I like civil asset forfeiture.... It's an opportunity for the common folks to find out just how out of control our government really is. Our government isn't for the people. Our government is by the government and for the government.
@@moi01887 : And yet, here we have a wealthy individual, who became a "target", AND had to part with a rather large sum of his lawfully earned/possessed cash to PARTIALLY "rectify" the problem for himself?!?!
For most of these CAF cases, it's literally highway robbery. One dude, a US veteran, didn't trust banks, carried $90,000 cash. Got pulled over and they took it. Sent him on his way. There's video of it on Lackluster I believe. Who do you call when the law enforcers are the thieves?
Oh, they're very different. At least if bandits have you on the side of the road, you're allowed to fight back. If they have badges and guns, attempting to fight back is a losing proposition.
On a particular day years ago (back in the 90s), I was stopped by a cop. I had no idea why he picked me to stop. He never mentioned an alleged traffic violation. He simply walked up to my car and asked for my driver's license, registration, and insurance card. I was in my late 30s, dressed in business attire, and driving a late-model sedan that was a company car. When he came back to my car to return my documents, he asked me if I had any money on me. That question struck me as odd. At the time, I had never heard of civil asset forfeiture. I thought perhaps he was assessing whether I could be a vagrant, which seemed bizarre considering how I was dressed and driving a company car for a well-known global brand (note, the car did not have brand labeling on the outside). Just about all my transactions were done with a company credit card and I rarely used cash, so I had maybe $20 or $30 on me, and I told him so. He just turned around and walked away. It wasn't until over a decade later that I figured out he was trying to mug me using civil asset forfeiture. He stopped me because I was well dressed driving a nice car. Edited to add: If he ran the plate before he stopped me and saw 1) that is was a company car, and 2) what company it was, he probably thought I was a salesperson and might have a bunch of cash on me. What a scumbag.
"you got any money on you?" "....you wanna wait for my lawyer to answer that question? You might have to call your shift super and wake a judge while you're at it. Better make sure its one my lawyer doesnt golf with...." I mean, if they're going to bullshit you, bullshit them right back.
@@zombieregime Or I could just say no and be on my way. What good would it do me to antagonize him and have him find some bogus crap for which to write me tickets?
It goes to the cops. Judges don't hold cops to task since the judge has to work woth them. Same way prosecutors don't file for purgury on cops who lie under oath. They have to work woth eachother.
@@damenwhelan3236 Judges, prosecutors, and cops who do this should be Impeached, Incarcerated, and be Publicly denounced. All precedent supporting these practices are just BS dressed up as legalese to cheat the Public and thwart pubic accountability. It's negligence in enforcing the Constitution.
@damenwhelan3236 spot on. I wonder what lady liberty is blind folded for a blind eye with a fair and impartial verdict or a blind eye to prosicuturial misconduct and lies spun by so called friends of the court
@@damenwhelan3236the cops keep the judges with enough cases to keep their job. So it’s definitely a quid pro quo situation. And those shouldn’t exist within the government.
Hopefully he pushes that the victims of civil asset forfeiture should also have their legal fees covered paid for by the agency who wrongfully seized the assets, because if there’s no real consequence and the seizing agency just gave the money back but didn’t have to pay a penny more, it’s no loss to them and they will just keep doing it. However if the agency was on the hook for the legal fees for wrongfully accused victims to get their assets back, it would make those agencies think twice and stop seizing assets unless they did their police work beforehand and only go after the real criminals.
@Raven : One of the largest parts of the problem here, is that the forfeiture takes place with NO accusation of ANY wrongdoing! The political whatnot here was NEVER accused of a criminal act, and yet, he had to spend $150,000 of his lawfully earned/possessed money to recover the rest of the money that was "LAWFULLY" seized!!!!
Structuring and CAF allow the government to go after the "low hanging fruit" of people who may, or MAY NOT be guilty of any crime. It needs to stop! "Round filing" the 4th Amendment should never be allowed!
@@ajwilson605 That's not even the low hanging fruit... The low hanging fruit are law enforcement who are seizing less than $1000 from someone. As you can see from what it cost this individual to get his money back, you can't economically fight to get back less than $1000(or even much more than $1000)
@@Melanie16040 That is exactly what I meant by "low hanging fruit". If you can't afford to fight for the return of your stolen money, you've lost it.....completely!
When I was a Deputy for 15 years, occasionally I would encounter an individuals who would ask, “do you know who I am?” I would always answer “No. And I do not care.” Because I really did not. If you committed a crime or a violation, I would either arrest or write tickets. They have said, I am the sheriffs or police chiefs son, daughter or wife, or were a judge or council member. I did not care.sometimes I was gonna write warnings but people, especially arrogant, entitled asses would talk themselves into getting a ticket or arrested. I really did not care. I have been spoken to a few times but never got into trouble. What would I get into trouble for, doing my job? This whole asset forfeiture thing is BS and should be abolished.
Thank you for having been a "good cop". Bad cops and asset forfeiture laws are ruining our country and the reputation of law enforcement. I want to believe most cops are good. But I don't anymore.
"apply civil asset forfeiture properly" means he doesn't understand the problem OR he is putting on a show for the voters. That $150k he spent getting the money then becomes a campaign expense in a way. The government should not be able to just take your stuff without criminal or civil charges and due process, meaning you get your day in court. I have an aunt, she's now in her 80s. She has always been politically active, very involved in things, and quite smart. She had never heard of CAF until yesterday when I talked to her about it. People just do not know this is a thing. Spread the word.
@@BlackJesus8463 seizing as evidence is just part of the normal course of an investigation. They should only get to keep it (as evidence) after the trial finds you guilty. And at no point should that seized cash be spendable since it is still evidence, something that may be required for appeals hearings. If the cash is being seized as evidence of a person's criminal activity then it should be handled ONLY as evidence. We both know this is not what they are doing though, they seize it to add it to their budget, making it a conflict of interest. And it should be illegal. So if we at least force the issue of having to make it part of a criminal process, meaning they need to have hearings/trials, and even if they win they don't get to spend it, this practice will just die out because their is no payday for them. Along with this, defending yourself against the government, if you win your case, you should also win legal fees, ALWAYS.
@@avi8r66 well, what you do is if you're a municipal PD, you just give it to the feds for "safe keeping" and then claiming you don't have it anymore and make the defendant fight both you AND the feds to get it back
Like I said before, the judiciary will NOT fix this. It will take legislative and executive action to make it stop. Each and every politician should be asked in detail how they will address this problem.
Maybe a few dead cops too. Cops that do this probably should get shot. I can respect good cops, but hate the bad cops, good cops dont do civil asset forfeiture.
He wasn't a rep when it happened. It happened back in 2013 and I think he was first elected in 2020. Two simple things need to happen to fix civil asset forfeiture. 1 - Burden of proof needs to be on the Government that the assets were used for or are the proceeds of criminal activity. 2 - Even more important - The proceeds of civil asset forfeiture do not go back to law enforcement in any way.
