• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DEA seized a woman's bag of cash at an airport; it was her dad's life savings

chuckiechan

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
DEA seized a woman'''s bag of cash at an airport; it was her dad'''s life savings | FOX 5 New York

NEW YORK - A federal law enforcement agency that confiscated a retired Pennsylvania man's life savings will not return it even though he is neither accused nor suspected of a crime. He was just someone who kept his cash in a box rather than a bank.

What the Drug Enforcement Administration did is legal. It's called civil asset forfeiture. But a lawsuit begs to differ. This is how the agents seized $82,373 that belonged to Terry Rolin, 79, of Pittsburgh, and why he and his daughter and now suing the feds to get the cash back.

For many years, Rolin, a retired railroad engineer, socked away his money in his basement, just like his parents did.
Click to expand...

Asset forfeiture started during the cocaine days of the ‘70’s. It was designed to prevent drug kingpins from hiring lawyers that could beat the government in court. Today as is the norm, for every inch you give the government they end up using the whole yardstick to shake down innocent people for “just cause” - in other words, “Because we can”.

This whole program should be scrapped forever, and victims should be allowed to sue at the governments expense.
 
chuckiechan said:
DEA seized a woman'''s bag of cash at an airport; it was her dad'''s life savings | FOX 5 New York



Asset forfeiture started during the cocaine days of the ‘70’s. It was designed to prevent drug kingpins from hiring lawyers that could beat the government in court. Today as is the norm, for every inch you give the government they end up using the whole yardstick to shake down innocent people for “just cause” - in other words, “Because we can”.

This whole program should be scrapped forever, and victims should be allowed to sue at the governments expense.
Click to expand...

This is disgraceful. Let's hear how the faithful of the party of 'law and order' answers this. That your government can legally steal money from entirely innocent folk is appalling.
 
It's a travesty that asset forfeiture even exists. I hope that they get the money back, at least the part that the lawyers don't take.
 
Asset forfeiture is a huge abuse. I don't think we'll get rid of it because the government makes some bank on it, they don't have to justify their means either. But it sure as hell seems like deprivation of due process. Not that we really care about those things any more.
 
snakestretcher said:
This is disgraceful. Let's hear how the faithful of the party of 'law and order' answers this. That your government can legally steal money from entirely innocent folk is appalling.
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to defend this.

It is theft plain and simple.
 
This is authoritarian theft. Absolutely sickening to see this. Asset forfeiture should forever be banished.
 
chuckiechan said:
DEA seized a woman'''s bag of cash at an airport; it was her dad'''s life savings | FOX 5 New York



Asset forfeiture started during the cocaine days of the ‘70’s. It was designed to prevent drug kingpins from hiring lawyers that could beat the government in court. Today as is the norm, for every inch you give the government they end up using the whole yardstick to shake down innocent people for “just cause” - in other words, “Because we can”.

This whole program should be scrapped forever, and victims should be allowed to sue at the governments expense.
Click to expand...

Disagreed on scrapping the program, but agreed on suing the government at their expense. There is nothing to indicate illegal activity and what the daughter did was legal. Let's hope justice prevails.
 
snakestretcher said:
This is disgraceful. Let's hear how the faithful of the party of 'law and order' answers this. That your government can legally steal money from entirely innocent folk is appalling.
Click to expand...

This is one thing I think most people agree on, actually.
 
Rising Sun said:
Disagreed on scrapping the program, but agreed on suing the government at their expense. There is nothing to indicate illegal activity and what the daughter did was legal. Let's hope justice prevails.
Click to expand...

Not the least of the problem is local police departments are taking money, too. Who wants a police department that works on commission?

TheGoverness said:
This is one thing I think most people agree on, actually.
Click to expand...

And yet, nothing gets done about it.
 
chuckiechan said:
DEA seized a woman'''s bag of cash at an airport; it was her dad'''s life savings | FOX 5 New York



Asset forfeiture started during the cocaine days of the ‘70’s. It was designed to prevent drug kingpins from hiring lawyers that could beat the government in court. Today as is the norm, for every inch you give the government they end up using the whole yardstick to shake down innocent people for “just cause” - in other words, “Because we can”.

This whole program should be scrapped forever, and victims should be allowed to sue at the governments expense.
Click to expand...

A class action? There is no express Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States since the (nothing but) Repeal of that Bad Idea, last millennium.
 
Helix said:
It's a travesty that asset forfeiture even exists. I hope that they get the money back, at least the part that the lawyers don't take.
Click to expand...

As the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". The intent of asset forfeiture is to deny criminals the fruits of their crimes.

Example: A drug dealer makes several million dollars dealing drugs to kids. He's caught selling an ounce of crack to a kid and charged with the crime and the drug confiscated. He does his time, say 10 years, out in 5 years and then reaps the benefit of his multi-million dollar fortune....OR, with asset forfeiture, he loses all of the ill-gotten gains once convicted.

