Hugely important case in front of SCOTUS... Kaley v. United States. - GoFuckYourself.com

sperbonzo · 10-17-2013, 07:13 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-into-reality/

It's Time For The Supreme Court To Pull Us Back Into Reality
Comment Now
Follow Comments

By Darpana Sheth

Before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court hear oral argument today, Oct. 16, 2013, in Kaley v. United States, they might want to reread ?Through the Looking Glass.? In Lewis Carroll?s fictional classic, Alice is befuddled when the White Queen explains that in her realm punishment comes first, the trial next, and a crime, maybe, last of all. To American readers, who cherish the presumption of innocence as a hallmark of their justice system, this is an amusing absurdity. But, as Kaley demonstrates, this absurdity has become reality, with prosecutors and police depriving Americans across the country of their property and livelihood before any crime is proved, or in some cases, even charged.

The culprits are forfeiture laws, which allow authorities to confiscate cash, cars, homes, or other property used for or obtained through criminal activity. While this sounds like a worthy goal, the forfeiture law challenged in Kaley allows the government?before trial?to freeze assets that may be subject to forfeiture if the defendant is convicted at trial. In other words, at a time when individuals are presumed innocent, they are prevented from using their assets not only to pay for counsel or bail, but to pay their rent, mortgage, car payments or other basic living expenses. It is no surprise that the Supreme Court has aptly characterized the pretrial restraint of assets as a ?nuclear weapon.?

Making matters worse, prosecutors can freeze assets in secret?without affording defendants any prior notice or even a hearing. The question for the high court is whether the Constitution requires, at a minimum, an opportunity to contest the prosecutor?s use of this nuclear weapon before trial.

The answer to this question matters not just for criminal defendants, like husband and wife Brian and Kerri Kaley, who face criminal forfeiture as an aspect of their punishment if eventually convicted by a jury. It also affects ordinary Americans ensnared in the upside-down world of civil forfeiture, where they are never even charged with a crime.

Consider Terry and Sandy Dehko. For over thirty years, Terry has owned and operated a small grocery store outside of Detroit, which his daughter, Sandy, helps manage. In January, without any warning, federal authorities seized the store?s entire bank account containing more than $35,000, leaving the Dehkos struggling to pay their employees and vendors. The reason? The government does not approve of the way the Dehkos deposit their money.

Like most small business owners who regularly handle cash transactions, the Dehkos routinely deposit less than $10,000 at a time. Not only is it a bad idea to let too much money accumulate onsite, the Dehkos? insurance policy only covers cash losses up to $10,000.

Making deposits of less than $10,000 is perfectly legal and the Dekhos had a good business reason for doing so. Nevertheless, without any evidence that the money was obtained unlawfully or used for nefarious purposes, federal authorities seized the Dekhos? money on the grounds that they were illegally ?structuring? their deposits to avoid reporting requirements that would kick in if they deposited more than $10,000 at a time.

To this day, the Dehkos have never been charged with any crime, and they are not guilty of any crime. Yet, ten months later, the Dehkos are still waiting for a hearing before a judge to contest the seizure.

Why is the government so adamant about holding on to the Dehkos? money? For its part, the government argues, as it does in Kaley, that its seize-first-ask-questions-later policy ensures that the assets are preserved for forfeiture. What the government glosses over is its direct financial stake in the forfeited assets. Under federal law, the Justice Department keeps proceeds of forfeited property to pad its budget. That financial incentive has led to an explosion in the amount of property seized by federal law enforcement. Today, the Justice Department?s Assets Forfeiture Fund exceeds $4 billion.

But there is an even more fundamental reason why the government is holding on to the Dehkos? money: It can. In another twist worthy of Lewis Carroll, under civil forfeiture laws, the Dehkos are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

It is time for the Supreme Court to pull us out of Alice?s Wonderland and back into constitutional reality, where Americans are innocent until proven guilty and no one can be deprived of their property without being convicted of a crime. Kaley gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify that, at the very least, the Constitution requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before being deprived of property. For the sake of the Kaleys, the Dehkos and countless other victims of forfeiture abuse, it is vital that they do so.

Attorney Darpana Sheth authored a friend-of-the court brief in support of the Kaleys on behalf of the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public-interest law firm representing the Dehkos.

