The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: EasyAce on July 18, 2017, 03:50:47 am
-
“No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime,” Sessions says of law that lets police take cash without charging anyone with a crime.
By C.J. Ciaramella
http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/17/sessions-announces-justice-department-wi/print
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department will issue new directives to increase the federal
govenment's use of civil asset forfeiture, a controversial practice that allows law enforcement to seize property from
suspected criminals without charging them with a crime.
Speaking at a National District Attorneys Association conference in Minneapolis Monday, Sessions said state and local law
enforcement could expect changes from U.S. Attorneys in several areas: increased prosecution of gun crimes, immigration
offenses, gang activity, and prescription drug abuse, as well as increased asset seizure by the federal government.
"[W]e hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers," Sessions said. "With care
and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds
of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners" . . .
. . . Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a consistent Republican advocate for reforming asset forfeiture laws, said in a statement to Reason
Monday: "As Justice Thomas has previously said, there are serious constitutional concerns regarding modern civil asset
forfeiture practices. The Department has an obligation to consider due process constraints in crafting its civil asset forfeiture
policies."
Lee was referring to conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' notable dissent (http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/21/clarence-thomas-attacks-civil-asset-forf) in an asset forfeiture case this June.
Thomas wrote that forfeiture operations "frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in
forfeiture proceedings" . . .
. . . Sessions' upcoming directive to increase asset forfeiture comes as little surprise. Sessions, a former prosecutor and U.S.
senator, has been a stalwart defender of asset forfeiture throughout his career. He has already dismantled Obama-era directives
on drug sentencing guidelines and ordered a review of all of the existing consent agreements between the Justice Department
and police departments that were found to be violating residents' constitutional rights.
Another Republican critic of asset forfeiture, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, tweeted Monday that "This policy takes us backward.
Congress must step up to protect the property of Americans from a government that keeps stealing from them."
#CluelessJeff strikes again.
-
Thank God my state has been making civil asset forfeiture harder.
-
And this was the core reason I could not support Sessions as AG.
This is no minor thing.
It is big government run amok violating the basic principles of our constitution.
-
A billion dollar criminal industry under the color of law was just green-lit to go full tilt.
I imagine once the Dems regain control - this will be a wonderful mechanism to truly 'redistribute wealth' if the GOP doesn't beat them to the game and call firsts on the dibs.
-
And this was the core reason I could not support Sessions as AG.
This is no minor thing.
You and me both
It is big government as the nation's largest organised crime family, run amok violating the basic principles of our constitution.
Fixed! ;)
-
“No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime,” Sessions says
I wholeheartedly agree. No government should be able to steal the assets of its citizens.
-
No Conviction for a crime you don't get a dime. EFF you, Sessions and your thieves.
14th Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
5th Amendment
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Just up and deciding you're going to take sh*t is not "Due Process of Law".
It's robbery under color of law.
Just ripping people off might get someone shot.
-
I can't tell if Session is the most corrupt or just the stupidest AG we have ever had. His advancing of issues like this is appalling. Time for congress to get a set of balls and tell Sessions this phony bullshit seizing assets without due process ends now.
-
I can't tell if Session is the most corrupt or just the stupidest AG we have ever had.
Yes.
Time for congress to get a set of balls . . .
You do believe in miracles!
-
I can't tell if Session is the most corrupt or just the stupidest AG we have ever had. His advancing of issues like this is appalling. Time for congress to get a set of balls and tell Sessions this phony bullshit seizing assets without due process ends now.
He is not stupid so let's go with the former and add that he is saddled with the same hubris and despotism-prone zealotry most of the rest of our government "representatives" have.
Just Google the instances of the millions upon millions this asset forfeiture "industry" is netting for law enforcement. Cops are just become Highwaymen with this policy and they are happy and eager to get in on the share.
This is a hell of a lot more direct and dangerous than even failing to repeal ObamaCare.
