patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture laws.

This has been discussed at length.

Dan8267 says

This is a damn good reason to disband the DEA immediately and fire all those criminals.

Ist thing you have said that makes sense.

Dan8267 says

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without ever charging him with a crime

DEA criminal cops steal a man's honestly earned life savings and even though he's not even charged with a crime, nor is there any reason to believe he's committed one, he's guilty until proven innocent because of the Unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture laws.

WOW, anyone know where I can enlist to be a DEA agent?

This place is one big open air prison, and you have only the Statists to thank

Get fucked, freedom haters

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/05/dea-still-cant-tell-senate-left-innocent-student-survive/

At what point do I have to conclude that the [Drug Enforcement Administration] is hiding something about what happened here? asked Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, unsuccessfully prodding a DEA witness to explain why Senateinquiries into what happened to Daniel Chong have been met with silence. On April 20, 2012, Chong was detained by DEA agents during a drug raid on a friends house in San Diego. The 23-year-old university student cooperated with agents during an interrogation, and was told that he would soon be free to go, only to be handcuffed with his hands behind his back and left in...

But, but, but, the neocon mouthbreathers keep telling me that giving the authorities more and more power with less and less oversight is just fine. If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about.

DEA only work in areas that have money to steal. That shouldn't be a surprise since they work for the government. If you want more proof, It's also a well known fact that in the ghetto where drugs and crime are everywhere, they are no where to be found.

bob2356 says

But, but, but, the neocon mouthbreathers keep telling me that giving the authorities more and more power with less and less oversight is just fine. If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about.

That has nothing to do with neocons, this is a cross party problem. You'd have to disband the DEA and the part of the FDA that goes after raw dairy farmers and weed growers and most importantly repeal a whole bunch of laws and acts and replace them with bupkis. This can only be achieved by libertarian forces. In fact under Obama drug enforcement and weed dispensary raids have inched up, as have raw dairy farmer raids. You can only be innocent if all those bs laws are repealed which will make the agencies obsolete so they can be disbanded.

mell says

bob2356 says

But, but, but, the neocon mouthbreathers keep telling me that giving the authorities more and more power with less and less oversight is just fine. If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about.

That has nothing to do with neocons, this is a cross party problem. You'd have to disband the DEA and the part of the FDA that goes after raw dairy farmers and weed growers and most importantly repeal a whole bunch of laws and acts and replace them with bupkis. This can only be achieved by libertarian forces. In fact under Obama drug enforcement and weed dispensary raids have inched up, as have raw dairy farmer raids. You can only be innocent if all those bs laws are repealed which will make the agencies obsolete so they can be disbanded.

You missed the point by a considerable margin. It's the enforcement of the laws that is first and foremost the problem. Not just bad laws like the war on drugs, very necessary laws also. The entire system of enforcement federal, state, and local, not just the dea/fda, has spiraled way out of control, irrespective of what the laws are. Civiil rights have de facto, and (thanks to an insane supreme court led by the far right wing judges) in many cases de jure, been repealed. And yes it is first and foremost a right wing problem. FWIW Obama is just Bush in blackface on this issue. Well on many issues actually.

Yes the war on drugs is absurd and always was.

bob2356 says

Civiil rights have de facto, and (thanks to an insane supreme court led by the far right wing judges) in many cases de jure, been repealed.

Splain me, on the extension of the Patriot Act I see that, on the ACA I don't.

Too many obligations to the lobby's regarding O's actions? I.E. public unions.

As long as the rich aren't affected by this, I don't see what the problem is. This is how the government is supposed to get it's funding, not by taxing the rich.

marcus says

As long as the rich aren't affected by this, I don't see what the problem is. This is how the government is supposed to get it's funding, not by taxing the rich.

Splain the diff between that and the highest paid public servants in the union and the worst test scores in the union. IOW why is that not stealing? From the future no less, even convicts don't tolerate that.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Civiil rights have de facto, and (thanks to an insane supreme court led by the far right wing judges) in many cases de jure, been repealed.

Splain me, on the extension of the Patriot Act I see that, on the ACA I don't.

Have you been at the captains drugs again? That sentence makes very little sense. I was thinking more Kelo v. City of New London, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, and Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz rather than the ACA.

bob2356 says

That sentence makes very little sense.

Makes sense to me?

bob2356 says

Have you been at the captains drugs again? That sentence makes very little sense. I was thinking more Kelo v. City of New London, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, and Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz rather than the ACA.