.

arock10 · 10-17-2013, 07:20 AM

It's odd the article talks specifics on the dekhos Detroit people but not kaley

sperbonzo · 10-17-2013, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

It's odd the article talks specifics on the dekhos Detroit people but not kaley

It's because the author is representing in the Dekhos case. In the case of Kaley, what they did may certainly be criminal, but the governments actions pre-trial are what is being challenged. To whit:

Issue: Whether, when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order freezes assets needed by a criminal defendant to retain counsel of choice, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pre-trial, adversarial hearing at which the defendant may challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges.

.

.

L-Pink · 10-17-2013, 07:37 AM

Let's say I see a nice Harley or car I want to purchase. Buyers always want cash.

Keep in mind my local convenience store even checks $10 and $20 dollar bills with a marker to ensure they are real so who would take a check even bank checks can be downloaded and printed. Buyers want cash.

Reports are filed from my bank when I make a large cash withdrawal and the automatic conclusion is I must be buying a bunch of drugs.

So my long haired ass gets pulled over for whatever reason and $20,00 is found in the car. No way I ever see that money again. I'm automatically a criminal.

A generation ago cash was the responsible way to make your purchases. Now you are automatically a drug dealer.

Pitiful times we are living in. Pitiful times.

.

Relentless · 10-17-2013, 07:44 AM

The problem is that the right solution is legislative not judicial. The right solution is a law that establishes a Trustee to oversee the use of all funds rather than a freeze on their use, much the same way Bankruptcy Trustees are appointed. The government does have an interest in preventing a criminal from moving money around preemptively, it doesn't have an interest in preventing someone from paying their bills or hiring legal counsel.

arock10 · 10-17-2013, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

It's because the author is representing in the Dekhos case. In the case of Kaley, what they did may certainly be criminal, but the governments actions pre-trial are what is being challenged. To whit:

Issue: Whether, when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order freezes assets needed by a criminal defendant to retain counsel of choice, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pre-trial, adversarial hearing at which the defendant may challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges.

.

.

Gotcha. The whole 95% of cases never go to trial because you take a plea deal because it's crazy expensive and if you fail you get 20 years is nuts too. So toss on the restriction on properly defending yourself I agree no good.

Though still if a drug dealer is busted with millions can't exactly let them use it all for defense so there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

sperbonzo · 10-17-2013, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

Gotcha. The whole 95% of cases never go to trial because you take a plea deal because it's crazy expensive and if you fail you get 20 years is nuts too. So toss on the restriction on properly defending yourself I agree no good.

Though still if a drug dealer is busted with millions can't exactly let them use it all for defense so there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

The problem is that there are many times when peoples assets are all frozen with NO charges being filed..... then the feds wait for you to get desperate, since you have no place for your family to live and nothing to live on, and then they can get you to do almost anything.... plead guilty to something you didn't do, or testify falsely against someone else, just to get your life back again.

It's happening much more often then people realize.

ThunderBalls · 10-17-2013, 08:05 AM

Another one of Reagans wonderful legacies.

L-Pink · 10-17-2013, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

Another one of Reagans wonderful legacies.

And like most government legislation it was passed with good intentions then completely screwed up when put to practical use. Scarface type characters running speedboats full of coke living in mansions in Miami were the initial targets. Rightfully so, but the trickle down application of these laws on regular people can turn tragic.

Mutt · 10-17-2013, 08:27 AM

Freezing assets is one thing, seizing assets is another. Prosecutors and cops should have to prove at a hearing where the defendants are represented that it's necessary. The case of the grocery store owners is outrageous.

I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing on this one.

sperbonzo · 10-17-2013, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

And like most government legislation it was passed with good intentions then completely screwed up when put to practical use. Scarface type characters running speedboats full of coke living in mansions in Miami were the initial targets. Rightfully so, but the trickle down application of these laws on regular people can turn tragic.

When Reagan first announced the forefiture laws and everyone was cheering, I immediately saw that this kind of abuse would be the inevitable result. This is the same reason that people who think that the NSA spying is no big deal are being so incredibly short sighted.

.

.