Individuals should be convicted of a crime before their assets can be seized too. Until they're convicted by a jury, they're innocent so far as the law is concerned.
Not Civil Action Forfeiture, but a example of bureaucratic powers, while serving on active duty, in the U.S. Navy, stationed in California, yet, a legal resident of Michigan, I received a notice, from my bank, that the Ca Tax Franchise Board, ordered the bank to hand over $650 in "unpaid" state tax. I had received no prior notifications from the tax people, only my bank. It took four visits to their offices and two years to have the money returned (which lead to another foul up. A story for another time). Somehow they "found" my bank account, yet they couldn't be bothered to find me and notify me before taking my money.
I hope JAG was able to help you sort that out. Normally when states try stuff like that, JAG then goes after them for trying commit fraud against the gov.
@@MamaMOB why don't you just stick to gossiping about people on Facebook? If the state sends a demand to the bank the bank will comply, period. Also, this issue is not at all uncommon for military personnel, particularly ones stationed in broke ass CA.
The whole concept of civil asset forfeiture is brazenly unconstitutional. The government does not have the enumerated right in the constitution to know what you do with your money or when, nor do they have the right to force you to track your own money to satisfy their reporting requirements necessary to complete taxes. To take it to the extreme, the citizens have every right to choose not to track their money or record where it goes if they so choose. Burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and to hell with the preponderance of evidence standard which is a fabricated nonsense standard not mentioned in the constitution)
The constitution never said it was ok to have slaves but they had to make an amendment outlawing it. The constitution doesn't need to specifically outlaw anything.
@@gooddogtrainingservices5351 100% correct. The asset forfeiture laws are unconstitutional blatantly. No clue why they haven't been successful in challenge. I was addressing the previous statement.
The U.S. Constitution only requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" when it comes to convicting someone of a crime. "Preponderance of Evidence" is an evidentiary standard applied in civil cases and is perfectly constitutional (and, frankly, necessary or else people would get away with a lot in terms of inflicting financial damages on others without consequence.) This is the loophole they are exploiting and why legislation is necessary. They are taking civil action against the property and not the owner of it, claiming that the property was involved in a crime (not the owner). The asset itself is listed as "the defendant". A human has rights. A piece of property does not. Property has no right to an attorney nor any presumption of innocence. The courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled that civil asset forfeiture is constitutional. Thus, it's up to legislators to prohibit these types of seizures and/or place a higher standard of proof on law enforcement prior to seizing an asset.
Randomly entering houses to conduct searches without warrants at any time of day or night would be a way to eliminate crime but it does more harm than good. Civil asset forfeiture is doing the same thing. I believe it does more harm than good.
Well if you put law enforcement "above the law", i agree it would. But this shows blatantly the inherent contradiction. Crime at its base is objectively random. Sure subjective study will yeild patterns and methods to the apparent madness, but again superficially its "random" so random intrusions against the will of the intruded upon would by its nature be crime. So your statement at its base is more crime would result in less crime. It brings into focus the conflict between the "letter" and the "spirit" of the law. The perfect and the practical. Now to your credit, you did boil it down to the principle of the cure being worse than the disease pretty quickly. That is the contest that most people arent willing to consider.
as someone from Canada, that it's written in your constitution that this stuff is not allowed, yet you are one of the rare places this is an issue says a lot.
I had a friend who was pulled over because they were doing the speed limit. The police officer stated he found that suspicious. This was about twenty years ago.
Great video, Steve. Of all the topics you cover this is one of the most important. You're doing a wonderful job of spreading the word about this flagrant abuse of power. We have the same problem in England.
I can recall an in-service training session back in the 80's on the subject of civil forfeiture. The speaker was a supervisor with our State Drug Control division of the State Crime Bureau. He was over the top with his praise and invited us to step out to the parking lot and check out his new Navigator that they has seized in a drug raid and made claim on it for undercover operations. He was encouraging us to use it at every opportunity because it was a way to increase our budgetary stability without fighting with our civilian board. I didn't think much of it then as it just didn't seem right and never made such a claim in the rest of my career in law enforcement. I always believed that as a police officer in these United States of America we did what we believed was right and just, not what was 'Legal!' I have been retired now since 93 so what I believe no longer makes a lot of difference but I do like to shoot off my mouth from time to time when I see a wrong.
@@slevelneves …every ‘definition’ of structuring i have ever read states … “depositing/withdrawing/transferring an amount UNDER THE REPORTING LIMIT”. I have NEVER read an actual dollar amount…. So yes… $1 is “under the reporting limit”… Typical weasel words, designed to give ‘wiggle room’ to the ‘authorities’
Literally typical copsplaining. I've seen cops episodes where driving the speed limit is part of their probable cause to pull someone over, you know, they must be hiding something if they aren't speeding.
If they change the verbage in civil forfeiture to "shall be used in course of a crime" or something along those lines then law enforcement will have to file a criminal offense. If assets are seized without a crime, then the agency shall return assets plus 10% and the individual agent will be fined $1000 which will go to the victim, within 30 days.
If that is the case where a crime needs to have happened, and assets are seized without one, then that’s prison for the individual officer, on charges of theft under the color of law. Not some petty fine.
10% isn't nearly enough. Lawyer fees often exceed the seized goods, so people don't fight at all. It needs to be, the original goods, all costs involved, and then 10% of that, as interest. Cops regularly seize small amounts, knowing no one can efficiently fight the feds over a few hundred or even a few thousand. Meanwhile, those can be life changing amounts for a family or individual just scraping by. They don't have a chance to fight in court for months or years.
I LOVE the speeding not speeding analogy. Never looked at it like that lol. Here in the UK we have the Proceeds of Crime Act, that allows such seizures, but defending your money will usually be reclaimable, if you can prove it’s legitimate source. Generally, any seizure under this act FOLLOWS a successful trial in relation to illegal acts that generate large volumes of money/property
@@rylian21 yes and no in NZ we have Proceeds of Crime Act. and it is used against gangs and gang members, you don't join a gang to play chess and become an accountant or dentist and some have basic low end jobs a million dollar houses and motorcars.
@@konaguzzi1 If the government can't PROVE that the proceeds were gained illegally, they have no right to seize it. Period. If mere suspicion is enough cause for the government to take your property, then you have exactly zero property rights.
I would absolutely love to read about a civil asset forfeiture where a judge’s cash was seized and the form was filled out: “suspected kids for cash proceeds”
I love it, I actually live in GA so this will be posted on my Facebook page for everyone to see hopefully Facebook will let most people on my friends list see it. I'll keep reposting it once a week if I have to!!!!!
