Every time I start to have a glimmer of hope that conservatives aren't completely ass backwards, Jeff Sessions comes to remind me of how foolish that idea is.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property.
“We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."
Asset forfeiture is a disputed practice that allows law enforcement officials to permanently take money and goods from individuals suspected of crime. There is little disagreement among lawmakers, authorities and criminal justice reformers that “no criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.” But in many cases, neither a criminal conviction nor even a criminal charge is necessary — under forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level, mere suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to allow police to seize items permanently.
Additionally, many states allow law enforcement agencies to keep cash that they seize, creating what critics characterize as a profit motive. The practice is widespread: In 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more.
Since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone has taken more than $3 billion in cash from people not charged with any crime, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General.
The practice is ripe for abuse. In one case in 2016, Oklahoma police seized $53,000 owned by a Christian band, an orphanage and a church after stopping a man on a highway for a broken taillight. A few years earlier, a Michigan drug task force raided the home of a self-described “soccer mom,” suspecting she was not in compliance with the state's medical marijuana law. They proceeded to take “every belonging” from the family, including tools, a bicycle and her daughter's birthday money.
In recent years, states have begun to clamp down on the practice.
“Thirteen states now allow forfeiture only in cases where there's been a criminal conviction,” said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that represents forfeiture defendants.
In 2015, Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo sharply curtailing a particular type of forfeiture practice that allowed local police to share part of their forfeiture proceeds with federal authorities. Known as “adoptive” forfeiture, it allowed state and local authorities to sidestep sometimes stricter state laws, processing forfeiture cases under the more permissive federal statute.
These types of forfeitures amounted to a small total of assets seized by federal authorities, so the overall impact on forfeiture practices was relatively muted. Still, criminal justice reform groups on the left and the right cheered the move as a signal that the Obama administration was serious about curtailing forfeiture abuses.
In his speech Monday, Attorney General Sessions appeared to specifically call out adoptive forfeitures as an area for potential expansion. “Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate,” he said, “as is sharing with our partners.”
“This is a federalism issue,” Johnson said. “Any return to federal adoptive forfeitures would “circumvent limitations on civil forfeiture that are imposed by state legislatures … the Department of Justice is saying 'we're going to help state and local law enforcement to get around those reforms.'”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
A person should have to be convicted of a crime before his/her property can be seized. The idea that a person who is arrested on a criminal charge should lose their property is about as far from the Constitution as anything I can think of.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Seizure is ok if the person is definitely guilty and convicted. But what do you do from the time of arrest until found guilty? Do you freeze everything, keeping money for criminal defense from being accessed? Do you do nothing allowing the liquidation and hiding of assets?
Then you also have innocent people that might be involved in the accused's life... spouses, children, extended family, business associates, employers, creditors, victims, etc. When you freeze the assets of the accused more often than not other's property is also involved.
So I'm not a supporter of seizure based on suspicion, accusation, charged, nor proven guilt until the innocent have been figured into the equation.
What I think this is headed towards is the feds imposing weed laws on states who have made it legal. I mean after all, federal law trumps state law, so they can do it any time they wish.
I don't like that, but that's the way it is.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
But that combined with sessions being in full support of private prisons, as well as civil forfeiture laws is absolutely dangerous.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
What I think this is headed towards is the feds imposing weed laws on states who have made it legal. I mean after all, federal law trumps state law, so they can do it any time they wish.
I don't like that, but that's the way it is.
I wouldn't be surprised, but boy they'd be taking quite a bit of money from these states. We're talking a few hundred millions of dollars just between Oregon, Washington, and Colorado last year. Add in any new states making it legal, and any states that have medical marijuana legal, and we could be talking a billion or more/year. Governors will not be happy.
can somebody explain to me how this should be allowed? this is UnAmerican.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
JMHO, sure is EASY to slant a story to support your bias, example....police take $53,000 from Christian band, orphanage, etc.....for a broken tail light. Paul Harvey, the rest of story...Christian band was made up of immigrants from Burma, who spoke poor English, a police drug dog alerted on vehicle once it was stopped for tail light, no drugs found, probably dog alerted on money which had trace drugs on it (my guess), all money returned to "Christian band"....so the government conspiracy for taking money from citizens just posted their BS story, slanted way they wanted, and left out the rest of story. As a law abiding citizen, it bothers me zero that government looks closely at all folks walking into banks depositing $9,990 over and over again, so it ISN'T questioned- it is sad we have so many drug abusers in this country, I hope we catch a bunk of them through ANY new program.