-
This is a hell of a lot more direct and dangerous than even failing to repeal ObamaCare.
I'll say, and just like Zerocare congress will do nothing. AF will only be eliminated by a ruling from the Supreme Court which looks hopeful.
-
Sessions is out of his GD mind. **nononono*
-
This isn't anything new with Sessions and it should have disqualified him from ever being appointed the chief law enforcement officer.
It is fundamentally wrong and in direct conflict with the constitution. These actions give conservatives a very bad name and have long lasting consequences.
-
So where does Trump stand on this since nobody seems to want to ask?
-
So where does Trump stand on this since nobody seems to want to ask?
LOL! Must be a 'plot'...to grab the drug cartel $$$ for "The Wall".
-
Thank God my state has been making civil asset forfeiture harder.
So now they'll simply get the Feds involved in some minor way so the Feds can seize assets and then "share" them with their "partners" in your local law enforcement.
-
So where does Trump stand on this since nobody seems to want to ask?
Since he is wholeheartedly in favor of taking by condemnation for private use, he's almost certainly in favor of this as well.
-
So where does Trump stand on this since nobody seems to want to ask?
Well, the AG that he fought for and got appointed is the one making the statement on civil asset stealing.
-
“No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime,” Sessions says of law that lets police take cash without charging anyone with a crime.
Must be a tough job. 6 months in and Sessions has already started Crack.
-
So now they'll simply get the Feds involved in some minor way so the Feds can seize assets and then "share" them with their "partners" in your local law enforcement.
More likely they'll fight against federal involvement. Michigan has been pretty good about resisting the feds in recent years like refusing to enforce or collect fines for breaking federal regulatory laws that no layman has a reasonable expectation of knowing.
-
Since he is wholeheartedly in favor of taking by condemnation for private use, he's almost certainly in favor of this as well.
Oddly enough, where John Roberts stood on eminent domain was the question I had and was roundly attacked for at the time of his nomination. I was called a democrat for asking the same question of Gorsuch.
-
No Conviction for a crime you don't get a dime. EFF you, Sessions and your thieves.
14th Amendment
5th Amendment
Just up and deciding you're going to take sh*t is not "Due Process of Law".
It's robbery under color of law.
Just ripping people off might get someone shot.
That hasn't been true since Bush I. They take what they want, when they want and will punish you if you complain.
-
That hasn't been true since Bush I. They take what they want, when they want and will punish you if you complain.
You know..... our forefathers went to war with their tyrannical government over much, much less.
I guess we are willing to suffer evil, because evils are sufferable rather than abolish the form to which we have all become accustomed.
-
That hasn't been true since Bush I. They take what they want, when they want and will punish you if you complain.
Ruby Ridge happened under Bush 1. Waco started under Bush1 (Surveillance and planning), Clinton (Reno) just finished it. https://www.texasobserver.org/the-standoff-in-waco/ (https://www.texasobserver.org/the-standoff-in-waco/)
You are right that this has been going on for quite a while. That does not make it right.
-
You got intelligence leaks and whole agencies defying the President, all sorts of other liberal shenanigans, and this is what you do with your position Sessions? Completely tone deaf and Constitutionally wrong.
-
Must be a tough job. 6 months in and Sessions has already started Crack.
Sessions said from the word go he still believed in asset forfeiture. He may have been cracked going in. ;)
-
Sessions said from the word go he still believed in asset forfeiture. He may have been cracked going in. ;)
It depends, if someone is convicted of a crime I'm pretty much ok with seizing assets acquired from the crime. Lets say a sports car was purchased with drug money. Take the car, sell it, and use the money to pay the costs of the law enforcement or heaven forbid restitution to the victims. That doesn't mean their legal defense (aka party) funds.
What I have a real problem with is when they seize money & property based solely on suspicion and the people have to prove their innocence.
