TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07 ... oming.html

Emphasis mine.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday that the Justice Department will make it easier for local law enforcement to seize cash and property from crime suspects and reap the proceeds."

"With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime," Sessions told local prosecutors in Minnesota."

Now that I do agree with. Take the proceeds of the criminal... AFTER he has been legally DECLARED a criminal by due process by a jury of his peers.

Man, this really twists my shorts...

Asset forfeiture is legalized theft. IMO it's tyranny unless you can prove the funds or item was gained only from a crime. This guilt until proven innocent that is applied to property needs to go...

So much for draining the swamp.

It's things like this that lead me to believe that the inevitable was only delayed by defeating Felonia Von Pantsuit.

Due process has become only for the oligarchs to be found not guilty of committing any crimes.

Trump's Justice Department has plenty of legal reasons to seize all of the assets belonging to international criminal George Soros and his henchmen.

Pariah3j wrote:Asset forfeiture is legalized theft. IMO it's tyranny unless you can prove the funds or item was gained only from a crime. This guilt until proven innocent that is applied to property needs to go...

Tyranny, plain and simple. This is exactly the type of behavior that incites revolutions, including the one we had back in 1776. There is no excuse for this criminal behavior. None.

With some context, though, I can see where they're coming from. Let's say some DEA officers raid a home with a warrant, then find a stash of coke and $50K in cash with that stash. Whether they get the perps is irrelevant at this point. I would presume the money with the coke is illegal cash that can be seized.

Now in another context (argument against), some cops pull over a stolen vehicle. Inside, they find that the driver is a suspected drug dealer that the DEA is looking for, so they arrest him. Then they find $5K in cash on his body as well, so they seize it and hand it over to the feds.

The problem that I see is that situation 1 may seem cut and dry, but situation 2 doesn't. What if the owner of the vehicle has a legitimate cash business and is on his way somewhere with the cash before it got stolen? Or what if the perp is the wrong guy? And he's just borrowing his "friend's" car? We don't know that. We don't know anything.

Here's another thing, though. Last I checked, the DEA is severely overloaded with casework, so they aren't exactly going after the pot grows and the small time dealers. They're going after the big fish. That's a limited number of people. If this applies to the DEA only as the article is implying, it doesn't seem that bad....

But despite that, It is still wrong to seize those assets until the court has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was used in a crime of some sort. ALL American residents are protected under the Bill of Rights, regardless of how cut and dry it may look. We can't grant exceptions to just certain situations. Otherwise, we'll just grant them to everything... at that point, the BoR will be moot, and we'll be living under tyranny once again. Why get the snowball started?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:Asset forfeiture is legalized theft. IMO it's tyranny unless you can prove the funds or item was gained only from a crime. This guilt until proven innocent that is applied to property needs to go...

Tyranny, plain and simple. This is exactly the type of behavior that incites revolutions, including the one we had back in 1776. There is no excuse for this criminal behavior. None.

Once again, everyone needs to read this book to understand the origins and the unbridled dishonesty of elected officials to betray the rights of American citizens: "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/re ... TF8&btkr=1

I don't like this and frankly this is not what I voted for. Innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. This also sets a bad precedent for when another liberal monster gains power. Bad, bad, bad.

bblhd672 wrote: Once again, everyone needs to read this book to understand the origins and the unbridled dishonesty of elected officials to betray the rights of American citizens: "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/re ... TF8&btkr=1

Thanks for the recommendation, added to my amazon wishlist - been interested in this subject for some time, hoping this book sheds some light and gives some good debate points I can use and back up with some intelligence.

strogg wrote:With some context, though, I can see where they're coming from. Let's say some DEA officers raid a home with a warrant, then find a stash of coke and $50K in cash with that stash. Whether they get the perps is irrelevant at this point. I would presume the money with the coke is illegal cash that can be seized.

Now in another context (argument against), some cops pull over a stolen vehicle. Inside, they find that the driver is a suspected drug dealer that the DEA is looking for, so they arrest him. Then they find $5K in cash on his body as well, so they seize it and hand it over to the feds.

Seizing what appears to be evidence of a crime or in connection of a crime is one thing. Given your example, one can assume the cash with the coke is tied to the crime.(Of course, we know what we do when we assume don't we?) My point was that currently the assumption is all they need to do asset forfeiture in most cases. You then have to prove your property innocent of whatever charges they come up with, instead of the DA proving it was gained/is connected to the crime.

Take your second example, there have been cases of people carrying large sums of cash that were seized because they appeared to be for the purpose of doing something illegal, such as buying drugs.

Between the choice to up asset forfeitures, and his doubling down on failed drug policies - I'm starting to really doubt the 'greatness' of choosing Sessions for AG.

What I find most troubling, in the article, is that police department's, claim that they lost a large amount of funding, under the more restrictive regulations. The idea that a department is funded, due to crime, sends the wrong message. First, it encourages, over zealous seizures, and second, it would also open the door for selective enforcement, in that rather than try to prevent crime in the first place, it would allow small time dealers to get bigger, to acquire a larger haul.
Asset forfeiture was never designed, nor should it be used, as a budgeting tool. It should only be used, to provide things, not budgeted. And only after due process, has been met, to allow for the forfeiture in the first place. JMHO

Theft unless convicted.