I want to hear a person of power get a large amount of cash taken by police at the road during a traffic stop. I don’t see it happening as that person of power will tell the cops who they are. The cop won’t seize the cash to keep civil asset forfeiture going. Rules for us not for them.
This is a perfect example of where fee shifting should be applied. If the reporting is correct and there was an admission that there was no illegal activity and everything was declared, then there shouldn't have needed a lawsuit to cover the siezed funds, and so those who caused the case to be brought through refusing to return the seized property should have covered the legal costs of the claimant.
Civil Asset Forfeiture does fight organized crime, with organized crime. The old joke of "You know why the government prosecutes thieves? They don't like competition." has never been more true.
Then the law enforcement becomes the criminals themselves. Just hiding behind a badge. This needs to be reclassified criminal asset forfeiture with a documented criminal action being put on the books with all law enforcement officers names attached so if it is done incorrectly then the officials can be sued by the individual and they can not hid behind a badge.
A single representative from the house being a victim is not going to help. The disease is throughout the government. Congress is not going to interfere with an income stream that they don't have to vote on. It will take a bunch of lawmakers, and likely some in ranking positions becoming victims to cause laws to change.
I was so exited to see you finally wearing a Seattle Seahawks t-shirt in a segment. I'd been waiting for you to do so for a long time now. Then, you didn't show it at the end of your presentation as you usually do. At least you wore it, I guess.
IRS agents who engage of this type of abuse should be forced to pay out of their own pockets all the attorney’s fees victims incur to get their money back.
This is just one aspect of why multiple charges and making deals corrupts the legal system. Just pick the most serious charge you believe the person "intended" and prosecute that crime.
The IRS along witg other agencies know for the most part who can afford to fight them in court, or in other words make them look crooked in court and who cannot and seize accordingly
Greetings: Thx 4 the info and presentation. It is about time a politician started performing noble duties. It is a shame it was because he was a victim rather than of his own motivation. Such as it is, I commend his efforts and wish him success in such endeavors 4 he and the citizens. Repeal the Real ID Act!
Having worked for a major convenience store chain, we had a corporate policy that limited how much cash we could have on hand. So we had to do a bank run every time we approached that value. Insurance required us to do it that way. From the federal perspective that could be viewed as structuring but that was not the purpose.
I do not understand how this hasn't been struck down years ago. It clearly CLEARLY violates your constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I mean they often come back and say "yeah it was all perfectly legal but we took it anyway" If you or I did that it would be a crime. Ironically the money not involved in a crime becomes proceeds of theft when the law claims it may have been proceeds of a crime. It isn't a crime till they take it but because they are the law the crime doesn't apply? yeah, no. it's still illegal in my eyes.
Hopefully he's actually able to get something done federally...and maybe get something done for the states too. He's definitely going to have an uphill battle. I'm sure some of the civil asset forfeiture money is going to be funding his opponents campaigns.
@@beadyeye2312 might not have known about it. Also kind of hard to reform government piracy when the pirates are attacking you on every front for 4 years
I mean, it's not just, or even mostly, important people that are the problem. We've all met (universally and notably unimportant) people who would lose it and get violent in this kind of circumstance. Within that category there's a small percentage who can be effectively violent, we could call them the Dorners. What police, prosecutors and the admin judges are risking by taking part in this kind of scheme is running into a Dorner. There's no veneer of public acceptability that can be draped across an asset forfeiture proceeding, none of the "but you really shouldn't because these are the good guys" dynamic that might hold someone back as might happen in a family court proceeding or something similar. This is a taking without any public support, at gun point, which is dangerous for all of the participants and for the integrity of the system as a whole. This is how a political body loses public acceptance of the force monopoly. I'd rate this as one of the absolute lowest points our system has reached, right down there with the worst and most self-destructive drug war policies.
I gave you an up vote, but deep state human trafficking is way lower. I'm talking about the pedophilia kind. There's human experimentation without consent, too, like injecting diseases into unsuspecting. Don't forget knowingly imprisoning innocent people. As corrupt as civil asset forfeiture is, money can be replaced, decades of life and physical suffering can't.
@@eugenetswong im not sure where the qanon theories fit in man. I honestly think that a lemon law lawyer's youtube channel is probably not the best place to slip in a reference to weird baby eating cabal fantasies. Its really not a good look.
@@OnkyoGrady I haven't viewed all of Qanon's comments. Perhaps you should stop getting ideas from prejudiced people? Perhaps that's not a good look for a lemon lawyer's channel? Speaking of prejudice, I never mentioned "cabal" or "baby eating". You make it sound like human sacrifice and cannibalism have never occurred in human history. Certainly you agree that our governments commit pedophilia?
@@eugenetswong no, i dont agree that our government, "commits pedophilia". That literally doesn't make sense, and is also straight from the qanon lore collection. My apologies if i overstated and you aren't into the baby eating side of that conspiracy scene.
@@OnkyoGrady i am on that side, so you don't have to apologize for that. It's the prejudice that I don't tolerate. I admit that it is just a belief, and I am aware that I don't even have soft evidence. I didn't bring up the topic, because I felt that were more useful examples that we could use. Regarding "commits pedophilia", are commenting on the phrasing? What is the correct phrasing for an adult having sex with a child, that uses the "ped" prefix, and doesn't use figures of speech? I can't remember if I heard anything else other that "child sex" or figures of speech. So, you don't believe that our governments have knowingly arrested innocent people?
Your example of doing the speed limit happen to me in 1982 after I got out of the military. I was going from Wichita Falls TX to Waco TX for a job interview. It was a state trooper. He gave me a ticket and he put going slower than traffic flow speed. He started to hand me the ticket to sign and he didn't put the speed I was traveling and the highway speed. I told if he does those 2 things then I would sign the ticket. He did I did and the next week I went to court and it was thrown out. The judge admonished the trooper and told him his responsibility should have been to stop the actual speeders. However that same afternoon I followed the trooper's advice and was following truckers mostly and was doing around 90 mph when another trooper stopped me wanted to give me a ticket for speeding I asked which is correct doing the speed limit while others are speeding past me or following the speeders doing 90 plus. He asked me why and I showed him my ticket for doing 55 the highway speed limit. He laughed and turned got in his car and no ticket but he did say as he was leaving I hope you do fight the ticket. Just my story maybe there are others that experienced the same.
I was ticketed in TX, going 57 on the freeway, then 55. Only car on the road at daybreak on my way to a cowboys game. I passed the 2 highway patrol cars sitting under an overpass thinking nothing of it. $80
And watch as they accept it as a necessary evil to keep drug dealers and car thieves from keeping money. Even though they aren't a drug dealer or a car thief...
First, there should be a hearing to determine if the agency should pay the legal costs based on the probability of winning. If the victim does win then all costs should be paid by the offending agents, not the innocent taxpayer.
you're right but even if it comes from the tax payer, it should come directly out of their departments which would stop the practice almost overnight. These agencies seize money so they can spend it on whatever they want in their department. if the practice starts costing their department more than it earns, it'll stop very quickly.
