For those questioning US Govt asset forfiture

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Please consult the Supreme court case below circa 1996—oddly a Rehnquist majority opinion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-8729.ZO.html

The key reasoning relied upon is from an 1827 case the The Palmyra case in which Justice Story held: “The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing.” If you read through the cases following this precedent you find that the “attachment” relationship between the “thing” i.e. property and the “offence” has been so broadened as to include ANYTHING no matter how tangentially related.

So the logical question is: (given the case law) does the relationship of a ship used to pirate equate to a car used by a guy banging a prostitute? In my view the Court ignores the obvious distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. To engage in pirating the ship (subject to confiscation/forfeiture) is both necessary and sufficient in order to carry out piracy. But the car used by the guy banging the hooker is NOT necessary it is only sufficient. Is the car a necessary component in order to bang the hooker? No of course not–he could bang the hooker anywhere. Is it sufficient? yes of course.

In essence the court has subsumed sufficient means into everything being necessary and determined that ALL property however loosely associated is now necessary for the offence to have been committed.

This my friends and brothers is how the court has eradicated the protections of the 5th amendment. this is how the Constitution dies. I hope my analysis is helpful to anyone trying to understand the current issue with the Attorney General.

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

The answer to civil asset forfeiture is gasoline and matches at 2am, if they want to play hardball. They steal your assets, you destroy theirs.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Addendum

“In the 17th century, English philosopher John Locke wrote about freedom, life, liberty, property and the “pursuit of happiness.” The latter quoted from his 1693 Essay Concerning Human Understanding that “the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness.” These were his concepts of inalienable rights.

But had Locke been alive today he would have thought that we live in total anarchy. With “liberty” he meant sticking to the rules that governed social class mobility and with “happiness” he meant gathering property and riches without being bothered by government.

In June 1776, George Mason reiterated the right to property in the Virginia Deceleration of Rights. But a few days later, on July 4th, Thomas Jefferson – penning the United States Deceleration of Independence – changed Locke’s original call for “life, liberty, and property” to:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

[John Woods 13Participant 2855]

Very nice explanation Pete.
Thanks!

Now, all we need to do is f~~~ some hookers on the steps of Congress and any other alphabet soup agency, so the atorities can seize the building and close it down as evidence.

The answer is NO. “I could but I won’t”. Memini murum!

[GregB0Participant]

John Woods 13 wrote:

Very nice explanation Pete.
Thanks!

Now, all we need to do is f~~~ some hookers on the steps of Congress and any other alphabet soup agency, so the atorities can seize the building and close it down as evidence.

Let me know if you don’t already have a list prepared, I’m sure that there is one close by.

​"​My father didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it.​" - Clarence Buddinton Kelland

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22521]

What everyone is missing in one important question. Why?

AJ Sessions would not do this without the permission from President Trump. Also, both President Trump and AJ Sessions would have very thorough reasons for doing this beyond the publicly stated reasons. So the question is why?

President Trump plans his moves several steps ahead. So the question “why” is more troublesome than it first seems?

President Trump would not do this just to go after low hanging fruit (common people and poor foreigners whom cannot defend from such measures). So the question is who are the real targets of this move? And why?

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Faust raises a good question since 27 states have pretty much abandoned asset forfeiture since 1996, and the federal government’s plan is to re-instate at a federal level what the states chose to reject. I can only assume subjectively that it is ultimately meant to be a “soft” coercion. That is a means of centralizing power further and using this as a potential weapon against perceived adversaries. But then I’m something of an alarmist.

what I find interesting is that all of the cases EXCEPT the first and the last involved issues of taxes–government revenue. i.e. liquor, smuggled drugs etc. So it was the lust for revenue on the part of the government fueling this issue. And as we know the government’s lust for $$$ knows no limits.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Please note also how Rehnquist and the court cherry picked Justice Story’s opinion omitting the following:

“The forfeiture did not, strictly speaking, attach in rem; but it was a part, or at least a consequence, of the judgment of conviction. It is plain from this statement, that no right to the goods and chattels of the felon could be acquired by the crown by the mere commission of the offence; but the right attached only by the conviction of the offender. The necessary result was, that in every case where the crown sought to recover such goods and chattels, it was indispensable to establish its right by producing the record of the judgment of conviction. In the contemplation of the common law, the offender’s right was not de-vested until the conviction.”