"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
Is it UnAmerican that Hillary got questions before the debates and that the DNC, liberal God that it is, made sure Sanders WASN'T the Democratic nominee....is that American?
"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
JMHO, sure is EASY to slant a story to support your bias, example....police take $53,000 from Christian band, orphanage, etc.....for a broken tail light. Paul Harvey, the rest of story...Christian band was made up of immigrants from Burma, who spoke poor English, a police drug dog alerted on vehicle once it was stopped for tail light, no drugs found, probably dog alerted on money which had trace drugs on it (my guess), all money returned to "Christian band"....so the government conspiracy for taking money from citizens just posted their BS story, slanted way they wanted, and left out the rest of story. As a law abiding citizen, it bothers me zero that government looks closely at all folks walking into banks depositing $9,990 over and over again, so it ISN'T questioned- it is sad we have so many drug abusers in this country, I hope we catch a bunk of them through ANY new program.
Agreed drugs are a huge problem in this world. Heck just look at the heroin problem and how many people have died and will die in the future. I have no problem if the law takes everything from drug dealers and users.
Is it UnAmerican that Hillary got questions before the debates and that the DNC, liberal God that it is, made sure Sanders WASN'T the Democratic nominee....is that American?
what in the flying crap does this have to do with civil forfeiture laws?
holy deflection, batman!!!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
JMHO, real crime is both parties are dug in so deep, nothing gets done....my point was the"Christian band" was made up of individuals who spoke very little English, having taught ESOL in public schools, you probably don't understand that if people want to stay out of trouble they need to be able to communicate....it's no crime, just make everything harder. I'm sure next you'll be in support of having Hindu on all ATMs, ballots, select your language.....citizenship "in the old days" required some proficiency in English language, I'm in support of that.
Yes, DNC point was off subject, but no answer from my liberal poster, American or Unamerican?
"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
Yes, you're point was completely off subject and doesn't deserve a response.
It's unamerican, but that isn't remotely what this discussion was about. Post that crap in the other threads.
This is about government allowing law enforcement to seize assets with no charges or convictions.
That should be illegal and unconstitutional under the 4th amendment.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Swish, I'm not a lawyer, I ASSUME you aren't either. But, your statement that this is UNAMERICAN seems to me completely false. Why, the article mentioned....and this issue...seems to me just a continuation of cat and mouse game law enforcement and drug dealers have been playing for decades.
OF note, the "new laws" just change somewhat the hundreds of state laws and federal laws concerning the seizure of assets from criminals/ illegal drug users, etc. These laws have been used for decades...yes, even when Democrats, liberals had the federal power, these are NOT laws created by the thug Republicans.
JMHO, until relatively recently, Weed was illegal in the US, yet we had millions using it regularly and those people thought in their own minds...weed is like alcohol, no big deal, I'm not breaking the law. In a black and white world, black is a lie, white is truth, weed users were liars and criminals. Time has shown, the war on weed and most other drugs has been lost- sadly in my book.
Lastly, the article about the Michigan soccer mom who had her kids toys stolen, cars, ladder, etc....again, selective reporting....she was a weed dealer, legally within Michigan AND eventually her property was returned. The police, who I don't fear at all, were to aggressive the weed dealer wanted a different strain of weed from another dealer.
Drugs, money, power....just some of the things that corrupt us.
