5 ms·

Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft. Worse, it should be slam-dunk unconstitutional (unreasonable search and seizure, due process) but thus far courts ha

by jmyeet 2y ago

Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft. Worse, it should be slam-dunk unconstitutional (unreasonable search and seizure, due process) but thus far courts have done what they do most of the time: sided with law enforcement. The legal justification is so laughably bogus too ("the money has no rights"... yeah but who does that money belong to?).

potato3732842 2y ago
Fines and seizures that skirt the protections afforded to defendants in criminal cases by being penalties for civil infractions are legalized theft. Civil asset forfeiture is a blatant violation of the 4th so depending on how exactly the seizure went down the laws of the jurisdiction it's larceny, robbery, armed robbery, etc. But people give the government too much benefit of the doubt hence the discussion being anchored around "legal theft".
BirAdam 2y ago
The USA is post-Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits the government to create the FBI and therefore the 10th should apply. As the FBI does exist, along with all of the other alphabet soup agencies, we can see that the Constitution no longer truly holds power.
- hiatus 2y ago
  Who would enforce federal laws if there were no federal law enforcement agencies?
  - Schiendelman 2y ago
    Almost every cabinet level department ALSO has its own US Marshals already.
  - UncleEntity 2y ago
    The states? In the early days of the U.S., the first federal criminal code, the Crimes Act of 1790, enumerated 23 federal offenses and established punishments for each.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      The states can't be compelled to enforce federal laws though can they? Isn't that how like sanctuary cities work? Or how weed is legal in some states but illegal federally? States can decline to assist federal law enforcement.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        They can if they want to, but can't be compelled to do so. If a state decides that a federal law won't be enforced by them, then it shouldn't be enforced in that state period. Federal law enforcement are worse than the gangsters they were created to fight.
        hiatus 2y ago
        So things like civil rights would depend on the state you're in?
      - BirAdam 2y ago
        Well, today, they can refuse. Historically, they couldn’t. George Washington was willing to use military force to enforce law.
        hiatus 2y ago
        Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean about George Washington? When did this modern right of refusal come about?
        BirAdam 2y ago
        According to the Constitution and precedence, federal laws are always the law of the land. States are supposed to need to prove that federal laws is unconstitutional, and they then wouldn’t be required to follow a federal law. Of course, a state could simply not enforce a federal law, but this is where the federal government can intervene. In the case of Washington, he used the army to enforce taxes on whiskey in Pennsylvania. Of course, he may not have been the biggest fan of using military force for policing, as he also established the US Marshals, but he was willing to use military force. Regarding states ignoring federal laws, the first I know of resulted in New York v. United States in 1992 where the Court ruled that congress couldn’t require states to enact waste disposal regulations. In more recent history, Oklahoma voted to nullify the Affordable Care Act in 2013. The biggest shift, however, was in marijuana legalization across the country. According to the federal government, pot is illegal. States have explicitly made laws stating the opposite. I can find nothing else quite like it in US history. This is different from previous cases where the states challenged a law on legal grounds. Here, they just ignored the federal government entirely.
  - BirAdam 2y ago
    Historically, a sherrif. Later, local police departments.
- energy123 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - BirAdam 2y ago
