Posted on 08/07/2013 7:08:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The New Yorker's Sarah Stillman has a heartbreaking story out on an appalling police tactic — civil forfeiture, which lets local police departments make tons of money from taking supposed criminals' property.
Civil forfeiture is largely a product of the war on drugs. In 1984, Congress passed an omnibus crime bill that gave local police departments a cut of the assets seized during drug raids and other investigations.
Through civil forfeiture, cops can take property they believe was obtained illicitly before you're convicted of any wrongdoing in a court of law. The people whose assets have been seized then have to go to court to try to get it back, which may cost more money than the property itself.
In many cases, civil forfeiture affects poor minorities who have little recourse.
The New Yorker profiled one elderly West Philadelphia couple, Mary and Leon Adams, whose home was seized after their son allegedly sold $20 worth of pot on their porch. (They received an eviction notice but were able to stay in their home during the forfeiture proceedings because of Leon's health conditions.) They were never even charged with a crime.
Victor Ramos Guzman, a Pentecostal church secretary from El Salvador, was driving $28,500 worth of parishioners' donations to buy a new parcel of land for the church with his brother-in-law when they were stopped for speeding in Virginia.
The state trooper who stopped him seized the cash, according to The New Yorker.
Guzman only got it back with the help of David Smith, who was a high-up lawyer with the Justice Department's Forfeiture Office during the Reagan administration but now defends victims of the policy for free.
"We could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money was church money from parishioners’ donations,” Smith told The New Yorker.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
because the court system IS a fraud.....
Makes the court system look like a fraud.
Well, there you go...
I hope the cops understand that there are people out here that can do the same to them.
Just because you possess the money doesn’t mean it is your money. For example, thieves.
There was an incident a while back involving an 18 wheeler that was pulled over and $100k was found in the trailer. The driver initially said it was his money but recanted when he couldn’t figure out how he got it. No one ever claimed the money.
Once again, who do you know here who supports taking assets from people who haven’t been convicted of anything?
Perhaps someone will come forward to admit they do. I don’t.
If we’re talking about a bit player drug pusher, I don’t think it’s wise to seize their assets.
If we’re talking about a major player who has accumulated a lot of wealth from it, I’m not inclined to disagree with taking their assets if they have been convicted, and there was no other visible means of income.
It's for the children.
Drugs are bad, m'kay.
You don't want to let the bad-guy get away, do you?
Respect my authoratai!
Cower Worm!
You dare fail to render obeisance!
All your property is god's, and by 'god' we mean government.
So my idea is this: Anybody can do anything they want to themselves. If they harm another in doing it, I mean in an immediate, direct fashion; something as long term and indirect as second hand smoke would not be considered, then they are punished as if they had full control of their mental faculties and acted with malice aforethought.
The government, at any level, could not pay to rehabilitate or give medical assistance for any substance induced harm. They would be on their own to solve their problems, unless family, church, or private organizations stepped in.
“Makes the court system look like a fraud.”
“The cops become bandits with uniforms.”
“because the court system IS a fraud.....”
Yes. Yes. And, yes.
I suppose so. Tell me, is it okay for the police to then steal that money? Perhaps the local sheriff should get the county to give him a right to steal the police money. And then the state attorney general should get the legislature to let him to steal that money. And then the U. S. attorney general should get Congress to allow him to steal that money.
Sorry, I don’t think anyone should have to prove ownership. Possession is 9/10ths of the law.
If no criminal act is proven, the money should remain with the person who had it.
Cyprus.
There's another place they avoid banks.
42 USC 1982 The Law
Title 42 of the U.S. Code at Section 1982 “Property rights of
citizens” is part of the civil rights package. It is the statute
that controls the use of real and personal property.
Here it references only the property the federal and state
government have a proprietary or monetary interest in.
Take time to read this very carefully. This was written to
protect all the people. Here it references only the property
the federal and state government have a proprietary or
monetary interest in.
The Land Patent and the act of congress will spell out the
jurisdiction the federal government has on the real property.
The articles immediately below are from internet news and
other sources. As you read them you will notice they all have
something in common. That is, the government can only put
a covenant on (Real and/or Personal Property). This would in
essence mean or indicate, that the owner had signed a contract
for the control, received money for improvements or was using
government land.
Google the term “sovereign citizen” and look at some of the things that you’ll find. There are a number of LEOs that hate the fact that such a thing as the Constitution, in particular the 4th amendment, exists.
My wife teaches on a military base.
The army sentry inspected her credentials and base pass and noticed her safety inspection had lapsed.
He took her keys and impounded her car.
Cost $250 to get the car back the next day.
You said:
“I have never understood how this practice has survived legal challenges.
Makes the court system look like a fraud.”
I agree. It makes a person wish that our Constitution asserted that we have “due process” rights.
You’d be surprised how many people say “It’s not mine. I didn’t know that was there” when they are caught with something they shouldn’t have.
If you are driving around in a car that isn’t your car, don’t be surprised if the 9/10’s rule doesn’t apply.
One of the many reasons I oppose the WOD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Huh. For me, this is one of the many reasons I SUPPORT the WOD.
Civil forfeitures involving innocent people are rare and hardly happen in comparison to the real harm done to drug dealers and other criminals.
True but if you show up to a meeting with $28k in cash, don’t be surprised if you find yourself staring at a gun or two while someone offers to hold that money for you.
It has a whole lot to do with drugs. It was the war on drugs that brought confiscation to a new and higher art form. If you believe that confiscation laws are merely an extension of Marxist ideology, why do you want to hand them a rationale?
And I don’t believe it should. (9/10s)
The case you mentioned though, there’s no traceable owner.
It just seems wrong for the police to simply say, okay, that cash is now mine.
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.