Optimistic Paranoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 9
LeeRevell said:
Probably the same areas that used to run speed traps to finance their departments. After all, the Damnyankees deserved it . . .
Asset Forfeiture
- Thread starter speedhighway46
- Start date
Help Support Van Living Forum:
Probably the same areas that used to run speed traps to finance their departments. After all, the Damnyankees deserved it . . .
DannyB1954
Well-known member
PathofAsha said:
That is a good thing if you are in California when stopped. Other States are not bound by Ca. law.
TrainChaser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 2,260
- Reaction score
- 1
Has ANYONE read the Constitution of the United States of America??? Our presidents and congresspeople apparently haven't. Law enforcement apparently hasn't. Attorneys must not have done so. And we all KNOW that most American citizens haven't.
Illegal searches, and seizure of assets IS AGAINST THE LAW. Try reading Amendments 4 & 5. The adored Ronald Reagan signed the okay for it in 1984.
No, it isn't likely that most people will have it used against them. But it's not a guarantee. When they did take assets w/o conviction originally, it was to be used in the joke called 'The War Against Drugs' (which has been an abysmal failure from the start), but it didn't take long for law enforcement to extend it to anyone. Do you know what they based it on? Your assets. If someone had a nice piece of land with a big house, a really decent boat, and a few collector-quality old cars, all law enforcement had to to was say, "We received an anonymous tip that he is dealing drugs". No proof, no conviction, they just take it.
Illegal searches, and seizure of assets IS AGAINST THE LAW. Try reading Amendments 4 & 5. The adored Ronald Reagan signed the okay for it in 1984.
No, it isn't likely that most people will have it used against them. But it's not a guarantee. When they did take assets w/o conviction originally, it was to be used in the joke called 'The War Against Drugs' (which has been an abysmal failure from the start), but it didn't take long for law enforcement to extend it to anyone. Do you know what they based it on? Your assets. If someone had a nice piece of land with a big house, a really decent boat, and a few collector-quality old cars, all law enforcement had to to was say, "We received an anonymous tip that he is dealing drugs". No proof, no conviction, they just take it.
TrainChaser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 2,260
- Reaction score
- 1
TBN: "We now return you to the non-political comment portion of the post .... "
And the title of this thread is.......?
And the title of this thread is.......?
Thirsty Boots Nomad
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2016
- Messages
- 492
- Reaction score
- 0
Possible? Definitely; ... Likely, or probable? Not so much (Americans are an opinionated bunch on average, with a willingness to "share")
GotSmart
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
- Messages
- 5,357
- Reaction score
- 121
Just perhaps ~~~ Printing this out might help?TrainChaser said:
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 5
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.
LeeRevell
Well-known member
The way current law runs, we forfeit our Fourth Amendment rights in two situations:
1) We own a firearm.
2) We are within 100 miles of the national border, land border or coastline.
Both have been used to disenfranchise "free citizens".
As I said, "legal" and "just" are two completely different things.
1) We own a firearm.
2) We are within 100 miles of the national border, land border or coastline.
Both have been used to disenfranchise "free citizens".
As I said, "legal" and "just" are two completely different things.
Trebor English
Well-known member
An airport is a border too.
speedhighway46
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2015
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 7
The Optimistic Paranoid said:
The purpose of me starting this thread was to alert everyone to the potential change to this practice by law enforcement because of the direct involvement of the President.
Filter it through any medium you wish to make it appropriate to your life.
There are some things going on within our government (both parties) that make me ashamed of our country. Asset forfeiture is one of them. Too many youtube videos of a Bubba looking deputy whose second question is how much money they are carrying.
I'm not special, millions of men and women have served our country but this asset thing is an affront to our service. I wish there was a solution other than anarchy but I see none. We just continue to allow ourselves be screwed.
We have to start voting these leeches out of office no matter what party they belong to. Fire them.
Okay, rant over.
Rob
I'm not special, millions of men and women have served our country but this asset thing is an affront to our service. I wish there was a solution other than anarchy but I see none. We just continue to allow ourselves be screwed.
We have to start voting these leeches out of office no matter what party they belong to. Fire them.
Okay, rant over.
Rob
Canine
Well-known member
I thought this had ended (Asset Forfeiture)
This is from "The Hill" dated 1-15-2015:
"Justice Department announced on Friday that most police departments could not use federal law to seize property from individuals when they have no reason to believe a crime has been committed.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in an order that the department would, in most cases, no longer run a controversial “asset forfeiture” program.
Local and state law enforcement agencies will no longer be able to use the federal program that allowed them to easily seize and keep property they acquired through searches.
Under the program, police would seize property and then the federal government would “adopt.” The police department would keep a large percentage of the value of the property, and the Justice Department would keep the rest.
The order from Holder says that, in almost all cases, police agencies will no longer be able to seize property and forfeit it under the program. There will be exceptions for cases that involve public safety, including the seizure of firearms, ammunition, explosives and property involved in child pornography.
