Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year

Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.
Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion. ...

Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g80_MauFF9jOibIrr_tw8pcM-lkgN3JP-DBrBBoUKB7rE

this is an issue that needs to be explored during the 2020 election

where does each candidate stand on asset forfeiture

Legalized theft!


The issue has united organizations on opposite ends of the political spectrum, including the ACLU and the Koch brothers. Even lawmakers who are often skeptical of the need for policing reform, like Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, have argued that the practice needs to be changed. "Civil asset forfeiture leads government to exceed its just powers over the governed," he said in a statement earlier this year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/10/report-in-lean-times-police-start-taking-a-lot-more-stuff-from-people/

justabubba said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g80_MauFF9jOibIrr_tw8pcM-lkgN3JP-DBrBBoUKB7rE

this is an issue that needs to be explored during the 2020 election

where does each candidate stand on asset forfeiture

Click to expand...

And then the elite stand around scratching their balls wondering why no one trusts them anymore.

You cant fix stupid.

Hawkeye10 said:

And then the elite stand around scratching their balls wondering why no one trusts them anymore.

You cant fix stupid.

Click to expand...

Such stupid could be fixed, but that would require the SCOTUS to act broadly, ignore precedent and/or a perfect case to be accepted by them.

The biggest barrier to the Excessive Fines Clause restraining civil asset forfeiture is that owners who want their property back are not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer because the proceedings are deemed civil, not criminal. This means most people go unrepresented because it is economically irrational to hire a lawyer in cases when the value of the property taken is less than the cost of hiring a lawyer. And, as we showed in our complaint in Cox v. Voyles, when people try to represent themselves, they’re fighting against government lawyers who are expert in these systems, expert in dirty tricks, and therefore expert in defeating even meritorious claims on procedural grounds.

More insidiously, as Cox also demonstrated, some people are justifiably afraid to fight their cases with or without a lawyer. For example, though the state law at issue in Cox has now changed as a result of our litigation, the law at the time allowed the government to recover its own attorneys’ fees from people who fought to regain their seized property and lost. But if they won, the state didn’t have to pay for the property owners’ attorneys’ fees. This meant that whatever the outcome of the case, many property owners would lose money if they dared to fight for their rights in court.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court Didn’t Put the Nail in Civil Asset Forfeiture’s Coffin | American Civil Liberties Union

ttwtt78640 said:

Such stupid could be fixed, but that would require the SCOTUS to act broadly, ignore precedent and/or a perfect case to be accepted by them.

Click to expand...

This has been wrong since the 80's, I was talking about this unconstitutional abuse of the citizens way back then but it was never fixed....and you still hope for a fix?

If your betters wanted it fixed it would have been fixed long long ago.

It is outrageous and the Supreme Court ruling it is allowed is SO EXTREMELY contrary to the Bill Of Rights it is basis to accurately see the Supreme Court as just an enforcement force of the government for the interests of the government - at the expense of Constitutional rule of law and Constitutionally protected personal rights if need by to side with the government, meaning siding with themselves.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

joko104 said:

It is outrageous and the Supreme Court ruling it is allowed is SO EXTREMELY contrary to the Bill Of Rights it is basis to accurately see the Supreme Court is just an enforcement force of the government for the interests of the government - at the expense of Constitutional rule of law and Constitutionally protected personal rights.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Click to expand...

Your Scotus has been rotting out for a good 70 years, and yet almost no one claimed to notice and no one applied a fix.

We are so thoroughly screwed now.

We earned what is coming.

Dont forget that part.

SAD

I gotta squire my hound Lord Sinjin (Named after Mad Men, a really good piece of art, and Lord Disick, my hero) around the Hood.

I might return.

:cowboy:

joko104 said:

It is outrageous and the Supreme Court ruling it is allowed is SO EXTREMELY contrary to the Bill Of Rights it is basis to accurately see the Supreme Court as just an enforcement force of the government for the interests of the government - at the expense of Constitutional rule of law and Constitutionally protected personal rights if need by to side with the government, meaning siding with themselves.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Click to expand...

The 5A refers (only?) to criminal charges thus civil asset forfeiture, which is unconnected to any criminal charge, conviction or sentence imposed does not appear to enjoy such 5A "takings" protection.

The US Constitution gives Congress the power to remove anyone from the Supreme Court.

Thomas Jefferson was correct. The federal courts were NEVER intended to have ANY authority whatsoever over the elected government. Rather, the federal courts were only to hear criminal and civil lawsuits with NO authority over elected government. Whose job it was to protect Constitutional rights was to be the ELECTED government, not any federal judge anywhere in the country.

ttwtt78640 said:

The 5A refers (only?) to criminal charges thus civil asset forfeiture, which is unconnected to any criminal charge, conviction or sentence imposed does not appear to enjoy such 5A "takings" protection.

Click to expand...

Exactly everyone falls into the words "nor shall any person." It is no longer the limited initial set of criminal defendants. Rather, it expands to "any person." Otherwise, the words "any person" wouldn't be there at all.

Regardless, the federal courts should never have had any authority over elected government. That is the CORE to a democratic republic - people - not autocrats for life. There was never any intention to give 3,000 federal judges absolute totalitarian power over literally everyone and everything for which elected government and we-the-people are completely powerless. Nor did they agree to they and anyone must just believe the self declared Gods-on-earth as being pure, good people for life as morally pure as Jesus himself and as perfect in knowledge and power as God.

There are NOT 3 equal branches of the federal government. There is one all-powerful branch, for which their lowest authority (federal judges) has total power over the highest authorities within elected government.

The true drawing of the federal government should be a triangle, for which the top 1/3th is the Judiciary. The bottom 2/3rds is equally divided between Congress and the President. If another level was added below, it would be state government. That is the true structure of our country's government.

This also is why I say the #1 issue in the upcoming election is all about who will appoint the next Gods-on-earth federal judges and justices.