-
It depends, if someone is convicted of a crime I'm pretty much ok with seizing assets acquired from the crime. Lets say a sports car was purchased with drug money. Take the car, sell it, and use the money to pay the costs of the law enforcement or heaven forbid restitution to the victims. That doesn't mean their legal defense (aka party) funds.
What I have a real problem with is when they seize money & property based solely on suspicion and the people have to prove their innocence.
In the loosest interpretation, speeding is a crime. I sure don't want cops with money changers cruising the highways.
-
It depends, if someone is convicted of a crime I'm pretty much ok with seizing assets acquired from the crime. Lets say a sports car was purchased with drug money. Take the car, sell it, and use the money to pay the costs of the law enforcement or heaven forbid restitution to the victims. That doesn't mean their legal defense (aka party) funds.
What I have a real problem with is when they seize money & property based solely on suspicion and the people have to prove their innocence.
I don't think anyone would have a problem with seizing profits from the crime when a preponderance of the evidence in
a case delivers a guilty verdict. Merely being arrested isn't such evidence. Suspicion isn't evidence. And like I mentioned
earlier, I think, a verdict of not guilty seems not to mean a now-acquitted suspect gets his or her property back without
a fight that often lasts longer than the original case did.
-
Being able to keep your own stuff is one of the most basic of God-given rights.
-
And this was the core reason I could not support Sessions as AG.
This is no minor thing.
It is big government run amok violating the basic principles of our constitution.
I think this whole mess makes Sessions a pretty disgusting AG--despite most conservatives being thrilled with his appointment by Trump.
-
I don't think anyone would have a problem with seizing profits from the crime when a preponderance of the evidence in
a case delivers a guilty verdict. Merely being arrested isn't such evidence. Suspicion isn't evidence. And like I mentioned
earlier, I think, a verdict of not guilty seems not to mean a now-acquitted suspect gets his or her property back without
a fight that often lasts longer than the original case did.
@EasyAce
They don't even have to file charges. If they catch you with say $4,600 in cash they can seize it. To get it back you have to prove the money was earned legally and that you paid taxes on it. They also tend to change the rules at will from what I've read.
If they like your boat and the find a single marijuana seed on it they can seize it. Cars, trucks and RVs are the same. Anything they want. Oh and in many cases the department gets to keep most of the money.
-
@EasyAce
They don't even have to file charges. If they catch you with say $4,600 in cash they can seize it. To get it back you have to prove the money was earned legally and that you paid taxes on it. They also tend to change the rules at will from what I've read.
This is exactly correct. Folks are beginning to refer to Law Enforcement as Highwaymen.
If they like your boat and the find a single marijuana seed on it they can seize it. Cars, trucks and RVs are the same. Anything they want. Oh and in many cases the department gets to keep most of the money.
Proof to back up your statement:
HOW CIVIL FORFEITURE LAWS ARE COSTING INNOCENT PEOPLE THEIR HOMES (https://psmag.com/news/law-to-clean-up-nuisances-costs-innocent-people-their-homes-64809)
New Front in Civil Forfeiture: Authorities Get Devices to Seize Funds Loaded to Prepaid Cards (http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/06/07/new-front-in-civil-forfeiture-okla-authorities-get-devices-to-seize-funds-loaded-onto-prepaid-cards/)
Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?utm_term=.73bb73ebabb4)
The Injustice of Civil-Asset Forfeiture - The latest victim: a 22-year-old who set off to start a new life with $16,000 to his name, only to have it all seized by the DEA. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-glaring-injustice-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/392999/)
-
@EasyAce
They don't even have to file charges. If they catch you with say $4,600 in cash they can seize it. To get it back you have to prove the money was earned legally and that you paid taxes on it. They also tend to change the rules at will from what I've read.
I've heard the same thing about rule changing. Beyond that, not only do you have to prove you earned the money
legally, it can take you as long as five years to get any of it back---if at all.
If they like your boat and the find a single marijuana seed on it they can seize it. Cars, trucks and RVs are the same. Anything they want. Oh and in many cases the department gets to keep most of the money.
