I do see some legitimacy in civil forfeiture, but the guidelines need to be tight. 30 days and if no charges, return. Immediate return in any acquittal, hung jury, or mistrial.

(12-08-2021 08:08 AM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(12-08-2021 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If your selling you car to private individual---are you going to take a check? That means your buyer will need to carry a large amount of cash. Thats just one of many reasons one might carry more than $10K in cash.

I've always used a cashiers check when purchasing a car. Bringing a pile of cash just seemed like a good way to get robbed.

When I got into classic car market I quickly learned most people want cash. As soon as the banks get involved there is a paper trail for the IRS to latch on to.

They take your money. They do not even have to charge you with a crime, and now you don’t have money to hire a lawyer to get your money back. Get out of here with that. If the government wants to seize someone’s money, make them get it through our criminal justice system.

(12-08-2021 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I do not favor civil forfeiture until there is a conviction.

That’s where I’m at. Civil forfeiture under current laws assumes guilt of a crime without any substantial proof. In fact, it requires no proof at all—the possession of the cash itself is the crime. That runs counter to the philosophy of our entire justice process. Given that the banking system is a private enterprise—-why is the government requiring one to utilize a private service to store ones wealth? It’s none of their business.

This is a body cam video in which a decent law abiding combat veteran is essentially robbed of his life savings by the Nevada Highway Patrol partnering with the DEA. They leave him broke in the middle of nowhere with no money. Absolutely despicable. Fortunately, a public service law organization took his case and got his money back---making him one of the luckier victims of this scam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs

(12-08-2021 08:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2021 07:28 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-07-2021 10:34 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Throughout history, it’s forever been some guy stealing someone else’s stuff……..with a spear, an ax, a gun…..or some government rule/law allowing it. It’s the horseshit kings and nobles used to do - now it’s government bureaucrats.

^^^

this boys and gals.....every single bit(coin) of it....

1. If you opened a safe deposit box after 2001 you can't keep but $5000 in cash, precious metals or jewels in it and the government now has the right to inspect your box.

2. You can't have more than $5,000 on your person, in your vehicle, and drum roll please, in your home.

3. What they accuse you of if you do have more is being a potential terrorist which leaves them the right to detain you for any duration.

4. Crypto currency will have value until by law it has none. Trade at your own risk but realize it is riskier than fiat currency on any day, and fiat currency is risky. Crypto is allowed to exist because it leaches the values of precious metals and that suppresses inflation flags (which is what precious metal trades indicate in spades).

5. The big push is toward digital currency. Why? That finally gives any state complete power over citizens. Do anything, lawful or not, which the state doesn't like and via computer your funds are frozen. No currency, precious metals, jewels, etc, and you starve, literally. You can't travel. And they pick you up, seize any other property you have and you disappear.

6. Currency and barter is what funded all resistance to tyranny throughout history.

7. No vaccine, no access to your cash.

8. Money in your hand equals freedom. Carrying electronic devices which can be hacked has permitted more theft than has ever occurred in history and lying muthas in government insist it is safer. Why? They always know where you are so it's safer for them and the crooks they sanction. And it's much easier for them to take everything you own.

9. Anyone or entity that asks you to give up physical wealth intends to enslave you.

Never, ever, forget that!

Its a high speed railway straight to the mark.

You can't enforce the mark with thriving small businesses everywhere coupled with cash and coin currency scattered amongst the common folk. It would make it meaningless.

Thus they have to work to eliminate those basic freedoms. Its the ultimate seizure of power in our society.

The Yearning For Zion Ranch in Texas, former home of the FLDS members was seized by the State of Texas. It was valued at almost $20 million. The reason Texas gave was that the property facilitated a crime. I barely know if any of the charges stuck. But the seizure sure did.

I don't like wiping out $20 million of a churches assets because something happened on their property. Charge the people who did the crime, fine. But this does not sit well with me. Something shady about government having that power.

Anyone else know they never got the property back? I was shocked.

(12-09-2021 02:17 PM)Todor Wrote:  The Yearning For Zion Ranch in Texas, former home of the FLDS members was seized by the State of Texas. It was valued at almost $20 million. The reason Texas gave was that the property facilitated a crime. I barely know if any of the charges stuck. But the seizure sure did.

