• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court delivers a blow to asset forfeiture.

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Courts can no longer impoverish people so they can't afford competent lawyers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/u...-freezing-assets-not-tied-to-crimes.html?_r=0

While a victory for defendants, it doesn't specifically address the more commonly known problem of roadside piracy by police, but it does say the government cannot seize "untainted" assets unconnected with a crime. So this could also be a blow to that kind of asset forfeiture as well, since currently police can seize assets without any justification or conviction of a crime, and they don't even need to prove that a crime was committed.

So it doesn't directly address all the problems with asset forfeiture, but it does give civil rights organizations some ammunition to fight it.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I liked......
The crucial point, Justice Breyer wrote, is that the right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, while the government’s interest in recovering money is merely important.
“Despite their importance, compared to the right to counsel of choice, these interests would seem to lie somewhat further from the heart of a fair, effective criminal justice system,” he wrote.
Even more, I liked....
Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the plurality but did not adopt what he called its balancing approach. If the right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, he said, it cannot be weighed against other interests.

I disliked......
“The true winners today,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “are sophisticated criminals who know how to make criminal proceeds look untainted.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said she found the court’s 1989 Monsanto decision troubling. But she said that decision required ruling against Ms. Luis rather than drawing artificial distinctions.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Alas, theft by government goes on....
Immigrant says US agents seized life savings at airport

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — A U.S. citizen who immigrated from Albania has accused U.S. Customs and Border Protection of seizing and keeping his life savings of $58,000 even though he has not been charged with a crime since being strip-searched at an airport last year on a trip back to his native country.

A lawsuit filed against the agency said it missed an April deadline either to return the money or start criminal proceedings. It says 64-year-old Rustem Kazazi was carrying the cash because he wanted to avoid transaction fees and thought it would be safer than trying to withdraw large sums of money in Albania, where he planned to repair a family home and was considering buying a vacation home.

Attorneys for Kazazi, who lives in suburban Cleveland, said the airport seizure highlights a practice civil rights groups have criticized for years — the government's use of civil forfeitures that allows law enforcement to take possessions without indictments or evidence a crime has been committed.

Opponents argue it opens the door for constitutional rights violations.

The Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which is handling the lawsuit filed last week, has previously sued Customs and Border Protection in two forfeiture cases in Texas, including one against a Houston-area nurse traveling to Nigeria to build a medical clinic.

In both instances after the lawsuits were filed, the agency returned the money and property without bringing charges.

"We should be convicting people of crimes before we strip them of their property — at a minimum they should first be charged," said Wesley Hottot, an attorney with the organization. "This is an un-American law enforcement tool."

A spokesman for the Customs and Border Protection said the agency doesn't comment on pending lawsuits.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has defended his agency's civil asset forfeiture program, which the Justice Department sees as a way to strip suspects of the proceeds of their activities, to deter crime and to compensate crime victims.

But the department's inspector general found weaknesses in the program. It said the department doesn't collect enough data to determine whether the seizures benefit criminal investigations or the extent to which they infringe on civil liberties, according to a report released last year.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2015 restricted the ability of the federal government to take possession of assets seized by local authorities amid concerns that property could be seized without judicial oversight and without the owner ever being charged with a crime.

Kazazi was a police officer before moving with his family to the Cleveland area in 2005. His limited use of English restricted him to jobs such as a parking lot attendant or busboy, often working two or three at a time, the lawsuit said. His wife taught English classes for immigrants. Their son also worked and contributed to the savings, it said.

The airport seizure took place last October when Kazazi was traveling to Albania.

A Transportation Security Administration agent spotted the stacks of $100 bills Kazazi had stuffed into envelopes before boarding his first flight to New Jersey. Kazazi was pulled aside into a private room at the Cleveland airport and strip-searched, the lawsuit said.

He said Customs and Border Protection agents wouldn't provide him with an interpreter or allow him to call his family even though he had trouble understanding their questions.

They then seized the $58,000 without explanation but did not arrest him before allowing him to continue on the trip, he said in the lawsuit.

A month later, he received a notice that said the money was involved in a "smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation," the lawsuit said.

Kazazi's attorney called those allegations baseless, emphasizing that no charges have been filed in more than seven months.

The family has bank records and other documents that prove they saved their money from jobs they held lawfully in the U.S., the lawsuit said.

Passengers carrying more than $10,000 into or outside of the U.S. are required to fill out a report or risk a fine or forfeiture. Kazazi knew about the rule, his attorney said, and had planned to submit the forms before his next flight left New Jersey for Germany.

The Institute for Justice, in a separate lawsuit, is seeking to obtain more information about how often and how much the government uses civil forfeitures.

"No one knows in any detail how often this happens except the government," Hottot said. "And the government doesn't make this public."
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Progress in CA....
Nevada Supreme Court Rules Govt. Officials Can Be Sued for Violation of Constitutional Rights
Excerpted...
(December 29, 2022) Today, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that people may sue government officials for monetary damages when their rights under the Nevada Constitution have been violated.

The Institute for Justice (IJ), a non-profit law firm that defends property rights nationwide, participated in the oral argument today in Mack v. Williams, because the outcome impacts the case of Marine veteran Stephen Lara.

Stephen had his life savings seized from him during a February 2021 traffic stop by the Nevada Highway Patrol, according to the Institute.

The Institute says Nevada Highway Patrol (now known as Nevada State Police) officers interrogated Stephen and took $87,000 in cash without arresting him or charging him with a crime.



Cops stole all but small change, leaving them destitute
& stranded, & having to have money sent from relatives
so they could continue driving.
Let officials & cops be personally sued for damages
for this (literally) highway robbery.
And never answer cops' questions about having
guns, drugs, money, etc. It will be used against you.
To this veteran, it was essentially....
" **** you for your service"

 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
@Shadow Wolf...
Now the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that
plaintiffs who had property stolen from them
by cops are entitled to a jury trial.
Previous to this, the plaintiffs had to prove the
asset (usually money) is innocent (no jury).
Oh, this will be interesting, as jurors angered
by a thieving police state will rule for the
victims....hopefully awarding damages, &
costing government a lot of money.


For anyone wanting a video....
 

JIMMY12345

Active Member
Courts can no longer impoverish people so they can't afford competent lawyers.
Supreme Court Rules Against Freezing Assets Not Tied to Crimes (Published 2016)

While a victory for defendants, it doesn't specifically address the more commonly known problem of roadside piracy by police, but it does say the government cannot seize "untainted" assets unconnected with a crime. So this could also be a blow to that kind of asset forfeiture as well, since currently police can seize assets without any justification or conviction of a crime, and they don't even need to prove that a crime was committed.

So it doesn't directly address all the problems with asset forfeiture, but it does give civil rights organizations some ammunition to fight it.
Any implications for the case of the recent/opioid drug company ?.Assets are help in Trusts overseas.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Courts can no longer impoverish people so they can't afford competent lawyers.
Supreme Court Rules Against Freezing Assets Not Tied to Crimes (Published 2016)

While a victory for defendants, it doesn't specifically address the more commonly known problem of roadside piracy by police, but it does say the government cannot seize "untainted" assets unconnected with a crime. So this could also be a blow to that kind of asset forfeiture as well, since currently police can seize assets without any justification or conviction of a crime, and they don't even need to prove that a crime was committed.

So it doesn't directly address all the problems with asset forfeiture, but it does give civil rights organizations some ammunition to fight it.
Then walks in the monster called eminent domain.
 
Top