Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator Rand Paul Introduces the FAIR Act (asset forfeiture reform)
Senator Rand Paul ^ | 24 July 14

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.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: forfeiture; randpaul; warondrugs; wod
I know opinions on this forum are strongly divided on Senator Paul but this is a good law, long overdue, and I challenge any other so-called "conservative" in the Senate to oppose it.
1 posted on 07/25/2014 7:44:33 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Absolutely is a good law. Rand Paul is rock-solid on limiting the size of government and protecting property rights of citizens and businesses.


2 posted on 07/25/2014 7:50:15 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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.


3 posted on 07/25/2014 7:50:22 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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.


4 posted on 07/25/2014 7:50:30 AM PDT by Slyfox (Satan's goal is to rub out the image of God he sees in the face of every human.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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.


5 posted on 07/25/2014 7:53:38 AM PDT by Objective Scrutator (All liberals are criminals, and all criminals are liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
Absolutely is a good law. Rand Paul is rock-solid on limiting the size of government and protecting property rights of citizens and businesses.

Oh Really?!

That's why he wants to provide Amnesty for 2 million illegals each and every year based on a "certification" by a Pro-Open Borders congress that the border is secure?

2 million illegal immigrants each and every year who will be subsidized by you and I the Federal Government with free food, free health-care, and free schooling, which, by the way, is extremely expensive because their kids are 2, 3, 4 years behind every other kid in the school and a ton of money must be spent BY LAW, to bring them up to speed.

Yea, that Rand Paul, he's a rock where limiting the size of government is concerned.
6 posted on 07/25/2014 7:55:46 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Yea, that Rand Paul, he's a rock where limiting the size of government is concerned.

So you oppose Sen. Paul's FAIR Act?

7 posted on 07/25/2014 8:00:09 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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.


8 posted on 07/25/2014 8:00:23 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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.


9 posted on 07/25/2014 8:02:43 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
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?

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?

10 posted on 07/25/2014 8:09:50 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

One can support this and still despise Paul’s liberalism in other areas.


11 posted on 07/25/2014 8:16:54 AM PDT by ansel12 (LEGAL immigrants, 30 million 1980-2012, continues to remake the nation's electorate for democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

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!


12 posted on 07/25/2014 8:17:33 AM PDT by VRWCarea51 (The original 1998 version)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
One can support this and still despise Paul’s liberalism in other areas.

Fair enough.

13 posted on 07/25/2014 8:17:53 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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?


14 posted on 07/25/2014 8:22:05 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VRWCarea51

-—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!!


15 posted on 07/25/2014 8:25:50 AM PDT by oldbugleboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
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.

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.

16 posted on 07/25/2014 8:35:15 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

You’re kidding, right? You want some local guy with a title or a badge deciding whose money he’s going to confiscate?


17 posted on 07/25/2014 8:38:07 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Rand Paul bump for later........


18 posted on 07/25/2014 8:40:29 AM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
“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?”

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?

19 posted on 07/25/2014 8:42:53 AM PDT by GladesGuru (Islam Delenda Est. Because of what Islam is - and for what Muslims do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane; Drew68

No conservative that I know of wants to support the dangerous and illegal drug cartels by handing back $55,000.


20 posted on 07/25/2014 8:45:27 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
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.

21 posted on 07/25/2014 8:49:09 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
No conservative that I know of wants to support the dangerous and illegal drug cartels by handing back $55,000.

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.

22 posted on 07/25/2014 8:53:04 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
"State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property"

Which is where the majority of the problem is.

23 posted on 07/25/2014 8:56:48 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
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.

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?

24 posted on 07/25/2014 9:09:48 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
"You want some local guy with a title or a badge deciding whose money he’s going to confiscate?"

Unfortunately, this law would only impact the Feds. Locals, where the real abuse of asset forfeiture occurs, would not be effected.

25 posted on 07/25/2014 9:12:30 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

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


26 posted on 07/25/2014 9:17:55 AM PDT by Hildy (Falling down is how you grow. Staying down is how you die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Why do we need another law to enforce the 5th Amendment? Why can’t these pernicious seizure laws be struck down as unconstitutional?


27 posted on 07/25/2014 9:19:59 AM PDT by Flick Lives ("I can't believe it's not Fascism!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moehoward
Unfortunately, this law would only impact the Feds. Locals, where the real abuse of asset forfeiture occurs, would not be effected.

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.

28 posted on 07/25/2014 9:24:58 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; tacticalogic; Responsibility2nd
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'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.

29 posted on 07/25/2014 9:30:53 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Flick Lives
Why do we need another law to enforce the 5th Amendment? Why can’t these pernicious seizure laws be struck down as unconstitutional?

We need these laws because the exact opposite has happened; SCOTUS has upheld asset forfeiture.

30 posted on 07/25/2014 9:35:40 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

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.


31 posted on 07/25/2014 9:48:36 AM PDT by patton (“Really? Have you tried chewing cloves?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Rand Paul is Public Enemy #1 to the banksters. And they are experts at pushing social conservative buttons to gin up false divisions in the ranks of potential opponents of their agenda. Using time-tested slogans ("I like what he is trying to do here, but I can't stand his position on _fill_in_the_blank_") they are engaging in an Internet-wide campaign to deny him the Republican nomination in 2016. It's disappointing to see single-issue SoCons doing the banksters' work on FR, too.

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.

32 posted on 07/25/2014 10:03:14 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ([CTRL-GALT-DELETE])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

Like I’d trust the feds. For fun, read about all the FeeBees who were in Whitey Bulger’s pocket.


33 posted on 07/25/2014 10:07:25 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
Sadly, some folks are always more than willing to defend the police state as long as someone can tie it to the war on drugs the constitution.
34 posted on 07/25/2014 10:13:55 AM PDT by zeugma (It is time for us to start playing cowboys and muslims for real now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Your rant is not only off-topic, it contains lies. Senator Paul's plan would have cut off welfare to foreign aliens, both legal and illegal.

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?

35 posted on 07/25/2014 10:30:57 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson