Civil asset forfeiture is just theft by the government

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by The Other David, Sep 13, 2017.

  1. The_Duck_Master

    The_Duck_Master Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,373
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    I know you're not disagreeing but this requires repeating... the constitution should not be forfeit for the sake of convenience or expedience.
    I expect there have at least been charges?

    I don't argue they need to wait until conviction, but that charges are a minimum if you know who's property it is.
     
  2. boodog

    boodog Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    679
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Location:
    e-burg, wa.
    I'll argue that pre- conviction seizure is acceptable, but pre- conviction forfeiture is not and should never be.
     
  3. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,510
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    That is where abuse is taking place. Sieze it nit forfeiture should occur only on conviction. How far that can go can be deep.
     
  4. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,725
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    Thank you for interjecting a little common sense.

    Now - time to head out to the back yard burn barrel to keep destroying any and all known copies of the United States Constitution!
     
  5. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,725
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    More common sense. Go figure.
     
  6. Michael

    Michael Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,321
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2000
    Location:
    Paradise/Hermosa Beach, Ca.

    I agree with this...^^
     
  7. The_Duck_Master

    The_Duck_Master Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,373
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    It is obviously more complicated than that or this guy wouldn't be in the situation he is. The guy was never arrested, never charged and never convicted but it's OK for them to seize his property and hold until??? How long are they allowed to hold onto it until they decide it is no longer seized but is now forfeit? The guy has been making payments on the truck for 2 years.
     
  8. boodog

    boodog Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    679
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Location:
    e-burg, wa.
    If assets are seized through the civil process the burden of proof is substantially less than if seized per criminal proceedings. The burden of proof in a civil forfeiture case is 'preponderance of evidence' which means it has to be more likely than not that the targeted individual is guilty of a crime for seizure and forfeiture purposes. In criminal law the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' which is a much heavier burden of proof. That's why civil seizure and forfeiture laws were enacted-to lessen the burden of proof and make it easier for the government to take your property. Also, in civil cases the burden can shift to a party to prove he didn't do something he is accused of (which means a defendant has to prove a negative-extremely hard to do)-in criminal law the burden is always on the the government-it never shifts. However, to your statement, if assets are seized the defendant has no access to them pending the trial so he can't liquidate them. Civil forfeiture is government overreach at its worst IMO.
     
  9. stevena198301

    stevena198301 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,397
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Location:
    HSV, Alabama
    :clap I agree, it is overreach. Sucks all around.
     

Share This Page