    Category error. Federal departments are changes to the structure and function of government that should require Consitutional Amendments. The imbibing of Diet Coke by the POTUS is not substantial to the structure and function of government.
    - energy123 2y ago
      Where in the Constitution does it say that federal departments require Constitutional Amendments? As far as I am aware, the Constitution says nothing about either that or Diet Coke.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I get the point you're trying to make that this seems to suggest that drinking Diet Coke is something also not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" but I think people who disagree consider that drinking Diet Coke is not a "power" in the same way that operating the FBI is.
mapt 2y ago
I contend that every judge, politician and law enforcement officer who's ever signed off on this idea is involved in a criminal conspiracy, in every colloquial sense of the term. The whole idea would moot the fourth amendment.
- spwa4 2y ago
  The whole of youth protection services and law enforcement for an entire state got caught running such a racket, imprisoning kids for money from the state, with the judges receiving kickbacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal Needless to say, although the criminal records for these kids got expunged (after 15 years, WAY too late and didn't mean anything anymore, and already had caused maximum damage on these kids' lives), no restitution was paid (yes kids have a criminal record. It just gets blanked on their 18th birthday) Needless to say, the actual crime the state, the judges, a private detention facility, public school employees, and ... participated in was kidnapping and abusing 2401 kids for a combined 380 years. The normal restitution payment for wrongful imprisonment is $50,000 per year, or in this case the state would normally owe these kids 19 million dollars, or about 8,000 dollar per kid (average). NOTHING was paid by the state for imprisoning kids through corruption for decades (plural). Oh and the private detention facility not only got to keep all the money, they are still in business. If a private person had committed such a crime, holding 2401 kids for a combined 380 years, the punishment would obviously be unimaginable. Hell, such a case would make people would ask "is there a death penalty in Pennsylvania?" (there is) The punishment for public servants? Everyone involved went free except one of the judges (he did not just corruptly imprison kids, he committed tax evasion), 3 people lost their jobs, and everyone kept all money that had changed hands. They can all be judges again. The ONE person that got imprisoned retired in Florida (one of the 3 judges, the one that did not just hurt kids, but also committed tax fraud). He was physically attacked many times, even in Florida. He moved to Florida because the police in Pennsylvania after the first few attacks refused to file charges against his attackers, even when they involved week-long hospital recovery stays. I utterly hate Trump, but it's relevant to add: Biden pardoned him. So when you say "judge", is this the sort of people you are talking about? When you say "politician" would that be the state legislature members that voted a law specifically to exempt everyone from prosecution in this case (that's why only the tax fraud judge got "imprisoned")? And when you say "law enforcement officers", do you mean the people that helped and committed violence against kids to safeguard the money? I say that, because this was declared, by elected officials, to NOT be a criminal conspiracy. In fact they voted in a law SPECIFICALLY to make sure this could not be considered a criminal conspiracy. So your standards need adjusting. Frankly, as soon as you look into it, you're going to find that governments see law as something that applies to other people, not to them. Not in small things. Not in large things. And once you see this, you will notice the small things constantly (like public vs private busses behavior, to name something so small it's almost ridiculous, yet obviously it's constant crimes) ... And, of course, this was not the only state this happened.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by jmyeet 2y ago