The problem in this case is that the assets were confiscated and no crime was committed nor was there a conviction. That is just plain wrong and unjust.
 
chuckiechan said:
DEA seized a woman'''s bag of cash at an airport; it was her dad'''s life savings | FOX 5 New York
Asset forfeiture started during the cocaine days of the ‘70’s. It was designed to prevent drug kingpins from hiring lawyers that could beat the government in court. Today as is the norm, for every inch you give the government they end up using the whole yardstick to shake down innocent people for “just cause” - in other words, “Because we can”.

This whole program should be scrapped forever, and victims should be allowed to sue at the governments expense.
Click to expand...


I agree to a certain extend ... like in this case it was obvious that the money was not obtained through "drug dealings".
 
chuckiechan said:
Not the least of the problem is local police departments are taking money, too. Who wants a police department that works on commission?...
Click to expand...
If a person is convicted of a crime, I have no problem with it since it relieves the taxpayers for the cost of the judicial system and puts it on the criminals. OTOH, as in this case, when innocent people are harmed, the system needs to be fixed.
 
Barnacle said:
I agree to a certain extend ... like in this case it was obvious that the money was not obtained through "drug dealings".
Click to expand...

I think what is obvious to some, is conjecture to others.
IMO, the whole standard of the program is wrong. It is based on the concept that you are guilty until proved innocent. They seize it without even bringing charges against the people they seize it from, and you have to then prove to the courts that it was taken erroneously.

Agreed with those above... It IS theft. Plain and simple.
 
Rising Sun said:
As the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". The intent of asset forfeiture is to deny criminals the fruits of their crimes.

Example: A drug dealer makes several million dollars dealing drugs to kids. He's caught selling an ounce of crack to a kid and charged with the crime and the drug confiscated. He does his time, say 10 years, out in 5 years and then reaps the benefit of his multi-million dollar fortune....OR, with asset forfeiture, he loses all of the ill-gotten gains once convicted.

The problem in this case is that the assets were confiscated and no crime was committed nor was there a conviction. That is just plain wrong and unjust.
Click to expand...

That is “post conviction”.

If I sell a car for cash, the Po-Po can throw me up against a wall and take my money since only drug dealers have cash on them.

How do you call the police on the police to report a robbery without getting beat to a pulp?
 
chuckiechan said:
That is “post conviction”.

If I sell a car for cash, the Po-Po can throw me up against a wall and take my money since only drug dealers have cash on them.

How do you call the police on the police to report a robbery without getting beat to a pulp?
Click to expand...

If that is true, then fix that part instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

That's the purpose of the justice system.
 
chuckiechan said:
DEA seized a woman'''s bag of cash at an airport; it was her dad'''s life savings | FOX 5 New York



Asset forfeiture started during the cocaine days of the ‘70’s. It was designed to prevent drug kingpins from hiring lawyers that could beat the government in court. Today as is the norm, for every inch you give the government they end up using the whole yardstick to shake down innocent people for “just cause” - in other words, “Because we can”.

This whole program should be scrapped forever, and victims should be allowed to sue at the governments expense.
Click to expand...

This is a complete disgrace.
 
I keep wondering why the ACLU has not challenged the constitutionality of Asset forfeiture?
 
Rising Sun said:
As the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". The intent of asset forfeiture is to deny criminals the fruits of their crimes.

Example: A drug dealer makes several million dollars dealing drugs to kids. He's caught selling an ounce of crack to a kid and charged with the crime and the drug confiscated. He does his time, say 10 years, out in 5 years and then reaps the benefit of his multi-million dollar fortune....OR, with asset forfeiture, he loses all of the ill-gotten gains once convicted.

The problem in this case is that the assets were confiscated and no crime was committed nor was there a conviction. That is just plain wrong and unjust.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean. It shouldn't be a thing. It isn't a crime to carry cash.
 
Helix said:
That's what I mean. It shouldn't be a thing. It isn't a crime to carry cash.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "thing", but I would certainly agree that the woman and her father were not given due process and shouldn't have to sue to get their money back. That said, I support the DEA and TSA for holding the money until the situation was clarified.
 
TheGoverness said:
Asset forfeiture is theft. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I'll believe asset forfeiture is valid and that a corporation is a person when I see asset forfeiture levied against our biggest RICO offenders, and I don't just mean President Trump either.

From where I sit, it's used with impunity against anyone who is viewed as essentially defenseless.
 
longview said:
I keep wondering why the ACLU has not challenged the constitutionality of Asset forfeiture?
Click to expand...

They have.

Just google "asset forfeiture aclu"
 
Rising Sun said:
Not sure what you mean by "thing", but I would certainly agree that the woman and her father were not given due process and shouldn't have to sue to get their money back. That said, I support the DEA and TSA for holding the money until the situation was clarified.
Click to expand...

I mean that it shouldn't be an option, especially without a conviction. There's way too much potential for abuse of a legalized theft policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom