Jeff Session is so out of touch...

Sessions wants to restart the D.A.R.E. program lol. I remember that shit in school. It really helped out maybe he will bring back Mcgruff the crime dog too.

Sessions wants to restart the D.A.R.E. program lol. I remember that shit in school. It really helped out maybe he will bring back Mcgruff the crime dog too. Originally Posted by Trey

Yeah, you're right none of that really helped deter drugs at all. "Smokey The Bear" was a similar program to help prevent forest fires. It was actually affective, but that could have been due to the fact that black people are afraid of the wilderness.

Jim

Sessions wants to restart the D.A.R.E. program lol. I remember that shit in school. It really helped out maybe he will bring back Mcgruff the crime dog too. Originally Posted by Trey

It is amazing you remember anything airhead! Obviously you didn't learn much when you were in school, but you remember the cartoon characters you watched on Saturday mornings

Yeah, you're right none of that really helped deter drugs at all. "Smokey The Bear" was a similar program to help prevent forest fires. It was actually affective, but that could have been due to the fact that black people are afraid of the wilderness.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Shit I went camping all the time, but I was a scout. Built our own leanto slept under that shit. Cant say I'd want to do that today being older. Smokey is still around. You still see psa with him today.

Sessions is a dumb fuking idiot!!! Trying to take away my right to partake in legal substances!!!!!! fuk him, He is probably a pedophile too!

I NEVER EVER TRUST ANYONE WHO IS TOO RELIGIOUS THEY ALWAYS TURN OUT TO BE LYING CRIMINALS

Shit I went camping all the time, but I was a scout. Built our own leanto slept under that shit. Cant say I'd want to do that today being older. Smokey is still around. You still see psa with him today. Originally Posted by Trey

You had adult supervision, good for you.


Jim

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

I guess your comment is literally true, but exceedingly deceptive.

"a connection" often turns out to be exceedingly stretched. And often the connection is that someone was arrested, NOT convicted or even charged. The example above of a check being freely tendered to return the value is HIGHLY UNCOMMON.

No sympathy for a thief? To the exclusion of due process or and sense of proportionality?

Cars seized because someone drove to a session with an escort. Yes.

Truck and LEGAL merchandise in the truck seized because of a moving violation (no injuries, no property damage caused). Yes.

The direction passed down from Sessions made it clear the intent was not just to emphasize going after drug dealers, terrorists, and organized crime, but ANYONE it could be used against. When in doubt, seize it. Many of the people who received the new directives clearly understood it to "increase revenue".

If you believe that extremely in punishing all evil doers, then why are you a member of this site?

From Waco's post:
"
"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." the key is it is still "arrest", not "conviction". And "confessed to a crime" can still be exceedingly disproportionate. Some "crimes" cannot be contested very realistically, and fighting some offenses can be far more costly that admitting guilt, accepting the punishment, and moving on. UNTIL the punishment is now upped by forfeiture of assets very marginally connected to the offense.

We will see how it is actually applied, but Sessions' first volley was far from rational.

I guess your comment is literally true, but exceedingly deceptive.

"a connection" often turns out to be exceedingly stretched. And often the connection is that someone was arrested, NOT convicted or even charged. The example above of a check being freely tendered to return the value is HIGHLY UNCOMMON.

No sympathy for a thief? To the exclusion of due process or and sense of proportionality?

Cars seized because someone drove to a session with an escort. Yes.

Truck and LEGAL merchandise in the truck seized because of a moving violation (no injuries, no property damage caused). Yes.

The direction passed down from Sessions made it clear the intent was not just to emphasize going after drug dealers, terrorists, and organized crime, but ANYONE it could be used against. When in doubt, seize it. Many of the people who received the new directives clearly understood it to "increase revenue".

If you believe that extremely in punishing all evil doers, then why are you a member of this site?

From Waco's post:
"
"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." the key is it is still "arrest", not "conviction". And "confessed to a crime" can still be exceedingly disproportionate. Some "crimes" cannot be contested very realistically, and fighting some offenses can be far more costly that admitting guilt, accepting the punishment, and moving on. UNTIL the punishment is now upped by forfeiture of assets very marginally connected to the offense.

We will see how it is actually applied, but Sessions' first volley was far from rational.
Originally Posted by Old-T

i agree .. no conviction no confiscation. and too often small amounts taken would cost more to get back. that said, asset forfeiture is nothing new for law enforcement, it's been happening long before this policy came into play. this policy has been abused to a high level.

if Sessions really wants to improve this policy it should be mandated that if no conviction results, all property should be returned without any need for a person to appeal to get it back.

No argument with that.

if Sessions really wants to improve this policy it should be mandated that if no conviction results, all property should be returned without any need for a person to appeal to get it back. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Heck imo, no property should be confiscated TILL a conviction results. That way there's no problem with 'trying to find the stuff to return it.. Oops we lost it...

Trump said if he had known Sessions was going to recluse himself he would have never hired him.
Sessions said he wasn't going anywhere. Will Trump replace him?

Trump said if he had known Sessions was going to recluse himself he would have never hired him.
Sessions said he wasn't going anywhere. Will Trump replace him? Originally Posted by bamscram

Sessions offered his resignation a couple of weeks ago.

Trump didn't accept it then. That could change, of course.

Trump just rants on what ever comes to mind at the time.

Cars seized because someone drove to a session with an escort. Yes.


Originally Posted by Old-T

This will eventually happen...

They are going after prostitution hard!



.

This will eventually happen...

They are going after prostitution hard!
. Originally Posted by WTF

It already has happened. More than once.

I guess your comment is literally true, but exceedingly deceptive.

"a connection" often turns out to be exceedingly stretched. And often the connection is that someone was arrested, NOT convicted or even charged. The example above of a check being freely tendered to return the value is HIGHLY UNCOMMON.

No sympathy for a thief? To the exclusion of due process or and sense of proportionality?

Cars seized because someone drove to a session with an escort. Yes.

Truck and LEGAL merchandise in the truck seized because of a moving violation (no injuries, no property damage caused). Yes.

The direction passed down from Sessions made it clear the intent was not just to emphasize going after drug dealers, terrorists, and organized crime, but ANYONE it could be used against. When in doubt, seize it. Many of the people who received the new directives clearly understood it to "increase revenue".

If you believe that extremely in punishing all evil doers, then why are you a member of this site?

From Waco's post:
"
"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." the key is it is still "arrest", not "conviction". And "confessed to a crime" can still be exceedingly disproportionate. Some "crimes" cannot be contested very realistically, and fighting some offenses can be far more costly that admitting guilt, accepting the punishment, and moving on. UNTIL the punishment is now upped by forfeiture of assets very marginally connected to the offense.

We will see how it is actually applied, but Sessions' first volley was far from rational.
Originally Posted by Old-T

You're one of the most comical posters on this site, lol.


Jim