Barry-xlovecam · 10-17-2013, 10:45 AM

The ruling should be interesting -- that law seems facially unconstitutional to me but then drug dealers defending themselves with top priced legal talent with ill-begotten-money or assets doesn't seem right either.

My guess that there be something like the "Miller Test." (Something most of use here understand as an example.) The test to determine the asset's standing before its seizure with a court hearing -- maybe a pre-hearing freeze that could be continued or reascended by a court of law.

Rochard · 10-17-2013, 10:45 AM

Interesting article.

I always kind of supported this without giving it much thought. Pretty simple - if you make your money illegally, anything you buy with this money should be confiscated from you.

But at the very same time is sucks the winds out of the sails of criminals. The unintended effect of this law is it takes their money from them when they need it the most to defend themselves in court. (Or maybe this was in fact intentional.) The end result is that you can be innocent and only (wrongly) charged with a crime, but they'll take any money and assets you have and you will be unable to protect yourself in court because you cannot afford legal representation.

Interesting.

_Richard_ · 10-17-2013, 10:48 AM

what legally happens to these funds while seized? is the government making money from these seized funds, or is it 'suspended'?

theking · 10-17-2013, 11:02 AM

...to seize property illegally. Law enforcement planted drugs so that they can confiscate property...such as motor homes...yachts...etc.

sperbonzo · 10-17-2013, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what legally happens to these funds while seized? is the government making money from these seized funds, or is it 'suspended'?

It goes directly into the budgets of the agencies that do the seizing, so they have a direct investment in seizing as much as they can. It's happening all over these days, from the local level, to the state and the federal level. disgusting.

.

_Richard_ · 10-17-2013, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

It goes directly into the budgets of the agencies that do the seizing, so they have a direct investment in seizing as much as they can. It's happening all over these days, from the local level, to the state and the federal level. disgusting.

.

i thought the scam was holding the funds till the interested parties go broke or lose interest in retrieving the funds, THEN it gets used

if it's going DIRECTLY into the budget.. that's not 'seizure'.. that's something completely different.

wow, thanks for sharing

L-Pink · 10-17-2013, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Interesting article.

I always kind of supported this without giving it much thought. Pretty simple - if you make your money illegally, anything you buy with this money should be confiscated from you.

But at the very same time is sucks the winds out of the sails of criminals. The unintended effect of this law is it takes their money from them when they need it the most to defend themselves in court. (Or maybe this was in fact intentional.) The end result is that you can be innocent and only (wrongly) charged with a crime, but they'll take any money and assets you have and you will be unable to protect yourself in court because you cannot afford legal representation.

Interesting.

More to it than that.

You are en-route to buy a car/motorcycle/jewelry and have a large amount of cash on you and are stopped for whatever reason. Speeding, no brake light, etc. For whatever reason the cop sees/discovers the money. Now you are automatically a suspected criminal, the money can be seized. You can never be charged with anything and the local police will still keep the money.

sandman! · 10-17-2013, 12:42 PM

yea there alot of bs laws that fuck normal people

SuckOnThis · 10-17-2013, 01:19 PM

Back in 1994 I got pulled over on the way home after picking up an eighth of an ounce of weed. Wasnt smoking it but of course this pig could smell it so he searched my car and found it in the center console. First fucking question out of his mouth was "is this car paid for". That was all he cared about. I ended up getting a ticket for the weed and they took my car, which was worth around 2 grand. I ended up getting the summons for the weed dropped as the judge called it an illegal search. Think I got my car back? Hell no. Forfeitures are a civil matter and have nothing to do with criminal charges and the judge told me he was powerless as far as that went and I would have to try to get it back in civil court. My Attorney told me it would cost as much as the car was worth to try to get it back and there was no guarantee. Forfeiture laws have turned law enforcement into legal thieves.

Barry-xlovecam · 10-17-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Back in 1994 I got pulled over on the way home after picking up an eighth of an ounce of weed. Wasnt smoking it but of course this pig could smell it so he searched my car and found it in the center console. First fucking question out of his mouth was "is this car paid for". That was all he cared about. I ended up getting a ticket for the weed and they took my car, which was worth around 2 grand. I ended up getting the summons for the weed dropped as the judge called it an illegal search. Think I got my car back? Hell no. Forfeitures are a civil matter and have nothing to do with criminal charges and the judge told me he was powerless as far as that went and I would have to try to get it back in civil court. My Attorney told me it would cost as much as the car was worth to try to get it back and there was no guarantee. Forfeiture laws have turned law enforcement into legal thieves.

