• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil Asset Forfeiture = Government Theft

I take issue with the OP wanting folks to watch and obviously BIASED 16 minute video

If you didn't watch the video, how do you know it was obviously biased?

Is it too much (apparently) to ask for the Op to actually proffer a summary of their 16 minute video.

Yes. Either watch it, or don't. But just spreading your ignorance is just silly.
 
That was the claim by the government, although the police officers who seized the cash said they thought he did nothing wrong...nor was he charged in connection with a crime.

Also, you have the settlement backwards. The government agreed to give him part of his money back.
Why was their a claim by the government?

If the officers thought him not guilty of doing anything wrong why did they still seize the cash?

Why did the canine hit on his vehicle?

Why wasn't he charged with a crime?

Was he arrested?

Was his vehicle seized?

Where is the police incident report of the stop and seizure?

Was he ticketed?

Why did he agree to the terms of the asset claim where the police kept $58 thousand +- and returned the rest to him since that document clearly and specifically states that the seizure was legitimately made because the money was forfeit under drug related codes?

They didn't have to return any of it.

That he agreed to the terms of the court document he was admitting the money was illicit drug crime related cash.
 
All of my posts have been quite explicit.

I take issue with the OP wanting folks to watch and obviously BIASED 16 minute video to discuss their obvious agreeing opinion offered that, "Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."

Is it too much (apparently) to ask for the Op to actually proffer a summary of their 16 minute video.

You know, something to work with more than just their opinion of an incident without making any mention of what was entailed in the incident?
Is it the presentation of the discussion you have an issue with, or do you have doubts about the prevalence, scale, or even existence of civil asset forfeiture itself?
 
If you didn't watch the video, how do you know it was obviously biased?
Did you read the big white and yellow lettering on the OP's video image?

"THEY TOOK HIS MONEY"

Not that the seizure was legitimately done, which it was.

Add to that the OP's one line, obviously biased, synopsis and there isn't much more needed to know the video no doubt is biased.

Yes. Either watch it, or don't. But just spreading your ignorance is just silly.
Why should I watch it?

Why should I spend 16 minutes watching a video that the OP isn't even going to support?

It isn't "ignorance" when one is uninformed but asking for some information.
 
Is it the presentation of the discussion you have an issue with, or do you have doubts about the prevalence, scale, or even existence of civil asset forfeiture itself?
My issue is the same now as it was when I stated it the first time.
 
Why was their a claim by the government?

Because they wanted his money.

If the officers thought him not guilty of doing anything wrong why did they still seize the cash?\

Because they wanted his money.

Why did the canine hit on his vehicle?

Because they train dogs to hit on what they want to hit on.

Why wasn't he charged with a crime?

Because they had no probable cause that he did anything wrong.

Was he arrested?

No.

Was his vehicle seized?

No.

Where is the police incident report of the stop and seizure?

Do your own research on that one.

Was he ticketed?

Why would this be relevant to having his cash seized? It would be relevant in terms of stopping him...but not a justification to steal his money.

Why did he agree to the terms of the asset claim where the police kept $58 thousand +- and returned the rest to him since that document clearly and specifically states that the seizure was legitimately made because the money was forfeit under drug related codes?

Because fighting in court is a losing battle. You're paying your lawyers out of your own money that you're trying to get back from the government.

They didn't have to return any of it.

The government probably knew they didn't have a case, but threw him a bone to make him go away.

That he agreed to the terms of the court document he was admitting the money was illicit drug crime related cash.

Nope. Wrong. See above.

Again, one of the true miscarriages of justice when it comes to Civil Asset Forfeiture is that your property is assumed guilty until you prove it innocent in a court of law. It takes a considerable amount of money to get your property back. If they seize $10,000...it's really not even worth fighting for. It's going to cost you more than that to bring a suit. If you're fighting for $100,000, it may be better to settle for 1/3 of your money rather than to piss away 80% of it on legal fees.
 
Oh well.

Cops legitimately seize drug money, the transporter of the drug money doesn't rot in jail for it and actually gets some of the money back.

Boo Freaking Hoo!

Live and learn Osamah Aburas!

Live and learn!
 
My issue is the same now as it was when I stated it the first time.
Okay, you don't like the presentation then. Fine. Do you accept the reality of CAF?
 
Did you read the big white and yellow lettering on the OP's video image?

"THEY TOOK HIS MONEY"

Not that the seizure was legitimately done, which it was.

You mean if the seizure was legitimately done, they didn't take his money?

Maybe you have some obscure definition of "take" or "took" that I'm not aware of. Please, define "took" such that if something is legitimately seized, something is not "taken"?

Add to that the OP's one line, obviously biased, synopsis and there isn't much more needed to know the video no doubt is biased.

In other words, you're just displaying your own ignorance, once again. /shrug

Why should I watch it?

Why should I spend 16 minutes watching a video that the OP isn't even going to support?

It isn't "ignorance" when one is uninformed but asking for some information.

Yes, yes...why should you spend 16 minutes watching the video. You can spend hours whining that I didn't type out Cliff's notes for you, instead.
 
Okay, you don't like the presentation then. Fine. Do you accept the reality of CAF?
Does Civil Asset Forfeiture exist?

Of course it does.

Has it been misused and abused, in my opinion, yes.

Was that the case here?

From everything I have seen and read, no.
 
This forfeiture without a conviction just because someone is carrying cash is just ridiculous.
 
You mean if the seizure was legitimately done, they didn't take his money?

Maybe you have some obscure definition of "take" or "took" that I'm not aware of. Please, define "took" such that if something is legitimately seized, something is not "taken"?



