Civil Asset Forfeiture; none of us are safe from our property being taken

[CrazyIvan]

This is gonna be a long post, but it all links to our gun rights and our rights in general.

I've been listening to Tom Martino today. Tom Martino is a consumer advocate who is nationally renound for defending rights of citizens, both in business, civil rights, against government, etc. He is based here in Denver, CO. He is responsible for recovery of millions of dollars every year. He isn't affraid, however, to tell someone they are wrong, if they are wrong. If someone calls & complains about being charged fraudulently, and he believes they are wrong in that complaint, he will tell them.

Tom Martino deals with many different issues, from civil, to criminal, to governmental, to just talking about issues such as illegal immigration, etc... After Columbine, he had a psychiatrist on his show and pretty much held a call-in for questions, concerns, etc...

If you are interested in listening to him, you can find his show, live-casted for free through the radio website. No sign ups or anything, just click "Listen". You can hear him between 9:00 am and Noon MST at www.KHOW.com

Onto my issue here.

Today he got a call about someone who was sitting in a truck at a gas station and was approached by an undercover police woman posing as a prostitute. He did not solicite the prostitute, but he did talk to her. They arrested him and confiscated his vehicle. Charges were dropped, he was not taken to court, all because he never actually solicited the prostitute. But, they kept his vehicle. This law is called "Civil-Asset Forfeiture" and is a nationwide law.

Civil-Asset Forfeiture is basically saying that the government can deem property or inanimate objects "GUILTY" at will. Because property has no Civil Rights, it can not be defended. Property has no rights to a fair trial, or a trial at all. Every right we, as human beings, enjoy in this nation are null and void when it comes to property and assets.

Other people have been calling into the show today and writing him emails that they had the same thing happen.

I am guessing this is the law used to confiscate guns in the aftermath of Katrina. This is what they used to take the guns from that guys shed, which was a thread here a few days ago. They were talking on the show that if you are found to have marijuana in your house, legally or illegally, they can even confiscate your home, and you will never get it back. There is no legal ramifications for them doing this. There is no fight you can bring to them. Even if they falsely arrest you, they can take your property and never get it back. If you are acquitted of all charges, and your record cleared, they can take your property and assets. A guy called into the show. His friend was driving a new mustang, all tricked out, and had $75k in cash in the glovebox. He was pulled over for speeding. They comfiscated his vehicle and the $75,000. He is still fighting 7 years later to get reimbursed for his losses. They only have to have a belief that the property was being used for illegal activity, there need be no proof or conviction that their belief was true.

Finding this out really scares the h3ll out of me.

Check this website for a bit more detail of Civil-Asset Forfeiture:

Civil Asset Forfeiture

P.S. You can also download the podcasts/audio of Tom Martino's show from www.khow.com. You do need to set up an account to do that, but I would recommend it just to hear the story of this B.S. thing called Civil-Asset Forfeiture.

[ezearln]

Maybe so but I think this is also called taking without due process, Civil Asset forfiture is simply theft under an at best dubious law.

[samuel]

That law was based on an old English law that was enacted about the time Robin Hood was running around poaching the kings deer.When our politicians were working on drug laws they followed this old old English law to confiscate property from drug dealers.The worst of it is when they confiscate your money(any account or monitary valuables)and your property you have to take them to court but they have all the money you need to hire an attourney and go through the system. sam.

[CrazyIvan]

Sam, that is the problem. You CAN'T take them to court. The law allows them to consider property as an autonomous object. But, because they have no Civil Rights or Rights in general...you can not go to court. The government is immune to such civil action.

[ezearln]

I find that hard to believe CI, if your property is seized because you are "Suspected" of committing a crime and the charges are later found to be unwarranted or false and you are either never charged or the charges are dismissed as without merit, then the States (governments) refusal to return your rightfully possessed property amounts to "The Governments TAKING without due process of Law" an act specifically forbidden under the Constituition of the United States a violation in and of itself of Federal Law.

[Pred]

I think what I'm about to talk about, is what your talking about. Our government just passed a law saying that, something like any businesses or people who have ties to terrorists(money, training, ANYTHING) can have everything the own seized. This is what I've heard, maybe this is something new. However, the problem I have with laws like this, the Patriot act, wire tapping, is true, they are SUPPOSED to be used to keep us safe. However, anyone can be subject to it, and anyone who is, has their rights thrown out the window because somebody behind a desk said so, thats my problem with it.

[CrazyIvan]

Originally Posted by ezearln

I find that hard to believe CI, if your property is seized because you are "Suspected" of committing a crime and the charges are later found to be unwarranted or false and you are either never charged or the charges are dismissed as without merit, then the States (governments) refusal to return your rightfully possessed property amounts to "The Governments TAKING without due process of Law" an act specifically forbidden under the Constituition of the United States a violation in and of itself of Federal Law.