I see you are using your standard MO of carping and then jumping over the vital to focus on the relatively trivial to ostensibly demonstrate how grounded you are on the subject. Trouble is you are missing the elephant in the room, with the ACA and the Patriot Act that has led to the egregious use of civil forfeiture law.

corrupt tellers routinely steal cash
corrupt farmers routinely steal hoes'
corrupt cooks routinely steal burgers
corrupt realtors routinely tell you it's time to buy
if someone is corrupt what else would you expect?
This thread has no point.

Dan8267 says

Corrupt cops routinely steal people's assets

SoftShell says

corrupt tellers routinely steal cash

corrupt farmers routinely steal hoes'

corrupt cooks routinely steal burgers

corrupt realtors routinely tell you it's time to buy

if someone is corrupt what else would you expect?

This thread has no point.

You are not thinking big enough? Our corrupt government sends out cops to steal.

SoftShell says

This thread has no point.

Redundantly redundant?

"There is no presumption of innocence under civil asset forfeiture laws. Rather, law enforcement officers only need to have a suspicion -- in practice, often a vague one -- that a person is involved with illegal activity in order to seize their property. On the highway, for instance, police may cite things like tinted windows, air fresheners or trash in the car, according to a Washington Post investigation last year."

Well heres how to make Police as rich as Lawyers: If you have a few empty Big Gulps and water bottles in your car, this is suspicious, take all the money in a citizens wallet?
You can pull over every driver and you will find a broken light bulb, a few magazines.

This is not only a full frontal assault of our Civil Liberties, but ushers in an era of presumption of Guilt. Your cars got a Big Gulp, your cars blue, you have mosquitoes on your windscreen.

I truely feel for this man who was held up by police.

DEA is just trying to reverse fed policies - by taking this money out of economy they are preventing the marginal businesses from entering the arena and unduly burdening worthy businesses, hence benefiting the economy and innovation as well as improving stability and confidence.

dublin hillz says

DEA is just trying to reverse fed policies - by taking this money out of economy they are preventing the marginal businesses from entering the arena and unduly burdening worthy businesses, hence benefiting the economy and innovation as well as improving stability and confidence.

And as a small business owner, - we have to deal with >30-40 different Federal, State, County, and City agencies. And these guys come over and waste time like crazy, its unbelievable. You should have seen my City fight me when I told them my office was not in their city!

I never paid much attention to history of Roman Empire in my electives: Now I do because its amazing the Roman society plagiarism we are entering into.

SoftShell says

if someone is corrupt what else would you expect?

What I expect from our legal system is prosecution of these criminals in open court as well as a constitutional challenge to the very laws being used to confiscate property without due process.

U.S. citizens need to expect higher standards in government and they need to express outrage when these standards are not met.

#1 Drugs should be legal. The DEA should not exist.

#2 I waffle on asset forfeiture. In the end, I think its too rife for abuse.

#3 It would be nice if the rich did pay all their share of taxes. Unfortunately mostly Democrats keep fighting the closure of various tax loopholes. If there was just one actual honest Democrat who really meant it when they said they will close all tax loopholes(like DeBlasio's recent platform espouses) I would very strongly consider voting for them. But up to this point, its just something Dem's say, not something they actually do.

#4 Dan you need to come up with better sources. The article you cite in no way explains where its information comes from, nor does it attempt to explain the many gaps in the story. I am guessing, just as much as the Albeqerque journal is guessing, that young Mr. Rivers is a thug involved in criminal activity or some sort. I agree that this is not a good reason to take someones money...a suspicion....but clearly the news source either left much out, or is using Mr Rivers as its sole source of information. In the past you have taken stances based on plaintiffs pleadings, and that also is something lacking information(usually). For a guy that supposedly prides himself on logical thinking based on a factual foundations, you take an awful lot of liberties when the subject matter needs to match your preconceived bias. Sounds a lot like Sean Hannity to me.

The article is from the Washington Post. There are many other articles online from various news agencies that tell similar stories and go into detail about how often this happens and where.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

That sentence makes very little sense.

Makes sense to me?

bob2356 says

Have you been at the captains drugs again? That sentence makes very little sense. I was thinking more Kelo v. City of New London, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, and Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz rather than the ACA.

