Re: Asset Forfeiture

[sec@moscow.com]

> >uh what crime? if there not convicted,  they didn't do it.
> 
> Nope.  Remember, "not guilty" does NOT mean "innocent."  If they aren't
> convicted it just means we can't incarcerate them.  I think some
> jurisdictions have the jury/judge find the person "innocent" but that's
> just using different words.

huh? thats not what I was taught (granted a LONG time ago), if you 
were found not guilty, you didn't do it in the eyes of the law 
(remember.. were talking law here. not whats real)

> >in fact, where there aquited, they are considered to not have commited
> >the crime. 
> >so why are they being punished for not commiting a crime? see my point?
> 
> OJ was also found not guilty but suffered through a losing civil trial. 
> Same difference.  Forfeiture is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. 
> And if the property loses at the civil trial, technically, it isn't an
> incorrect punishment.  It just means the proof wasn't there to put the
> criminal in jail.  The proof that can be established lies somewhere
> between "preponderance" and "beyond a reasonable doubt".

which is stupid on the face of it, he both did commit the crime and
didn't commit the crime under law..

> >you mean my CAR is a CITIZEN? it's aware and has rights???
> 
> If the law provides for it, such as in the forfeiture statutes, then there
> isn't a requirement of citizenship for the property to be sued.

does anyone else think this is rather foolish and silly? that a 
manufactured item can be made to stand up in a court of law and 
be treated as a living being?

> >uh, I haven't been able to be able to find out IF you can get property
> >back after they have taken it, I SUSPECT thaty is varies depending on
> >where
> 
> If the owner is allowed to defend the civil suit for the property and
> wins, then the property likely must go back to him.  However, like you, I
> see many problems with this scheme - especially if the seized property is
> money.  It's quite likely that much property is seized with the slightest
> reason simply because the LEOs know that many/most people aren't able to
> defend the lawsuit.

can't argue that... it seems to me that these laws are designed to 
be abused, expected to be abused

> I've heard reported that in many jurisdictions, carrying an excessive
> amount of money almost automatically results in forfeiture.  Ever buy a
> used car from a private party?  Luckily you didn't get stopped and
> searched on the way over.

well, I do know that banks have to report any "anomolies" in withdrawl/deposit
patters to the FBI, and that if your "caught" with $10,000.00 cash on your person
i is Drug money no mater what you are doing..

> (By the way, I'm of the opinion that the "War On Drugs" is rather
> worthless as a solution.)

well, banning booze gave us the Mob and the first set of gun 
control laws in this country since the revolution, but politicians 
don't seem to want to admit that if people want something, they will 
get it..

Stan

Teddy Roosevelt for President in 2000!!!
"walk softly, and carry a big stick"