- 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: Clarence Thomas is an American Hero - Attacks Civil Asset Forfeiture
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
Don't find myself saying this often but hooray Justice Thomas.
0
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
OK, lawyers, educate me:
If they somehow don't exist in this one, what are the elements that will make a civil forfeiture case the 'right' case for the Supremes to hear?
If they somehow don't exist in this one, what are the elements that will make a civil forfeiture case the 'right' case for the Supremes to hear?
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
Absurd that they didn't hear that case
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:47 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Yep, and as the WSJ piece yesterday noted, some of these people have prevailed against the government but only after untold amounts have time and money have been lost. It is troubling how comfortable so many are with authoritarianism.
In cases such as this ... doesn't the government have to give the seized assets back ?
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:49 am to navy
quote:
In cases such as this ... doesn't the government have to give the seized assets back ?
quote:
navy
It's kind of scary how comfortable you are with this. I bet you consider yourself a "conservative" too.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:49 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
They didn't get a conviction..
They were never even charged... They were pulled over for 'tailgating' and going 5 miles over the speed limit. They were arrested for money laundering, but never formally charged.
That said the son and baby momma who were in the car sound like a couple of frickups and did themselves no favors.
The son and his baby momma when pulled over first lied about previous arrests and when the safe was found
lied about the amount of money in the safe, who it belonged to and how they came into possession of the money.
When it was discovered that son has drug charges that he lied to the police about. The officer asked baby momma if the money in the safe had been from the sale of drugs answered "Not Most it."
Yes, there was a bill for the sale for a home in PA, but it was from 5 years before the arrest in 2008.
Lisa Leonard testified that she put $213k from the 2008 sale in the bank and then later removed it. She was asked by the court to provide documents (bank records and bills of sale) to corroborate her story and she was unable to.
Civil Forfeiture is total bullshite, but if you are stupid enough to keep $201K in a safe and let your drug dealer son and his baby momma drive it cross country, dont be surprised when bad shite happens.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/7/17 at 9:52 am
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:51 am to Knight of Old
quote:
If they somehow don't exist in this one, what are the elements that will make a civil forfeiture case the 'right' case for the Supremes to hear?
Thomas in this case agreed with the denial of cert (denying cert means the Court won't hear the case) because the constitutionality issue was not argued before the Texas courts. The SCOTUS typically won't take up a new argument without giving the Texas courts a chance to weigh in first.
So the first element is someone arguing this before the Texas courts. Beyond that case selection and the art of getting a case before the SCOTUS is incredibly complex. It involves the right person (i.e. not a criminal, preferably sympathetic demographics), the right facts, and the right timing.
Even if all the stars align, the internal politics of the Court can cause them to deny cert. Until we get a ninth that becomes even more complex.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:51 am to LSUGrad00
quote:
Civil Forfeiture is total bullshite, but if you are stupid enough to keep $201K in a safe and let your drug dealer son and his baby momma drive it cross country, dont be surprised when bad shite happens.
While I agree, "bad shite" should not include the government just taking it.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:54 am to CorporateTiger
Thanks for the primer, Corporate Tiger.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:55 am to LSUGrad00
I'm as law and order as they get, but these civil forfeiture laws are ridiculous
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses," Thomas declared.
Why do you want big government oversight over local government?
Posted on 3/7/17 at 10:01 am to Lakeboy7
Any notion that local (or state) government is somehow less big then the federal government is complete naïveté. In fact you probably see more abuses (albeit smaller in scope) at the local level.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 10:05 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
Any notion that local (or state) government is somehow less big then the federal government is complete naïveté. In fact you probably see more abuses (albeit smaller in scope) at the local level.
Oh I hear ya man, but the mantra here is smaller is better, because its more accountable...............
Whatever that means!
Posted on 3/7/17 at 10:11 am to Lakeboy7
If it is, it shouldn't be. The government (federal or state) restraining the power of government is a good thing.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 10:11 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
It's kind of scary how comfortable you are with this. I bet you consider yourself a "conservative" too.
What the hell makes you think I'm comfortable with it?
I'm just asking questions.
You clearly have your mind made up .. and, maybe, I'd be in agreement. Maybe not. Maybe I just haven't heard a great deal about all this blatant stealing by the cops and such, allegedly.
(I tend to follow most laws ... so maybe that is why.)
But ... I don't really know why such seizures are made.
But ... under this scenario:
- Suppose a drug runner has amassed a good fortune peddling meth or something and gets busted. If those assets are seized/frozen while that person awaits trial in order to prevent it from being used for something else ... is that seizing, stealing, or freezing? And, if the person is found not guilty and the frozen assets are returned ... is that a big deal?
Seems to me like all this "Civil Asset Forfeiture" is always tied somehow to something to do with drugs ... is this not the case?
Posted on 3/7/17 at 10:13 am to navy
Not always. Drugs are just the most common illegal activity that generates cash (that shouldn't be returned to a specific victim).
What you described is actually much more limited than many/most current CAF systems.
What you described is actually much more limited than many/most current CAF systems.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 10:17 am to CorporateTiger
What is the most common scenario in which CAF occurs?
And...is it being done by local cops, state cops/agencies, the Feds ... or all of the above?
And...is it being done by local cops, state cops/agencies, the Feds ... or all of the above?
Posted on 3/7/17 at 10:25 am to navy
"In cases such as this ... doesn't the government have to give the seized assets back ?"
Yes. Attorneys' fees? Nope. Lost profits for the loss of business income? Nyet. Emotional damages for having home or business taken from you because, for example, 30 or so of your 200,000 guests have committed drug offenses? Nosir.
But as many like to say, nothing to see here. If you're not breaking the law (including the thousands of criminal financial regulations none of us can name), then you have no need to fear your property being taken without any proof of a crime being committed.
Civil Asset Forfeiture, at least in its current form, is the most un-American thing done in this country with the imprimatur of government authority.
Yes. Attorneys' fees? Nope. Lost profits for the loss of business income? Nyet. Emotional damages for having home or business taken from you because, for example, 30 or so of your 200,000 guests have committed drug offenses? Nosir.
But as many like to say, nothing to see here. If you're not breaking the law (including the thousands of criminal financial regulations none of us can name), then you have no need to fear your property being taken without any proof of a crime being committed.
Civil Asset Forfeiture, at least in its current form, is the most un-American thing done in this country with the imprimatur of government authority.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 10:30 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Civil Asset Forfeiture, at least in its current form, is the most un-American thing done in this country with the imprimatur of government authority.
Not to derail ... but I feel that way about the Obamacare Penalty...which, supposedly, is going away.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News