That is in violation of the 5th Amendment?

Quote:

[n]or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Not exactly, but when due process is denied someone for reason of economic circumstance that is a shame -- you should have just filled out the civil compliant form -- filed in "In Forma Pauperis (person with no money-- if necessary)" done the best you could and taken the chance of getting a Judge that might help with the issue.

Pleading "I need my car back so I can work and support myself (better my family -- sick mother or some sorry-ass story ;)...." might have done the trick -- worth the try anyway.

kane · 10-17-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Let's say I see a nice Harley or car I want to purchase. Buyers always want cash.

Keep in mind my local convenience store even checks $10 and $20 dollar bills with a marker to ensure they are real so who would take a check even bank checks can be downloaded and printed. Buyers want cash.

Reports are filed from my bank when I make a large cash withdrawal and the automatic conclusion is I must be buying a bunch of drugs.

So my long haired ass gets pulled over for whatever reason and $20,00 is found in the car. No way I ever see that money again. I'm automatically a criminal.

A generation ago cash was the responsible way to make your purchases. Now you are automatically a drug dealer.

Pitiful times we are living in. Pitiful times.

.

Back when I bought storage units I dealt with a decent amount of cash on a daily basis. The auctions are all cash sales so you have to have cash on you to buy. Many of the transactions when you sell stuff are done in cash. So I regularly was depositing just cash into my bank account. I live in a smaller sized town and bank at a credit union so must of the tellers know me. A few different times I got a new girl. She didn't question me, but then when I went in a week or so later and got one of the other tellers she told me that the new girl was worried I was a drug dealer or something.

Pretty crazy.

_Richard_ · 10-17-2013, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

That is in violation of the 5th Amendment?

Not exactly, but when due process is denied someone for reason of economic circumstance that is a shame -- you should have just filled out the civil compliant form -- filed in "In Forma Pauperis (person with no money-- if necessary)" done the best you could and taken the chance of getting a Judge that might help with the issue.

Pleading "I need my car back so I can work and support myself (better my family -- sick mother or some sorry-ass story ;)...." might have done the trick -- worth the try anyway.

what's a little 5th amendment violations..

..when people are being killed, imprisoned, so forth, without charge?

DWB · 10-17-2013, 04:04 PM

Good luck with all that.

Sunny Day · 10-17-2013, 05:32 PM

Cops in Kansas City Mo got caught a few years back. Seems the state constitution the money all be given to the state school system. The cops got caught spending it on pizza parties & beer. Also special police events such as retirement parties were held at topless bars.
Of course, all they got was a slap on the wrist.

Barry-xlovecam · 10-17-2013, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what's a little 5th amendment violations..

..when people are being killed, imprisoned, so forth, without charge?

Quote:

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The US Constitution is only applicable to US Citizens on US Soil or Abroad that are not acting as enemy agents and all persons on US soil. The US Constitution does not apply to non US persons that are not on US soil.

The Canadian Constitution is applied similarly. A US citizen on Canadian soil is first subject to the laws of Canada -- then the laws of the US as a citizen secondly.

When there is conflict, we are not just talking just open declared war but in hot pursuit of an enemy terrorist agent, the US claims extraterritorial jurisdiction (not legal under international law but who can do anything about it?) If you are an enemy agent to the USA there is no place to hide.

Habeas Corpus is required and recognised by all courts for anyone detained on US soil (territory) only.

Like it or not -- that is the way it is -- deal with it.

InfoGuy · 10-08-2014, 09:10 AM

John Oliver, Jeff Goldblum Explain How Police Can Take Your Stuff Without Charging You With A Crime

marcop · 10-08-2014, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoGuy

John Oliver, Jeff Goldblum Explain How Police Can Take Your Stuff Without Charging You With A Crime

I watched this John Oliver piece a couple days ago... he explains a lot about the law and its absurdities.

MrTrollkien · 10-08-2014, 09:26 AM

Asset forfeiture will never be weakened in the USA, because this would reduce the power of government. Neither political party wants to reduce the overall power of government, merely the use of that power against that particular party’s sponsors.

