Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: B.D.F. on July 03, 2015, 01:54:52 PM
-
It looks like Montana and New Mexico took a huge stride in passing laws regarding civil forfeiture in their respective states. About time. I never could understand how the gov't could seize (take ownership of, not strict its use or access) private property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS as is guaranteed all of us.... It all seems to have started back in the 80's with the increase in the 'war on drugs'... and civil rights.
[/url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/)
Brian
-
Gotta link or are you making this up? ;)
-
I thought I put one in the original post. Try this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/)
And not in my wildest dreams could I make this up- I believe the gov't or any gov't agent seizing private property, without due process (a trial and a verdict showing guilt) is unimaginable. I cannot believe it happened, and I cannot believe it has been in effect for minutes, never mind decades. I do not care who or what (corporation, tax shelter, fraudulent church, etc., etc.) you are, all entities are entitled to due process. Otherwise we might just grab ourselves a king and be done with the entire hoax (civil rights, a level playing field, the constitution et. al).
Brian
Gotta link or are you making this up? ;)
-
I got linked to Katy Perry. No, not THAT kind of linked. :'(
-
Try this one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/)
And/or for NM:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/final/HB0560.pdf (http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/final/HB0560.pdf)
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/uploads/FileLinks/11a0326a344f4283b63b3f88c21627c4/HEM25.pdf (http://www.governor.state.nm.us/uploads/FileLinks/11a0326a344f4283b63b3f88c21627c4/HEM25.pdf)
And/or for MT:
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W%24BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20151&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=463&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ= (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W%24BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20151&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=463&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=)
Rick
-
If you're referring to government seizure of "believed assets of illicit gain", yep, it's all the rage for funding scholarships here in AZ
-
Yeah, opps- and I never saw anything about her so I have no idea how I got that link. ?? The correct link is:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/)
I got linked to Katy Perry. No, not THAT kind of linked. :'(
-
I am referring to ANY gov't (or an agent of gov't) seizing ANYTHING without DUE PROCESS. They simply do NOT have that ability. At least not until the 1980's.
The US Constitution- great document, short read and usually pretty easy to follow;
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[5]
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[6]
Now lookie there, they said the same thing.... twice.
Brian
If you're referring to government seizure of "believed assets of illicit gain", yep, it's all the rage for funding scholarships here in AZ
-
In AZ, they are giving scholarships to students if they sign a contract stating that they will stay drug free while in school. It was an end run to skirt law.
I got nothing. I'm speechless.
-
Yeah, as you can probably tell, I ain't none too happy with that one (seizure based on accusation). There are a few others that are way outside the curve too IMO but I will not bring those up.
Trying to run a country and base all things in written rules (laws) is bound to have unforeseen results and occasionally, laws in direct conflict with each other. Things like freedom of speech (where you can say anything you want about, say, the gov't) versus things like the Sedition Act of 1918, which prevents a person from casting the gov't in negative light (meaning you cannot say anything yo want about, say, the gov't). We puzzle our way through these conundrums as best we can and generally move along pretty well. But denying anyone (or any entity) their right to property based solely on accusation and belief is just too far IMO.
Brian
In AZ, they are giving scholarships to students if they sign a contract stating that they will stay drug free while in school. It was an end run to skirt law.
I got nothing. I'm speechless.
-
Back in the '90s, they raided property belonging to a militia member in Phoenix. All of his machinery and tools were confiscated because "The equipment COULD be used to produce illegal weapons." SMH
-
And right behind this in the outrageous acts of government department is the increasing instances of eminent domain abuse.
This case opened the floodgate, thanks again to our ever loving SCOTUS...
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]
-
Not real happy about this at all... >:(
-
I thought I put one in the original post. Try this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/)
And not in my wildest dreams could I make this up- I believe the gov't or any gov't agent seizing private property, without due process (a trial and a verdict showing guilt) is unimaginable. I cannot believe it happened, and I cannot believe it has been in effect for minutes, never mind decades. I do not care who or what (corporation, tax shelter, fraudulent church, etc., etc.) you are, all entities are entitled to due process. Otherwise we might just grab ourselves a king and be done with the entire hoax (civil rights, a level playing field, the constitution et. al).
Brian
I feel like we currently have King Obama :-\ He breaks the law all the time, and nobody seems to do anything about it.
-
I did a job recently for a school board here in the SE, and one of the higher-ups I was talking to said, "The SB is out of land here and has been having to build UP instead of out, which is more expensive. And the kicker is, the farm next door ... the previous owners offered to just deed it over to the SB some years ago, and the SB declined it. The current owners say we're never getting it from them. We could take it of course ... but that would be a PR nightmare."
:banghead: :thumbdown :cannon: :deadhorse: :shoot: :nuts: >:(
-
I feel like we currently have King Obama :-\ He breaks the law all the time, and nobody seems to do anything about it.
Can't touch him.... Just look crosswise at O'DumbOne and someone pulls the race card out on ya.....
One caught staring at Caligula's bald spot could be put to death.... Yet in the beginning the common people loved him too!
-
I feel like we currently have King Obama :-\ He breaks the law all the time, and nobody seems to do anything about it.
We're talking state laws here or am I missing something?
-
We're talking state laws here or am I missing something?
King Obama also isn't concerned with silly 'state laws'.
Anyway, I guess you didn't notice the bolded part of BDF's post I was specifically replying to.
-
Ok, I see the bolded part but what has that to do with states seizing property? The IRS can seize property for tax obligations but that's been going on for years. I just don't see your point or Brian's as it applies to this thread about states and local governments siezing property. It happens everywhere, especially when roads are being built. They usually give you something for it...never enough.
