https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g80_MauFF9jOibIrr_tw8pcM-lkgN3JP-DBrBBoUKB7rEHere's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.
Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion. ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g80_MauFF9jOibIrr_tw8pcM-lkgN3JP-DBrBBoUKB7rE
this is an issue that needs to be explored during the 2020 election
where does each candidate stand on asset forfeiture
And then the elite stand around scratching their balls wondering why no one trusts them anymore.
You cant fix stupid.
The biggest barrier to the Excessive Fines Clause restraining civil asset forfeiture is that owners who want their property back are not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer because the proceedings are deemed civil, not criminal. This means most people go unrepresented because it is economically irrational to hire a lawyer in cases when the value of the property taken is less than the cost of hiring a lawyer. And, as we showed in our complaint in Cox v. Voyles, when people try to represent themselves, they’re fighting against government lawyers who are expert in these systems, expert in dirty tricks, and therefore expert in defeating even meritorious claims on procedural grounds.
More insidiously, as Cox also demonstrated, some people are justifiably afraid to fight their cases with or without a lawyer. For example, though the state law at issue in Cox has now changed as a result of our litigation, the law at the time allowed the government to recover its own attorneys’ fees from people who fought to regain their seized property and lost. But if they won, the state didn’t have to pay for the property owners’ attorneys’ fees. This meant that whatever the outcome of the case, many property owners would lose money if they dared to fight for their rights in court.
Such stupid could be fixed, but that would require the SCOTUS to act broadly, ignore precedent and/or a perfect case to be accepted by them.
It is outrageous and the Supreme Court ruling it is allowed is SO EXTREMELY contrary to the Bill Of Rights it is basis to accurately see the Supreme Court is just an enforcement force of the government for the interests of the government - at the expense of Constitutional rule of law and Constitutionally protected personal rights.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It is outrageous and the Supreme Court ruling it is allowed is SO EXTREMELY contrary to the Bill Of Rights it is basis to accurately see the Supreme Court as just an enforcement force of the government for the interests of the government - at the expense of Constitutional rule of law and Constitutionally protected personal rights if need by to side with the government, meaning siding with themselves.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 5A refers (only?) to criminal charges thus civil asset forfeiture, which is unconnected to any criminal charge, conviction or sentence imposed does not appear to enjoy such 5A "takings" protection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?