_Richard_ · 10-08-2014, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

The US Constitution is only applicable to US Citizens on US Soil or Abroad that are not acting as enemy agents and all persons on US soil. The US Constitution does not apply to non US persons that are not on US soil.

The Canadian Constitution is applied similarly. A US citizen on Canadian soil is first subject to the laws of Canada -- then the laws of the US as a citizen secondly.

When there is conflict, we are not just talking just open declared war but in hot pursuit of an enemy terrorist agent, the US claims extraterritorial jurisdiction (not legal under international law but who can do anything about it?) If you are an enemy agent to the USA there is no place to hide.

Habeas Corpus is required and recognised by all courts for anyone detained on US soil (territory) only.

Like it or not -- that is the way it is -- deal with it.

a year late, but i am speaking about US citizens not on US Soil, due process stands

Fat Panda · 10-08-2014, 09:52 AM

forfeiture laws are despicable

but im sure the radical right wing fascist supreme court will deem them constitutional

go amerika!

mikesouth · 10-08-2014, 10:09 AM

I would like to think the supreme court would rule correctly on this but I aint holding my breath...eventually it will reach the point where the governed revoke the consent to govern and we will have another revolution, one that to me seems way past due

Seth Manson · 10-08-2014, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

we will have another revolution, one that to me seems way past due

Don't say the R-word or you'll be labeled a domestic terrorist.

WDF · 10-08-2014, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTrollkien

Asset forfeiture will never be weakened in the USA, because this would reduce the power of government. Neither political party wants to reduce the overall power of government, merely the use of that power against that particular party?s sponsors.

THIS!

blackmonsters · 10-08-2014, 12:24 PM

Hey, people have complained about this since the 1980's.
The answer everybody got was "If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem".

The sheep will reap what they sow.

RyuLion · 10-08-2014, 04:07 PM

Ughhhhhh too much to read but here's a bump ^^^^

ilnjscb · 10-09-2014, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Hey, people have complained about this since the 1980's.
The answer everybody got was "If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem".

The sheep will reap what they sow.

Exactly. Participate, stand up.

