Huge Victory Against Civil Asset Seizure SCOTUS 9-0 Decision

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: infolurker
Well, sure there are some agencies not very happy about this ruling...

Good, screw them. There were far too many instances of people who had not committed any crimes having their property stolen and then given an arduous process to then try and recover what was wrongly taken.

Just curious, was that the real RBG or the clone?

Good money if we could bet would be that was a doppelganger/clone if the D's pattern of 'anything it takes' is any indication.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Good money if we could bet would be that was a doppelganger/clone if the D's pattern of 'anything it takes' is any indication.

I'll bet you every penny you have it was the real one with 10-1 odds in your favor but I doubt you'd ever pay up.

I myself would have argued that any asset forfeiture without a conviction would have been a violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause in Article 1 sec. 9. of the US Constitution. It's a separation of powers clause reserving punishments to the Judicial Branch.

A bill of attainder – sometimes called an act or writ of attainder or an ex-post facto law – is an act of a government’s legislature that declares a person or group of persons guilty of a crime and prescribing their punishment without the benefit of a trial or judicial hearing. The practical effect of a bill of attainder is to deny accused person’s civil rights and liberties.

a reply to: infolurker

Yeah, I have to say, I've always had a problem with this law. There's just too many ways for it to be abused, plus I think it corrupted true justice by influencing the spotlight of enforcement to those who had money and assets over those who did not.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: infolurker
Well, sure there are some agencies not very happy about this ruling...

Good, screw them. There were far too many instances of people who had not committed any crimes having their property stolen and then given an arduous process to then try and recover what was wrongly taken.

Just curious, was that the real RBG or the clone?

Good money if we could bet would be that was a doppelganger/clone if the D's pattern of 'anything it takes' is any indication.

I will take that bet all day, every day. She is alive and kicking.. many on here wish she was dead which is disgusting but that's for another thread.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
So does this civil asset forfeiture ruling also extent to firearms? Makes that 9-0 decision very powerful if so because it has been used on accusations of mental/emotional instability to justify firearm theft by state/local governments.

Yes and no.

If you are behaving irrationally and threatening mass murder on FB, the cops can still show up and confiscate you guns.

They can not however Auction your guns aka policing for profit.

The most egregious cases I have read about involve confiscated cash, where they only need suspicion of illegal activity to take your cash and carrying large sums of cash on your person or in your vehicle qualifies as suspicious

Cases of people getting pulled over and cops finding a few thousand dollars in cash in the car and then being able to confiscate based on it being unusual to have a large sum of a cash. They don't even have to file any charges, just take the cash and go. That is not policing, that is robbery.

The truth about civil asset forfeiture is that along with police homicides of unarmed residents, Most of the actually bad actions are being perpetrated by the FEDs, not local law enforcement.

The "Black Lives Matter" movement would not address the fact that in the year of Chris Brown's death, federal law enforcement had killed more unarmed civilians than all local police across the USA put together. Because Obama had said local cops need to be replaced with federal cops who respect the civilians' rights.

There are some small time agencies that seize a lot of civil assets, and they are corrupt to the bone. But they are nothing on the scale of the feds, who seize corporate assets when no law was broken--just a 'federal guideline' from an agency like EPA, SEC, or IRS.

a reply to: Graysen

Back in 1993 I worked for a marketing company that got Hit by the fed's and because I was there at the time I got caught up in the case , 8 years later I got a knock on my door and arrested by the FBI Long Story short I was indited along with a bunch of others who had no clue anything was being done wrong at the company ,

After all that I was told I had better take the plea deal because you can't fight the Fed's by going to trial they don't Lose so I had to take the deal which was , 1 year on house arrest 750 hours of community service 5 years on formal probation and $547,000.00 in restitution Yes $547,000.00 .

I had probably made $20,000.00 working for the company . So I did everything I was supposed to do - Did my 5 years seeing my probation officer every month and paying my monthly restitution . On my last day all my probation officer told me was "see you you are done"

Well it's 2019 now 2 month's ago I sold a house my profit was $25,000.00 long story short I never got to see a dime , In 2001 the Feds put a Lien on me for $547,000.00 that didn't come up on credit but there's some new title search they do now that pulls any and everything up . The Feds took my $25,000.00 without a phone call or even a receipt just gone , Because they filed the lien in 2001 I'm just under the 20 year statute of limitations. Nothing I can do I'm just screwed . How's that for Constitutional ?

originally posted by: infolurker
The court’s 9-0 ruling was authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,”

2 problems I have with this ruling...