potato3732842 2y ago

Fines and seizures that skirt the protections afforded to defendants in criminal cases by being penalties for civil infractions are legalized theft. Civil asset forfeiture is a blatant violation of the 4th so depending on how exactly the seizure went down the laws of the jurisdiction it's larceny, robbery, armed robbery, etc. But people give the government too much benefit of the doubt hence the discussion being anchored around "legal theft".

BirAdam 2y ago

The USA is post-Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits the government to create the FBI and therefore the 10th should apply. As the FBI does exist, along with all of the other alphabet soup agencies, we can see that the Constitution no longer truly holds power.

hiatus 2y ago
Who would enforce federal laws if there were no federal law enforcement agencies?
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  Almost every cabinet level department ALSO has its own US Marshals already.
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  The states? In the early days of the U.S., the first federal criminal code, the Crimes Act of 1790, enumerated 23 federal offenses and established punishments for each.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    The states can't be compelled to enforce federal laws though can they? Isn't that how like sanctuary cities work? Or how weed is legal in some states but illegal federally? States can decline to assist federal law enforcement.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      They can if they want to, but can't be compelled to do so. If a state decides that a federal law won't be enforced by them, then it shouldn't be enforced in that state period. Federal law enforcement are worse than the gangsters they were created to fight.
      - hiatus 2y ago
        So things like civil rights would depend on the state you're in?
    - BirAdam 2y ago
      Well, today, they can refuse. Historically, they couldn’t. George Washington was willing to use military force to enforce law.
      - hiatus 2y ago
        Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean about George Washington? When did this modern right of refusal come about?
        BirAdam 2y ago
        According to the Constitution and precedence, federal laws are always the law of the land. States are supposed to need to prove that federal laws is unconstitutional, and they then wouldn’t be required to follow a federal law. Of course, a state could simply not enforce a federal law, but this is where the federal government can intervene. In the case of Washington, he used the army to enforce taxes on whiskey in Pennsylvania. Of course, he may not have been the biggest fan of using military force for policing, as he also established the US Marshals, but he was willing to use military force. Regarding states ignoring federal laws, the first I know of resulted in New York v. United States in 1992 where the Court ruled that congress couldn’t require states to enact waste disposal regulations. In more recent history, Oklahoma voted to nullify the Affordable Care Act in 2013. The biggest shift, however, was in marijuana legalization across the country. According to the federal government, pot is illegal. States have explicitly made laws stating the opposite. I can find nothing else quite like it in US history. This is different from previous cases where the states challenged a law on legal grounds. Here, they just ignored the federal government entirely.
- BirAdam 2y ago
  Historically, a sherrif. Later, local police departments.
energy123 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- BirAdam 2y ago
  Category error. Federal departments are changes to the structure and function of government that should require Consitutional Amendments. The imbibing of Diet Coke by the POTUS is not substantial to the structure and function of government.
  - energy123 2y ago
    Where in the Constitution does it say that federal departments require Constitutional Amendments? As far as I am aware, the Constitution says nothing about either that or Diet Coke.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I get the point you're trying to make that this seems to suggest that drinking Diet Coke is something also not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" but I think people who disagree consider that drinking Diet Coke is not a "power" in the same way that operating the FBI is.

mapt 2y ago

I contend that every judge, politician and law enforcement officer who's ever signed off on this idea is involved in a criminal conspiracy, in every colloquial sense of the term. The whole idea would moot the fourth amendment.

spwa4 2y ago
The whole of youth protection services and law enforcement for an entire state got caught running such a racket, imprisoning kids for money from the state, with the judges receiving kickbacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal Needless to say, although the criminal records for these kids got expunged (after 15 years, WAY too late and didn't mean anything anymore, and already had caused maximum damage on these kids' lives), no restitution was paid (yes kids have a criminal record. It just gets blanked on their 18th birthday) Needless to say, the actual crime the state, the judges, a private detention facility, public school employees, and ... participated in was kidnapping and abusing 2401 kids for a combined 380 years. The normal restitution payment for wrongful imprisonment is $50,000 per year, or in this case the state would normally owe these kids 19 million dollars, or about 8,000 dollar per kid (average). NOTHING was paid by the state for imprisoning kids through corruption for decades (plural). Oh and the private detention facility not only got to keep all the money, they are still in business. If a private person had committed such a crime, holding 2401 kids for a combined 380 years, the punishment would obviously be unimaginable. Hell, such a case would make people would ask "is there a death penalty in Pennsylvania?" (there is) The punishment for public servants? Everyone involved went free except one of the judges (he did not just corruptly imprison kids, he committed tax evasion), 3 people lost their jobs, and everyone kept all money that had changed hands. They can all be judges again. The ONE person that got imprisoned retired in Florida (one of the 3 judges, the one that did not just hurt kids, but also committed tax fraud). He was physically attacked many times, even in Florida. He moved to Florida because the police in Pennsylvania after the first few attacks refused to file charges against his attackers, even when they involved week-long hospital recovery stays. I utterly hate Trump, but it's relevant to add: Biden pardoned him. So when you say "judge", is this the sort of people you are talking about? When you say "politician" would that be the state legislature members that voted a law specifically to exempt everyone from prosecution in this case (that's why only the tax fraud judge got "imprisoned")? And when you say "law enforcement officers", do you mean the people that helped and committed violence against kids to safeguard the money? I say that, because this was declared, by elected officials, to NOT be a criminal conspiracy. In fact they voted in a law SPECIFICALLY to make sure this could not be considered a criminal conspiracy. So your standards need adjusting. Frankly, as soon as you look into it, you're going to find that governments see law as something that applies to other people, not to them. Not in small things. Not in large things. And once you see this, you will notice the small things constantly (like public vs private busses behavior, to name something so small it's almost ridiculous, yet obviously it's constant crimes) ... And, of course, this was not the only state this happened.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]