10-17-2013, 07:13 AM	#1
sperbonzo I'd rather be on my boat. Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 9,748	Hugely important case in front of SCOTUS... Kaley v. United States. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-into-reality/ It's Time For The Supreme Court To Pull Us Back Into Reality Comment Now Follow Comments By Darpana Sheth Before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court hear oral argument today, Oct. 16, 2013, in Kaley v. United States, they might want to reread ?Through the Looking Glass.? In Lewis Carroll?s fictional classic, Alice is befuddled when the White Queen explains that in her realm punishment comes first, the trial next, and a crime, maybe, last of all. To American readers, who cherish the presumption of innocence as a hallmark of their justice system, this is an amusing absurdity. But, as Kaley demonstrates, this absurdity has become reality, with prosecutors and police depriving Americans across the country of their property and livelihood before any crime is proved, or in some cases, even charged. The culprits are forfeiture laws, which allow authorities to confiscate cash, cars, homes, or other property used for or obtained through criminal activity. While this sounds like a worthy goal, the forfeiture law challenged in Kaley allows the government?before trial?to freeze assets that may be subject to forfeiture if the defendant is convicted at trial. In other words, at a time when individuals are presumed innocent, they are prevented from using their assets not only to pay for counsel or bail, but to pay their rent, mortgage, car payments or other basic living expenses. It is no surprise that the Supreme Court has aptly characterized the pretrial restraint of assets as a ?nuclear weapon.? Making matters worse, prosecutors can freeze assets in secret?without affording defendants any prior notice or even a hearing. The question for the high court is whether the Constitution requires, at a minimum, an opportunity to contest the prosecutor?s use of this nuclear weapon before trial. The answer to this question matters not just for criminal defendants, like husband and wife Brian and Kerri Kaley, who face criminal forfeiture as an aspect of their punishment if eventually convicted by a jury. It also affects ordinary Americans ensnared in the upside-down world of civil forfeiture, where they are never even charged with a crime. Consider Terry and Sandy Dehko. For over thirty years, Terry has owned and operated a small grocery store outside of Detroit, which his daughter, Sandy, helps manage. In January, without any warning, federal authorities seized the store?s entire bank account containing more than $35,000, leaving the Dehkos struggling to pay their employees and vendors. The reason? The government does not approve of the way the Dehkos deposit their money. Like most small business owners who regularly handle cash transactions, the Dehkos routinely deposit less than $10,000 at a time. Not only is it a bad idea to let too much money accumulate onsite, the Dehkos? insurance policy only covers cash losses up to $10,000. Making deposits of less than $10,000 is perfectly legal and the Dekhos had a good business reason for doing so. Nevertheless, without any evidence that the money was obtained unlawfully or used for nefarious purposes, federal authorities seized the Dekhos? money on the grounds that they were illegally ?structuring? their deposits to avoid reporting requirements that would kick in if they deposited more than $10,000 at a time. To this day, the Dehkos have never been charged with any crime, and they are not guilty of any crime. Yet, ten months later, the Dehkos are still waiting for a hearing before a judge to contest the seizure. Why is the government so adamant about holding on to the Dehkos? money? For its part, the government argues, as it does in Kaley, that its seize-first-ask-questions-later policy ensures that the assets are preserved for forfeiture. What the government glosses over is its direct financial stake in the forfeited assets. Under federal law, the Justice Department keeps proceeds of forfeited property to pad its budget. That financial incentive has led to an explosion in the amount of property seized by federal law enforcement. Today, the Justice Department?s Assets Forfeiture Fund exceeds $4 billion. But there is an even more fundamental reason why the government is holding on to the Dehkos? money: It can. In another twist worthy of Lewis Carroll, under civil forfeiture laws, the Dehkos are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent. It is time for the Supreme Court to pull us out of Alice?s Wonderland and back into constitutional reality, where Americans are innocent until proven guilty and no one can be deprived of their property without being convicted of a crime. Kaley gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify that, at the very least, the Constitution requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before being deprived of property. For the sake of the Kaleys, the Dehkos and countless other victims of forfeiture abuse, it is vital that they do so. Attorney Darpana Sheth authored a friend-of-the court brief in support of the Kaleys on behalf of the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public-interest law firm representing the Dehkos. . __________________ Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing [email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/ ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

10-17-2013, 07:20 AM	#2
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	It's odd the article talks specifics on the dekhos Detroit people but not kaley __________________ Sup

10-17-2013, 07:44 AM	#5
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,697	The problem is that the right solution is legislative not judicial. The right solution is a law that establishes a Trustee to oversee the use of all funds rather than a freeze on their use, much the same way Bankruptcy Trustees are appointed. The government does have an interest in preventing a criminal from moving money around preemptively, it doesn't have an interest in preventing someone from paying their bills or hiring legal counsel. __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896

10-17-2013, 08:27 AM	#10
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Freezing assets is one thing, seizing assets is another. Prosecutors and cops should have to prove at a hearing where the defendants are represented that it's necessary. The case of the grocery store owners is outrageous. I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing on this one. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

10-17-2013, 10:45 AM	#12
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	The ruling should be interesting -- that law seems facially unconstitutional to me but then drug dealers defending themselves with top priced legal talent with ill-begotten-money or assets doesn't seem right either. My guess that there be something like the "Miller Test." (Something most of use here understand as an example.) The test to determine the asset's standing before its seizure with a court hearing -- maybe a pre-hearing freeze that could be continued or reascended by a court of law.

10-17-2013, 07:37 AM	#4
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Let's say I see a nice Harley or car I want to purchase. Buyers always want cash. Keep in mind my local convenience store even checks $10 and $20 dollar bills with a marker to ensure they are real so who would take a check even bank checks can be downloaded and printed. Buyers want cash. Reports are filed from my bank when I make a large cash withdrawal and the automatic conclusion is I must be buying a bunch of drugs. So my long haired ass gets pulled over for whatever reason and $20,00 is found in the car. No way I ever see that money again. I'm automatically a criminal. A generation ago cash was the responsible way to make your purchases. Now you are automatically a drug dealer. Pitiful times we are living in. Pitiful times. .

10-17-2013, 08:05 AM	#8
ThunderBalls So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mesosphere Posts: 2,926	Another one of Reagans wonderful legacies.

