It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Advantage
This was one of the issues we discussed in depth at a meeting I went to last year. If you stock pile food or assets in preparation of a natural disaster, war, or other... they can confiscate it legally. Your preparations can be taken to provide for those who refused to prepare. This is just ONE SMALL issue with what you are speaking of... but one that should cause our community here to sit up and take notice.
Great thread.. as most of yours are
"Civil asset forfeiture has allowed police to view all of America as some giant national K-Mart, where prices are not just lower, but non-existent — a sort of law enforcement 'pick-and-don't-pay.'" —U.S. Representative Henry Hyde
The Spring 2007 edition of Justice Policy Journal features a 31 page treatise, Civil Asset Forfeiture: Why Law Enforcement Has Changed its Motto from "To Serve and Protect" to "Show Me the Money," in which Jared Shoemaker examines the negative impact on law enforcement goals and practices when police agencies aggressively pursue civil asset forfeitures as a means of supplementing their budgets, as well as how police agencies' addiction to forfeiture revenue leads to disregard for individual due process rights, sometimes with tragic and life-altering consequences for innocent individuals....
The Double-Edged Sword undercover researcher observed agencies abandon investigations of suspects they knew were trafficking large amounts of contraband simply because the case was not profitable. Agents routinely targeted low level dealers rather than big traffickers, who are better able to insulate themselves and their assets from reverse sting operations. The report states: "Efficiency is measured by the amount of money seized rather than impact on drug trafficking."
A reverse sting operation, where the officer becomes the seller who encourages the suspect to commit a crime, "was the preferred strategy of every agency and department with which the researcher was associated because it allowed agents to gauge potential profit prior to investing a great deal of time and effort." More importantly, the narcotics units studied preferred seizing cash intended for purchase of drugs supplied by the police, rather than confiscating drugs already on the street. When asked why a search warrant would not be served on a suspect known to have resale quantities of contraband, one officer responded:
"Because that would just give us a bunch of dope and the hassle of having to book him (the suspect). We've got all the dope we need in the property room, just stick to rounding up cases with big money and stay away from warrants."
In one case an agency instructed the researcher to observe the suspect's daily transactions reselling a large shipment of coc aine so that officers could postpone making the bust until after the majority of the drug shipment was converted to cash. This case was only one of many in which the goal was profit rather than reducing the supply of drugs reaching the street.
Thirteen additional years of policing for profit have now entrenched agencies in a dependency on forfeiture revenue that continues to subordinate the pursuit ot justice to the pursuit of profit. ... www.fear.org...
Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.
Bunch of legends in their own minds thinkin' they are the alpha males marking their
"territory"....LEOs are just as bad as doctors...there are more in it for the "money" and less in it
for those they are sworn to protect and serve. Kind of does mess it up for the few, the real, that
are not jaded yet.
Thanks for the post.
Originally posted by TKDRL
It is big business too
Early on the morning of October 2, 1992, 31 officers from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, National Guard and Park Service entered the Scott's 200-acre (0.81 km2) ranch.  They planned to arrest Scott for allegedly running a 4,000-plant marijuana plantation. When deputies broke down the door to Scott's house, Scott's wife would later tell reporters, she screamed, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." That brought Scott staggering out of the bedroom, bleary-eyed from a cataract operation -- holding a .38 caliber Colt snub-nosed revolver over his head. When he emerged at the top of the stairs (note: this was a one-story residence), holding his gun over his head, the officers told him to lower the gun. As he did, they shot him to death. According to the official report, the gun was pointed at the officers when they shot him. 
Despite a subsequent search of Scott's ranch using helicopters, dogs, searchers on foot, and a high-tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory device for detecting trace amounts of sinsemilla, no marijuana -- or any other illegal drug -- was found. (boldface emphasis added)
Originally posted by lastrebel
reply to post by bozzchem
You probably wouldnt get a chance too, the 55 yearold (at the time) woman I spoke had 20 cops with machine guns and body armor storm her business, threw her to the ground, putting a gash on her head from the counter she was behind, hand cuffed her while a couple 250 pound men knelt on the 120 pound womans back.
one of her customers had a joint and was pulled over leaving her store, they told him they would drop charges if he "admited" he had got it from her at her business
Originally posted by bozzchem
As much as it would pain me to destroy my own property, I'd do so before allowing it to be sold to fund a criminal cabal.
These idiots seem to forget the age old mantra that a man with nothing has nothing to lose. Stealing a man's property and then selling it is the hallmark of tyranny and only further proves how far down the slippery slope we have gone.
Originally posted by crimvelvet
After reading this can we have anything but contempt for LEOs and for Congress? Between Civil Asset Forefieture and the Federal Reserve there can be no doubt that all we are is sheep to be sheared by our overlords!
Early on the morning of Oct. 2, 1992, 31 officers from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, National Guard and Park Service came roaring down the narrow dirt road to Scott's rustic 200-acre ranch. They planned to arrest Scott, the wealthy, eccentric, hard-drinking heir to a Europe-based chemicals fortune, for allegedly running a 4,000-plant marijuana plantation. When deputies broke down the door to Scott's house, Scott's wife would later tell reporters, she screamed, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." That brought Scott staggering out of the bedroom, hung-over and bleary-eyed -- he'd just had a cataract operation -- holding a .38 caliber Colt snub-nosed revolver over his head. When he pointed it in the direction of the deputies, they killed him.
In the end a search of the property did not reveal any marijuana plants. The use of force was justified under law, and the entire raid was reviewed and all information used to start the operation was valid.
A 100 million dollar lawsuit was filed, and in the end they accepted a 3 million dollar payout from the County, whoi opted not to fight it because of... wait for it... the cost of lawsuits.
The manner you portray this incident is inccorect, and you are leaving out important information to put it in context. This is what I am talking about when it comes to understanding law enforcement actions, and how people see what they want and repeat it as fact to paint a picture that never occured.
No really we cant.. Can you please provide a link to where this info is? Law Enforcement cannot jsut show up at random and take items.
Why do we FEAR asset forfeiture?
Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime....
Seized property was presumed guilty and could be forfeited based upon mere hearsay—even a tip supplied by by an informant who stood to gain up to 25% of the forfeited assets. Owners were forced into the untenable situation of trying to prove a negative—that something never happened, even though no proof of any illegal act had been offered at trial.
Newspapers and television stories across the nation documented hundreds of cases of innocent citizens wrongfully deprived of their homes, businesses and livlihoods. Eighty percent of property forfeited to the US during the previous decade was seized from owners who were never even charged with a crime! Over $7 billion has been forfeited to the federal government since 1985. Until the advent of FEAR law enforcement officials promoting expanded forfeiture laws comprised the overwhelming majority of lobbyists at hearings on forfeiture litigation. Meanwhile, prosecutors complained that police were less available to investigate crimes that did not involve forfeiture.
Over 200 federal forfeiture laws are attached to non-drug related crimes. Even a false statement on a loan application can trigger forfeiture. Physicians are subject to forfeiture of their entire assets based on a clerical errors in medicare billing. The government even tried to forfeit a farmer's tractor for allegedly running over an endangered rat..... www.fear.org...