Will the Supreme Court Finally Curb Civil Forfeiture? Maybe.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 жов 2024
- As our listeners probably know, civil forfeiture is legal practice that lets the government take and keep your property by claiming it’s connected to a crime, without needing to convict anyone. You can lose your property even when the government agrees you’re innocent.
Recently, the Supreme Court decided an important forfeiture case. While the outcome was disappointing, the way they decided it gives us hope that the high court is finally ready to rein in this form of theft-by-government.
Today we chat with IJ attorneys Dan Alban and Kirby Thomas-West to discuss Culley v. Marshall and what it means for the fight against civil forfeiture.
LINKS:
Audio (RSS) version of the show: ij.org/podcast...
Become a Monthly Donor: ij.org/support...
Culley v. Marshall: ij.org/press-r...
About Beyond the Brief:
Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom-directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how-and why-we do what we do.
This is called robbery and theft.
Our government disagrees.
However any person with a brain agrees with you.
The 5th Amendment says the government cant take without compensation.
Def: Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. Also referred to as larceny.
Yes, in numerous ways, not just theft of the physical property itself. Theft from us all through government expenses. Bloated and corrupt while claiming to be doing so in the interests of us all.
AKA Policing for profits,
the current court seems very happy ignoring even the letter and intent of law currently . until thhe justices see the inside of a jail, the court is unlikely to step back from fascism. they have most likely eaten off nazi cutlery and wiped their mouths with the embossed napkins. who care if there is a takings clause in the constitution, there is a protection and comfort to an insurrectionist section. but the court decided better to comfort and protect trump than obey this section. and authorized the execution of political opponents as an added groin punch to the rule of law.
@@richlaue Cops and local and federal government get around the Fifth Amendment by charging the victim's property with a crime and then takes it into custody.
The Ole saying. "Don't steal, the government hates competition " couldn't be any more truthful.
It's easier to seize citizens property instead of criminals.
No doubt, since actual criminals take measures to conceal their cash.
The cops are criminals
@@miramichi30 lol
yeah they're not about to start robbing themselves there Bud
More so that it's easier to seize property from anyone of low to middle income. BTW, most of those criminals are citizens too. And I'm sure the cops are preying on them as well.
If a party cannot defend itself, it should not be a party.
In re: proceedings were originally needed for situations like a ship in a harbor with nobody crewing it. The use has totally become outdated and they may mostly be unneeded outside of extreme circumstances. Either way the prohibition of seizure without just compensation should be read as binding the government to not act on my property - as the bill of rights is a list of soveriegn prohibitions and a list of personal rights both. Civil forfeiture is an overt usurpation of personal property rights regardless if the styling of the case fails to name a necessary party, i.e. the owner. No compelling interest can draw a need to violate property right so fundamentally despite the government's continued ability to use exclusively criminal forfeiture within the bounds of the Consitution.
I hereby sue a police cruiser itself.
@@David_Mash I'm still wondering if the victim could claim reimbursment for damages of law enforcement acts, since they are an independant 3rd party to whom proppertydamage (here the loss of money) occured.
And afterwards seek the freedom of the money on trial, which if successfull want's to return to the victim.
Justice delayed is justice denied. 6 months to even begin the process is already punishment.
The process is the punishment.
Speedy Trial, and Due Process is Denied, when it takes longer than 24 hours to get seen and heard.
then they should be able to collect for punative damages as a result
I don't understand why it isn't argued that the constitution says that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. It doesn't say seized or forfeit. If the government is in possession of your property for one minute, you are being deprived of that property. That might sound ridiculous, as it would mean the government couldn't even impound your vehicle for parking in a handicap spot without the courts getting involved. Well, that's what the founders wanted, because that is in fact reasonable. They knew if they didn't stress this restriction on the government, we would end up with such government tyranny as civil forfeiture.