10-17-2013, 10:45 AM	#13
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,967	Interesting article. I always kind of supported this without giving it much thought. Pretty simple - if you make your money illegally, anything you buy with this money should be confiscated from you. But at the very same time is sucks the winds out of the sails of criminals. The unintended effect of this law is it takes their money from them when they need it the most to defend themselves in court. (Or maybe this was in fact intentional.) The end result is that you can be innocent and only (wrongly) charged with a crime, but they'll take any money and assets you have and you will be unable to protect yourself in court because you cannot afford legal representation. Interesting. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

10-17-2013, 10:48 AM	#14
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	what legally happens to these funds while seized? is the government making money from these seized funds, or is it 'suspended'?

10-17-2013, 11:02 AM	#15
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	In a few instances the law has been used by crooked law enforcement ...to seize property illegally. Law enforcement planted drugs so that they can confiscate property...such as motor homes...yachts...etc. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html Last edited by theking; 10-17-2013 at 11:04 AM..

10-17-2013, 12:42 PM	#19
sandman! Icq: 14420613 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: chicago Posts: 15,432	yea there alot of bs laws that fuck normal people __________________ Need WebHosting ? Email me for some great deals [email protected]

10-17-2013, 01:19 PM	#20
SuckOnThis So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In my head Posts: 6,844	Back in 1994 I got pulled over on the way home after picking up an eighth of an ounce of weed. Wasnt smoking it but of course this pig could smell it so he searched my car and found it in the center console. First fucking question out of his mouth was "is this car paid for". That was all he cared about. I ended up getting a ticket for the weed and they took my car, which was worth around 2 grand. I ended up getting the summons for the weed dropped as the judge called it an illegal search. Think I got my car back? Hell no. Forfeitures are a civil matter and have nothing to do with criminal charges and the judge told me he was powerless as far as that went and I would have to try to get it back in civil court. My Attorney told me it would cost as much as the car was worth to try to get it back and there was no guarantee. Forfeiture laws have turned law enforcement into legal thieves.

10-17-2013, 04:04 PM	#24
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Good luck with all that.

10-17-2013, 05:32 PM	#25
Sunny Day Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,406	forfeiture Cops in Kansas City Mo got caught a few years back. Seems the state constitution the money all be given to the state school system. The cops got caught spending it on pizza parties & beer. Also special police events such as retirement parties were held at topless bars. Of course, all they got was a slap on the wrist.

10-08-2014, 09:10 AM	#27
InfoGuy 80/20 Rule Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,051	John Oliver, Jeff Goldblum Explain How Police Can Take Your Stuff Without Charging You With A Crime __________________ Support American Heroes \| How Bad is My Batch? \| Vaccine Deaths & Adverse Reactions \| Free Speech Coalition \| <WARNING> ePayService / Guerra Capital, INC / MTACC payments \| Flirt4Free Fucks their Affiliates \| Don't do business with piece of shit Andy Alvarez from Webmaster Central / VR3000, who said: "If it was up to me, they would have shot all 30,000 of those country loving shitheads"

10-08-2014, 09:26 AM	#29
MrTrollkien So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Germany Posts: 2,360	Asset forfeiture will never be weakened in the USA, because this would reduce the power of government. Neither political party wants to reduce the overall power of government, merely the use of that power against that particular party’s sponsors.

10-08-2014, 09:52 AM	#31
Fat Panda Porn is Dead. Move along. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 13,295	forfeiture laws are despicable but im sure the radical right wing fascist supreme court will deem them constitutional go amerika!

10-08-2014, 10:09 AM	#32
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	I would like to think the supreme court would rule correctly on this but I aint holding my breath...eventually it will reach the point where the governed revoke the consent to govern and we will have another revolution, one that to me seems way past due __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.

10-08-2014, 12:24 PM	#35
blackmonsters Making PHP work Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: 🌎🌅🌈🌇 Posts: 20,575	Hey, people have complained about this since the 1980's. The answer everybody got was "If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem". The sheep will reap what they sow. __________________ Make Money with Porn

10-08-2014, 04:07 PM	#36
RyuLion ClubDomCash.com Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 32,254	Ughhhhhh too much to read but here's a bump ^^^^ __________________ Adult Biz Consultant A tech head since 1995