attorney General Loretta Lynch decided late last year that the Justice Department would end the federal civil asset forfeiture program, criminal justice reform advocates proclaimed it a “significant deal.”

But late last month, less than four months later, the Obama administration reversed itself and reinstated the Asset Forfeiture Fund’s Orwellian “equitable sharing” program.

That’s a shame, particularly when the only supporters of the policy are the law enforcement agencies that directly benefit from it. Indeed, the federal program’s combined annual revenue has grown more than 1,000 percent in the last 15 years, filling the coffers of federal, state and local police departments.

Civil forfeiture allows police to seize private assets, often without any proof of wrongdoing, and often the agency doing the seizing gets to keep all or most of the proceeds. The federal civil forfeiture program was passed in 1984 as part of President Ronald Reagan’s Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It was intended for use against major drug traffickers and cartels.
Thanks Ray-Gun!
The law of unintended consequences, or, something else....you decide!
Now police use the “adoptive forfeiture” aspect of the law to avoid the higher burdens of proof and other restrictions on asset forfeiture that states have been enacting. If the underlying actions that state officials are investigating also constitute a federal crime — like simple possession of marijuana — then the relevant assets may be forfeited to the feds.

It thus undermines state governments’ ability to control their own police forces. While many states ensure that seized assets go to the general treasury — or for special funds, like education — the federal program requires that they be used solely for law enforcement.

Attempting to get back their money or property often forces owners into a legal labyrinth designed to favor law enforcement. In one recent case in California, a DEA agent seized \$16,000 from Joseph Rivers as he was traveling by train to start a music career in Los Angeles. The only suspicious thing about Rivers was that he was traveling a long way on a one-way ticket with a lot of cash.

In October, after nearly half a year of legal wrangling, the government won its legal battle for Rivers’ money — and he wasn’t even issued a ticket.

Ending this practice administratively (again) would go a long way to stopping “policing for profit” and cure obvious injustices at low political cost. Of course, the Justice Department made clear by reinstating the program that the only way to end federal asset forfeiture would be the same way it was brought into the world — federal law.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

corplinx
Posts: 20267
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 679 times

### Re: civil forfiture

I always wondered how George Mitchell and Tip O'Neill were able to pass so much legislation and then blame Reagan for it....

Skeeve
Posts: 10539
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 81 times

### Re: civil forfiture

corplinx wrote:I always wondered how George Mitchell and Tip O'Neill were able to pass so much legislation and then blame Reagan for it....
Perhaps because Reagan "signed it into law"...
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (Pub.L. 98–473, S. 1762, 98 Stat. 1976, enacted October 12, 1984) was the first comprehensive revision of the U.S. criminal code since the early 1900s. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Among its constituent parts and provisions were:

Armed Career Criminal Act
Sentencing Reform Act which created the United States Sentencing Commission
extension of the United States Secret Service's jurisdiction over credit card fraud and computer fraud
increased federal penalties for cultivation, possession, or transfer of marijuana
a new section in the criminal code for hostage taking
re-institution of the federal death penalty
Stipulations about using civil forfeiture to seize assets of organized crime.[1]
Okay, so Ray-Gun didn't introduce this steeming pile of dog poop, he just signed off on it...fine!

SoO who should we blame then?
How about for the House of Rep's we have: H.R.5963 - Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
Rep. Fish, Hamilton, Jr. [R-NY-21] (Introduced 06/28/1984)
Summary: H.R.5963 — 98th Congress (1983-1984)

Or perhaps
S.1762 - Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
Sen. Thurmond, Strom [R-SC] (Introduced 08/04/1983)
Summary: S.1762 — 98th Congress (1983-1984)

Both GOPers...quell surprise.
Last edited by Skeeve on Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

sparks
Posts: 14166
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 2004 times
Been thanked: 623 times

### Re: civil forfiture

Was that the same day the dumb fucker blew up the Communications Act Of '34?
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

corplinx
Posts: 20267
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 679 times

### Re: civil forfiture

Skeeve wrote: Perhaps because Reagan "signed it into law"...
It has always been my feeling that presidents should only veto things under extreme circumstances and congress should only block nominations for the same reason.

I just always find it amusing when the legislative control party escapes culpability for legislation. I am not saying Reagan was faultless.

I am saying that the worst things we sign into law tend to ignore the complicity of almost everyone.

sparks
Posts: 14166
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 2004 times
Been thanked: 623 times

### Re: civil forfiture

Human nature.
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

ed
Posts: 33430
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 788 times

### Re: civil forfiture

Skeeve wrote:
corplinx wrote:I always wondered how George Mitchell and Tip O'Neill were able to pass so much legislation and then blame Reagan for it....
Perhaps because Reagan "signed it into law"...
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (Pub.L. 98–473, S. 1762, 98 Stat. 1976, enacted October 12, 1984) was the first comprehensive revision of the U.S. criminal code since the early 1900s. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Among its constituent parts and provisions were:

Armed Career Criminal Act
Sentencing Reform Act which created the United States Sentencing Commission
extension of the United States Secret Service's jurisdiction over credit card fraud and computer fraud
increased federal penalties for cultivation, possession, or transfer of marijuana
a new section in the criminal code for hostage taking
re-institution of the federal death penalty
Stipulations about using civil forfeiture to seize assets of organized crime.[1]
Okay, so Ray-Gun didn't introduce this steeming pile of dog poop, he just signed off on it...fine!

SoO who should we blame then?
How about for the House of Rep's we have: H.R.5963 - Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
Rep. Fish, Hamilton, Jr. [R-NY-21] (Introduced 06/28/1984)
Summary: H.R.5963 — 98th Congress (1983-1984)

Or perhaps
S.1762 - Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
Sen. Thurmond, Strom [R-SC] (Introduced 08/04/1983)
Summary: S.1762 — 98th Congress (1983-1984)

Both GOPers...quell surprise.
But, ya know, the democrats could have amended or rescinded it when they had control. They didn't. Ergo it is as much them as the republicans.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

corplinx
Posts: 20267
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 679 times

### Re: civil forfiture

Well, at the time the RICO stuff was supposed to be used to target mobsters/etc.

If you opposed it you were making a slippery slope fallacy.

This goes to show the difference between a slippery slope fallacy and a slippery slope argument.

corplinx
Posts: 20267
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 679 times

### Re: civil forfiture

Well, I'm against civil forfeiture. When I got the news that Obama was working to reverse it, I was happy.

Skeeve
Posts: 10539
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 81 times

### Re: civil forfiture

corplinx wrote:Well, at the time the RICO stuff was supposed to be used to target mobsters/etc.

If you opposed it you were making a slippery slope fallacy.

This goes to show the difference between a slippery slope fallacy and a slippery slope argument.
And if you voted against it you would probably be seen as "soft on crime" or something like that....
So you are leaning towards the "unintended consequences of forfeiture?
Then Skank Of America could start in...