I was hit with a bogus $72k tax violation from my 08' bankruptcy, 2vrs ago. This all reads too familiar. Since I'm.curenntly broke and on SSDI, I always repeat the story of Rumpkestiltskin...I'll pay when he wakes up.
"Taxation without representation..." Wasn't this one of the tenets that resulted in the uprising of 1776? We need less 'King George" and more "Patrick Henry" in our legislature......
@@TLM-Nathan not quickly for sure, and they'll find other ways to enrich themselves unjustly, but this theft and extortion will become harder the more spotlights we shove on it
I don't know anyone else in person that knows about CAF. Even my very well educated therapist had never heard of it. The concept of it just sounds too alien to be real when i explained it to her. The bank teller i quickly mentioned it to, had never heard of it. I needed to pay someone in cash, about $600, and i wanted on my bank receipt an official note saying WHY i was withdrawing the cash.
Yeah, but our oh-so-honorable Supreme Court says it's all okeydokey. We're doing this to protect the public from drug dealers so John Q. Public just needs to suck it up.
Great example of how there are two separate sets of laws for the affluent and poor in this country. Steve even just acknowledged it..."it finally happened to someone important", meaning that, until now, it's been happening to all of us unimportant people. "Equal and unbiased protection under the law for all", my ass. Now that it's happened to someone who can actually afford to be represented, something might be done about it...what a great system.
I have tried sending emails and letters to many elected officials and I rarely even receive an acknowledge of delivery. Occasionally I get a form letter response. On one occasion did get an actual response and help to get a penalty from my local building inspection department removed, however when I asked about the policy behind a 9 times penalty for any violation of anything connected to the building department I never received any response.
Wow, an acknowledgement that police are going to go after a politition for just saying it should be retroactively corrected! It infers it's done for other reasons.
@@JB-de5cp Well ... Tax payer money at lease. But, at least there would be some accountability. The losses would be a stain on the DA and Law enforcement officer's record. You don't go to court if you know that you are going to lose. If they can't come up with a crime to even pretend to charge you with, they will lose the case. If they are constantly losing cases and wasting tax dollars, they will be removed, or the legislature will get involved and fix the law. I don't see that working until there is a cost that the DA or law enforcement has to pay.
I have a question lehto.. so if I'm ignorant of a law, honestly unknowing, and the coops show up...they say well ignorance is no excuse. You broke a law, you broke a law, go to jail. So why are the police, the people who should know the law/constitutional rights get a "gimme" when they knowingly or unknowingly violate a law or right of citizens? Thanks man, killer video as always
Because 'qualified immunity' which is a bs rule that protects more bad cops that abuse their power than good ones who had a situation go pear shaped despite thier best efforts.
Anybody who thinks “this is a just a tool for law enforcement” is a tool for law enforcement.
A tool, full stop, I would say.
I like civil asset forfeiture.... It's an opportunity for the common folks to find out just how out of control our government really is. Our government isn't for the people. Our government is by the government and for the government.
@@duanejackson6718 Our government is for the rich people - the ones who own it.
Well Said
@@moi01887 :
And yet, here we have a wealthy individual, who became a "target", AND had to part with a rather large sum of his lawfully earned/possessed cash to PARTIALLY "rectify" the problem for himself?!?!
Nothing makes my day like finding out a politician was a victim of law enforcement.
ikr Who's the man?
As it should be.
The IRS isn't part of the government or law enforcement. So how do they fly under the flag of asset forfeiture????
Makes my heart warm
only if something meaningful gets done, otherwise and most likely, they'll continue their legalized theft.
Politicians aren't motivated to fix these problematic laws until it actually happens to THEM.
Bbbbingo!
That's cuz the cops are not supposed to break laws and when they do people blame everyone but the cops
I've said/written this before: if there isn't sufficient cause to arrest someone, there's no cause for seizing their property.
Yeah, but that doesn't stop them from seizing.
As we now see with asset forfeiture, cops are nothing more than thugs robbing innocent people.
Civil asset forfeiture makes law enforcement who do that no different from the criminals they're supposedly using this tool of law enforcement on.
At the end of the day cops are state licensed thugs, nothing more nothing less.
Cops where founded to harass people.
@@damenwhelan3236 they were founded to chase runaway slaves.
For most of these CAF cases, it's literally highway robbery. One dude, a US veteran, didn't trust banks, carried $90,000 cash. Got pulled over and they took it. Sent him on his way. There's video of it on Lackluster I believe.
Who do you call when the law enforcers are the thieves?
Oh, they're very different. At least if bandits have you on the side of the road, you're allowed to fight back. If they have badges and guns, attempting to fight back is a losing proposition.
On a particular day years ago (back in the 90s), I was stopped by a cop. I had no idea why he picked me to stop. He never mentioned an alleged traffic violation. He simply walked up to my car and asked for my driver's license, registration, and insurance card. I was in my late 30s, dressed in business attire, and driving a late-model sedan that was a company car. When he came back to my car to return my documents, he asked me if I had any money on me. That question struck me as odd. At the time, I had never heard of civil asset forfeiture. I thought perhaps he was assessing whether I could be a vagrant, which seemed bizarre considering how I was dressed and driving a company car for a well-known global brand (note, the car did not have brand labeling on the outside). Just about all my transactions were done with a company credit card and I rarely used cash, so I had maybe $20 or $30 on me, and I told him so. He just turned around and walked away. It wasn't until over a decade later that I figured out he was trying to mug me using civil asset forfeiture. He stopped me because I was well dressed driving a nice car.
Edited to add: If he ran the plate before he stopped me and saw 1) that is was a company car, and 2) what company it was, he probably thought I was a salesperson and might have a bunch of cash on me. What a scumbag.
You're suspicions are probably right. Years ago I would have said you're paranoid. Not anymore.
Maybe he was looking for a bribe.
"you got any money on you?"
"....you wanna wait for my lawyer to answer that question? You might have to call your shift super and wake a judge while you're at it. Better make sure its one my lawyer doesnt golf with...."
I mean, if they're going to bullshit you, bullshit them right back.
@@zombieregime Or I could just say no and be on my way. What good would it do me to antagonize him and have him find some bogus crap for which to write me tickets?
@@AllynHin well, yeah the smart way is always an option.....I guess.....😒
Steve, No judge wants to stop Civil Asset Forfeiture because the money "seized" is used to decorate their courtrooms and helps pay their salaries.
It goes to the cops.
Judges don't hold cops to task since the judge has to work woth them.
Same way prosecutors don't file for purgury on cops who lie under oath.
They have to work woth eachother.
@@damenwhelan3236 Judges, prosecutors, and cops who do this should be Impeached, Incarcerated, and be Publicly denounced. All precedent supporting these practices are just BS dressed up as legalese to cheat the Public and thwart pubic accountability. It's negligence in enforcing the Constitution.
Yeah, but for a lot less than this, a couple of judges could be ELIMINATED!
@damenwhelan3236 spot on. I wonder what lady liberty is blind folded for a blind eye with a fair and impartial verdict or a blind eye to prosicuturial misconduct and lies spun by so called friends of the court
@@damenwhelan3236the cops keep the judges with enough cases to keep their job. So it’s definitely a quid pro quo situation. And those shouldn’t exist within the government.
Hopefully he pushes that the victims of civil asset forfeiture should also have their legal fees covered paid for by the agency who wrongfully seized the assets, because if there’s no real consequence and the seizing agency just gave the money back but didn’t have to pay a penny more, it’s no loss to them and they will just keep doing it.
However if the agency was on the hook for the legal fees for wrongfully accused victims to get their assets back, it would make those agencies think twice and stop seizing assets unless they did their police work beforehand and only go after the real criminals.
@Raven :
One of the largest parts of the problem here, is that the forfeiture takes place with NO accusation of ANY wrongdoing!
The political whatnot here was NEVER accused of a criminal act, and yet, he had to spend $150,000 of his lawfully earned/possessed money to recover the rest of the money that was "LAWFULLY" seized!!!!
Structuring and CAF allow the government to go after the "low hanging fruit" of people who may, or MAY NOT be guilty of any crime. It needs to stop! "Round filing" the 4th Amendment should never be allowed!
@@ajwilson605 circular filing. Putting in the trash can. Gotcha. Hadnt heard round filing before.
Nice.
@@ajwilson605 That's not even the low hanging fruit... The low hanging fruit are law enforcement who are seizing less than $1000 from someone. As you can see from what it cost this individual to get his money back, you can't economically fight to get back less than $1000(or even much more than $1000)
@@Melanie16040 That is exactly what I meant by "low hanging fruit". If you can't afford to fight for the return of your stolen money, you've lost it.....completely!
When I was a Deputy for 15 years, occasionally I would encounter an individuals who would ask, “do you know who I am?” I would always answer “No. And I do not care.” Because I really did not. If you committed a crime or a violation, I would either arrest or write tickets. They have said, I am the sheriffs or police chiefs son, daughter or wife, or were a judge or council member. I did not care.sometimes I was gonna write warnings but people, especially arrogant, entitled asses would talk themselves into getting a ticket or arrested. I really did not care. I have been spoken to a few times but never got into trouble. What would I get into trouble for, doing my job?
This whole asset forfeiture thing is BS and should be abolished.
You, sir, are the type of officer we actually need these days. Thank you for your service.
Thank you for having been a "good cop". Bad cops and asset forfeiture laws are ruining our country and the reputation of law enforcement. I want to believe most cops are good. But I don't anymore.
The reply to "do you know who I am?" - do you need medical/psylogocal assistance to determine who you are?
The reply to "do you know who I am?" - do you need medical/psylogocal assistance to determine who you are?
Interesting that you admit to ticketing people based on your feelings. Such a cop thing to do.
"apply civil asset forfeiture properly" means he doesn't understand the problem OR he is putting on a show for the voters. That $150k he spent getting the money then becomes a campaign expense in a way. The government should not be able to just take your stuff without criminal or civil charges and due process, meaning you get your day in court. I have an aunt, she's now in her 80s. She has always been politically active, very involved in things, and quite smart. She had never heard of CAF until yesterday when I talked to her about it. People just do not know this is a thing. Spread the word.
or he means criminal convictions
@@BlackJesus8463 seizing as evidence is just part of the normal course of an investigation. They should only get to keep it (as evidence) after the trial finds you guilty. And at no point should that seized cash be spendable since it is still evidence, something that may be required for appeals hearings. If the cash is being seized as evidence of a person's criminal activity then it should be handled ONLY as evidence.
We both know this is not what they are doing though, they seize it to add it to their budget, making it a conflict of interest. And it should be illegal. So if we at least force the issue of having to make it part of a criminal process, meaning they need to have hearings/trials, and even if they win they don't get to spend it, this practice will just die out because their is no payday for them.
Along with this, defending yourself against the government, if you win your case, you should also win legal fees, ALWAYS.
@@avi8r66 Yeah man they should spend the money on education or welfare. 100%
This politician should be in jail for a couple years and face ass forfeiture, that would make a better thinker out of him, too.
@@avi8r66 well, what you do is if you're a municipal PD, you just give it to the feds for "safe keeping" and then claiming you don't have it anymore and make the defendant fight both you AND the feds to get it back
Like I said before, the judiciary will NOT fix this. It will take legislative and executive action to make it stop. Each and every politician should be asked in detail how they will address this problem.
Will any of them give a straight answer?
@@randystegemann9990 no, but they will notice we're watching.
@@katiekane5247 I'm sure they will get right on it, along with campaign finance reform and term limits. :)
violent opposition would make it go away a lot faster.
Maybe a few dead cops too.
Cops that do this probably should get shot.
I can respect good cops, but hate the bad cops, good cops dont do civil asset forfeiture.
He wasn't a rep when it happened. It happened back in 2013 and I think he was first elected in 2020. Two simple things need to happen to fix civil asset forfeiture. 1 - Burden of proof needs to be on the Government that the assets were used for or are the proceeds of criminal activity. 2 - Even more important - The proceeds of civil asset forfeiture do not go back to law enforcement in any way.
Individuals should be convicted of a crime before their assets can be seized too. Until they're convicted by a jury, they're innocent so far as the law is concerned.
Not Civil Action Forfeiture, but a example of bureaucratic powers, while serving on active duty, in the U.S. Navy, stationed in California, yet, a legal resident of Michigan, I received a notice, from my bank, that the Ca Tax Franchise Board, ordered the bank to hand over $650 in "unpaid" state tax. I had received no prior notifications from the tax people, only my bank. It took four visits to their offices and two years to have the money returned (which lead to another foul up. A story for another time). Somehow they "found" my bank account, yet they couldn't be bothered to find me and notify me before taking my money.
I hope JAG was able to help you sort that out. Normally when states try stuff like that, JAG then goes after them for trying commit fraud against the gov.
@@MamaMOB why don't you just stick to gossiping about people on Facebook? If the state sends a demand to the bank the bank will comply, period. Also, this issue is not at all uncommon for military personnel, particularly ones stationed in broke ass CA.
@@MamaMOB the bank does not require your permission to hand over information or cash demand by the government or a court order.
Bob.. WHY Notify You?!! we'll just take it....... WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT
@@MamaMOB I wonder if you have a long track record of this kind of post failures. I refuse to believe this was your first major goof.
The whole concept of civil asset forfeiture is brazenly unconstitutional. The government does not have the enumerated right in the constitution to know what you do with your money or when, nor do they have the right to force you to track your own money to satisfy their reporting requirements necessary to complete taxes. To take it to the extreme, the citizens have every right to choose not to track their money or record where it goes if they so choose. Burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and to hell with the preponderance of evidence standard which is a fabricated nonsense standard not mentioned in the constitution)
The constitution never said it was ok to have slaves but they had to make an amendment outlawing it. The constitution doesn't need to specifically outlaw anything.
Fourth amendment anyone.
@@gooddogtrainingservices5351 100% correct. The asset forfeiture laws are unconstitutional blatantly. No clue why they haven't been successful in challenge. I was addressing the previous statement.
The U.S. Constitution only requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" when it comes to convicting someone of a crime. "Preponderance of Evidence" is an evidentiary standard applied in civil cases and is perfectly constitutional (and, frankly, necessary or else people would get away with a lot in terms of inflicting financial damages on others without consequence.) This is the loophole they are exploiting and why legislation is necessary. They are taking civil action against the property and not the owner of it, claiming that the property was involved in a crime (not the owner). The asset itself is listed as "the defendant". A human has rights. A piece of property does not. Property has no right to an attorney nor any presumption of innocence.
The courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled that civil asset forfeiture is constitutional. Thus, it's up to legislators to prohibit these types of seizures and/or place a higher standard of proof on law enforcement prior to seizing an asset.
@@alexsherel3344 try the 4th Amendment, the government is violating it by seizing your property without you being charged or convicted of any crime.
Randomly entering houses to conduct searches without warrants at any time of day or night would be a way to eliminate crime but it does more harm than good. Civil asset forfeiture is doing the same thing. I believe it does more harm than good.
Well if you put law enforcement "above the law", i agree it would. But this shows blatantly the inherent contradiction. Crime at its base is objectively random. Sure subjective study will yeild patterns and methods to the apparent madness, but again superficially its "random" so random intrusions against the will of the intruded upon would by its nature be crime. So your statement at its base is more crime would result in less crime.
It brings into focus the conflict between the "letter" and the "spirit" of the law. The perfect and the practical.
Now to your credit, you did boil it down to the principle of the cure being worse than the disease pretty quickly.
That is the contest that most people arent willing to consider.
as someone from Canada, that it's written in your constitution that this stuff is not allowed, yet you are one of the rare places this is an issue says a lot.
BLESS YOU MY CHILD
I had a friend who was pulled over because they were doing the speed limit. The police officer stated he found that suspicious. This was about twenty years ago.
Are you kidding? Cops think they are they the only ones that are innocent!! Everyone else is guilty just not them!!
Absolutely lovely to see a friggin politician caught up in a law he supported to take our goods.
How come it is called "civil assets forfeiture" When I have a gun in an alley and take your money they call it armed robbery. Funny how that works.
Great video, Steve. Of all the topics you cover this is one of the most important. You're doing a wonderful job of spreading the word about this flagrant abuse of power. We have the same problem in England.
I can recall an in-service training session back in the 80's on the subject of civil forfeiture. The speaker was a supervisor with our State Drug Control division of the State Crime Bureau. He was over the top with his praise and invited us to step out to the parking lot and check out his new Navigator that they has seized in a drug raid and made claim on it for undercover operations. He was encouraging us to use it at every opportunity because it was a way to increase our budgetary stability without fighting with our civilian board. I didn't think much of it then as it just didn't seem right and never made such a claim in the rest of my career in law enforcement. I always believed that as a police officer in these United States of America we did what we believed was right and just, not what was 'Legal!' I have been retired now since 93 so what I believe no longer makes a lot of difference but I do like to shoot off my mouth from time to time when I see a wrong.
By the definition of structuring the IRS uses even depositing $1 dollar just one time at one bank qualifies as structuring.
That is incorrect, but okay.
@@slevelneves …every ‘definition’ of structuring i have ever read states …
“depositing/withdrawing/transferring an amount UNDER THE REPORTING LIMIT”.
I have NEVER read an actual dollar amount….
So yes… $1 is “under the reporting limit”…
Typical weasel words, designed to give ‘wiggle room’ to the ‘authorities’
considering the frequency and volume of theft its bound to get
the 'wrong' one. aka TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE
I almost died laughing when you said "well you're following the law to avoid breaking the law therefore you're breaking the law"
It reminds me of malicious compliance.
Literally typical copsplaining. I've seen cops episodes where driving the speed limit is part of their probable cause to pull someone over, you know, they must be hiding something if they aren't speeding.
Thank you Steve, for your effort in trying to help people understand this is wrong. Please, please people, spread the word
I fully expect police unions to donate against this man.
Love hearing that a politician got to experience this horrific abuse of power and love hearing that he's going to fix what he can.
If they change the verbage in civil forfeiture to "shall be used in course of a crime" or something along those lines then law enforcement will have to file a criminal offense. If assets are seized without a crime, then the agency shall return assets plus 10% and the individual agent will be fined $1000 which will go to the victim, within 30 days.
If that is the case where a crime needs to have happened, and assets are seized without one, then that’s prison for the individual officer, on charges of theft under the color of law. Not some petty fine.
10% isn't nearly enough. Lawyer fees often exceed the seized goods, so people don't fight at all. It needs to be, the original goods, all costs involved, and then 10% of that, as interest.
Cops regularly seize small amounts, knowing no one can efficiently fight the feds over a few hundred or even a few thousand.
Meanwhile, those can be life changing amounts for a family or individual just scraping by. They don't have a chance to fight in court for months or years.
I LOVE the speeding not speeding analogy. Never looked at it like that lol.
Here in the UK we have the Proceeds of Crime Act, that allows such seizures, but defending your money will usually be reclaimable, if you can prove it’s legitimate source. Generally, any seizure under this act FOLLOWS a successful trial in relation to illegal acts that generate large volumes of money/property
Key phrase..... Proceeds of Crime Act. If you haven't done anything that they can PROVE WRONG, keepa you handsa off!
It should not be dependent on the victim to prove that the source is legitimate, but upon the agency to prove that it is not.
@@rylian21 yes and no in NZ we have Proceeds of Crime Act. and it is used against gangs and gang members, you don't join a gang to play chess and become an accountant or dentist and some have basic low end jobs a million dollar houses and motorcars.
@@konaguzzi1 If the government can't PROVE that the proceeds were gained illegally, they have no right to seize it. Period. If mere suspicion is enough cause for the government to take your property, then you have exactly zero property rights.
I’d rather pay the $150000 to a lawyer than let the agency keep it as a “penalty”
Great news! And agreed. Don't care what party, don't care about his other viewpoints. CAF must be stopped.
I would absolutely love to read about a civil asset forfeiture where a judge’s cash was seized and the form was filled out: “suspected kids for cash proceeds”
Thank you Steve! This AF needs to stop for law abiding citizens and they need to show just cause of before taking anything from anyone!
