- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: State of Texas seizes 1700 acre ranch
Posted on 4/24/14 at 8:38 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
Posted on 4/24/14 at 8:38 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:I get your point and agree. But this is Texas, A STATE GOVERNMENT, not the federal government.
The tyranny of the thoughtless SAMENESS of everything.
It is lazy and weak
Silliness.
And I didn't read where the State of Texas went in with 200 armed agents and forcibly did anything either.
So it's not only Silliness it's ignorant and stupid also.
0
Posted on 4/24/14 at 8:43 am to Eurocat
If you aren't intelligent/honest enough to see the distinction, then I truly feel sorry for you. Having said that, I'm sure you are and are intentionally contending for the worst poster on this board title. 
Posted on 4/24/14 at 8:52 am to Quidam65
quote:
I believe the property has to be owned by the person who did the act. Otherwise nobody would rent property to anyone for fear that an unknown criminal act would cause the loss of their property.
As I understand it, that's incorrect. I don't have time to go pull up the articles, but I know of at least two cases where the crime was not committed by the owner of the property, but it was seized.
One was a case where a grandchild was selling dope out of grandma's house, and the state seized the property because the house was connected with drugs.
Another case in Texas was where son had marijuana in mom's car (without mom in it) and the car was seized as being used as an instrumentality of the crime.
People really don't understand how effed up our criminal forfeiture regime is. It's all about the money.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 8:53 am to Eurocat
States rights.
Not Fed rights.
Not Fed rights.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 8:54 am to FalseProphet
That's true. Seizing property of value has the same priority or more than the crime committed.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 8:56 am
Posted on 4/24/14 at 8:59 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Someone will probably get this property at a bargain at auction.
Probably, but then they'd have to pay to have the church and other buildings removed.
ETA: I just got back from a week just outside of San Angelo and this is the first I've heard of it.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 9:02 am
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:04 am to FalseProphet
quote:
People really don't understand how effed up our criminal forfeiture regime is. It's all about the money.
It's not as widespread or as bad as you make it sound. While there certainly are abuses, especially with some small town jurisdictions, the initial seizure is not the same as a court ordered forfeiture.
Property rights are very strong in Texas. If a state judge in Texas ordered a criminal forfeiture, then it most assuredly has some legal basis. The article here specifically states that the property owner used illicit monies to buy the property, and to committ crimes on the property, with real victims who have legal grounds to be paid restitution.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:05 am to FalseProphet
quote:
As I understand it, that's incorrect. I don't have time to go pull up the articles, but I know of at least two cases where the crime was not committed by the owner of the property, but it was seized.
I look at it this way. If FedEx can be libel for damages caused by one of its employees by running head on into a school bus then why can't people who rent property out not be libel for what the renters do illegally? Maybe the property owner should do a better job of vetting his renters knowing what the consequence can be.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:10 am to Eurocat
I think a better question is "why are you so fricking stupid?"
Although candidly, I did wrestle with the punctuation in that sentence.
Although candidly, I did wrestle with the punctuation in that sentence.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:18 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
Although candidly, I did wrestle with the punctuation in that sentence.
And yet still got it wrong.
The OP has a point. It's still the government seizing property.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:21 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The OP has a point. It's still the government seizing property.
To pay back restitution.
Same reason they took all of Jordan Belfort's money.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:21 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The OP has a point.
It's not a very strong one.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:27 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The OP has a point. It's still the government seizing property.
I missed the part where "the government" (BLM) went to the court and obtained a criminal forteiture ruling against the Nevada rancher after the rancher had been criminally convicted of .... Illegal Grazing(?)
Now I see that these two scenarios are exactly the same, as with (apparently) every other government forfeiture ruling in thousands of cases in evey state across the country evey year.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:05 am to FalseProphet
I got a Maserati I caught a kid smoking a joint in.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:09 am to gatorrocks
quote:
Because there's nothing the protest. The guy was convicted of a crime and the state seized it because it was bought with money he made while committing crimes. Learn to read.
This sounds a lot like the Cliven Bundy case. LOL
He refused to pay the federal govt. their money so they seized his cattle for re-compense. LOL
Of course I'm probably just a communist, statist, leftist, yada, yada, yada....
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:10 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
I did wrestle with the punctuation in that sentence.
I forgive you. Glass houses and all that.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:16 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Oooh...the Zero Tolerance, All or Nothing approach.
The tyranny of the thoughtless SAMENESS of everything.
It is lazy and weak
Silliness.
This could be reposted in a lot of stupid attack threads on this board and be the only response needed.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:20 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Oooh...the Zero Tolerance, All or Nothing approach.
The tyranny of the thoughtless SAMENESS of everything.
It is lazy and weak
Silliness.
Moral equivalence . All the rage.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News