Can we all AGREE TO AGREE on 2 issues whether you are Liberal or Conservative....

i hope you don't get many people disagreeing with you

I like your style, my man!
Have an upvote!

Dilly Dilly

quote:

---

First, asset seizure laws should be strictly limited to drug dealer-type offenders where the government makes a prima facia case that the defendant's assets are more than likely the proceeds of his/her criminal activity. AND, no money or assets can ever be seized without the government filing charges against the defendant.

---

quote:

---

Second, the entire record of the Congressional Slush Fund to pay off sexual harassment victims should be completely exposed and open for public inspections. Whether this fund was paid to settle harassment claims against Democrats or Republicans, let the chips fall where they may and let's get these SCUMBAGS out of office.

---

quote:

---

First, asset seizure laws should be strictly limited to drug dealer-type offenders where the government makes a prima facia case that the defendant's assets are more than likely the proceeds of his/her criminal activity. AND, no money or assets can ever be seized without the government filing charges against the defendant.

---

Close, but no. If it's not clearly evidence, then there should be no seizure of the property of those not yet convicted of a crime.

This would be no different than the IRS seizing all USD from everyone they press charges against because money is "clearly evidence of their tax evasion". That leaves an unconvicted man without the ability to mount a defense for himself. Prove it in court first, then we can talk about seizing assets.

I'm also not sure why we even give a shite about drug dealers. Arresting them isn't stopping drug traffic or use one bit. It makes even less sense to make CAF laws that apply only to drug dealers. You admit CAF is wrong, but think it should be used to violate the rights of one particular class of accused people. I don't understand.

I agree

quote:

---

If it's not clearly evidence, then there should be no seizure of the property of those not yet convicted of a crime.

---

What part of --

quote:

---

where the government makes a prima facia case that the defendant's assets are more than likely the proceeds of his/her criminal activity.

---

Do you not understand?

quote:

---

no money or assets can ever be seized without the government winning their case against the defendant

---

FIFY

We can't agree to not kill young babies, how the frick can we agree on anything at this point?

quote:

---

First, asset seizure laws should be strictly limited to drug dealer-type offenders where the government makes a prima facia case that the defendant's assets are more than likely the proceeds of his/her criminal activity. AND, no money or assets can ever be seized without the government filing charges against the defendant.

---

Then all the police will do is bring in a dog, make him hit even though they will find no drugs and file some type of bogus charge in relation if they don't just plant drugs themselves.