That's why forfeiture cases aren't against the person but against the money itself. Cases titled "United States v $57,478 in cash"
Nowhere is it allowed to tow a vehicle from any parking spot 0 whether illegal spot or not including firelane, unless the vehicle it's been there beyond a reasonable amount of time such as more than 7 days.
In the same spot at least measured 3 to 4 times a day.
The reason you would need to measure that it could be a person with a legitimate exception under the law 2 Park illegally in order to effect a transfer of property or person from and to that vehicle.
It would be disingenuous and probably illegal for a cop to know that a person is being picked up or dropped off at a particular residence, where the driver can through law exception legally parked in said handicap spot or fire lane area near a slope or ramp, and the cop just assuming that well between 10:00 and 11:00 everyday they've seen this car they can then put a ticket on that car, awful skating the fact that the car was indeed not there continuously 24 hours a day for 7 days, and then generally speaking 3 to 7 days after a vehicle like this is ticketed could then be towed off of private property from a declaration by the property owner.
This scenario has happened and I've seen it happen.
Many states have specific exceptions load and unload packages, goods, in some instances even services, as well as persons to and from a location.
The verbiage actively engaged in is often used in these exceptions in other words it's not like you can wait for someone in a handicap spot for a half an hour while watching UA-cam or wait for some food order say if you use doordash or Uber eats and you're a driver, and sit and watch UA-cam while the food is being made.
Larger cities thinking that they are helping and but I really somewhat circumventing the law will put up signage near and around bus stops 0 allowing for 5 to 10 to 15 minute load unload times, at least parking spaces are specifically geared to an average car size face, not generally regarded available for UPS or fedex, although they will take advantage of it as well, what's really is not codified in statutes at the state level anyway.
Mini home rule communities in large cities that have home rule take the concept of enhancementis being for the benefit of the state, and enhancement has never meant that, enhancement to a state statute under home rule is only to be the to the benefit of the citizen, never the state.
@@kadengundersen498 which is why the argument against that practice needs to be made because the Supreme Court hasn't explicitly addressed the argument that the government cannot make a case against property itself for civil forfeiture. How is something so obviously absurd not been addressed? I could be wrong and they might have addressed that directly. If that's the case, the argument needs to be made again and again so they can be given a chance to overrule that abomination of a decision. These cases that the Institute for Justice wins only bring a modicum of improvement.
Do you really believe that this argument hasn't been made? That random UA-cam commenter is somehow seeing something that packs of lawyers who are highly invested in this have not? It's incredibly obvious and on its face is fundamentally correct, but the courts have shot it down over and over again.
Well said,thuro
Nice job Kim. Me as a law abiding citizen of the United States should not have to fear cops stealing my money. If I want to buy a farm implement for my ranch can I take $40,000 cash to the farm store without worry? No. Or if I want to buy a car? Maybe I want to go on vacation. I have to worry that TSA is going to take my money. It's just wrong in every sense. Thanks IJ for continuing this fight!
Then $10,000 international thresh hold for carrying cash, was made up in the 1970's. In todays money $10,000 is nothing. The original 10K adjusted for inflation, is between 150k to 200k.
WHAT IS JUST WHEN JUSTICE IS DETERMINED BY GOVERNMENT FIAT? BULLY FOR THE POWERS THAT ARE IRREFUTABLE! oh that's the definition of TYRANNY!
Shame on these thieving public entities. 😢😢😢 Thank goodness for IJ.
THESE ones , or , all the others as well ?
All of them
WHEN THE RECORDED TOTALITY OF IJ FAILURES, AND SUCCESSES, ARE SEEN AS CITIZENS RIGHTS! THEN THE ACTIVE CONGRESSIONAL LAW CREATORS, MANDATE A CITIZEN-ENABLING-FUNDINGS THROUGH THE TAXATION SYSTEM TO SECUDRE ALL CITIZENS' JUSTICE. A TAXED EXTORTION BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERENED?
Public *enemies*
THE BRIBED CONGRESS MAY CHOOSE TO USE CIVIL ASSET FORFETURES TO FUND THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE- - - - - NOT!
