#34 post had a portion of an article linked about ICE/HSA asset seizure practices, though the "manual" was only a teaser. From what I read most of the information discussed concerned real estate, though we know that cash, weapons and vehicles are all included as well, and they don't often have the difficulties of real estate as far as valuation is concerned.
Some time ago a poster/respondent to an asset forfeiture thread said that a smaller lien against a vehicle may be a good thing, we don't all drive 20+ year old vehicles. I can see the point, Bob Well's shiny 2015 Express would obviously draw more interest than some 20-30 year old van, so having a loan (with a decent interest rate) for 3-4 years may be ok. It keeps your credit score up, and minimalism aside, there's something to be said for that.
Once I am traveling in my 8-10 year old minivan (which is looking more likely now), with next to nothing inside (courtesy of a 5'x10' storage unit), I may not be quite as concerned. Large amounts of cash on hand to me is anything north of $100, so not too much problem there. I still am concerned about the erosion of our civil liberties due to an increased/perceived need for "safety/security. It's a razor thin edge that we are on, and seems to be/have tipped to the fewer liberties edge. When large amounts of money and control are in the picture, I don't think there's a lot of difference between the 2 major political parties, the article mentioned that Eric Holder's group was just as complicit as others. Here's an interesting sidelight, a March 2017 article speaks about a US Supreme Court decision in which the conservative justice Clarence Thomas is "defending" the accused...
begin quote: "
by EWAN WATT & JORDAN RICHARDSON
March 10, 2017 4:00 AM Civil asset forfeiture is arbitrary and unfair, and it gives law enforcement the wrong incentives. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is well known for staying silent during oral arguments, but his written statement in response to Monday’s denial of certiorari in Leonard v. Texas posed a question that was heard loud and clear throughout the legal community. That question asked “whether modern civil-forfeiture statutes can be squared with the Due Process Clause and our Nation’s history.” In other words, why are police still allowed to seize property from people without ever charging them with a crime? According to the facts of the petition, a Texas police officer stopped James Leonard and Nicosa Kane on April 1, 2013, for a traffic infraction. A search of the vehicle yielded the discovery of a safe in the trunk, which contained $201,100 and a bill of sale for a Pennsylvania home. The money was seized because law-enforcement officials believed that it was “substantially connected to criminal activity,” including the sale of narcotics.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...re-clarence-thomas-asks-if-its-constitutional
End quote.
Now I kinda wonder in this day and age why a person wouldn't wire transfer $201K to their bank, of course that would cause a report to be filed concerning the proceeds coming from where/what. These cases are not "open and shut", there's always some sticky issue involved. I mean in this case, if you bother to read the proceedings, both individuals had prior narcotics arrests, both changed their stories about cash on hand several times and finally, when asked about the $201K in cash and if it came from drug sales, one defendant replied: "not most of it...". OK, so maybe this bust was legit, still, for those of us who don't carry safes full of cash, we still have concerns.
[/font]