Jusme wrote:What I find most troubling, in the article, is that police department's, claim that they lost a large amount of funding, under the more restrictive regulations. The idea that a department is funded, due to crime, sends the wrong message. First, it encourages, over zealous seizures, and second, it would also open the door for selective enforcement, in that rather than try to prevent crime in the first place, it would allow small time dealers to get bigger, to acquire a larger haul.
Asset forfeiture was never designed, nor should it be used, as a budgeting tool. It should only be used, to provide things, not budgeted. And only after due process, has been met, to allow for the forfeiture in the first place. JMHO

There was a study done along these lines. Apparently I-10 is a drug corridor. Drugs move from Texas to the east coast and then cash moves from the east coast back to Texas along I-10. Louisiana (I believe) set up a special drug interdiction task force. But that task force focused on stopping vehicles headed west (with cash) and pretty much ignored vehicles headed east (with drugs). Apparently the message was "we don't care if illegal drugs come into the country as long as we get a share of the profits."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... h-a-crime/

Since 2007, the report found, the DEA has seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of involvement with the drug trade. But 81 percent of those seizures, totaling $3.2 billion, were conducted administratively, meaning no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash and no judicial review of the seizures ever occurred.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... h-a-crime/

Since 2007, the report found, the DEA has seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of involvement with the drug trade. But 81 percent of those seizures, totaling $3.2 billion, were conducted administratively, meaning no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash and no judicial review of the seizures ever occurred.

I understand why the DEA exists, and I applaud the few honest ones in the bunch for keeping the streets safe. But seriously... It looks more and more like the DEA themselves are getting super corrupt, and this Sessions fellow is the mob boss. I'm with y'all with the outrageousness and ludicrousness of this. I really was trying to see their viewpoint as a good one, but it just looks like crap. Cleaning house is definitely overdue here at this agency.

bblhd672 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:Asset forfeiture is legalized theft. IMO it's tyranny unless you can prove the funds or item was gained only from a crime. This guilt until proven innocent that is applied to property needs to go...

Tyranny, plain and simple. This is exactly the type of behavior that incites revolutions, including the one we had back in 1776. There is no excuse for this criminal behavior. None.

Once again, everyone needs to read this book to understand the origins and the unbridled dishonesty of elected officials to betray the rights of American citizens: "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/re ... TF8&btkr=1

I read it after TAM recommended it and was good.

Here's the thread on that.
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... arrior+cop

strogg wrote: With some context, though, I can see where they're coming from. Let's say some DEA officers raid a home with a warrant, then find a stash of coke and $50K in cash with that stash. Whether they get the perps is irrelevant at this point. I would presume the money with the coke is illegal cash that can be seized.

Now in another context (argument against), some cops pull over a stolen vehicle. Inside, they find that the driver is a suspected drug dealer that the DEA is looking for, so they arrest him. Then they find $5K in cash on his body as well, so they seize it and hand it over to the feds.

The problem that I see is that situation 1 may seem cut and dry, but situation 2 doesn't. What if the owner of the vehicle has a legitimate cash business and is on his way somewhere with the cash before it got stolen? Or what if the perp is the wrong guy? And he's just borrowing his "friend's" car? We don't know that. We don't know anything.

Here's another thing, though. Last I checked, the DEA is severely overloaded with casework, so they aren't exactly going after the pot grows and the small time dealers. They're going after the big fish. That's a limited number of people. If this applies to the DEA only as the article is implying, it doesn't seem that bad....

But despite that, It is still wrong to seize those assets until the court has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was used in a crime of some sort. ALL American residents are protected under the Bill of Rights, regardless of how cut and dry it may look. We can't grant exceptions to just certain situations. Otherwise, we'll just grant them to everything... at that point, the BoR will be moot, and we'll be living under tyranny once again. Why get the snowball started?

with absolutely zero authority to regulate and nothing going more than brute force to norge it with. Period. People focus on "drug dealers" and "for the children", not even thinking about responsible decision making or anything like that. Fear is what allows these laws to get passed. I for one will NEVER willingly give up my assets. Period. Full stop. I don't care what costume you wore to work this morning. "Just following orders" won't be an excuse. And when this policy is broad-brushed to everyone's doorstep it'll stop. I guarantee it. You think it's bad a kid won't serve a cop at mickey d's? Wait till ol' Bill, the mechanic from the local jiffy lube loses everything he owns because his daughter's scumbag boyfriend left a doobie in her car. Parked in his driveway. On his property. That will cease to fly really quick.
At this point, with the laws that are in place, we're all guilty. No legal amount of controlled substance is acceptable, right? Dimethyltryptomine. ........we has it.
Even now, in OK they're using a card reader to seize money in accounts. And we're not just talking strangers with no visible means of income rolling in an escalade.........guys going to the bank cashing their paycheck from sonic are getting this shaft! Multiple times.