"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
Swish, check out these law abiding citizens, hiding their illegal weed production facility under a baby crib....why, that is Unamerican....this is the exact reason the STATES and Federal government have the grab assets law...again, JMHO http://postpopular.com/suburban-home-has...mp;utm_campaign
"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
Based on your statement, guess you know someone who's a "legal" user...JMHO, based on late 60s drug research- birth defects for children, impaired driving, addictive- like cigarettes-yet worse...ain't it grand we are finally legalizing it, because it's so good for us....never used it and I'm a 60's child....as retired pilot, I wonder if the airlines will allow their pilots to use and get high before flights- nice thought HUH, would love to be in a seat with pilot high, sweet. We can rejoice like Colorado ER hospital visits are way up.....weed is so good for us....right.
"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
you definitely seem like a reefer madness kind of dude.
which is why i'm not saying much of anything, because it will be pointless.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."
I agree with every word of that.. as long as you put them through the process and prove through the legal system that they are, in fact, criminals.. and then tie their assets to their crimes.. if you can do that, take it all, take every penny, every vehicle, every wine bottle.. take it all. Then do the same for white collar criminals, tax evaders and other white collar criminals, take all of their stuff too. He is 100% correct that nobody should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.
However, just because a 20 year old kid doesn't "usually" drive across the state with a couple grand in cash, doesn't make that kid a criminal...
Based on your statement, guess you know someone who's a "legal" user...JMHO, based on late 60s drug research- birth defects for children, impaired driving, addictive- like cigarettes-yet worse...ain't it grand we are finally legalizing it, because it's so good for us....never used it and I'm a 60's child....as retired pilot, I wonder if the airlines will allow their pilots to use and get high before flights- nice thought HUH, would love to be in a seat with pilot high, sweet. We can rejoice like Colorado ER hospital visits are way up.....weed is so good for us....right.
50 year old reasearch...wake it up is 2017 and there is modern research that shows it is fine in moderation, even with long term use. This coming from someone who doesn't use it either.
but he's allowing and furthering assets being taken before any conviction has taken place.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
50 year old reasearch...wake it up is 2017 and there is modern research that shows it is fine in moderation, even with long term use. This coming from someone who doesn't use it either.
Actually no there isn't. Its as fine for you as smoking tobbacco.
Smoke is harmful to lung health. Whether from burning wood, tobacco or marijuana, toxins and carcinogens are released from the combustion of materials. Smoke from marijuana combustion has been shown to contain many of the same toxins, irritants and carcinogens as tobacco smoke.
Beyond just what's in the smoke alone, marijuana is typically smoked differently than tobacco. Marijuana smokers tend to inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than cigarette smokers, which leads to a greater exposure per breath to tar.
Smoking marijuana clearly damages the human lung. Research shows that smoking marijuana causes chronic bronchitis and marijuana smoke has been shown to injure the cell linings of the large airways, which could explain why smoking marijuana leads to symptoms such as chronic cough, phlegm production, wheeze and acute bronchitis. (Just like it is when you a regular tobacco smoker)
Smoking marijuana hurts the lungs' first line of defense against infection by killing cells that help remove dust and germs as well as causing more mucus to be formed. In addition, it also suppresses the immune system.
Smoking dope is just as bad on your lungs as smoking tobacco, and folks who smoke dope regularly, just like tobacco smokers, will most likely end up with some sort of respiratory cancer in the future and die an absolutely awful death.
I smoked for 25 years, I watched my dad die from lung cancer...I know full well how awful of a death that is, and i wouldn't wish that fate on my worst enemy.
Its a MYTH that marijuana is somehow safer then tobacco perpetuated by the pro-marijuana crowd. The fact most smokers tend to breath deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer increases their lungs exposore to tar, and tar is a carcinogen that causes cancer.
If someone smoked one marijuana cig a year, yes the risk would be little to none...but just like reg Cigs...we know that's not the case.....
How many people smoke 1, 2, or 3 packs of pot a day?
I certainly don't. I don't know anyone personally who smokes all day everyday.
Maybe snoop dog? But he certainly doesn't have any health problems from weed. I don't either, as if now.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Probably doesn't matter. Trump gave an interview to the NYT's of all things and was not flattering towards Sessions. Wouldn't be surprised is Sessions resigns or quits soon.
I'm still wondering why Trump would talk to the NYT's given how he says they are the "Failing New York Times" LOL
