RSS

Possible Good News on Civil Asset Forfeiture

12 Mar
Possible Good News on Civil Asset Forfeiture

Interesting update from Fenster on his previous post on the subject, which I had reblogged here.

When circumstances change, it seems only reasonable that laws ought to change, too, in accordance with the changed circumstances. I have argued thus in specific regards, such as alimony.

It is especially heinous, IMO, when old laws had more limited contexts within which they made sense, but no longer do in modern contexts, yet not only remain in place, but become expanded in scope; e.g. as Fenster noted Thomas observing that taking of criminal proceeds (or what is considered equivalent), is a modern invention. In such cases, the aim is clearly no longer justice but self-serving for the benefit of state functionaries; for a corrupt system. And that is appalling.

Uncouth Reflections

Fenster writes:

Fenster is highly suspicious of the practice of civil asset forfeiture, and wrote of the issue here.

You may know that the law often allows police or other authorities to keep the ill-gotten gains from a criminal transaction.  That’s bad enough as far as creating a financial incentive.  But the moral hazard is serious enough that police often take assets when no criminal action has been shown to have occurred, or if the owner of the asset was not aware of the crime.  Spending sprees are known to result as well.

As I read more about this practice I came across the legal distinction that supports forfeiture.  Typically, when the state proceeds against a defendant in a criminal law setting it does do “in personam“–that is, against the actual person.  It is this proceeding against an actual person that in turn gives rise to the full…

View original post 689 more words

Advertisements
 
8 Comments

Posted by on March 12, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

8 responses to “Possible Good News on Civil Asset Forfeiture

  1. rednig

    March 13, 2017 at 2:25 am

    Even innocent people are rousted. Please remember the original meaning of the word cop, to steal. I bought a pickup recently and paid cash, as the man wanted. Had I been stopped by the police with that much money (several thousand dollars) they could have confiscated it and kept it if even a trace of cocaine was found on one bill. Is there any bill today that doesn’t hold a trace or more? One brother was a lawyer and fought it in court and lost in California). His client had 5,000 USD to pay for livestock. He lost it all because one bill showed a trace of drugs. and now we have Erik Frein looking at the death penalty because the mother of one victim demanded it (she since changed it to forgiving him because people are angry at Frein’s treatment). While not against the DP, what the frik do they think set off all the cop-killings but a cult that followed the police chase and his arrest? He’s a hero to a lot of people in a lot of nations. I live in the state, and here, Penna’s nick-name is kids for cash, Rape U, and other things thanks to corrupt politicos. Our governor is called Herr Wolf, after Hitler.

     
    • Will S.

      March 13, 2017 at 9:52 pm

      Just about all bills have a few parts per billion of cocaine on them, and modern technology can detect down to parts per trillion, so that’s the biggest bullshit excuse ever for cops to use to justify theft – and that’s what it is.

       
      • rednig

        March 13, 2017 at 11:22 pm

        and what does the word cop mean? 🙂 If you live in a liberal state, you live in a police state. In the 30s, Joe Kennedy read Mein Kamph and tried to force FDR to declare the US a Nazi nation. FDR refused only because Hitler was too violent. Note we’re reaching that now, Europe and the US, the era of the brownshirts. We came out of the Wiemar Republic, free everything, economy kept poor to benefit wealthy libs. Had Hilda-Beast gotten in, she would have become president for life. Scary, but there’s still a chance. this is why on reservations and enclaves, one Native American household will have more guns than the average Texan, and far more ammo. No, I do not own any guns, but agree with the FBI, the more guns, less crime. I don’t need a gun. Not with all this family around, and the Hispanics, as well, who are gun fanatics after living in New York. Cop: To steal or rob. Look up kids for cash, and understand every cop was under investigation, every lawyer, every politician. It’s one-party rule.

         
      • Will S.

        March 13, 2017 at 11:47 pm

        I always wondered why grabbing a girl’s boobs was ‘copping a feel’; now I know! 🙂

         
      • rednig

        March 14, 2017 at 8:32 am

        Yeah, that came to my mind, first 🙂 But, up east of here, it’s usually her doing it to the man before he gets close enough. 🙂

         
      • Will S.

        March 14, 2017 at 8:37 am

        🙂

         

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s