I love it, I actually live in GA so this will be posted on my Facebook page for everyone to see hopefully Facebook will let most people on my friends list see it. I'll keep reposting it once a week if I have to!!!!!
I want to hear a person of power get a large amount of cash taken by police at the road during a traffic stop. I don’t see it happening as that person of power will tell the cops who they are. The cop won’t seize the cash to keep civil asset forfeiture going. Rules for us not for them.
Happen to see that AOC was talking about Civil Asset Fortfiture in Congress, which is one of a few times I ever cheered for her
This is a perfect example of where fee shifting should be applied.
If the reporting is correct and there was an admission that there was no illegal activity and everything was declared, then there shouldn't have needed a lawsuit to cover the siezed funds, and so those who caused the case to be brought through refusing to return the seized property should have covered the legal costs of the claimant.
It's literally extortion and I don't think IRS agents in this circumstance have qualified immunity to protect them...
I’ve commented before that the only way “normal” asset forfeiture will stop is if important people are affected.
The only thing that you have to remember about bureaucrats is that once you give them a little bit of power, they will constantly ask for more.
"Ask?????"
@@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin I was being nice! :)
They will use any excuse, event, or public opinion to justify grabbing more power from the people.
Still never understood how they can charge an object with a crime.
Thanks for supporting the 12’s despite our horrible season!
"Where an excess of power prevails property of no sort is duly respected"---James Madison
Civil Asset Forfeiture does fight organized crime, with organized crime. The old joke of "You know why the government prosecutes thieves? They don't like competition." has never been more true.
You can't stop CAF, it's an important law-enforcement tool... say the highway robbers themselves.
Then the law enforcement becomes the criminals themselves. Just hiding behind a badge. This needs to be reclassified criminal asset forfeiture with a documented criminal action being put on the books with all law enforcement officers names attached so if it is done incorrectly then the officials can be sued by the individual and they can not hid behind a badge.
A single representative from the house being a victim is not going to help. The disease is throughout the government. Congress is not going to interfere with an income stream that they don't have to vote on.
It will take a bunch of lawmakers, and likely some in ranking positions becoming victims to cause laws to change.
I wouldn't mind if they could attach a criminal conviction to it. ....This is nuts!!!
Simple - Take Away CAF From Law Enforcement (Money Laundary ) By Government
Great!! We need a lot more of this to draw attention to it!!
I was so exited to see you finally wearing a Seattle Seahawks t-shirt in a segment. I'd been waiting for you to do so for a long time now. Then, you didn't show it at the end of your presentation as you usually do. At least you wore it, I guess.
IRS agents who engage of this type of abuse should be forced to pay out of their own pockets all the attorney’s fees victims incur to get their money back.
This is just one aspect of why multiple charges and making deals corrupts the legal system. Just pick the most serious charge you believe the person "intended" and prosecute that crime.
Imagine that! A politician who was fine with it until it affected him!
The IRS along witg other agencies know for the most part who can afford to fight them in court, or in other words make them look crooked in court and who cannot and seize accordingly
Greetings: Thx 4 the info and presentation. It is about time a politician started performing noble duties. It is a shame it was because he was a victim rather than of his own motivation. Such as it is, I commend his efforts and wish him success in such endeavors 4 he and the citizens. Repeal the Real ID Act!
Having worked for a major convenience store chain, we had a corporate policy that limited how much cash we could have on hand. So we had to do a bank run every time we approached that value. Insurance required us to do it that way. From the federal perspective that could be viewed as structuring but that was not the purpose.
EVERYONE NEEDS TO POST THIS TO THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES PLEASE....
I do not understand how this hasn't been struck down years ago. It clearly CLEARLY violates your constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I mean they often come back and say "yeah it was all perfectly legal but we took it anyway"
If you or I did that it would be a crime. Ironically the money not involved in a crime becomes proceeds of theft when the law claims it may have been proceeds of a crime. It isn't a crime till they take it but because they are the law the crime doesn't apply? yeah, no. it's still illegal in my eyes.
The groups that take the money in this way need to be investigated to see they are not pocketing the money .
Hopefully he's actually able to get something done federally...and maybe get something done for the states too. He's definitely going to have an uphill battle. I'm sure some of the civil asset forfeiture money is going to be funding his opponents campaigns.
@@beadyeye2312 might not have known about it. Also kind of hard to reform government piracy when the pirates are attacking you on every front for 4 years
great story. hope it ends up helping everyone.
There should be a multiplier penalty against agencies applied to the return of assets seized without actionable cause.
Once in a while, someone runs for the people, not for a party.
That is when you can expect the media to smear someone the most.
Any legal fees for getting your money back should come from the seizing agency, give them another reason to not steal people's money.
I think RICO originally provided a tool for asset consfiscation upon conviction.
Somehow that changed to asset consfiscation upon encounter.
I mean, it's not just, or even mostly, important people that are the problem. We've all met (universally and notably unimportant) people who would lose it and get violent in this kind of circumstance. Within that category there's a small percentage who can be effectively violent, we could call them the Dorners. What police, prosecutors and the admin judges are risking by taking part in this kind of scheme is running into a Dorner. There's no veneer of public acceptability that can be draped across an asset forfeiture proceeding, none of the "but you really shouldn't because these are the good guys" dynamic that might hold someone back as might happen in a family court proceeding or something similar. This is a taking without any public support, at gun point, which is dangerous for all of the participants and for the integrity of the system as a whole. This is how a political body loses public acceptance of the force monopoly. I'd rate this as one of the absolute lowest points our system has reached, right down there with the worst and most self-destructive drug war policies.
I gave you an up vote, but deep state human trafficking is way lower. I'm talking about the pedophilia kind. There's human experimentation without consent, too, like injecting diseases into unsuspecting. Don't forget knowingly imprisoning innocent people.
As corrupt as civil asset forfeiture is, money can be replaced, decades of life and physical suffering can't.
@@eugenetswong im not sure where the qanon theories fit in man. I honestly think that a lemon law lawyer's youtube channel is probably not the best place to slip in a reference to weird baby eating cabal fantasies. Its really not a good look.
@@OnkyoGrady I haven't viewed all of Qanon's comments. Perhaps you should stop getting ideas from prejudiced people? Perhaps that's not a good look for a lemon lawyer's channel?
Speaking of prejudice, I never mentioned "cabal" or "baby eating". You make it sound like human sacrifice and cannibalism have never occurred in human history.
Certainly you agree that our governments commit pedophilia?
@@eugenetswong no, i dont agree that our government, "commits pedophilia". That literally doesn't make sense, and is also straight from the qanon lore collection. My apologies if i overstated and you aren't into the baby eating side of that conspiracy scene.
@@OnkyoGrady i am on that side, so you don't have to apologize for that. It's the prejudice that I don't tolerate. I admit that it is just a belief, and I am aware that I don't even have soft evidence.