Often the cost to get your property back is far more than the value of the property and that alone should outlaw the practice.
WTF?? AIN'T THEIVERY A TRADITIONALLY SOCIALLY A HANGING OFFENCE?
@@georgedunkelberg5004 If we followed the Declaration of Independence there would be a lot of 'swingers'.
@@georgedunkelberg5004 Not Hanging, you are thinking pirates. No, Thieves usually have the HANDS cut off, starting with the dominate hand.
@@Jirodynewhich state statute is that referring to?
@@grlnexdoorable No Statute, what people back in the day, especially the around medieval times, where thieves hands were cut off, if they were caught stealing from others.
Hanging was more for Pirates, around the time of Columbus and the exploration age, where water exploring and water trading was at it's highest.
And in the age of the "Wild West", outlaws would get hanged, which were basically pirates on land.
But Thieft usually was not hanged. I don't know when exactly the practice stopped, but Thieft was usually one of the worse crimes possible, as you stole from someone you effectively stole from the King/Lord/Duke or whoever ruled you, and was punished severely, usually by cutting off the hands so you can't steal again and to let all others know you are a thief, and warned against stealing themselves.
It is most well known and was enforced the most in Arabic nations, as "Street Urchins", aka teenagers and young adults who made a living stealing from the market places, was most common and a massive problem. It was so wildly a problem and well known, Disney's Aladdin was based off a Street Urchin and in the original first movie, gets caught and his hands almost cut off as punishment.
But at some point in history, thief just became a lesser crime, the punishment getting lessor and lessor as other crimes were pushed higher and higher. Today, depending on the thief, you won't even get a punishment for it, as long as you return the item.
Law enforcement knows that Civil Forfeiture is wrong, yet still enacts it and defends it vigorously when challenged to end it. Yet another reason the public is at odds and mistrusts law enforcement.
Thank you for calling it theft by government.
Man, the more I look into the work IJ does, the more I'm tempted to start studying for law school.
good idea
Same here!
If you can, you should because corruption is everywhere.
@@sandrakarwel I started looking into it this week actually. It will take a lot of planning and still only a possibility
In my lifetime the government has declared three domestic wars. The War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War Against Terror. The government has lost them all (but has grown more powerful and distant from its citizens). As a result, we the people are less free.
Yup, also the War on Cancer too.
It's always a 'w a r' with them. Probably for subliminal influence...
Dont forget the war on Christianity and our founding principles.
well said.
By design
"Victims" should not have to make application for return of their property under Any circumstances. The Involved Agencies SHOULD be REQUIRED to provide Evidence IN COURT of why the Property is Eligible for Seizure. In Fac, due to Recent History, Any Agent or Officer involved in the Application for a Warrant, the Warrant found to Contain Untruths, and Failing to Follow Court Instructions, should Immediately be charged for "Contempt of Court" with Loss of All Immunity. Going to Enforce a Warrant? You Better KNOW and Understand What It Says!
If the cops can sue my car itself, I should be able to sue a police cruiser itself.
Might be helpfull to get arround qualified immunity.
sue --> use ?
@PeterLawton no, civil asset forfeiture it is literally "US government vs " on the lawsuit
“Will the Supreme Court Finally Curb Civil Forfeiture?” No, Civil Asset Forfeiture, is too great of a revenue generator for government for the practice to ever be abolished.
Yep
Exactly.
The fact that they don't end the practice immediately is yet more proof the judicial system is a sick joke
Exactly
That in itself is a problem.
It is the bureaucrats peculiar institution.
What a ridiculous notion that we need the Supreme Court to decide whether property should be taken without due process that alllows the owner to contest the seizure!
I never see myself in this position, or any that would end up with civil forfeiture but I am sure everyone thinks that, until it happens. Best of luck!
Travel with cash and find out exactly how the highway robbers (in uniform with weapons and badges) will steal it 😂
You look criminally to me. Oops, you lose! That's literally the burden of proof.
