Jeff Session is so out of touch...

It's legal highway robbery by these govt pigs

They don't. Property is only seized if there is a connection with an illegal transaction. I don't have much sympathy for a thief. Especially if he is ripping people off and his illegal activities are the sole means of income to finance a lavish lifestyle.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

From DRUG dealers and smugglers, not general folk. BUT imo for any asset seziure, there should be a conviction, NOT just an arrest with no charge.. Originally Posted by garhkal

unless the police have evidence of an "illegal" transaction, the money or property should be returned to the owner or not seized.

unless the police have evidence of an "illegal" transaction, the money or property should be returned to the owner or not seized. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Were not talking about theft in this case. Unless the fraud is selling or promising a financial return on an investment that is bogus. Those that are swindled out of their money are compensated for their loss. Drug and illegal gun dealers on the other hand are obtaining property legally but the funds used to obtain that property are from illegal means. The property seized, depending on the jurisdiction is sold through Sheriff sales ect. Sometimes Law Enforcement may get special permission through the courts to keep weapons, automobiles or even aircraft. I would certainly say this is very complicated in a legal sense.

Jim

unless the police have evidence of an "illegal" transaction, the money or property should be returned to the owner or not seized. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I FULLY agree. No evidence, no conviction. NO SEIZURE of property/funds..

I am not a big fan of Jeff Sessions as AG. He is the typical far right that has the need to cntrol people that he or the government has no business doing.
Stop the war first and the rest is easy.

So far it appears is if IFFY is the only one really for asset seizure without a trial and conviction. Why am I not surprised?











.

I am not a big fan of Jeff Sessions as AG. He is the typical far right that has the need to cntrol people that he or the government has no business doing.
Stop the war first and the rest is easy. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

i agree. Sessions is what he is, an old school conservative. in some regards he's exactly what Trumps wants, others maybe not so much. on Illegal Immigration he's a tough stance guy that Trump would want. on other topics you are right, ending the "war" will remove a lot of problems. the "war" was started by Nixon and i'm sure most know why .. or whom it was mostly pointed at. on asset seizure he's going to be old school also.

however .. new details about the policy were released today .. and while it still has areas of abuse .. there are reforms to it.

"Key changes include requiring more detail from police agencies about probable cause justifying a seizure before federal authorities get involved. Also, the Justice Department will have to decide more quickly whether to take on local seizures and also let property owners know their rights and the status of their belongings within 45 days of the seizure, faster than federal law requires."

"Another key change will make it harder for police to seize less than $10,000 unless they have a state warrant, have made an arrest related to the seizure, have taken other contraband, such as drugs, along with the money, or the owner has confessed to a crime. Without at least one of those conditions, authorities will need a federal prosecutor's approval to seize it under federal law."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apnewsbre...-politics.html

you can decide for yourselves how much difference this will make, but it's a step away from the wild west cowboy thing of before. and Holder under Obama only curtailed the usage, they did nothing to address the abuse. Sessions under Trump is actually making some useful changes.

for course if they'd realize the "war" will never be won like the failure of prohibition most of this wouldn't be needed. and i'm only talking about one {forbidden topic} not the rest of the schedule 1 list.

Waco posted a non wacko post...Congrats.


If only lustylady could too.



.

So far it appears is if IFFY is the only one really for asset seizure without a trial and conviction. Why am I not surprised?











. Originally Posted by WTF

Well, in order to convict someone of a crime in a court of law there must be evidence either physical or testimony "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused committed the offense. If I am not mistaken the confiscation of property can be seized based on preponderance of the evidence. So seizure of property doesn't have to be based on any reasonable doubt. The same holds true with civil cases such as wrongful death cases. That's what happened to OJ Simpson. He wasn't convicted of murder but he lost the civil case. The law has two sides Civil and Criminal sometimes they meet in the middle.

Jim

Well, in order to convict someone of a crime in a court of law there must be evidence either physical or testimony "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused committed the offense. If I am not mistaken the confiscation of property can be seized based on preponderance of the evidence. So seizure of property doesn't have to be based on any reasonable doubt. The same holds true with civil cases such as wrongful death cases. That's what happened to OJ Simpson. He wasn't convicted of murder but he lost the civil case. The law has two sides Civil and Criminal sometimes they meet in the middle.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I understand your point...I just do not agree with what some would call double jeopardy. OJ, imho should never have had to give the Goldmans shit.

And furthermore ...some of these are seizures are done without a civil trial.

I understand your point...I just do not agree with what some would call double jeopardy. OJ, imho should never have had to give the Goldmans shit.

And furthermore ...some of these are seizures are done without a civil trial. Originally Posted by WTF

Come on lets face it. All our laws are etched into soft stone, they can be amended , eliminated ect. Anyway the elite deem necessary. When it comes to this particular subject the Government doesn't like anybody cutting in on their business, lol. Ya know what I mean?

Jim

I understand your point...I just do not agree with what some would call double jeopardy. Originally Posted by WTF

So you think it was wrong for the feds to re-try those cops who beat Rodney King?

Come on lets face it. All our laws are etched into soft stone, they can be amended , eliminated ect. Anyway the elite deem necessary. When it comes to this particular subject the Government doesn't like anybody cutting in on their business, lol. Ya know what I mean?

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I hear ya...

So you think it was wrong for the feds to re-try those cops who beat Rodney King? Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes, I think it was wrong.....I do not think you should be able to basically be tried again for the same crime after acquittal. One shot at the apple.

I am not a big fan of Jeff Sessions as AG. He is the typical far right that has the need to cntrol people that he or the government has no business doing.
Stop the war first and the rest is easy. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

What you mean the war on drugs?? I actually agree. ITS BEEN a bloody big waste of time and dollars.. ALONG with lives of US service men and women...

The Trumpster is really pissed at Sessions, wonder if he will fire him or will Sessions resign.