“Asset forfeiture remains a critical law enforcement tool when used appropriately — providing unique means to go after criminal and even terrorist organizations,” Holder said in a statement. “This new policy will ensure that these authorities can continue to be used to take the profit out of crime and return assets to victims, while safeguarding civil liberties.”
Law enforcement could seize the property, even when they did not charge the owner with a crime. Individuals would then have to legally fight the seizure, which many people could not afford to do.
Police departments would then frequently spend the proceeds from the seizures on weapons and vehicles, a Washington Post investigation found. The Post also found that they sometimes spent the proceeds on luxury cars and other purchases unrelated to law enforcement.
The announcement by the department will not end the use of similar laws that exist at the state and local level.
Asset forfeiture has existed since the 1980s, when it was created as a part of the war on drugs, but has recently been subject to aggressive criticism. In 2013, The New Yorker published an article on the topic, which was followed in 2014 by the Post investigation into the federal program.
An October segment of the HBO show “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver” on the topic of civil forfeiture has been viewed more than 4 million times.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have united in their opposition to the policies. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that reining in asset forfeiture was one of his priorities going into the new Congress.
Last week, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Grassley sent a letter to Holder asking him to review the federal policy.
Holder said on Friday that his order was the first part of a broader review of the department’s asset forfeiture program. Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said on Twitter that discussions about changing the policy began “late last year.”
End of quote
Maybe its safe for me to go through Amarillo Tx again now. The last time (the subject of a post a year or two ago) it didn't go well for el gordo here...
This is from "The Hill" dated 1-15-2015:
"Justice Department announced on Friday that most police departments could not use federal law to seize property from individuals when they have no reason to believe a crime has been committed.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in an order that the department would, in most cases, no longer run a controversial “asset forfeiture” program.
Local and state law enforcement agencies will no longer be able to use the federal program that allowed them to easily seize and keep property they acquired through searches.
Under the program, police would seize property and then the federal government would “adopt.” The police department would keep a large percentage of the value of the property, and the Justice Department would keep the rest.
The order from Holder says that, in almost all cases, police agencies will no longer be able to seize property and forfeit it under the program. There will be exceptions for cases that involve public safety, including the seizure of firearms, ammunition, explosives and property involved in child pornography.
“Asset forfeiture remains a critical law enforcement tool when used appropriately — providing unique means to go after criminal and even terrorist organizations,” Holder said in a statement. “This new policy will ensure that these authorities can continue to be used to take the profit out of crime and return assets to victims, while safeguarding civil liberties.”
Law enforcement could seize the property, even when they did not charge the owner with a crime. Individuals would then have to legally fight the seizure, which many people could not afford to do.
Police departments would then frequently spend the proceeds from the seizures on weapons and vehicles, a Washington Post investigation found. The Post also found that they sometimes spent the proceeds on luxury cars and other purchases unrelated to law enforcement.
The announcement by the department will not end the use of similar laws that exist at the state and local level.
Asset forfeiture has existed since the 1980s, when it was created as a part of the war on drugs, but has recently been subject to aggressive criticism. In 2013, The New Yorker published an article on the topic, which was followed in 2014 by the Post investigation into the federal program.
An October segment of the HBO show “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver” on the topic of civil forfeiture has been viewed more than 4 million times.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have united in their opposition to the policies. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that reining in asset forfeiture was one of his priorities going into the new Congress.
Last week, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Grassley sent a letter to Holder asking him to review the federal policy.
Holder said on Friday that his order was the first part of a broader review of the department’s asset forfeiture program. Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said on Twitter that discussions about changing the policy began “late last year.”
End of quote
Maybe its safe for me to go through Amarillo Tx again now. The last time (the subject of a post a year or two ago) it didn't go well for el gordo here...
VanKitten
Well-known member
I have read abou this, and read in PA where even as little as $200 was taken from a lady just driving her car.
So...I have heard somewhere (probably here) that a safe permanently mounted to the van would be safe. LEO cannot make you open it without a search warrant...meaning probable cause. And mounted permanently theynwould not be able to take it.
I want to carry a fair amount of cash (emergency) and papers in a safe for this reason. I plant to have a box for it welded to the chassis, and the safe fitted into it such that the safe will not come back out without cutting the box off.
I don't want to worry about any of this stuff. Perhaps this will be the answer?
When I was driving from New Orleans to Phoenix....when I went thru El Paso I was stopped and searched twice. I did not resist their search, though I understand i could have legally. I am one to avoid hassles whenever I can. I had nothing worth taking...but, now I wonder how that story would have been different if I had carried cash on the trip for emergency?
So...I have heard somewhere (probably here) that a safe permanently mounted to the van would be safe. LEO cannot make you open it without a search warrant...meaning probable cause. And mounted permanently theynwould not be able to take it.