Keep up the great work IJ! ❤
CITIZENS HAVE THE TOOLS TO MANDATE TO OUR GOVERNMENT THAT IJ PROCESSES WORK AS A RIGHT WHEN THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED IS USED TRUTHFULLY AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN LIFE TERM LIMITS.
Congress needs to write a law that where there was no underlying crime and a seizure took place, maintaining possession after 21 days would require just compensation.
Compensation+ 5% interest on the loan.
But who decides what just compensation is? The people taking the property......
@@kamilhorvat8290 That's a very defeatist attitude, if there is nothing you can do, why bother even talking about it.
So returning the cash but not the exact same cash. I hope you meant 21 hours.
@@kadengundersen498yes compounded daily.
Thanks for publishing this conversation. It is good to hear about the victories of those that are fighting for our rights.
Im happy to donate to IJ. What these people are doing is amazing.
SCOTUS has no idea what us little people are dealing with
They should be given a wakeup call.
And they don't care.
They do, they just don't care
They do, it is all a game
They do...and they flat out don't care...except for the money....the whole drug war, was to build a police state, and steal money.
Everyone, regardless of political ideology can agree this practice needs to be curtailed and totally reformed.
They don’t seize the Greyhound bus or an airliner when drugs are found why is business treated differently than private citizens ?
Corporations have more protections than individuals. It's crazzzzy.
Actually, there was a case where police seized an armored car and the cash from legal cannibis dispensaries in another state that was passing through a state where cannibis is not legal.
@@StarkRavenMad88 I don't know anything about it but I heard that people with all caps names are considered to be corporations.
🤔
They write the legislation.
They are considered a common carrier, by offering transport services to the public at large without discrimination, the legality of the cargo falls on the shipper and reciever rather than the carrier.
This has to end.
For many years all it would take is a stroke of the pen from politicians to stop this, yet thru all this time, they have chosen not to.
yeah, theyd rather keep fighting amongst themselves than do something to help any of us, or make more new laws to choke us
This needs to be a campaign issue.
Both parties are 100% for law enforcement to have absolute immunity from their bad deeds.
Highway robbery.
Quick uneducated question ... Has anyone tried to file RICO charges against these cities, County's and States?
Yes, I have vaguely heard of MANY people attempting to run RICO Crusades against all manner of institution, including ENTIRE local, municipal, and State government.
I've AGONIZED for over a decade about why none of these cases never go anywhere..... and the answer is as SIMPLE as it is DISAPPOINTING and OBVIOUS - Heck, you know this even before I say it. Please copy these points to a local storage device for future reference, because this is the result of YEARS of research and pondering, and this could serve your extremely well in future discussion about this topic:
The problem in prosecuting a "Rotten Government RICO" is fourfold.
1. In order to effectively prosecute such a large institution and body of people, you need a HUGE amount of human time and labor. Imaging the hundreds of thousands of pages of records you'd need to FIND, OBTAIN (getting blocked all the while), READ, CATEGORIZE, and DISTILL into "actionable evidence". The problem with this:
1a. If the local government does the investigation (which they're paradoxically allowed to do in most cases), then they'll obviously slow-pedal and stall the investigation to avoid consequences for themselves.
1b. Another government from a different area MAY not have those conflicts-of-interest..... but even so, why would another Town / City take on the burden of ANOTHER locality's investigation, especially if it's Tens-Of-Thousands-Of-Man-Hours of work?
1c. There is so much bureaucratic entanglement between Feds and local governments, that the Federal courts would not undertake these cases, for fear of implicating themselves / Federal Agencies..... and in order to avoid undermining many Judges' adherence to the "Federalism" ideological faction.