1. It should have been based on the 5th amendments protection against being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

It should also have been struck down due to the ludicrous concept that property can be 'prosecuted' as if it was a living person.

Forfeiture laws are simply legalized theft.

and

2. I don't believe that RBG penned this. I want proof she is capable of doing so.

I can’t believe this thread isn’t going anywhere.
This is great news for all, no matter your political leanings.
I guess if it’s not Reps vs Dems, it’s not worthy.
Truly unfortunate.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Justoneman
Good money if we could bet would be that was a doppelganger/clone if the D's pattern of 'anything it takes' is any indication.

I'll bet you every penny you have it was the real one with 10-1 odds in your favor but I doubt you'd ever pay up.

Since the Left would do ANYTHING to win and keep their ability to use the courts to rewrite the laws (as it appears they do now IMO), you would stand to lose a lot.

a reply to: Gargoyle91

I completely believe you. It's freakin ghastly.

I'll be honest; I don't know why you stay in the states. I'd probably emigrate. Or else go rogue. Not saying you should--just that I'd be tempted to turn my hand against "the man," since his hand is already set against me.

I just don't know how you get out of bed in the morning, or try to work for a living, if they just take it all. I could see going on the welfare. Or living on the lamb.

I'd wonder about off-shoring some bank accounts, and having money that never became American. Or I might off-shore my self. A lot of the developing world is really enjoyable; they don't push the way Americans do. And they aren't nearly as uptight. A few thousand USD will take care of you for years down there.

For me, I live to hunt, and hunt to live. My current liege believes that not only can a felon not own a firearm, he should even own a bow and arrows. If I got convicted of something, I'd probably choose any fate other than that. With all the craziness regarding the border, I'd probably focus on sailing. A lot of gentlemen sailboat owners will hire some help for a cruise down to the tropics. No customs, no passport, no problem. no more words.

This is long overdue imo. The idea of taking someone's property for being used in 'criminal activity' but no charges are ever filed either means the criminal activity is a bunch of bs, or, the cops are negligent in their duties for not pursuing 'criminal activity'. I say take back the loot they stole from people and charge them with negligence for every forfeiture where there were no criminal charges filed.

They did this to themselves and I have no sympathy at all for them. They enjoy the benefits of the assumption of a 'higher standard, let them suffer under the weight of it as well.

Edit - Just for the record, no way in hell RGB did this. She can't hold her head up and stay awake long enough to finish one sentence let alone an entire dissertation that actually makes sense. No way in hell she wrote this. Not a chance. None.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Since the Left would do ANYTHING to win and keep their ability to use the courts to rewrite the laws (as it appears they do now IMO), you would stand to lose a lot.

Is that you making a bet? Who do you want to hold the money?

I have said since the first time I heard of civil forfeiture that it was unconstitutional. It actually conjures up images of the tax collectors of old simply breaking in and taking whatever they wanted "in the name of the King."

I would hope we have progressed beyond that, but until I saw this I was having serious doubts. Now I have some hope that perhaps we have.

I tip my hat to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. On this issue, we are in total agreement. I especially like how her opinion specifically ties the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states instead of only to the Federal government. That includes the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom of association, and the others. Good job, Justice Ginsberg! May we find more to agree on.

TheRedneck

By far one of the most pleasant surprises of 2019. It is difficult to accept as functional a criminal justice system that mirrors banditry and legitimizes it through the mask of authority and hides behind the power of a uniform and badge. The guardians of a city should protect and serve, not be deemed terrors and thieves.

a reply to: infolurker

Ginsburg's finest moment

Huge victory for freedom

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: infolurker
Well, sure there are some agencies not very happy about this ruling...

Good, screw them. There were far too many instances of people who had not committed any crimes having their property stolen and then given an arduous process to then try and recover what was wrongly taken.

Just curious, was that the real RBG or the clone?

Both.