And people wonder why I call government the nation's largest organised crime family. ;)
-
I can't tell if Session is the most corrupt or just the stupidest AG we have ever had. His advancing of issues like this is appalling. Time for congress to get a set of balls and tell Sessions this phony bull**** seizing assets without due process ends now.
:amen:
-
It depends, if someone is convicted of a crime I'm pretty much ok with seizing assets acquired from the crime. Lets say a sports car was purchased with drug money. Take the car, sell it, and use the money to pay the costs of the law enforcement or heaven forbid restitution to the victims. That doesn't mean their legal defense (aka party) funds.
What I have a real problem with is when they seize money & property based solely on suspicion and the people have to prove their innocence.
Taking the assets of someone (life, liberty, or property) of someone duly convicted of a crime and falling within the penalties for that crime is one thing, and constitutional.
Unfortunately, with civil asset forfeiture, the object itself is the criminal, just by its presence. It isn't even a question of proving individual innocence, it is a question of having your assets taken and you not even being charged with a crime--the asset is claimed to be there because it is supposedly the product of criminal activity. If you seem like someone who is going to squawk, the crime part is easy enough for the unscrupulous to arrange. ('Oh, look at the little baggie we 'found' under the seat!'--easy to palm for the camera, and 'discover', after the dog sits down, of course--something mine will do on a hand signal, no word spoken, and easy enough to do obscured form the cameras.)
That denies the person being robbed of a platform to prove innocence and forces them to sue to get their assets back, or provides leverage in the event of complaint to take the vehicle, too (and all in it) while the accused faces felony drug charges.
The whole system just begs for organized corruption, and the eventual result will look like the Montana Vigilantes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Vigilantes), only they only had one jurisdiction to cover. That would prompt a Federal response, and similar from LEOs who were not 'dirty', because of the way it would be portrayed and end up in a street war between police and the populace--one of the reasons dirty cops are seen as the lowest of the low and integrity is supposed to be paramount.
Ripping the Constitutional foundations of the Due Process requirement from underneath that thin blue line at any level--Federal 5th Amendment protections, 4th Amendment protections and at the State level 14th Amendment protections against the loss of life, liberty, or property without Due Process, by making the very actions Due Process is supposed to protect against part of that Due Process is wholly contrary to the spirit of those unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
As for proving innocence, when the burden of proof of guilt should reside on the State, if there are no criminal charges made, there is no innocence to prove. If the level of robbery is kept low enough (below a few thousand at a pop), there cannot be an economically viable recovery without some sort of award for damages, damages which would also have to be proven in court, unless someone can find good representation pro bono. We have the best justice system money can buy, and usually, you get what you pay for, so the odds of that are far too slim unless there is a name attorney out there hunting for a case to build reputation on.
What Sessions has proposed is expanding the legalized and unconstitutional theft of property by LEOs who are so inclined, effectively sanctioning the largest group of armed highwaymen on the planet, anyone behind a badge.
While I will be the first to state that not all police, police or sheriff's departments, or even Federal LEOs will engage in such activity, it will take only a handful of such to completely alienate the Law Enforcement community from the people, and the level of enmity will go up, fostered where there was none, elevated where there was--a level that has been approaching limited warfare in some places already. I see this as a foolish move on Sessions part, unless he is trying to encourage corruption in law enforcement and blood in the streets.
-
It depends, if someone is convicted of a crime I'm pretty much ok with seizing assets acquired from the crime. Lets say a sports car was purchased with drug money. Take the car, sell it, and use the money to pay the costs of the law enforcement or heaven forbid restitution to the victims. That doesn't mean their legal defense (aka party) funds.
What I have a real problem with is when they seize money & property based solely on suspicion and the people have to prove their innocence.
The asset forfeiture he is vocal about requires no conviction or even charges be filed. It is one of the most blatant violations of the Constitution.
