4 ms·

It is presumptuous, but that is how civil forfeiture works. Its atrocious. Take a look at this well written article by the New Yorker Taken: The Use and Abuse

It is presumptuous, but that is how civil forfeiture works. Its atrocious. Take a look at this well written article by the New Yorker Taken: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...

josephschmoe 12y ago
That is indeed blood boiling. I am now upset after reading this...
dragonwriter 12y ago
While there are real issues with civil forfeiture raised in that article, they largely don't apply here -- this isn't a case where the government said "let us seize your assets and we won't prosecute you" (using it as an extortion mechanism) or where the cost of contesting forfeiture exceeds the value of the assets. Its a case where Ulbricht chose to assert a claim on certain seized property and not on others, either because he is not, in fact, DPR (which is what he claims) and didn't want to steal property that wasn't his, or because he is actually is DPR but admitting that he owned the Silk Road servers and bitcoins would make his conviction more likely because it would make it harder for him to deny being the guy behind Silk Road.
ahallock 12y ago
That's disgusting. FTA: 'Many states, facing fiscal crises, have expanded the reach of their forfeiture statutes, and made it easier for law enforcement to use the revenue however they see fit.' How are they any better than the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us from?
- Uhhrrr 12y ago
  -Their henchmen wear uniforms so you don't confuse them with normal people -They operate from fixed headquarters -Some of them are elected -They have a complaints department -Certain social services are provided
- talmand 12y ago
  For the departments that choose to go down that road, they are essentially no different. Except that they have the legal might of the state supporting their actions; including use of deadly force. Allowing forfeiture statutes of this nature likely motivates departments to increase their usage to get more revenues. It is a disgusting practice and can only lead to something bad.
vacri 12y ago
Jello Biafra sang about this as far back as the late 1980s - "property seized and sold before trial", where he had assets siezed in a raid, and the sheriff was legally able to sell his gear before Biafra had seen the inside of a courtroom.

josephschmoe 12y ago

That is indeed blood boiling. I am now upset after reading this...

dragonwriter 12y ago

While there are real issues with civil forfeiture raised in that article, they largely don't apply here -- this isn't a case where the government said "let us seize your assets and we won't prosecute you" (using it as an extortion mechanism) or where the cost of contesting forfeiture exceeds the value of the assets. Its a case where Ulbricht chose to assert a claim on certain seized property and not on others, either because he is not, in fact, DPR (which is what he claims) and didn't want to steal property that wasn't his, or because he is actually is DPR but admitting that he owned the Silk Road servers and bitcoins would make his conviction more likely because it would make it harder for him to deny being the guy behind Silk Road.

ahallock 12y ago

That's disgusting. FTA: 'Many states, facing fiscal crises, have expanded the reach of their forfeiture statutes, and made it easier for law enforcement to use the revenue however they see fit.' How are they any better than the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us from?

Uhhrrr 12y ago
-Their henchmen wear uniforms so you don't confuse them with normal people -They operate from fixed headquarters -Some of them are elected -They have a complaints department -Certain social services are provided
talmand 12y ago
For the departments that choose to go down that road, they are essentially no different. Except that they have the legal might of the state supporting their actions; including use of deadly force. Allowing forfeiture statutes of this nature likely motivates departments to increase their usage to get more revenues. It is a disgusting practice and can only lead to something bad.

vacri 12y ago

Jello Biafra sang about this as far back as the late 1980s - "property seized and sold before trial", where he had assets siezed in a raid, and the sheriff was legally able to sell his gear before Biafra had seen the inside of a courtroom.