Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • 5
    Posted by Zenphamy 12 years ago
    This has to be one of the most damaging SCOTUS decisions to the individual in favor of the state. The VI Amendment guarantees the right to the assistance of counsel for a fair trial. Yet SCOTUS continues to whittle away at that right and the right to Due Process for property right seizure. It leaves the accused with the least able counsel available, those that primarily work within the plea bargain system that the courts like.

    There are very few people that can truly afford the counsel of their choice and for those that can, SCOTUS allows the state to prevent that choice. There is no longer an innocent till proven guilty right in this country.

    It's an atrocity.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • 3
      Posted by gonzo309 12 years ago
      It's leading law enforcement to wrongfully accuse someone of a crime so they can confiscate the assets as an incentive to increase arrests and fill public-private prisons.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 1
        Posted by teri-amborn 12 years ago
        Yes. We have now become a nation where the government isn't for the protection of the innocent. Now government is here to create criminals in order to justify government interference in the lives of the citizenry.

        Government is established to protect against (all) trespassing ... not to create trespassing in order to justify the existence of government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 3
    Posted by $ Thoritsu 12 years ago
    Astonishing that this passed scrutiny. Have no idea what put the Government gets to seize anything until proven guilty, but it is obviously another step into (not toward) a police state.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by spark- 12 years ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VdRWybmx...

    Civil forfeiture is legal in most of Canada, but its use seems to be less prevalent than in the US. I've seen it used mostly for drug busts up here. Karen Selick speaks about the Bruce Montague case, but also addresses civil forfeiture in this video.

    It seems that the best of intentions are always presented when our rights are infringed, and the govt always abuses its power. The US government is supposed to be the protector of our individual liberty, but it seems that now the system spends every resource it has to circumvent the constitution rather than enforce it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • 1
    Posted by Robbie53024 12 years ago
    In a situation where there might be compensable damages, I could see a need to place assets in escrow so that they couldn't be totally depleted before any judgment on damages to be awarded. In such a case, the defense lawyers would be 2nd in line behind the injured party.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by $ blarman 12 years ago
    Very, very dangerous and more likely than not to be abused. The part that wasn't addressed in the article is how long it takes to get assets returned even after a failure to convict. Trials and appeals can take years and the assets remain frozen the entire time and for months afterward during the custody battle.

    This is a very bad precedent to set.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo