jbluhm86 Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342702-doj-expanding-controversial-asset-seizures-programs "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - Fifth Amendment, US Constitution "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment, US Constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 except the "baby" cries only when it's to the benefit of the dems. Case in point...know who STARTED that program? Obamao and Loretta "obamao mafiosao" Lynch, that's who. but back then, they didn't care about no stinking assets forfeture programs... because their side did it. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-doj-sets-back-justice-with-asset-forfeiture-program "Attorney General Loretta Lynch quietly reinstituted the Department of Justice's Equitable Sharing Program recently, which incentivizes local authorities to more harshly prosecute cases in order to take advantage of asset forfeiture laws, allowing these local departments to confiscate personal property they believe is related to criminal activity – including cars, boats and cash – without trial or any due process beyond even suspicion, and share those seizures with federal authorities. The Equitable Sharing Program allows local authorities to get around state rules and pursue federal forfeiture laws. In many states, this means the authorities have much wider latitude because federal laws can be so much broader. This circumvents many states that have begun instituting sweeping restrictions to their own asset forfeiture laws – a case of the federal government prioritizing their own policy rather than letting states decide." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 The problem is that the term due-process is pretty vague. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 read the above article carefully - know that a REPUBLICAN gov went against it to protect citizens,,,, but it is obamao/lynch that initiated it, to bad lengths. If someone if convicted of a genuine drug crime, then I'm happy to have all their assets confiscated. but seriously? NO CRIME, the dirty cops just wanted their money etc? that has to stopped immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted July 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2017 except the "baby" cries only when it's to the benefit of the dems. Case in point...know who STARTED that program? Obamao and Loretta "obamao mafiosao" Lynch, that's who. but back then, they didn't care about no stinking assets forfeture programs... because their side did it. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-doj-sets-back-justice-with-asset-forfeiture-program "Attorney General Loretta Lynch quietly reinstituted the Department of Justice's Equitable Sharing Program recently, which incentivizes local authorities to more harshly prosecute cases in order to take advantage of asset forfeiture laws, allowing these local departments to confiscate personal property they believe is related to criminal activity – including cars, boats and cash – without trial or any due process beyond even suspicion, and share those seizures with federal authorities. The Equitable Sharing Program allows local authorities to get around state rules and pursue federal forfeiture laws. In many states, this means the authorities have much wider latitude because federal laws can be so much broader. This circumvents many states that have begun instituting sweeping restrictions to their own asset forfeiture laws – a case of the federal government prioritizing their own policy rather than letting states decide." Wrong. A Brief History of Forfeiture "The origins of forfeiture laws date back to medieval times, but America’s civil forfeiture laws can be traced to 17th-century English maritime law, which allowed violations to be punished by the seizure and forfeiture of ships and cargo without regard to the guilt or innocence of the owners. Based on this concept, the first U.S. Congress adopted similar forfeiture laws. Although the laws were upheld in early Supreme Court cases, their use was limited to the maritime contexts of admiralty, piracy and customs—circumstances where commencing criminal proceedings was difficult, if not impossible, because property owners were overseas or otherwise outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The 19th century saw some expansion of the forfeiture power during the Civil War, but its use remained comparatively limited. Except for a brief expansion during Prohibition, civil forfeiture was largely moribund in the 20th century—that is, until 1984, when Congress amended the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. Among other things, the 1984 amendments created the Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund for depositing forfeiture proceeds for federal agency use. The AFF represented a sea change in the administration of civil forfeiture. For the first time, agencies could obtain a financial benefit from the proceeds of forfeited properties, using funds to do everything from purchase vehicles to pay overtime. Lawmakers in many states followed the federal government’s lead and amended their states’ civil forfeiture laws to give local and state agencies a direct financial stake in the forfeiture process. In 2000, Congress modestly reformed federal forfeiture law through the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, but it left unchanged one of the most troublesome elements—law enforcement’s ability to benefit financially from civil forfeiture. Moreover, other amendments to civil forfeiture laws at the federal and state levels have expanded their reach to cover alleged violations beyond drug crimes. Consequently, today’s civil forfeiture laws are far greater in scope than their 18th-century progenitors. And decoupled from the practical necessities that justified their use when enforcing maritime law, they are an increasingly popular and profitable tool for law enforcement agencies." