RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution

RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BoscoX -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 6:02:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: outlier Here is an article with more details about the practice from 2013 in The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken You not only do not have to be convicted, you don't have to even be charged. Furthermore it can all start because: You were driving too close to the line, or You drove in the left lane for 1/2 mile without passing. Or your son sold $20 worth of weed while on your front porch, so we are taking your house. Too bad you are elderly and have cancer. Who was president then...

bounty44 -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 7:02:01 AM)
the bigger issue at hand is, is the idea behind the program justifiable and if so, are the problems with it simply a matter of implementation. and if the problems with the implementation of it cannot get around conflicts of interest, human greed and the desire for power, how does that affect the essence of the idea and what should be/could be done about the obvious pitfalls. and lastly, how exactly has sessions "expanded the program."

WickedsDesire -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 7:45:01 AM)
Didn't some one do this thread not that long ago? Sorry i was just reading all of the link article today I seem to remember saying we have this one over here Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Part 5 of the Act deals with the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime from unconvicted defendants through proceedings in the civil courts (the High Court or, in Scotland, Court of Session). It includes powers relating to the seizure, detention and forfeiture of cash sums[18] in excess of the 'minimum amount'[19] (currently £1,000).[20] In this context cash is widely defined to include not only banknotes and coins of any currency but also cheques, including travellers' cheques and bank drafts.[21] These proceedings are held in the Magistrates' Court or (in Scotland) before the Sheriff. Part 5 applies throughout the UK. Effectively it is a combination of two older acts If someone transfers their ill-gotten money to say a spouse name (on deeds) martial home, etc i am not sure how it works or if they hide their money too well they effectively have no assets - or assets that can be found. Which is still different from say a kid getting pulled over for 100 buck dope money and having his car etc seized. Anyway convicted felons dont get the vote either, or ever again, in America, I think In the UK erm I dont seem to think a prisoner gets a vote The UK has a blanket ban on prisoners voting in national and European elections, regardless of the severity of their conviction or the length of their sentence. To put this in perspective, women are most commonly handed custodial sentences for nonviolent crimes. The most common crime women serving sentences in British prisons have committed is theft. People who are being detained but have not been convicted of a criminal offence, such as non-payment of TV licence, can vote. People who are in prison on remand and are awaiting trial or sentencing can also vote.

DesideriScuri -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 1:28:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the bigger issue at hand is, is the idea behind the program justifiable and if so, are the problems with it simply a matter of implementation. and if the problems with the implementation of it cannot get around conflicts of interest, human greed and the desire for power, how does that affect the essence of the idea and what should be/could be done about the obvious pitfalls. and lastly, how exactly has sessions "expanded the program." Just like with just about everything, the devil is in the details. I don't now how Sessions is expanding the program. Is it a worthwhile program? I think it's good to deny those that are breaking the law the fruits of their law breaking. I think most people would agree with that, too. However, what doesn't need to be expanded, but, in reality, contracted, is the number of people who are innocent of any intentional wrongdoing losing their property. If someone buys drugs on my front porch, but I'm not involved, I don't know there is a drug transaction going on, and I wouldn't allow it if I did know, then I shouldn't lose my house simply because it was used by someone else in the commission of a crime. Does expansion of the program come with any protections for those who wrongfully have their shit taken? I don't know, and I doubt anyone here does. But, let's not let that kind of stuff get in the way of an opportunity to score points against the other side.

Musicmystery -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 1:45:37 PM)
It's a "morality war," not a legal issue. Why single out drug offenses?

DesideriScuri -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 1:54:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's a "morality war," not a legal issue. Why single out drug offenses? Because it's a good example. The "losing the house" thing happened because of some illicit drug transaction on the front porch, and the owner of the house wasn't involved and claimed to not know the transaction was happening.

Musicmystery -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 2:01:28 PM)
At this level, they really shouldn't be at the starting point of planning.

bounty44 -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 5:21:14 PM)
it seems a reasonable way to avoid conflicts of interest and unethical behavior would be to limit the occurrence of any forfeitures to after a conviction and to make it less a "seizure" and more of a jury awarded thing where the state has to make the case for it.

Hillwilliam -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 5:27:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 it seems a reasonable way to avoid conflicts of interest and unethical behavior would be to limit the occurrence of any forfeitures to after a conviction and to make it less a "seizure" and more of a jury awarded thing where the state has to make the case for it. I and the Constitution both agree 100%. If a conviction is required, this is a program that would help tremendously. As it is, "We The People" is just the first sheet on the roll.

