Jeff Sessions: Feds Have the Right to Seize Your Cash, Property
Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 8 months ago to Government
A decade ago, only a handful of astute people realized that this confusing-sounding policy was a scam. Today that knowledge has spread, helped along by fun facts, like more money was taken through asset forfeiture in 2014 than burglary (some $5 billion total). Those startling numbers, along with the desire to see police cleaned up in general, has made forfeiture reform popular indeed, with 84 percent of Americans now saying they want to see the practice ended altogether.
Yes, a drug dealer might be carrying $15,000 in cash. So might an antiques-buyer, a car-buyer, a horse trader, a would-be business owner, or lots of other people who shouldn’t have to go to court to get their money back.
Yes, a drug dealer might be carrying $15,000 in cash. So might an antiques-buyer, a car-buyer, a horse trader, a would-be business owner, or lots of other people who shouldn’t have to go to court to get their money back.
The people who hold power in DC are rotten to the core. Dem or GOP (or any other) alignment does not convey innocence. The record of betrayal is filled with liars and looters from both major parties. I agree that this is another example.
Particularly galling was this site calls itself Conservative and contained this sentence "The controversial process in which police can not only seize property like cars and cash they suspect are connected to a crime, but profit from it too, was gently restricted at the federal level by former-Obama Attorney General Eric Holder. " "gently restricted" ??? As if Holder was John Locke reborn in his enthusiasm for Individual Rights.
Yeah, progressively fascist Gentle Eric was all about (choke! gag! ack! ack!) gently restricting stuff~
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
I'm calling a worse-than-average ideology that makes someone support gov't takings a "bad apple". That's a glib name for it, but I can't think of a better one this moment. I think this explanation for expansion of government powers holds sway because politicians have opponents with an obvious motivation to blame other politicians and say "if we just elected the right people," the problems would go away. They have a reason to say they are running for office based on ideology.
It seems to me that none of this is real. People in power taking other people's stuff is an emergent property that happens if there is not a system to limit it.
As for explaining that policy continuing, that's simple. Sessions freaking wants it.
From what I've heard and read in the news, Sessions may not be around for long.
It appears Trump is trying to psychological nudge him toward a voluntary resignation.
But me dino could be wrong . . .
By the way~speaking of bad apples?~IMO, both Holder and the former Traitor-In-Chief belong behind bars along with Lynch, Lerner, the Evil Hag and a bunch of other aiding and abetting socialist control freak jackasses.
What you wrote above got my old dino brain thinking and looking around. This link directed my attention to the Tenth Amendment~
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legis...
Please, prove me wrong. I really want you to.
The concept of a family losing a not hardly paid for brand new car because their sneaky teenage brat got caught by the law smoking dope in it turns my stomach.
I've read of entire homes being confiscated like that.
This should also apply to federal law because this is federal law telling the states what to do.
Or am I wrong? I wouldn't ask King Barry that question, since he once described the Constitution as a list of negatives or something akin to that.
1) The ballot box
2) An Article V convention
3) About 12% of borrowers and taxpayers withholding payments and taxes
4) Armed revolution
Can you think of any other ways?
1. Soap
2. Ballot
3. Jury
4. Ammunition
... and this is the order they should be used in.
A relative started a good job back in the early 1970s. Every week on pay day he took a $100 bill and stuffed it in a big glass 5 gallon water jug. After 20 + years the jug was full and he decided the cash had to be in the bank. Over $100,000 and you don't want to know the crap he went through.
Well, the consistent behavior of all government peoples to use power for their pet programs has been demonstrated again.
Today our dilemmas, and arguable issues, are only compounded by ignoring the laws, ignoring the laws we don’t like. If we can do that, then we might as well not have the laws in the first place. We need to demand that the laws are enforced or change them. This is what I fought for, not for just personal opinion on our laws.
And it shows enormous disregard for the principle of objective law in determining who is guilty of what and what knowledge or means they had to fight back. Who knows how many of those alleged 86% were 'guilty' of anything more than some tangential 'crime' against laws and definitions used to ensnare people (like the phony money transaction "structuring" laws or the maze of tax rules) as a way of getting who and what the government wants when it can't do it objectively.
From those two statist premises they have rationalized the stance that they should have and use enormous arbitrary government powers because they have accumulated what they claim is an 86% hit rate against those whom the government claims are guilty, and nothing else is supposed to matter. It's the essence of circular, politically self-serving propaganda for arbitrary government power.