I see you are using your standard MO of carping and then jumping over the vital to focus on the relatively trivial to ostensibly demonstrate how grounded you are on the subject. Trouble is you are missing the elephant in the room, with the ACA and the Patriot Act that has led to the egregious use of civil forfeiture law.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Please cite me the relevant supreme court rulings on the ACA and explain how the ACA led to the egregious use of civil forteiture. As far as I know the only supreme court ruling on ACA has been NIFIB V Seleblius which says ACA is a tax rather than a mandate, hardly an earth shattering loss of civil rights. I can't figure out for the life of me how that ruling possibly relates to civil forfeiture. You brought up the ACA, try to explain why it is relevant to civil rights.

Where the fuck did I say the patriot act didn't reduce civil rights you insufferable twit? I cited SOME representative cases relevant to loss of civil rights, I didn't cite ALL relevant cases. I'm sorry I apologize that I didn't cite any patriot act cases if it upsets you so much.

If you think the cases I DID cite are trivial to the loss of civil rights then you are simply an idiot. Whats the matter, mises.org didn't write about those cases so you don't have the vaguest clue what they are or what they mean?

bob2356 says

I'm sorry, I'm confused.

Two separate issues, somehow you are conflating the two, perhaps you misunderstand the antecedent for "that"?

bob2356 says

Where the fuck did I say the patriot act didn't reduce civil rights you insufferable twit?

The hubris is strong with this one me thinks. Reminds me of the Wogster.

They are the two biggest and relevant and recent cases I can think of regarding civil rights.

The ACA is a huge infringement on civil liberties to say otherwise is ignorant of the economic implications. And was voted in by one of them nasty right wing justices.

Here is a good one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html?_r=0
Nailed this kingpin.

(She later got her money back, but ONLY because of this NYT style publicity.)

Asset Forfeiture isn't so bad if it came after a conviction. Also, it can only be the convicted person's assets. No more seizing grandma's house because the grandson is selling crack.

indigenous says

The ACA is a huge infringement on civil liberties to say otherwise is ignorant of the economic implications.

Yes I can tell by your extensive explanation of how it is a huge infringement on civil liberties supported by the overwhelming volume of peer reviewed supporting documents filled with footnoted references like you always provide.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

I'm sorry, I'm confused.

Two separate issues, somehow you are conflating the two, perhaps you misunderstand the antecedent for "that"?

Perhaps you could learn basic english grammar then it wouldn't be a problem.

So you need a lesson in basic economics as well?

What makes you think this is not already taking place?
Who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and not been prosecuted? Links?

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

if someone is corrupt what else would you expect?

What I expect from our legal system is prosecution of these criminals in open court

This only happens to criminals.

If you show respect and do not walk away from the disciplined, regimented officer, you will not lose your cash.

SoftShell says

What makes you think this is not already taking place?

Who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and not been prosecuted? Links?

The extensive evidence.
http://patrick.net/misc/Why+Civil+Forfeiture+must+end+immediately

What makes you think these crimes aren't systemic?

HydroCabron says

If you show respect and do not walk away from the disciplined, regimented officer, you will not lose your cash.

Empirically false.
http://patrick.net/misc/Why+Civil+Forfeiture+must+end+immediately

indigenous says

So you need a lesson in basic economics as well?

Sure I'm always up for learning, who will you find to teach it?

So you believe economics and civil rights are the same thing? You certainly don't deserve civil rights if that's true.

Your youtube links show nobody who has been caught, that has not been prosecuted.
Again, Who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and not been prosecuted? Links?

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

What makes you think this is not already taking place?


Who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and not been prosecuted? Links?

The extensive evidence.

http://patrick.net/misc/Why+Civil+Forfeiture+must+end+immediately

SoftShell says

Your youtube links show nobody who has been caught, that has not been prosecuted.

Again, Who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and not been prosecuted?

Bullshit. Victims report the crime all the time. The counties never prosecute because they are making profits off it.

You can easily count the crimes by considering every forfeiture to be criminal until the state proves the guilt of the person who's property was taken, which is the Constitutional standard of due process. If the state cannot prove a person was guilty of moving drugs, which quite frankly is nearly 100% of these cases if not 100%, then it's a crime.

Another blatant theft under color of authority:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/05/05/irs-seizes-over-100000-from-innocent-small-business-owner-despite-promise-to-end-raids/

(again this dude got his money back only as a result of this type of publicity)

Robert Sproul says

Another blatant theft under color of authority:

Again, why aren't the gun people staging an open revolt if they are so hung up on the Second Amendment being the only way to protect against tyranny? This is tyranny. This is far, far worse than the conditions that justified the American Revolution. King George III was not this bad. Yes, he seized property and papers, but nowhere to the extent or corruption of our current situation.