2. Due to inefficiency, embedded corruption, bureaucratic bloat, and Mission Drift / Disunity / Unprofessionalism, most localities are BARELY FUNCTIONING as it is. Many cities would simply SHUT DOWN - at least for a time - if an ENTIRE swath of its officials were to be removed. Now, this is ABSOLUTELY DOABLE.... tons of such officials are not actually critical to the functioning of said governments.... But the Average Populace does not know enough about the inner workings of their government to be assured that a catastrophic shutdown would not happen.... so the Townsfolk / Cityfolk would almost certainly be co-opted into OPPOSING any mass-prosecution along these grounds.
3. The truth of the matter is that most Americans are mentally and spiritually-degraded enough to not want to put in the effort - nor even acknowledge that there's a problem - to clean our their local governments. They simply live their lives day-by-day, and would rather surrender Freedom and Richness-Of-Life than "Patrol their Rights" to make sure that nothing is infringing upon those borders.
4. Vaguely similar to #1c.... Many judges do NOT want to set a precedent of multiple "officials" being fired or prosecuted all at once. There is an encroaching attitude of "Us and Them" / "Officials vs. Unwashed Peasants" in all levels of U.S. government, and even if done through all above-board legal proceedings, a successful RICO suit that CLEANED HOUSE of some city or small town would feel too much like "Vigilante Justice", and many people in the Judicial Branch are sympathetic to others in their same profession, and as such would decline to prosecute such a case.
They will not do crap about it!!
I love this group. Professionals and dedicated to protect citizens Austin’s the thievery of our repugnant, filthy and very criminal in-just-us criminals system
Can you imagine the people demanding their right to a JURY TRIAL? Too bad the government always finds itself RIGHT.
That’s exactly why they got rid of jury nullification. Not only was a jury supposed to judge the guilt or innocence of a defendant, they were also to judge the constitutionality of the law itself. Once again, those we have power turned on us.
@@fedupinOhio Thanks
In Oregon, one can literally lose their license over a municipal utility bill...
From there, one can lose their vehicle in several different ways, by not being able to register it, by actually driving it, by having it in your driveway or on your own property, and not being able to tag it...
All of these things are possible over an unpaid municipal utility bill.
They have a zillion different ways to take something from someone whether they have actually done anything to justify it.
The US Constitution expressly forbids any form of seizure without just compensation, civil conviction, or criminal conviction. The Constitution makes no exceptions. Why then do government agencies and the courts feel free to disobey the Constitution and justify the disobedience with word salad? The real problem here is the ability of the government to violate our rights, and our ability to accept the violations in the name of so called safety, the war on some contraband, or other con job excuses.
Straight corruption, plain and simple! We the little people don't have the funds to fight back, and they know it! Not without a true stand up ATTORNEY!
They say it's unfair that someone looses their car simply because someone allegedly did something wrong in their car. The scary thing is not even that is needed. They just say the car is guilty in some vague was and take it with no allege crime of any sort, not even minor infraction or misdemeanor. It boils down to "because we can, no reason or compensations needed".
It's wrong just because you went and bought some drugs it would be double jeopardy as you would be punished twice
@@patrickday4206 Double jeopardy is about winning a criminal trial and not being tried again for the same crime. It's not about punishment at all. Perhaps you're thinking of the 8th amendments protection against cruel and unusual punishment?
Say you get charged with robbery, the jury comes back a unanimous not guilty and you are acquitted.
At that point it's over. At that point they could have been gifted five different camera recordings of you doing the crime and DNA evidence and fingerprints and even your own public statements admitting the crime (never ever do this) and they cannot try you again for it. Mind you civil suits are not blocked by an acquittal, Just ask O.J. Simpson.
@@patrickday4206 Double jeopardy is about being tried twice. You cannot be twice charged and tried for the same crime. IF they find you not guilty it's over even you confess after that they don't get to try you again for that instance of that crime.
Being punished twice would most likely be 8th amendment territory (cruel and unusual punishment) or perhaps due process(5th) or search and seizure(4th) or even the takings clause (the government can take your property with good cause, say land to build a road or highway) however they must fairly compensate you (they don't 10 acres a dollar, or 1 acre and a 5000 sqft home for $500.
