Thread: Senate confirms lynch as attorney general. 10 "republicans" vote for her

Originally Posted by Montecresto

But I thought that people aren't categorically against civil asset forfeiture, but rather those cases which tend not to be anything near the seemingly shut and dry case you cite?

that's what judges and juries are for. to make the decisions. and when I first started dealing with this area of the law, the burden of proof was weighted in favor of the government. all the government had to do was show probable cause of drug proceeds or facilitation (i.e. a car being used to transport narcotics) and the burden shifted to the claimant to either show innocent ownership or that the property was not proceeds.

of course the solution is to end the idiotic FEDERAL war on drugs and much of this will go away.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

that's what judges and juries are for. to make the decisions. and when I first started dealing with this area of the law, the burden of proof was weighted in favor of the government. all the government had to do was show probable cause of drug proceeds or facilitation (i.e. a car being used to transport narcotics) and the burden shifted to the claimant to either show innocent ownership or that the property was not proceeds.

Yes, and those grand jury's may indict a ham sandwich.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

of course the solution is to end the idiotic FEDERAL war on drugs and much of this will go away.

Glad to see you on that side of that one.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Yes, and those grand jury's may indict a ham sandwich.

that's a bit of an exaggeration and in a civil forfeiture-there is no involvement of a grand jury

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Glad to see you on that side of that one.

I don't think one can be a libertarian and support the federal war on drugs

Originally Posted by JasperL

Another red herring. The lawyer is on a roll tonight!



What does that have to do with anything other than you got nothing? And my "understanding about this matter" is sufficient to recognize this as a BS argument:

1. She got every job over her entire "40 year" career "solely" due to her race.
2. We know that because she is black.

So far that's the entirety of your 'case' against Ms. Lynch. We have had several interesting but irrelevant diversions into affirmative action, your law school chums, made up stats, Michelle Obama, etc.

yeah she got those jobs because she was black

and since you spend so much time mentioning I am a lawyer, I am going to note your lack of a law degree and experience in the legal profession is probably the excuse for your inaccurate comments

Originally Posted by JasperL

Clearly? Based on what evidence except she's black, of course....

She, in my opinion, disqualified herself during the confirmation hearings when she said she supported Obama's unconstitutional actions on immigration. The top law enforcement position in this country is held by someone that is there to do Obama's bidding, not uphold the law. A sad day for all Americans.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

that's a bit of an exaggeration and in a civil forfeiture-there is no involvement of a grand jury

Well there most certainly is in the federal grand jury in the eastern district of Oklahoma, I recently completed an 18 month duty in which we deliberated several.