As far as seizures relating to drugs or criminal activity I can see that and support it. However, the seizure should only be permanent after a conviction. If someone wants to fight it there is always the court system.
-
So you are saying that should I accuse you of selling drugs, then the gov't (state, local or federal, makes no difference) can seize your property(s) until such time as you can get on a court's docket, fight the case, PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT (not guilty) and then the gov't agency should give you your property(s) back?
Nah, not in my country. We are all entitled to due process. That means that once accused of a specific crime(s) (meaning: no 'shotgunning' with regard to they think you may have violated some law or another, it must be a specific charge or charges), the law enforcement has extremely tightly regulated rules as to what they can and (mostly) cannot do until you are brought before a judge. Before property is seized, a person must be found guilty of some crime that warrants that, and ONLY THAT property seizure.
Due process is a fundamental civil right guaranteed all of us in the Constitution (twice!). I have no problem with punishment and loss of property.... AFTER someone is convicted of doing something(s) to warrant it. Al Capone, Charles Mason, Ted Bundy.... all got trials before they were punished. As it should be. Except when the IRS or DEA decides someone may have acted improperly and they seize property at the time of accusal. I believe this is easily the greatest violation of the constitution going on right now, or at least one of two that I know of and the other one has at least limited merits in favor of it.
The fact that you support it is fine and all but there is no force of law behind that approach.
Brian
Ok, I see the bolded part but what has that to do with states seizing property? The IRS can seize property for tax obligations but that's been going on for years. I just don't see your point or Brian's as it applies to this thread about states and local governments siezing property. It happens everywhere, especially when roads are being built. They usually give you something for it...never enough.
As far as seizures relating to drugs or criminal activity I can see that and support it. However, the seizure should only be permanent after a conviction. If someone wants to fight it there is always the court system.
-
So you are saying that should I accuse you of selling drugs, then the gov't (state, local or federal, makes no difference) can seize your property(s) until such time as you can get on a court's docket, fight the case, PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT (not guilty) and then the gov't agency should give you your property(s) back?
The fact that you support it is fine and all but there is no force of law behind that approach.
Brian
Yep. :) :popcorn:
I'm also thinking that having a King or Queen (equal oppty) isn't a bad idea either considering what's going on or not in Congress..
-
Speaking for myself, today is the day I celebrate and reflect on our Independence from a Monarchy. I also firmly believe that the elected officials should take a better look at a calendar, there are 364 other days on there. Plenty of room for another Independence Day.....
-
Really folks, I didn't pick Jim as an admin because of his views!
...
As far as seizures relating to drugs or criminal activity I can see that and support it. However, the seizure should only be permanent after a conviction. If someone wants to fight it there is always the court system.
This is a VERY slippery slope.
When the police arrest you, it's an accusation. Facts are discovered during trial. IOW, police are not judge jury and executioner (yet?).
"We *think* you *may* be selling drugs, else why would you have all that cash? We're taking your car and all your cash and travelers checks under civil forfeiture laws. Maybe your passport too, flight risk you know". "You have 30 days to respond in court to the the forfeiture (if you can figure out the rules) or we keep your assets for good. Chump.
Possession is 90% of the law.
Lawyers (and/or using the courts to recover) are big bux.
You have done *nothing* wrong, yet you *have* to prove your innocence to become whole again (minus your time lost. Maybe your business folded in your absence, wife left, kids think you're now a dealer...).
Enforcement agencies have everything to gain, and nothing to loose. It's a *very* bad law.
Rick
-
Enforcement agencies have everything to gain, and nothing to loose. It's a *very* bad law.
Often they are quite overzealous too... Was news worthy not long ago that they had even seized a woman's vibrator... What the heck has that to do with her selling some weed as a medical provider?
-
Could be used as a weapon.
-
Yup. "Get back or I'll use this thing, and believe me, I know how!" "OMG! RUN!"
-
Hmm...if they are ignoring the CotUS wat makes anyone thing they will pay attention to a mere law?
Blame this on activist judges who think they ae above the law.
This won't stop anything.
-
Often they are quite overzealous too... Was news worthy not long ago that they had even seized a woman's vibrator... What the heck has that to do with her selling some weed as a medical provider?
because maybe that was where she was hiding her stash of meth?????
:P
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
funny story,
many years ago, at a friends house, we were hearing this buzzing sound.... and occaisionally a bbbbzzzzt "ouch"....prior to that we heard a little girl singing songs...
aafter we heard that a couple times, my pals wife went upstairs to find her niece, who had dissapeared... she was about 6 iirc....
the following was heard by all downstairs....
"what are you doing up here?"
"aunt Judy, this Mr. Microphone hurts your front teeth when it touches them...."
omg.... beer came out from a dozen guys noses....
-
I am referring to ANY gov't (or an agent of gov't) seizing ANYTHING without DUE PROCESS. They simply do NOT have that ability. At least not until the 1980's.
The US Constitution- great document, short read and usually pretty easy to follow;
You are still clinging to the belief that the Constitution actually matters. Sadly, my conclusion is that it stopped mattering many years ago... long before I was even born. And it matters less and less every year.
-
Unfortunately, Max, you are correct. Following the Constitution has always been done on the 'honor system' by men and women with integrity and pride in this country. What we see happening now is what happens when those in power despise and denigrate the founding of this country and all that made it great. Enjoy the decline.
-
It goes right along with justice getting lost in the "legal system "
-
You are still clinging to the belief that the Constitution actually matters. Sadly, my conclusion is that it stopped mattering many years ago... long before I was even born. And it matters less and less every year.
People started chipping away at it before the ink was even dry. Someone much wiser than I said something like: "Freedom lives in the hearts of men and when it dies there, no paper contract can hold it.." or words to that effect.