@@kaseyboles30 so you think you can be punished twice isn't that the rational of being tried twice? I call it trial by cop. When the government dispenses punishment there was a ruling even if unjust. The comic judge dread dealt with this concept I'm not saying that it can't ever be heard in court but like the cops in Newyork used their Billy clubs to rape a man involved with domestic violence call how can the state them proceed to punish him a second time? It is manifest injustice and if it is not just it's not law
@@patrickday4206 In full it's been held you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. so if you rob a store Tuesday and rob it again Wednesday that's two separate crimes.
However in the war on drugs we've seen cases where the state prosecuted on transporting drugs into their state and the feds prosecuting interstate transport of drugs for the same baggie of pot taken on the same trip and after the same singular arrest. They tried to argue one action one crime, but the courts back then (early 80's iirc)bout that it was two separate laws in two different jurisdiction and just because one action qualified under each that was two crimes. Then again I've know someone who got ticket twice on his way home after midnight because his plates had expired few hours earlier, ticked under two different local ordinances. The second received ticket was tossed for double jeopardy.
So there can debate on what's a separate crime or not. For a singular crime you can only be charged and tried once. And that includes the penalty phase. So I don't know how someone would be given two sentences for one crime or punished twice. What the federal law does is extend a punishment, or add to every penalty for a felony committed AFTER it passed. anything else would be ex-post -facto, not double jeopardy. they're not trying or sentencing you again in that case, they're applying a law change to actions you've already taken. It's like making people who've already paid a parking fine come back and pay another $50 because the fine is now higher.
You'd think that the court that claims that limiting government power and being strict interpreters of the Constitution are important would enthusiastically end this nonsense.
Exactly.
It's theft, and theft makes thieves.
Government appointed judges, get to decide, if the government can seize property.
Huh. Nothing wrong here, just look the other way.
AND let’s not forget this is implicitly condoned by both Democrat AND Republican governments, money in the bank has no political color.
It was created by the supreme court
There isn't a party for the citizens.
There isn't a separation of powers
very true, too many people get all caught up in party loyalty
@@jupitercyclops6521 correct, and people in the US are not free, we are subjects of the ruling party
@@robr4662
Yesir!
We the People
We can stop this 💩
They been robbing citizens since they made this b.s.law 1985 or so half the world is broken because of this i hope so but doubt it the real criminal empire doesn't care about its citizens when they have nothing else to be robbed of.
Thank you so much for what you do! Steve Letto gives you so much credit
Why would this SCOTUS do that?!?!
Thank you for your dedicated work towards this very important issue. Appreciate your work.
We don't need more laws! We need people to know the Constitution! Stop asking government for more power to protect you from them. You already HAVE that!
Take back the power FROM the government.
I was with the police department 20 years and I noticed the "interdiction" ( the ones who ceased everyone's cash ) teams got the best cars and equipment, alternatively, those who actually responded to disturbance calls and garden variety crime, got the worst cars you could imagine.
Invite a federal officer in the courtroom that is against CAF. Then ask one of the judges to empty their pockets of any cash. Then cease it in front of the entire court legally
Great exchange of the subject matter! Thank you all for sharing 😊❤ Thank you for your services rendered for the needy!❤🎉
How about we the people take the incentive out of this government sanctioned robbery. (1)When property is seized without a crime, the agency responsible for the asset theft, must pay a $1000/day fine to the victim until the stolen property is returned.
(2) if the property is seized in conjunction with a convicted crime, and the property is owned by the convicted, the asset must be liquidated within 30 days, and all proceeds directed to a fund to reduce the national debt.
(3) A federal constitutional and binding statute must be signed into law outlining the guidelines for state and federal asset forfeiture rules.
(4) A case created to govern the guidelines for any asset forfeiture be adopted by the US Supreme Court, which will quickly deny qualified immunity for offending public servants who engage in illegal asset forfeiture.