Download the podcast of the radio show, and listen. There are numerous examples, and people who have tried to take this to court. There is no recourse. Trust me, I am in as much disbelief as you...but it is true.

Even if you do try to take them to court...you show up, but the govt. defender does not. You may or may not get a judgement, probably not...but then how do you collect? No one is going to MAKE the govt. pay you. The govt. will say they did not show up because under this law, you have no right to bring them to trial.

[ezearln]

Seems to me the 5th Ammendment forbids this CI, now how I wonder did they get past that?

5th Ammendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

[CrazyIvan]

eZ, I get it. And, I agree. But under this Civil-Asset Confiscation, they deem your property an entity separate of their owner, separate from you. It becomes an entity unto itself.

Basically they are saying that the property commited a crime. But then because it is not a sentient being, it has no rights to a trial.

I agree, I am confused, but it is happening, and I don't know exactly how.

[ezearln]

Seems to be a whole lot of "creative" legaleze going on that common sense would rule out think it's far past time this nonsense was reined in and those responsible taken for a lengthy visit to the woodshed for their complicity..

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by ezearln

Seems to be a whole lot of "creative" legaleze going on that common sense would rule out think it's far past time this nonsense was reined in and those responsible taken for a lengthy visit to the woodshed for their complicity..

It annoys me, too. The fifth amendment seems clear enough for me. The legaleze you speak of is all too common. Too much is legal but, not moral. Those who use it for their own gain deserve the sword. That hoe in the parking lot should have been slammed under those 10 hundred twenty tires. Beach!

[Rave]

"The gummint givith(mostly grief,)
and the gummint taketh away(mostly our money and our rights.)"
They do that because that's our little scrap of power.
It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Sad, but, true.....

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by ezearln

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

That is the relevant part that should be part of the equation. I have long decried that same problem here in NC. The local sheriff's department loves to do traffic stops along I-95. We are almost exactly half way between Miami and NYC. That means that we are a popular drug trade area and stop off point. Constantly, we read about traffic stops that lead to drug busts or large amounts of money being confiscated. There may be absolutely no evidence that a crime is or was committed, but the presence of cash is enough to get it confiscated under the assumption that it was obtained illegally. Drug rings are not going to complain to a judge that their drug money was taken by local cops. What is even worse is that our state law requires that said money and property be used to fund schools. The sheriff's department instead calls in the FBI, turns over everything to them. Then the FBI takes a cut and turns the rest back over to the sheriff's department, filling their bank account under federal law instead of the state's guidelines. Basically, law enforcement is short cutting schools with money that is taken without evidence of the commission of any crime.

[Pred]

Ok, now I'm getting really worried:

The President of the United States today just made a new Executive order, allowing the government to hold, freeze, and take all property and financial assets of any group, individual, or company whom they feel are undermining the reconstruction efforts of Iraq.

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

... all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

So, if somebody protested, didn't our president say that strengthens the resolve of our enemies, therefore threatens the peace of Iraq? I also just read that Sen DeFazio? asked to look at the White Houses plans for how it would operate if another terrorists attack to place. He also sits on the Homeland Security board/committee, and should have access to this type of info. He was denied, and no explanation was given.

[CrazyIvan]

This is becoming more of a Dictatorship every day, isn't it?

Quote:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George Bush, During his first trip to Washington as President-Elect, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

[Rave]

Originally Posted by CrazyIvan

This is becoming more of a Dictatorship every day, isn't it?
Quote:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George Bush, During his first trip to Washington as President-Elect, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

Looks like his dream has come true

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by CrazyIvan

This is becoming more of a Dictatorship every day, isn't it?
Quote:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George Bush, During his first trip to Washington as President-Elect, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

I remember I used a term to discribe bush and was rebuked for it! Imagine that, folks that disagree with me! Hard to imagine but, they are out there. Guess my discription of bush wasn't so far off, was it? If he offers you a shower or a free ride in a rail car, better say no thanks dude.

[Rave]

If,when watching him,you really pay attention to his mannerisms and what he says you, too,will find him as scarry as I do!

[ArkansasHunter]

Sure makes you wonder what all this is leading too ! I'm eager to see what the next President does with some of Bush's retorrick laws an idea's. Will the newly elected President leave them in place or sh1t can them ?
I'll worry then if no changes are made...

Personaly I don't disagree with "some" of Bushs Homeland security stuff because of the damage and loss of human life these terrorist can bring on this country.
Our goverment needs to take all the measures it can to protect us and our property.
With that said I'm concerned about a person's property being taken away,
I have a serious problem with that !
If they want to tap my telephone I could care less. If they want to see what I'm doing on my computer bring it on, I have nothing to hide.

But if they come kicking in my door because of something I said or typed on my computer then I promise this half Hilbily will at least remove a few teeth and smash some nose's before they shoot me, pepper spray me or what ever, but how likely is that going to happen...A.H