Skip to comments.Senator Rand Paul Introduces the FAIR Act (asset forfeiture reform)
Posted on 07/25/2014 7:44:33 AM PDT by Drew68
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul yesterday introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment's role in seizing property without due process of law. Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.
The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General's Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury's General Fund.
"The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime. The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime," Sen. Paul said
Click HERE for the FAIR Act legislation text.
Absolutely is a good law. Rand Paul is rock-solid on limiting the size of government and protecting property rights of citizens and businesses.
Long overdue. I’ve seen asset forfeiture used as a tool by the Feds to steal or target some people who have more toys than they have on bogus charges for a long time. Gets personal in a lot of cases. It was just too easy.
Forfeiture of property without due process was a common tactic employed by Henry VIII and his daughter, Elizabeth. It commonly left families destitute. Plus, the imprisoned person was usually left to defend himself in court without legal representation.
IMO Paul is extremely good on economics and property issues. His stances on sodomites and abortion are wishy-washy, and his drug policy and foreign policy positions are outright bad, but he’s otherwise one of the better people in Congress. He’d be a crappy President, but a pretty good Secretary of Treasury or Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
So you oppose Sen. Paul's FAIR Act?
This is a useless law in theory. Such a law has no purpose when the Constitution already covers everything Rand Paul proposes. All three branches should have protected these basic rights under the 5th Amendment. Sadly, they have all chosen not to do their job, so in the real world this redundant law is needed.
The vast majority of these asset forfeitures are uncontested. Or they later are ruled legal in a court of law.
But in the one in a thousand instance when some moron is legally carrying over 10K in cash and then has it seized, then we must all twist our knickers in a knot and rail against the system?
All Righty Then.
Is it too much to ask the government to prove that assets seized were accrued from criminal behavior?
Do you oppose this Act? Or do you just oppose it because Senator Paul's name is attached to it?
One can support this and still despise Paul’s liberalism in other areas.
There are some transactions I don’t want anyone to know about that are perfectly legal. So I use cash. Besides since when in a Free Country is it okay to assume someone is guilty of a crime simply because they are carrying cash?
That’s a sick twisted mind set.
Any transaction done either with check or electronicly can and Is being tracked and stored.
I refuse to allow idiots with the “if you have nothing to hide” mindset to stomp over my Constitutionally guarenteed rights so they can sleep well at night.
This whole BS started when the wannabe important half wit LEOs in backwater USA and the Feds decided they could purchase neat toys to play with if they could steal from the public with out proving any crime was committed.
Anyone that thinks that is okay, belongs in Russia or the Middle East. That is NOT how or why this Country was founded nor it’s Constitution and Laws were written.
Just because someone can’t afford a high priced legal team to fight it does NOT make it okay or LEGAL!
In a time where we must provide the government every detail of our lives just to live, work, drive, vote, eat, and etc...
I don’t see where demanding to know why Pedro has $55,000 in cash in his truck is that big a deal.
You know where that money came from. So do I. So does the State and so does Pedro.
You really want the State to host some mickey mouse trial costing $20,000 or more just to legalize things? Or are you happier with returning the $$$ to the cartels?
-—wait til the next massive BAILOUT of the banks/FED
requires the confiscation of our IRAs,pension funds and
savings accounts. Right around the corner!!
You know where that money came from. So do I. So does the State and so does Pedro.
Unfeakingbelievable. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of the American legal system. I can't conceptualize how anyone who would call themselves a conservative would want anything else.
You’re kidding, right? You want some local guy with a title or a badge deciding whose money he’s going to confiscate?
Rand Paul bump for later........
That number seems outrageously low. Got any hard data to support it?
As for why we should be alarmed about government abusing a citizen unjustly, no one ever said it better then Blackstone - “It is better to free ten guilty than jail one innocent”.
The Department of “Always Think Forfeiture”(ATF) even squandered our money on custom Leatherman tools with ATF on one handle and Always Think Forfeiture on the other handle.
One last example will suffice, if anything will. The Roman Inquisition was paid for by the Roman Catholic Church, and was tasked with trying Galileo. He was punished with house arrest.
The Spanish Inquisition was funded by forfeiture of property belonging to heretics. There were might few heretics found innocent because of the incentive of forfeiture.
Why turn our AgencyPersons into inquisitors?
No conservative that I know of wants to support the dangerous and illegal drug cartels by handing back $55,000.
You're right about that. And when the government can prove that Pedro is a drug dealer, they can keep the money.
And none that I know of want to see an innocent man stand to lose his property, or thinks that half-truths are the path to good government and good policy.
Which is where the majority of the problem is.
You'll find on this forum people who loath Senator Paul so much that they'll twist themselves into a pretzel to oppose on principle any legislation he puts forward.
You can guarantee that if Senator Cruz was behind the FAIR Act, these same people would be all for it.
Curious, where does Senator Cruz stand on this legislation?
Unfortunately, this law would only impact the Feds. Locals, where the real abuse of asset forfeiture occurs, would not be effected.
I am on a plane right now flying home from Washington, DC where I testified in front of the Natural Resources committee in support of HR5026, the Fish Hatchery Protection Act sponsored by my Congressman, the wonderful Dr. Paul Gosar. The bill states that only Congress has the authority to change policies and purposes of the mitigation fish hatcheries that supply billions of dollars to local economies. I am the Chairman of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors.
However, that power already lies with Congress. All they have to do is pick up the phone and tell these unelected bureaucrats from the Department of the Interior to knock it off and then follow through. But it’s always flashier to to a new bill. This is the second time I have testified in front of Congress on behalf of my County. I have come to the realization that whatever is going to change will have to be changed at the State and local level and we must commit to fight for our State sovereignty in any manner necessary. I
Why do we need another law to enforce the 5th Amendment? Why can’t these pernicious seizure laws be struck down as unconstitutional?
Here in MO, we passed a law that said asset forfeiture proceeds go to the schools. The feds worked out a scheme with some local law enforcement agencies where the state law enforcement would do the investigative work, then call in the feds to do the bust. Then the feds would seize the assets and then "share" the forfeiture proceeds with the local agency, circumventing the state law.
You'll also find people willing to jettison foundational legal principles like innocent until proven guilty, and also the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, if it can be argued to further the battle against the dangerous and illegal drug cartels. Oddly, they seem to think they're conservatives.
We need these laws because the exact opposite has happened; SCOTUS has upheld asset forfeiture.
Well written; But, like the second amendment, I despair at enacting these laws, with the caveat “...and this time we MEAN IT!”
That such has become necessary is indicative of the demise of the former republic.
Paul is a long-shot anyway due to the lack of money men behind him, but the bad guys certainly feel more of a cold chill on the backs of their necks when he introduces legislation like this than they do over any phony and carefully scripted posturing by Republican Senators and Governors over border security or gay marriage or gun rights.
Like I’d trust the feds. For fun, read about all the FeeBees who were in Whitey Bulger’s pocket.
Back on-topic: Do you stand with Senator Paul and his support of the Fifth Amendment, or do you stand against the Bill of Rights and support tyranny?