DesideriScuri -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 8:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 it seems a reasonable way to avoid conflicts of interest and unethical behavior would be to limit the occurrence of any forfeitures to after a conviction and to make it less a "seizure" and more of a jury awarded thing where the state has to make the case for it. Freezing (or seizing) someone's assets isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that someone is the one under investigation for the actual wrongdoing. Some of that stuff can rightly be considered evidence. But, there has to be an easier way for someone to get seized assets back, once cleared of wrongdoing. By the time a hearing is done, it's not unreasonable to think the assets that would be seized could be long gone. Then how are we to collect the awarded seizure/forfeiture?

DesideriScuri -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 8:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery At this level, they really shouldn't be at the starting point of planning. Agreed, but, better now than later. If you want shade from an oak tree, the best time to plant is 20 years ago. The next best time, is now.

outlier -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/25/2017 9:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: outlier Here is an article with more details about the practice from 2013 in The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken You not only do not have to be convicted, you don't have to even be charged. Furthermore it can all start because: You were driving too close to the line, or You drove in the left lane for 1/2 mile without passing. Or your son sold $20 worth of weed while on your front porch, so we are taking your house. Too bad you are elderly and have cancer. Who was president then... The seizures I mentioned from the article were not federal. They were states and counties. Of course in order to discuss that instead of just a having reflexive spasm of hatred, you would have to do two things beyond your demonstrated capacities. Read and Think.

bounty44 -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/26/2017 4:58:30 AM)
it makes one wonder what all the city legislatures around the country are doing in light of this problem. on another hand, you can see how asset seizure serves to drive more wedges between police and the communities they "serve."

mnottertail -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/26/2017 5:10:08 AM)
The forfeiture laws that I am aware of are all state and federal and were the product of the nutsuckers under St. Wrinklemeats reign. Typically cities dont have legislatures, only councils, and cannot under any state constitution I am aware of override state law. State laws cannot override Federal law, so there it is.

Musicmystery -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/26/2017 6:06:42 AM)
The Rockefeller Drug Law mentality.

DesideriScuri -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/26/2017 6:11:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 it makes one wonder what all the city legislatures around the country are doing in light of this problem. on another hand, you can see how asset seizure serves to drive more wedges between police and the communities they "serve." Sadly, I think city and state legislatures are probably salivating over the "revenue stream."

Aylee -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/26/2017 6:26:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the bigger issue at hand is, is the idea behind the program justifiable and if so, are the problems with it simply a matter of implementation. and if the problems with the implementation of it cannot get around conflicts of interest, human greed and the desire for power, how does that affect the essence of the idea and what should be/could be done about the obvious pitfalls. and lastly, how exactly has sessions "expanded the program." Sessions has states that the Justice Department will issue new directives to increase the federal government's use of civil assets forfeiture. (By rolling back some Obama era restraints on it.) Not criminal forfeiture - which requires a conviction. Civil asset forfeiture - otherwise known as stealing from citizens - which requires no charges or convictions.

Aylee -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/26/2017 6:30:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 it seems a reasonable way to avoid conflicts of interest and unethical behavior would be to limit the occurrence of any forfeitures to after a conviction and to make it less a "seizure" and more of a jury awarded thing where the state has to make the case for it. Yes. That would be criminal forfeiture. And it would be constitutional. Despite what SCOTUS has ruled, many of us agree that CAF is unconstitutional.

Aylee -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/26/2017 6:31:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: outlier quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: outlier Here is an article with more details about the practice from 2013 in The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken You not only do not have to be convicted, you don't have to even be charged. Furthermore it can all start because: You were driving too close to the line, or You drove in the left lane for 1/2 mile without passing. Or your son sold $20 worth of weed while on your front porch, so we are taking your house. Too bad you are elderly and have cancer. Who was president then... The seizures I mentioned from the article were not federal. They were states and counties. Of course in order to discuss that instead of just a having reflexive spasm of hatred, you would have to do two things beyond your demonstrated capacities. Read and Think. Yes, except local/state municipalities can "share" their case with the feds so that it falls under federal seizing rules (helpful when your state/local area has made laws against it) and then the local office gets to keep 80% of what was seized.

Musicmystery -> RE: DOJ continues wiping their ass with the Constitution (7/26/2017 6:50:29 AM)
Oy.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625