Of the two, which is the more important political issue?

[radcen]

Of the two, which is the more important and significant political issue?

1) TGs in public restrooms?

or

2) Statement Supporting Introduction of Federal Civil Forfeiture Reform Legislation

 

[TurtleDude]

Of the two, which is the more important and significant political issue?

1) TGs in public restrooms?

or

2) Statement Supporting Introduction of Federal Civil Forfeiture Reform Legislation

you do know that there are many JUSTIFIED cases where property is forfeited and the Claimant is not charged with a crime

The last case I tried as a DOJ attorney involved a drug dealer who knew his home was going to be searched after a CI ratted him out. SO he stashed 200+K in drug proceeds in a safe he had put in his mother's home. His mother claimed that the money in that safe was hers. The jury listened to her testimony and a forensic accountant (who testified that this woman-who had her wages garnished twice because she didn't pay her bills) and concluded that the money was not hers and thus found for the Federal government. The fact that she claimed that the money had been there for "years" even though her wages were garnished during that time and that a reliable drug dog hit on the money several times was not convincing to the jury

since gays have made the bathroom issue a cause celebre I would suggest more people care about the bathroom issue

 

[radcen]

you do know that there are many JUSTIFIED cases where property is forfeited and the Claimant is not charged with a crime

The last case I tried as a DOJ attorney involved a drug dealer who knew his home was going to be searched after a CI ratted him out. SO he stashed 200+K in drug proceeds in a safe he had put in his mother's home. His mother claimed that the money in that safe was hers. The jury listened to her testimony and a forensic accountant (who testified that this woman-who had her wages garnished twice because she didn't pay her bills) and concluded that the money was not hers and thus found for the Federal government. The fact that she claimed that the money had been there for "years" even though her wages were garnished during that time and that a reliable drug dog hit on the money several times was not convincing to the jury

since gays have made the bathroom issue a cause celebre I would suggest more people care about the bathroom issue

The question has nothing to do with popularity.

 

[radcen]

you do know that there are many JUSTIFIED cases where property is forfeited and the Claimant is not charged with a crime

The last case I tried as a DOJ attorney involved a drug dealer who knew his home was going to be searched after a CI ratted him out. SO he stashed 200+K in drug proceeds in a safe he had put in his mother's home. His mother claimed that the money in that safe was hers. The jury listened to her testimony and a forensic accountant (who testified that this woman-who had her wages garnished twice because she didn't pay her bills) and concluded that the money was not hers and thus found for the Federal government. The fact that she claimed that the money had been there for "years" even though her wages were garnished during that time and that a reliable drug dog hit on the money several times was not convincing to the jury

since gays have made the bathroom issue a cause celebre I would suggest more people care about the bathroom issue

Simply as a matter of principle, I would say that it is literally impossible for there to be a justified case of civil asset forfeiture without even charges being filed. We either believe in the Constitution, or we don't (and obviously we don't given the court decisions regarding CAF). It's cherry picking to staunchly defend the absolute rights granted by the 2nd Amendment, then turn around and rationalize turning a blind eye to the 4th Amendment and/or the intent of due process.

In the case you cite, it sounds like a case could have been built for charges, but they had the money, and that's all the government really wanted, so why bother?

 

[Carjosse]

Civil forfeiture reform, it is essentially legalized robbery.

 

[Ikari]

Obviously forfeiture. The bathroom issue effects a very small population, but government's ability to take our property effects us all.

 

[Ikari]

you do know that there are many JUSTIFIED cases where property is forfeited and the Claimant is not charged with a crime

Justified or legal? There are probably some one-offs. But the majority? Likely not. I'm sure we can make a system where, if the government jumps through the proper hoops, they can take property without charge. But it would have to be some good hoops.

Generally of government is going to seize property, they are going to have to prove its use in crime.

 

[Mr Person]

since gays have made the bathroom issue a cause celebre I would suggest more people care about the bathroom issue

The only reason that trans people - not "gay people" - going to the bathroom is an issue is because of the massive conservative freakout.


It's a very stupid freakout, too. Where's the evidence demonstrating that a trans person who is a potential rapist will choose to commit their rapes in one of the easiest places to be caught? Why would they specifically choose a public restroom? Why is it any more likely that a trans person would rape someone in a public bathroom than that a non-trans person would?

And someone with such a history of pro-gun posts as yourself should surely recognize where I'm getting my next turn of phrase: why do you think laws against bathroom use are going to stop a rapist? Laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, right? So why would a law stop a rapist, trans or not, from entering a public restroom and raping somebody?

(Besides, there kind of are laws against rape already)





The widespread rampant use of things like asset freezes and civil forfeiture to grab extra funds for law enforcement or to cripple a defendant's ability to hire an attorney (which nicely doubles with the fully intentional underfunding of public defender agencies and rates for appointed attorneys) is an infinitely more important issue.

The bathroom thing shouldn't be an issue at all. Use a stall and get an LTC if you're so irrationally scared of getting raped by a trans people specifically, in public restrooms specifically.

 

[TurtleDude]

Simply as a matter of principle, I would say that it is literally impossible for there to be a justified case of civil asset forfeiture without even charges being filed. We either believe in the Constitution, or we don't (and obviously we don't given the court decisions regarding CAF). It's cherry picking to staunchly defend the absolute rights granted by the 2nd Amendment, then turn around and rationalize turning a blind eye to the 4th Amendment and/or the intent of due process.