WHOOOPS! So much for precedent.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22521]

PistolPete wrote:

Faust raises a good question since 27 states have pretty much abandoned asset forfeiture since 1996, and the federal government’s plan is to re-instate at a federal level what the states chose to reject. I can only assume subjectively that it is ultimately meant to be a “soft” coercion. That is a means of centralizing power further and using this as a potential weapon against perceived adversaries. But then I’m something of an alarmist.

Pete, I believe you are looking at this from the wrong point of view.

President Trump knows how to take the pulse of a crowd. He knows that these asset forfeiture measures are playing with political fire. Right now the people support President Trump because they believe he is looking out for them, and to his credit President Trump has been keeping his campaign promises.

From everything else President Trump is doing shows the possibly that this is not meant to be primarily targeted towards the common people, though it will likely be used against the common people. So, who are the intended targets?

All we need to do is look at those attacking him.

These measures are designed to seize assets before trial. It is likely these measures are for targeting those whom have insulated themselves from the law. Those that have destroyed evidence and had witnesses against them suddenly and mysteriously die.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

MY GOD I lived to hear/read it from Faust—hope springs eternal?

Even if you are right Trump won’t be around forever and power ceded to the Government is difficult or impossible to wrest back again.

[MarketWatcherParticipant]

+1 on this truth.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22521]

PistolPete wrote:

Even if you are right Trump won’t be around forever and power ceded to the Government is difficult or impossible to wrest back again.

I fully agree with you. I believe this is a bad idea. But, I can see the reasoning behind the policy change.

[NomadicExpatParticipant 1785]

PistolPete wrote:

Even if you are right Trump won’t be around forever and power ceded to the Government is difficult or impossible to wrest back again.

This. Once upon a time I firmly believed in the Patriot Act. At the time I actually had trust and faith in the government. That was a long, long time ago, or at least it feels that way. I will fully admit that I was wrong, that was F~~~ed, and now we live 1984. Big brother Is Watching (and recording).

Civil asset forefeiture is morally reprehensible, at least in the modern way it is applied. Visit a police auction once and youll know for yourself.

These guys want cool toys and gadgets for their SWAT teams. They want to pay for “high speed, low drag” training where they can play out their Call of Duty fantasies and high five over Go-Pro footage later.

I know because Ive cross trained with these types and they always tried to suck our dicks. Paul Blart types that just wanted to look like us. They would obsess over our issued vests, plates, etc.

Any time they asked about our gear I could tell they were making notes, sometimes literally. They wanted to fashion themselves exactly like us, their military counterparts.

These were the guys who couldnt hack the s~~~ it takes to play whack-a-mole in the sandbox overseas, so they do it here with minor drug offenses. It makes me sick.

Watch any documentary of a modern day SWAT raid. It will be nearly a dozen guys, geared up with PPE like EOD and armed like a Tier 1 asset to bust a house selling dime bags in the ghetto. They’ll roll up in a million dollar MRAP (armored vehicle) and storm in like they were at Bin Ladens compound.

Their targets are usually dumb, stoned kids with a stolen glock hidden in another room. A bust like this 20 years ago would have been handled by two regular cops on the beat toting standard issue sidearms.

I told one to his face I thought they were being pussies wearing all that s~~~, they were being Gear Queers and we only wear our heavy ass s~~~ because we HAVE to. When we could roll slick, we usually would.

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

PistolPete wrote:

MY GOD I lived to hear/read it from Faust—hope springs eternal?

Even if you are right Trump won’t be around forever and power ceded to the Government is difficult or impossible to wrest back again.

My parents supported “W”. Even though mostly conservative, I knew he was an idiot and a jackass and I told them that the power wielded by the so-called “Patriot Act” would eventually be wielded by the other side.

They eventually conceded my point.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[Author]

Posts