I want to carry a fair amount of cash (emergency) and papers in a safe for this reason. I plant to have a box for it welded to the chassis, and the safe fitted into it such that the safe will not come back out without cutting the box off.
I don't want to worry about any of this stuff. Perhaps this will be the answer?
When I was driving from New Orleans to Phoenix....when I went thru El Paso I was stopped and searched twice. I did not resist their search, though I understand i could have legally. I am one to avoid hassles whenever I can. I had nothing worth taking...but, now I wonder how that story would have been different if I had carried cash on the trip for emergency?
GotSmart
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
- Messages
- 5,357
- Reaction score
- 121
Ballenxj said:Just can't trust anybody anymore.
(I cant resist..)
Especially the lying media.
The potus was on TV the other day expressing his support for AF. Time to write letters and make phone calls.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...over-asset-forfeiture/?utm_term=.871ed61eb5a9
LeeRevell
Well-known member
GotSmart said:(I cant resist..)
Especially the lying media.
The potus was on TV the other day expressing his support for AF. Time to write letters and make phone calls.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...over-asset-forfeiture/?utm_term=.871ed61eb5a9
In most cases I support the current administration. But Asset Forfeiture is a sad black stain on our nation's law enforcement philosophy. It hurts far more than it helps.
Canine
Well-known member
Thanks to gsfish for pointing the reversal out, that's from March 2016. Who says that Shmobama didn't support local law enforcement?
Here's the interesting thing from that reversal article - it wasn't the high moral road that Eric Holder was thinking of, it was just budgeting...
"In the months since we made the difficult decision to defer equitable sharing payments because of the $1.2 billion rescinded from the Asset Forfeiture Fund, the financial solvency of the fund has improved to the point where it is no longer necessary to continue deferring equitable sharing payments," spokesman Peter J. Carr said in an email Monday.
While he didn't specify exactly where the new funding came from, Carr noted that the program is partly funded by the cash and other property seized under the program.
"The Asset Forfeiture Fund acts in many ways like a revolving fund," he explained in a follow-up email. "Forfeited proceeds are being deposited throughout the year to replenish the funds that are simultaneously flowing out of the Asset Forfeiture Fund to pay for approved agency expenses." He noted that when the Justice Department announced the suspension in December, it remained "very eager to resume payments as soon as it is fiscally feasible to do so."
Asset forfeiture is a contentious practice that lets police seize and keep cash and property from people who are never convicted of wrongdoing — and in many cases, never charged. Studies have found that use of the practice has exploded in recent years, prompting concern that, in some cases, police are motivated more by profit and less by justice.". End of quote
So there, it's still going on, just renamed "Equitable Sharing". Kinda like the store that runs a "going out of business" sale then reopens under a new name. They are just redistributing our wealth for some extra goodie/toy/donut money...
Sigh, I'm crushed, my faith in politicians is shaken...
Here's the interesting thing from that reversal article - it wasn't the high moral road that Eric Holder was thinking of, it was just budgeting...
"In the months since we made the difficult decision to defer equitable sharing payments because of the $1.2 billion rescinded from the Asset Forfeiture Fund, the financial solvency of the fund has improved to the point where it is no longer necessary to continue deferring equitable sharing payments," spokesman Peter J. Carr said in an email Monday.
While he didn't specify exactly where the new funding came from, Carr noted that the program is partly funded by the cash and other property seized under the program.
"The Asset Forfeiture Fund acts in many ways like a revolving fund," he explained in a follow-up email. "Forfeited proceeds are being deposited throughout the year to replenish the funds that are simultaneously flowing out of the Asset Forfeiture Fund to pay for approved agency expenses." He noted that when the Justice Department announced the suspension in December, it remained "very eager to resume payments as soon as it is fiscally feasible to do so."
Asset forfeiture is a contentious practice that lets police seize and keep cash and property from people who are never convicted of wrongdoing — and in many cases, never charged. Studies have found that use of the practice has exploded in recent years, prompting concern that, in some cases, police are motivated more by profit and less by justice.". End of quote
So there, it's still going on, just renamed "Equitable Sharing". Kinda like the store that runs a "going out of business" sale then reopens under a new name. They are just redistributing our wealth for some extra goodie/toy/donut money...
Sigh, I'm crushed, my faith in politicians is shaken...
sushidog
Well-known member
Another great argument for minarchy. If we don't take away its power, it will surely take away ours.
"Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." Gerald Ford
Government is like water; we need enough to quench our thirst, but not so much that we drown.
"Balance Danielsan!" Words of wisdom from Mr. Miyagi to the Karate Kid
Chip
"Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." Gerald Ford
Government is like water; we need enough to quench our thirst, but not so much that we drown.
"Balance Danielsan!" Words of wisdom from Mr. Miyagi to the Karate Kid
Chip