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1984...that would be under Ronald Reagan's watch, Cal, not Obama. And the law wasn't passed by a veto override either, so that means that Reagan signed off on it. USDOJ Asset Forfeiture Fund The problem is that the term due-process is pretty vague. WSS That's a fair point, I suppose. However, even under the most "small L" liberal interpretations, I highly doubt that the confiscation and selling for profit of citizens' property without ever being charged for a crime can comfortably be considered in line with the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments, no? read the above article carefully - know that a REPUBLICAN gov went against it to protect citizens,,,, Forfeiture Use Explodes "At the federal level, the departments of Justice and the Treasury have seen an astonishing increase in forfeiture activity. In 1986, the year after the Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund was established, it took in just $93.7 million in deposits. By 2014, deposits had increased 4,667 percent to $4.5 billion. Much of that increase came during the past decade and a half. From 2001 to 2014, deposits to the DOJ and Treasury forfeiture funds exploded by more than 1,000 percent (see Figure 1). Total deposits across those years approached $29 billion. As a measure of federal forfeiture activity, deposits can sometimes be unstable. In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money—with a portion going back to victims—thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels. Net assets, the amount of money federal forfeiture funds retain after paying various obligations, represent a more stable metric. From 2001 to 2014, net assets in the DOJ and Treasury forfeiture funds increased 485 percent.19 Combined assets topped $1 billion for the first time in 2007 and ballooned to nearly $4.5 billion by 2014. So, to say its solely Republicans fighting against this is inaccurate, since the Asset Forfeiture Programs have continued to grow steadily since they were enacted in 1984; a time frame which included portions of or the entirety of three Republican presidents. As for individual state governments: Figure 8: Innocent Owner Burdens in Civil Forfeiture Laws "As shown in Figure 8, innocent owner provisions in federal law and 35 states place the burden of proof on owners, meaning that owners must prove they had nothing to do with the alleged crime. In essence, most civil forfeiture laws presume that people are connected to any criminal activity involving their property and force them to prove otherwise to recover it. This is precisely the opposite of what happens in criminal trials, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government. It also often involves a practical impossibility, as it requires people to prove a negative—that they did not know about or consent to the illegal use of their property. "Only 10 states and the District of Columbia demand that the government prove owners did something wrong before forfeiting their property. In the remaining states, whether the burden of proof falls on the owner or the government generally depends on the type of property involved." Again, the overwhelming majority of GOP-led states have government-favoriable asset forfeiture laws, in which they can confinscate your property without ever charging you with a crime, so to infer that the GOP is fighting against this while Democrats do nothing is a bit of a stretch. ...but it is obamao/lynch that initiated it, to bad lengths.... The article you posted counters your claim, literally, in the first two paragraphs. The Obama Administration and Loretta Lynch reinstituted an already existing law on the books; they didn't create the law in the first place. However, it was a shameful move on Lynch's part to reinstitute it, so we can reach agreement on that. ...If someone if convicted of a genuine drug crime, then I'm happy to have all their assets confiscated. but seriously? NO CRIME, the dirty cops just wanted their money etc? that has to stopped immediately. In this, we are in agreement. However, let me ask you a simple question. If, as you suggest, civil asset forfeiture - the forfeiting of a citizen's property, sometimes without even being charged with a crime - was bad when Obama's administration did it, then why would it's expansion under the Trump administration by Jeff Sessions not be equally as bad, at the very least? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 23, 2017 Report Share Posted July 23, 2017 yes, of course, I should have said "reinstated"...but regardless, they brought it back, to no fanfare or angst by any liberal on the board, or in the msm. As to your question - good one...except that the obamao/lynch/holder/etc regime was corrupt to the core.... let's take a look at fast and furious for example. A similar program was run by the Bush admin, but without the scandal of deliberately giving the drug cartels arms to take back across the border into mexico. That occured under obamao and co... and the reason they did it, is because they wanted to undermine our 2nd Amendment... by "planting evidence" that the gun violence in mexico was the fault of American gun owners. So, they did fast and furious, and still haven't paid for that debacle. The Bush admin SUPPORTED OUR 2nd AMENDMENT ABSOLUTELY. So, it's on the obamao regime - making the guns available to drug cartels, and trying desperately to cover up the circustances about the death of Brian Terry. They treated his family like filth.... So, regarding Trump's crew - Sessions is respected widely and hugely for his integrity. Noooooooby respects lynch or holder for one iota of integrity - they have none. So, the idea that police depts can just take innocent people's stuff over a crime by someone else is just dangerous to America and all of us. I trust Sessions and Trump to fight the abuse of the program. and holder/lynch/obamao didn't do diddley about it, and would applaud it so they could use it for political gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.