Unfortunately no lawmaker would ever take that up...Both parties already want to completely indemnify police as it is now...I could get behind this as a start but reeling in powers our government has currently is gonna take a different kind of action that involves pews....and I don't believe there's enough red-blooded American Patriots left in America to make that happen sadly! The America I grew up in and fought for is lost, never to return!
"to the contrary not withstanding". Thats it, so Do Not Comply
I J thank you so much for your interdiction on helping people who need it.
Ivory tower justice from the Supreme Court. "Just buy another car" while you wait because that's what they would do.
Stealing is stealing no matter who does it. In this case, felony grand theft.
Justice Thomas asked a question that didn't match up with the reality of justice system? Say it isn't so!
Government appointed judges deciding if the government can seize property. Nothing wrong here just look the other way.
My question is HOW this got by the lower courts???!!!
Waiting two years for anything to be filed is beyond the pale. There is supposed to a right to a fair and speedy trial. Yes I know they think this isn't a criminal thing so that doesn't apply. But I believe the underlying principle should.
Im learning new legal terms every episode. I absolutely love it.
IJ is doing the lords work.
Hopefully they will end this theft for good!
I won't hold my breath.
It’s not theft, it’s armed robbery
It would be faster and cheaper to forfeit a vehicle and then try to buy it back at auction.
What I would like the SCOTUS to do is address the notion that money and/or physical property can be seized without a criminal charge to the individual who possesses same let alone a conviction. Instead, they use an archaic loophole in the law that allows the seized object to be charged with criminal activity. This is simply absurd as inanimate object have no minds, ergo they neither commit crimes nor testify on their own behalf. If this provision in the law is done away with, you can nearly eliminate all erroneous civil asset forfeitures.
Civil asset forfeitures should be illegal as with Eminent Domain.
Thank you so much ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
SCOTUS is complicit in its support of "Civil Asset Forfeiture". SCOTUS needs major reform & the criminal Civil Asset Forfeiture needs to be outlawed and immediately removed from practice. It promotes "Police for Profit".
It seems that the courts, and frankly, even even the litigants, keep dodging the real issue. Instead of head-on asking the question and demanding an answer, is civil asset forfeiture wrong, and unconstitutional? Instead we get all these peripheral issues Can you do civil asset forfeiture if it's a left-handed person on a Tuesday call Emma Can you steal somebody's property if the stop was illegal, or Is the seizure and forfeiture of the property an excessive fine?
Thank you for all you do!!
Excellent !
Yeah, leave it to government to misuse a law.They would never do that
Unfortunately the courts are historically unlikely to do anything that might reduce revenue.
Thanks for all your hard work 😊
Clicked for Kim, stayed for IJ 😉
If I could do it all over again, knowing something like I.J. existed, I would've gone into Law.
Government needs to reimburse the costs incurred in successfully fighting a forfeiture action, even if the government drops the forfeiture prior to trial. This way attorneys will take these cases, knowing they will get paid and people will contest small forfeitures where the amount in question is less than the costs incurred litigating a forfeiture. Once attorneys start advertising for these cases and the government ends up in court defending thousands of actions and is out millions in costs the abuse will end.
In discussing costs, this video totally ignores the cost of the destruction of a car itself when just sitting for months.
I Love I J ❤❤❤❤❤
Keep on keeping on
Note to the editor: the pops are way to loud compared to the rest of the voice, this problem is magnified when wearing headphones. Love IJ and everything they do!
Here's an idea for a law...
Forfeiture can only take place with reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime by the person in possession of the asset, and a warrant must be issued to hold such asset. If cash is taken, the person must be given a receipt that is redeemable within 48 hours for the full amount. They can issue a certified check if they don't have the cash. Vehicles suspected of being involved in a crime can only be taken by warrant and must be held only until a verdict is reached and then IMMEDIATELY returned. Any and all personal items in the vehicle may be removed BY THE OWNER on site at the time of seizure in the presence of the officer. Alternate transportation MUST be provided for the person. No cash can be taken during a traffic stop without a warrant. No cash can be taken from someone in an airport AT ALL.