I don't like wiping out $20 million of a churches assets because something happened on their property. Charge the people who did the crime, fine. But this does not sit well with me. Something shady about government having that power.

Anyone else know they never got the property back? I was shocked.

I would think the Constitutional issues involved with the government seizing church assets would be a huge legal problem. If the church hasnt regained control of their property---I'd guess its probably due to an inability to afford the legal help needed to fight for it rather than having actually lost a legal battle.

(12-09-2021 02:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the church hasn't regained control of their property---I'd guess its probably due to an inability to afford the legal help needed to fight for it rather than having actually lost a legal battle.

That's actually one of the justifications often given for asset seizure--so that the defendant won't be able to afford legal help. Somehow that seems unconstitutional on its face, in addition to the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

You get a conviction, asset forfeiture can be one of the punishments. But no forfeiture until final conviction.

(12-09-2021 04:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2021 02:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the church hasn't regained control of their property---I'd guess its probably due to an inability to afford the legal help needed to fight for it rather than having actually lost a legal battle.

That's actually one of the justifications often given for asset seizure--so that the defendant won't be able to afford legal help. Somehow that seems unconstitutional on its face, in addition to the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

You get a conviction, asset forfeiture can be one of the punishments. But no forfeiture until final conviction.

I'll admit to not knowing much about this area of the law and what Im finding out is pretty disturbing. I think if it became widely known by the general public how badly this area of the law was being abused---the public would demand reform of the civil forfeiture statutes.

The more I read about this ranch the more its annoying me. I know I'm a day late to the story of the seizure, but I followed the story of the raid and know way more about the polygamist groups and LDS in general than most.

In this article it says the ranch was valued at over $34 on the tax rolls (I readn$20 million earlier). It had its own water treatment plant, 40 buildings for hundreds and hundreds of people to live in, shops, small factories, and many other income generating enterprises.

https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2...040284002/

So, the state hired a caretaker who maintained it using inmate labor until it was sold for just $4 million.

It just seems incredibly unjust seeing as though it was not owned by a person who was guilty of something, but by a group who had a MEMBER (even if he was the leader) who was accused of things. And even though he is in prison, I don't know that anything he was found guilty of happened at this property, or how that would even matter.

I know the FLDS doesn't get much sympathy from anyone, but that's always how it starts. Set the precedent on someone who few will speak up for... Bad policy, bad precedent IMO.

(12-09-2021 09:11 PM)Todor Wrote:  The more I read about this ranch the more its annoying me. I know I'm a day late to the story of the seizure, but I followed the story of the raid and know way more about the polygamist groups and LDS in general than most.

In this article it says the ranch was valued at over $34 on the tax rolls (I readn$20 million earlier). It had its own water treatment plant, 40 buildings for hundreds and hundreds of people to live in, shops, small factories, and many other income generating enterprises.

https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2...040284002/

So, the state hired a caretaker who maintained it using inmate labor until it was sold for just $4 million.

It just seems incredibly unjust seeing as though it was not owned by a person who was guilty of something, but by a group who had a MEMBER (even if he was the leader) who was accused of things. And even though he is in prison, I don't know that anything he was found guilty of happened at this property, or how that would even matter.

I know the FLDS doesn't get much sympathy from anyone, but that's always how it starts. Set the precedent on someone who few will speak up for... Bad policy, bad precedent IMO.

The ranch is a little different than these other cases. The ranch wasn't seized until a year after Jeffs was convicted and the Texas AG made a strong point that the entire property was setup so that they could commit crimes away from the eyes of the public. The entire community was setup to commit systemic child abuse whether they believe that's what they were doing or not.

(12-08-2021 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If your selling you car to private individual---are you going to take a check? That means your buyer will need to carry a large amount of cash. Thats just one of many reasons one might carry more than $10K in cash.

Yep and for contractors like myself some people like ti pay cash. I’ve had people give me a bag with 8-10k in it a few times. Always nervous carrying that kind of cash both because of criminals and cops.