In the case you cite, it sounds like a case could have been built for charges, but they had the money, and that's all the government really wanted, so why bother?

so reference the case I tried. Son is a drug dealer with tax returns showing less than 15K in income over a three year period. He gives his mother 200+K to hide since he got wind that the DEA was going to search his home. Mom cannot be charged for drug dealing. She cannot be charged with perjury before the jury decides that the money in a safe in her home is not hers. (no perjury charges were lodged because the standard is much higher for a criminal conviction).

I had another case where a girlfriend of one of the biggest drug dealers in the MW was busted for speeding. a bag full of money was found in a car that belonged to a friend of her boyfriend. She made no claim to the money. Neither did the boyfriend. Rather the car owner claimed it was his-he claimed he left 20K in 50s in a paper bag in the car because he had gone to buy another car for 12K (remember there was almost 20K in the bag-who goes to buy a 12K car with 20K?) well we KNEW It was drug money because we had court ordered WIRETAPS of the drug dealer and what REALLY HAD HAPPENED was that the GF sold some mope 20K worth of dope and that was the dope proceeds. LATER she and some minions went back and KILLED the mope and took the dope back. Now we couldn't tell the CLAIMANT's attorney what we knew because that would have queered-among other things-a major investigation that two years later ended up in over 150 years of prison sentences for the entire gang and a MURDER ONE conviction of one of the players. SO I had to go to court and try the case based on the fact that the claimant, the drug dealer, the girflriend and the drug dealer's attorney all told the cops FOUR different stories where the money came from. and no one could explain why a drug dog hit on money the claimant's wife said had been in their safe for three years and before that had come from a bank account. Sadly for her, she claimed it came from an account that had never had more than 5K in it and she contradicted her husband who said it came from a DIFFERENT account.

so we won that case-after 8 days of testimony the jury found by answering this question (in FIFTEEN MINUTES of deliberation)

Do you find that the claimant-XX- established that he is the true and rightful owner of the defendant (X amount of dollars)

YES_____ NO___X____

end of case.

according to you the claimant should have kept the money because he was not charged with any criminal offense (I declined to indite him for perjury a year later when the drug dealer -during allocution-admitted he was the true owner of the funds and had asked this guy to lie for him, because this guy was 78 and had a clean record) and the real owners NEVER MADE A CLAIM to the property because THEY KNEW IF THEY DID, we'd nail them on tax evasion.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

you do know that there are many JUSTIFIED cases where property is forfeited and the Claimant is not charged with a crime

The last case I tried as a DOJ attorney involved a drug dealer who knew his home was going to be searched after a CI ratted him out. SO he stashed 200+K in drug proceeds in a safe he had put in his mother's home. His mother claimed that the money in that safe was hers. The jury listened to her testimony and a forensic accountant (who testified that this woman-who had her wages garnished twice because she didn't pay her bills) and concluded that the money was not hers and thus found for the Federal government. The fact that she claimed that the money had been there for "years" even though her wages were garnished during that time and that a reliable drug dog hit on the money several times was not convincing to the jury

since gays have made the bathroom issue a cause celebre I would suggest more people care about the bathroom issue

I get what you are saying, TD. Yes, if we get rid of this tool then people we KNOW committed the crime but weren't found guilty will be able to keep the proceeds of their crimes. And my answer to that is, I don't care. Just as I would rather 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned, I would rather 100 criminals keep their profits than 1 innocent person get robbed by the government.

 

[TurtleDude]

I get what you are saying, TD. Yes, if we get rid of this tool then people we KNOW committed the crime but weren't found guilty will be able to keep the proceeds of their crimes. And my answer to that is, I don't care. Just as I would rather 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned, I would rather 100 criminals keep their profits than 1 innocent person get robbed by the government.

a fair argument. and yes sometimes an innocent person was robbed-or more often, won his case but had to pay all sorts of attorneys' fees. AND IT WAS worse when the CLAIMANT had the burden of proof on him (the government merely had to make a showing of PROBABLE CAUSE) and then the claimant had to show he was either an innocent owner (I didn't know the guy I lent my car to was trafficking 2 kilos of heroin in it) or that the proceeds were not drug proceeds.

 

[Bodi]

If we are talking about the moral survival of United States society the more important issue is certainly TG's being granted access to female bath rooms....

 

[tres borrachos]

Firfeiture?

 

[americanwoman]

Of the two, which is the more important and significant political issue?

1) TGs in public restrooms?

or

2) Statement Supporting Introduction of Federal Civil Forfeiture Reform Legislation

Asset forfeiture for sure. While it's important the government stays out of saying who goes in what bathroom, I'm much more concerned about people getting their property taken from them.

 

[americanwoman]

If we are talking about the moral survival of United States society the more important issue is certainly TG's being granted access to female bath rooms....

Won't someone ever think of the men's bathrooms? :lol: All this talk like us females can't handle ourselves but I have a feeling more shenanigans are happening in men's bathrooms.

 

[jamesrage]

Of the two, which is the more important and significant political issue?

1) TGs in public restrooms?

or

2) Statement Supporting Introduction of Federal Civil Forfeiture Reform Legislation

I do think men should not use the ladies restrooms and that ladies should not use the men's restroom.But as others pointed out this issue only effects a tiny percentage of people.The issue of civil forfeiture can effect a lot more.Property should not be taken without a guilty conviction and they should have to prove how that property was used in a crime or was the profit of a crime.

 

[Bodi]

Won't someone ever think of the men's bathrooms? :lol: All this talk like us females can't handle ourselves but I have a feeling more shenanigans are happening in men's bathrooms.

What can I say? You are delicate creatures...

...interesting though, I have seen many many women use men's bathrooms at clubs, bars, etc but never ever a man use a woman's. It was almost universally because there were 30 women waiting in line and guys rooms were so quick 'cause guys just do our business and get out.