- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Surely these civil forfeiture without prosecution (or even charges) statutes....
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:19 am to MMauler
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:19 am to MMauler
quote:
I have no problem with the forfeiture of assets of actual drug dealers and felons for assets they used or bought with their ill-gotten gains. I doubt anyone does.
I think you would need to have an actual conviction before you start taking a persons property.
And I guarantee you this is how the overreach started - prosecutors and cops wanted to hamstring the defense of charged drug dealers so they worked the legislature to water down the civil forfeiture law to allow seizures without charges and convictions...."We're only going to use it against drug dealers - we promise" Then the scumbaggery begins.
0
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:22 am to MMauler
quote:
I can understand them taking the assets while charges (and trial) are pending so long as the assets are traceable to the alleged crime. But, if charges are dropped or the individual is found not guilty, the assets should be returned to the individual.
That's absurd - it's practically "guilty until proven innocent". This would allow the state to allege a crime then rob you of your means to a defense.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:24 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
I know yall don't like judicial activism, but that's what it will take.
I would not consider this judicial activism. This is actually upholding the Constitution, not creating rights where none exist. Civil forfeitures is a good idea that's gone bad.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:33 am to MMauler
quote:I have a problem with people who don't even get CHARGED being able to be stolen from. I mean, ya know. We sort of had a concept around this idea at one time in this country.
I have no problem with the forfeiture of assets of actual drug dealers and felons for assets they used or bought with their ill-gotten gains. I doubt anyone does.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:35 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Did that police department write the laws allowing said behavior?
I know a guy who had his car confiscated by a police department in west texas with a sheriff and a single deputy. MASSIVE government.
Oh. OK. You were just being your normal stupid self. Sorry. Don't let me interrupt you showing your stupidity.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:35 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
I would not consider this judicial activism. This is actually upholding the Constitution, not creating rights where none exist. Civil forfeitures is a good idea that's gone bad.
Exactly, this would be the SCt doing its job.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:51 am to MMauler
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 10:53 am
Posted on 10/27/14 at 1:44 pm to Ole War Skule
Apparently there doesnt even need to be a crime.
Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required
Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required
quote:
RNOLDS 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.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 2:50 pm to UncleFestersLegs
I read that earlier. fricked up that the banks advised in some cases to keep deposits less than 10k as well.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 3:14 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:Structuring is a crime. However I would need to see more details on the cases. I am 1,000% against civil forfeitures in other cases.
Apparently there doesnt even need to be a crime.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 3:20 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
I am 1,000% against civil forfeitures in ALL cases.
Not because I want the criminals to go free or get away with crimes, but because I am more afraid of the mis-use of the statutes by the incompetent and corrupt civil authorities. I'd rather a drug dealer go free than a poor shop owner have their hard earned money STOLEN BY OUR OWN DAMN GOVERNMENT.
It's sickening and I'm surprised some LEOs have not been killed over this (that we know of).
Posted on 10/27/14 at 4:38 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Structuring is a crime
Structuring might be a crime but simply making deposits that are under 10k limit is not a crime.
Posted on 10/27/14 at 5:46 pm to MMauler
[are something both conservatives and liberals can agree are total bullsh!t.
I can't see how they're even Constitutional.
John Oliver -- Last Week Tonight -- on civil forfeiture laws..... ]
This report and reports similar to it, with the belief that good law abiding police officers do this type of activity, is both false and offensive. It is greatly disturbing that intelligent people would believe this actually happens in America.
Sincerely,
The Port Sulfur Police Department
cc The Lake Charels Police Department
I can't see how they're even Constitutional.
John Oliver -- Last Week Tonight -- on civil forfeiture laws..... ]
This report and reports similar to it, with the belief that good law abiding police officers do this type of activity, is both false and offensive. It is greatly disturbing that intelligent people would believe this actually happens in America.
Sincerely,
The Port Sulfur Police Department
cc The Lake Charels Police Department
Posted on 10/27/14 at 7:10 pm to ALWho
It's absolutely sickening. I did a paper on it in college and the stuff i found during my research made my blood boil. There are certain cities that have created quite the racket by targeting people of lower income by threatening to arrest them on ridiculous charges, but will let them go if they give up their assets. such as this case. So essentially they are shaking down people who can't afford to fight the charges, no matter how ridiculous, and forcing them to buy their freedom.
The biggest problem (other than them being able to take your shite without even charging you i mean) is that the same people who confiscate the assets get a share of the proceeds.
The biggest problem (other than them being able to take your shite without even charging you i mean) is that the same people who confiscate the assets get a share of the proceeds.
This post was edited on 10/27/14 at 7:14 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News