In other words, you're just displaying your own ignorance, once again. /shrug



Yes, yes...why should you spend 16 minutes watching the video. You can spend hours whining that I didn't type out Cliff's notes for you, instead.
Even if it was his money "THEY TOOK HIS MONEY" does not at all reflect what actually took place which was seizure of a bag of cash found in the vehicle he was driving.

"THEY TOOK HIS MONEY"

In big bold lettering is a blatant headline designed to influence one before they go any further.

Why didn't the headline say it as it was?

"Police Seize Suspected Drug Money"

That is what actually took place.

That is what was defined in the court documents that Osamah Aburas agreed to when having part of the seized asset (cash) returned.
 
This forfeiture without a conviction just because someone is carrying cash is just ridiculous.
No conviction but definite acknowledgement by Osamah Aburas that it in part if not in whole was illicit drug related cash.
 
Even if it was his money "THEY TOOK HIS MONEY" does not at all reflect what actually took place which was seizure of a bag of cash found in the vehicle he was driving.

Er...so, you're basing your opinion that the video is biased based on an accurate (but incomplete) caption on the video? That's it? I think I know where to file your opinions from here on out.

"THEY TOOK HIS MONEY"

In big bold lettering is a blatant headline designed to influence one before they go any further.

Why didn't the headline say it as it was?

"Police Seize Suspected Drug Money"

They had no reason to suspect it was drug money.

You do realize that 80% of cash has traces of cocaine on it, right?

That is what actually took place.

That is what was defined in the court documents that Osamah Aburas agreed to when having part of the seized asset (cash) returned.

That's their bullshit line without any good reason to believe it, yes...
 
No conviction but definite acknowledgement by Osamah Aburas that it in part if not in whole was illicit drug related cash.

There was no admission. This is your delusion.
 
Does Civil Asset Forfeiture exist?

Of course it does.

Has it been misused and abused, in my opinion, yes.

Was that the case here?

From everything I have seen and read, no.
I watched the full video and it was a textbook case example of civil asset forfeiture. If there was any ambiguity in this situation, it wasn't in the video.
 
There was no admission. This is your delusion.
No it isn't.

CONSENT DECREE OF FORFEITURE
P.K. HOLMES, III, District Judge.

On August 2, 2021, a verified complaint of Forfeiture was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the United States of America, against the Defendant Property, $96,690 in United States Currency. The complaint alleged that the defendant properties are subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) because they are property involved in and traceable to violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 et seq., and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 et seq. because they constitute property involved in and traceable to transactions or attempted transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1) & 1957.

The Court notes that the United States of America and the only Claimant, Osamah Aburas, personally and as an agent of C to R Wholesale, LLC, (hereinafter "Claimant"), have entered into a Stipulation for Compromise Settlement filed in the above-captioned matter. Claimant has consented and agreed to the entry of judgment of forfeiture based upon the Complaint for Civil Forfeiture in rem in favor of the United States on the conditions set forth below:

A. The United States will return to Claimant the sum of $38,676.00 in the form of a payment made through the United States Treasury; and
B. Claimant agreed that the remaining $58,014.00 in custody of the United States Marshal Service will be forfeited to the government.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. The United States shall return to Claimant, by and through his attorney, Eugene Clifford, the sum of $38,676.00 of the Defendant Property, less any delinquent debt owed by Claimant that the United States Treasury is required to collect through the Treasury Offset Program;

2. All right, title, and interest in the remaining defendant property, $58,014.00 in United States currency, are forfeited to the United States of America;

3. The United States Marshal shall deposit the $58,014.00 in the United States Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Fund for disposition according to law;

4. This Court hereby enters, and this judgment shall constitute, a certificate of reasonable cause under 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2) as to the defendant properties named in the complaint;

5. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of enforcing this Judgment of Forfeiture.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
 
I watched the full video and it was a textbook case example of civil asset forfeiture. If there was any ambiguity in this situation, it wasn't in the video.
How would anyone who doesn't watch the video know that?
 
There is no reason to support any form of Civil Asset Forfeiture, the government has been weaponizing the idea at just about every level.

Just finding cash and taking it for no valid reason is theft by taking... oh sorry, "reasonable suspicion of a crime so seize it."

Go on, tell me about Constitutionality with this one.
 
It really got out of hand with our "War on Drugs"

Cop stops you and you have a bunch of cash they automatically assume it is drug money. Lots of local police finance their department that way. They also get lots of cars, trucks, boats and other toys to play with.

They screw this up a lot. But it is very difficult to get your property back. Attorney and a bunch of money fighting those you pay to protect and serve.
 
No it isn't.

Read it again. The defendant stipulates that the government alleges something and that the money is seized through civil asset forfeiture. Not that what they allege is actually true.
 
Read it again. The defendant stipulates that the government alleges something and that the money is seized through civil asset forfeiture. Not that what they allege is actually true.
I knew you would say that.

You read it again.
 
All of my posts have been quite explicit.

I take issue with the OP wanting folks to watch and obviously BIASED 16 minute video to discuss their obvious agreeing opinion offered that, "Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."

Is it too much (apparently) to ask for the Op to actually proffer a summary of their 16 minute video.

You know, something to work with more than just their opinion of an incident without making any mention of what was entailed in the incident?
You don't have to watch the video, just do some of your own research to form an opinion instead of spouting off about bias.
This isn't a partisan issue , it should be one that both sides easily agree about.
 
How would anyone who doesn't watch the video know that?
Come on now. The OP was better than "This is exactly what I think; watch this video," which is a style of thread-starting that plagues this forum. You knew from the OP that it was about civil asset forfeiture -- it's in the thread title. And you know how the OP feels about CAV (it's theft). At this point, you can choose to watch the video and agree or disagree that this was a valid demonstration of CAV, or agree or disagree that CAV is "theft." But simply refusing to watch the video at this point is just being gratuitously difficult.
 
Back
Top Bottom