I didn't bring up the topic, because I felt that were more useful examples that we could use.
Regarding "commits pedophilia", are commenting on the phrasing? What is the correct phrasing for an adult having sex with a child, that uses the "ped" prefix, and doesn't use figures of speech? I can't remember if I heard anything else other that "child sex" or figures of speech.
So, you don't believe that our governments have knowingly arrested innocent people?
They need to stop legal theft .
Your example of doing the speed limit happen to me in 1982 after I got out of the military. I was going from Wichita Falls TX to Waco TX for a job interview.
It was a state trooper. He gave me a ticket and he put going slower than traffic flow speed. He started to hand me the ticket to sign and he didn't put the speed I was traveling and the highway speed.
I told if he does those 2 things then I would sign the ticket.
He did I did and the next week I went to court and it was thrown out. The judge admonished the trooper and told him his responsibility should have been to stop the actual speeders.
However that same afternoon I followed the trooper's advice and was following truckers mostly and was doing around 90 mph when another trooper stopped me wanted to give me a ticket for speeding I asked which is correct doing the speed limit while others are speeding past me or following the speeders doing 90 plus. He asked me why and I showed him my ticket for doing 55 the highway speed limit. He laughed and turned got in his car and no ticket but he did say as he was leaving I hope you do fight the ticket.
Just my story maybe there are others that experienced the same.
That is a fantastic story.
I was ticketed in TX, going 57 on the freeway, then 55. Only car on the road at daybreak on my way to a cowboys game. I passed the 2 highway patrol cars sitting under an overpass thinking nothing of it. $80
You were smart to read the ticket BEFORE you signed it and have him fill in the blank areas .
@@jayhockley8841 thanks
2 Years later and has anything changed ?
NO.
And watch as they accept it as a necessary evil to keep drug dealers and car thieves from keeping money.
Even though they aren't a drug dealer or a car thief...
It's a shakedown. Not by the mafia, but by the government!
First, there should be a hearing to determine if the agency should pay the legal costs based on the probability of winning. If the victim does win then all costs should be paid by the offending agents, not the innocent taxpayer.
you're right but even if it comes from the tax payer, it should come directly out of their departments which would stop the practice almost overnight. These agencies seize money so they can spend it on whatever they want in their department. if the practice starts costing their department more than it earns, it'll stop very quickly.
What's sad is policies written by politicians don't get reviewed unless it happens to them.
laws. protecting citizens from GOVERNMENT.
yep. we're in an episode of The Twilight Zone.
This needs to be outlawed.
Before even watching, in my heart I am yelling, “OH HELL YES! MAYBE NOW SOMETHING WILL BE DONE!”
If the IRS seized assets not owed, why isn’t the government required to pay just compensation?
I was hit with a bogus $72k tax violation from my 08' bankruptcy, 2vrs ago. This all reads too familiar. Since I'm.curenntly broke and on SSDI, I always repeat the story of Rumpkestiltskin...I'll pay when he wakes up.
I support him in his endeavors to reign in the IRS. I have dealt with them and they are the biggest thieves in the country.
Steve do you have any contact with the Institute for Justice ? You seem to be very much on the same page on many issues.
Just looking at the title, I'm thinking that it couldn't have happened to a better person.
"Taxation without representation..." Wasn't this one of the tenets that resulted in the uprising of 1776? We need less 'King George" and more "Patrick Henry" in our legislature......
At 3:50 you made me chuckle because it reminded me of a video from a long time ago titled "It's Not Illegal to NOT Break the Law."
Finally change will happen
Yeah, it just has to hurt the right people lol I wish it wouldn't take something like this, but unfortunately it does.
Nothing is going to change.
🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞....
@@TLM-Nathan not quickly for sure, and they'll find other ways to enrich themselves unjustly, but this theft and extortion will become harder the more spotlights we shove on it
Hope this guy doesn't get Arkancided.
UA-cam algo keeps on giving, This is GOLD!
I don't know anyone else in person that knows about CAF. Even my very well educated therapist had never heard of it. The concept of it just sounds too alien to be real when i explained it to her.
The bank teller i quickly mentioned it to, had never heard of it. I needed to pay someone in cash, about $600, and i wanted on my bank receipt an official note saying WHY i was withdrawing the cash.
Depriving someone of their property in the absence of a warrant/criminal charges is direct violation of the 4th Amendment.
Yeah, but our oh-so-honorable Supreme Court says it's all okeydokey. We're doing this to protect the public from drug dealers so John Q. Public just needs to suck it up.
Great example of how there are two separate sets of laws for the affluent and poor in this country. Steve even just acknowledged it..."it finally happened to someone important", meaning that, until now, it's been happening to all of us unimportant people. "Equal and unbiased protection under the law for all", my ass. Now that it's happened to someone who can actually afford to be represented, something might be done about it...what a great system.
I have tried sending emails and letters to many elected officials and I rarely even receive an acknowledge of delivery. Occasionally I get a form letter response.
On one occasion did get an actual response and help to get a penalty from my local building inspection department removed, however when I asked about the policy behind a 9 times penalty for any violation of anything connected to the building department I never received any response.
Formerly the "Secrecy in Banking Act."
Civil asset forfeiture would be stopped if this frequently happened to politicians.
Love it !!! Hopefully they get this absurd law changed.
By not breaking the law, you were avoiding getting caught breaking the law. Best explanation of CAF ever!
Wow, an acknowledgement that police are going to go after a politition for just saying it should be retroactively corrected!
It infers it's done for other reasons.
Why is a reporter in TN writing an article about a congressman from GA?
This won't be changed until both the IRS and the DEA are no longer necessary for a politician to stay in office.
Hundo in the handle of mic just above the wing of the 71 car top shelf.
What if the government had to pay your attorney's fees if they lose the case?
They have no problem paying your attorney fees with your money
@@JB-de5cp Well ... Tax payer money at lease. But, at least there would be some accountability. The losses would be a stain on the DA and Law enforcement officer's record. You don't go to court if you know that you are going to lose. If they can't come up with a crime to even pretend to charge you with, they will lose the case. If they are constantly losing cases and wasting tax dollars, they will be removed, or the legislature will get involved and fix the law. I don't see that working until there is a cost that the DA or law enforcement has to pay.
How a politician attains 900grand should be questioned as well?
I have a question lehto.. so if I'm ignorant of a law, honestly unknowing, and the coops show up...they say well ignorance is no excuse. You broke a law, you broke a law, go to jail. So why are the police, the people who should know the law/constitutional rights get a "gimme" when they knowingly or unknowingly violate a law or right of citizens? Thanks man, killer video as always
Because 'qualified immunity' which is a bs rule that protects more bad cops that abuse their power than good ones who had a situation go pear shaped despite thier best efforts.
We are screwed on every level will we ever recover?