-
@EasyAce
They don't even have to file charges. If they catch you with say $4,600 in cash they can seize it. To get it back you have to prove the money was earned legally and that you paid taxes on it. They also tend to change the rules at will from what I've read.
If they like your boat and the find a single marijuana seed on it they can seize it. Cars, trucks and RVs are the same. Anything they want. Oh and in many cases the department gets to keep most of the money.
Watch any of the 'reality' cop shows on TV and see how small the packets involved in a felony possession of drugs is. Not much bigger than a fingernail, and something which could be palmed and swept out from under a seat it was never under with a hand, right on camera, a trivial 'magic trick', but enough to haul a person off in irons and take their stuff.
-
And people wonder why I call government the nation's largest organised crime family. ;)
It was a sad day for organized crime when its members realized that public office is the best racket.
It would be interesting to see how many office holders have a criminal family background. They certainly tend to act like racketeers.
-
It was a sad day for organized crime when its members realized that public office is the best racket.
It would be interesting to see how many office holders have a criminal family background. They certainly tend to act like racketeers.
:silly:
Background? What background?
"There is no evidence which exists..."
Janet Reno
-
it is a question of having your assets taken and you not even being charged with a crime--the asset is claimed to be there because it is supposedly the product of criminal activity.
Just having cash on you is now designated to be "proof" that a criminal drug act is being committed. Try flying with anything more than a $1,000 on you and experience an interrogation that might seem more appropriate in East Germany.
The whole system just begs for organized corruption,
Already there at the local levels. The Feds now want their cut and to oversee a more 'direct' route of redistributing wealth.
Ripping the Constitutional foundations of the Due Process requirement from underneath that thin blue line at any level--Federal 5th Amendment protections, 4th Amendment protections and at the State level 14th Amendment protections against the loss of life, liberty, or property without Due Process, by making the very actions Due Process is supposed to protect against part of that Due Process is wholly contrary to the spirit of those unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Where have you been? As I experienced in our personal dealing with crooked cops who assaulted two of my daughters in their own home without a warrant and made up bogus assault charges on them after beating the piss out of them - the FACTS and REALITY is that the Constitution is null and void. As I was repeatedly told by my daughters' Counselor - they are guilty and must prove their innocence. That is the reality. Juries will take the word of cops over us civilians even when all the video and audio evidence magically *disappears*. Dare bring up Constitutional violations - Counsel laughs and says that is not permitted at the local level and if we insist - the charges will increase and plea deals will be less. Unless you are independently wealthy - you or yours will go to prison unless you an procure a great attorney.
Asset Forfeiture takes the quaint and false notion we live in a Constitution Republic to a whole new level of irrelevance.
And still we will think we are "free" and have the "Constitution" to protect us because we are become accustomed to evil, because those evils are sufferable.
As for proving innocence, when the burden of proof of guilt should reside on the State, if there are no criminal charges made, there is no innocence to prove.
As the attorney told us point-blank - that quaint notion of America no longer exists. The reality is - in our justice system - unless you got lots of bucks to play, you have to prove your innocence because the moment you walk into a courtroom - everyone in there including the jury sees you as guilty. That is the reality, ESPECIALLY when it is the word of law enforcement against you.
And Law Enforcement knows this.
Which is why Asset Forfeiture is such a lucrative industry for them. There is no recourse for a citizen and you will likely do prison if you dare challenge what was done to you. Sessions just made it all legal in all 50 states.
We have the best justice system money can buy, and usually, you get what you pay for, so the odds of that are far too slim unless there is a name attorney out there hunting for a case to build reputation on.
BINGO. Almost word-for-word what my kids' attorney told us. THAT is the reality.
The Constitution is already null and void. We just pay lip service to it.
What Sessions has proposed is expanding the legalized and unconstitutional theft of property by LEOs who are so inclined, effectively sanctioning the largest group of armed highwaymen on the planet, anyone behind a badge.
Exactly.
Goes for all the armed Alphabets too.