No assets can be used by the departments taking them. No kick backs are allowed from turning them over to the feds.
The disposition of any asset must be considered by a court within 48 hours. This includes weekends.
These rules might make it much less palatable to just steal.
I think a serious problem is that most of the truly outrageous cases never make it to higher courts. Once lawyers get involved the government entity involved gives in an moves on to other people who don't have legal representation. There needs to be a mechanism whereby a case that affects numerous people can be decided after it has become moot. Another example is the permanent punishment case you did a video on a month or three ago. Rather than actually deciding the case and making important changes to the system, the state simply pardoned the man and the case ended because he no longer had a problem.
History bends towards justice and freedom.
Only when the pendulum is swinging that way.
GR8 explanations of the CF problem
This "law" violates so many existing rights and statute and case laws...should have been challenged and adjudicated and dismissed as is some time ago. An injunction should have been proposed by our reps when the first complaints by innocent citizens occurred over a decade ago. Even DOJ should see this, not to mention the Inspector General . If lawmakers etc cant see and stop this, a citizen has the right to make citizens arrests for theft and constitutional rights violations...and that is exactly what thus citizen WILL do .
Working in a work camp I talked to someone who gave a friend a ride and his friend wanted to stop at a quick mart. The guy stole from the store without the guy giving a ride knowing about it. They have him 20 years as he gave him the ride.
If he got 20 years he got it for more than innocently driving some guy who "stole". Maybe armed robbery. And he didn't get it for innocently driving him, he got it because nobody believed he was innocent, and likely had no reason to. And you can bet it wasn't his first felony conviction.
That story sounds like the guy who claimed the police shot him for shoplifting, omitting the part where the police were called because he was shoplifting, then he resisted and fled, and he shot at the police while fleeing.
Civil Asset Forfeiture will be reformed when the nation follows Missouri's example and requires that the owner of the property be convicted of a relevant crime before the property can be seized under CAFTA.
6:25 From my gang stalking experience, THEY KNEW THEY WORE THAT SINGLED OUT TARGET DOWN. HARASSMENT AS A PROTOCOL IS EVIL IN ACTION.
No. Too much money for the government to let it go away
Government appointed judges deciding if the government can seize property. Nothing wrong here just look the other way.
A good start
Would there be grounds for litigation under the sixth amendment? Any delay could be construed as a civil rights violation.
Government appointed judges deciding if the government can seize property. Nothing wrong here just look the other way.
Let's hope they do!
Don't FORGET IMMINENT DOMAINE
👽
Institute for Justice is the EPITOME for JUSTICE to the defenseless.
God Bless.
WHOA! YUP! AGREED "IF THIS WAS NORTH KOREA" BUT THE FLAGRANT MISUSE OF THE REVEARED CONSTITUTION, THE FLAGRANT ABSURDITIES OF THAT SCOTUS' SELF SELECTIVE ON THEIR BUTT FELT, NOT CITIZEN CASES! AND THE ARROGANT DENIALS OF SCOTUS-JUSTICE' PURCHASES' FOR THE OLIGARCHY OF TYRANNY IS NOT THE SHINEY CITY ON THE HELL HOLE OF PRIDE IN GENERAL CITIZENS' LIVES.
How are these agencies not in a direct conflict of interest?
@0:08 FYI ~ It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture, not Civil Forfeiture....
12:19 I've been around long enough to understand the massive difference between "capitalism" as a "problem," versus naked corruption and the lies justifying it.
Keep it up
Thank you for all you do---Please put effort into exposing violations of the Second Amendment rights.
How can you punish someone by seizing their property if you can not prove they have commited a crime?
Spirit of the law! What did the founders intend? Is what we have that? I don't think so.
It's even more difficult when they steal your money and all they have to do is say, "I think this money is ill gotten gain."