Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/12/23 23:17:15
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
States are no longer going to be participating in the Federal Asset Seizure Program. If ever there was a program that fostered corruption by Law Enforcement and turned local police and citizens into enemies, it is this program.
Now, some of you might not understand the importance of this so before we get into the article, here is a video from John Oliver's Last Week Tonight show which explains the issue and the controversy incredibly well.
The Justice Department just shut down a huge asset forfeiture program
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (R) speaks during a press conference at the Department of Justice U.S. Attorney Zachary T. Fardon of the Northern District of Illinois looks on December 7, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The Department of Justice announced this week that it's suspending a controversial program that allows local police departments to keep a large portion of assets seized from citizens under federal law and funnel it into their own coffers.
The "equitable-sharing" program gives police the option of prosecuting asset forfeiture cases under federal instead of state law. Federal forfeiture policies are more permissive than many state policies, allowing police to keep up to 80 percent of assets they seize -- even if the people they took from are never charged with a crime.
The DOJ is suspending payments under this program due to budget cuts included in the recent spending bill.
"While we had hoped to minimize any adverse impact on state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners, the Department is deferring for the time being any equitable sharing payments from the Program," M. Kendall Day, chief of the asset forfeiture and money laundering section, wrote in a letter to state and local law enforcement agencies.
In addition to budget cuts last year, the program has lost $1.2 billion, according to Day's letter. "The Department does not take this step lightly," he wrote. "We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to preserve some form of meaningful equitable sharing. ... Unfortunately, the combined effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2 billion made that impossible."
Asset forfeiture has become an increasingly contentious practice in recent years. It lets police seize and keep cash and property from people who are never convicted — and in many cases, never charged — with wrongdoing. Recent reports have found that the use of the practice has exploded in recent years, prompting concern that, in some cases, police are motivated more by profits and less by justice.
Criminal justice reformers are cheering the change. "This is a significant deal," said Lee McGrath, legislative counsel at the Institute for Justice, in an interview. "Local law enforcement responds to incentives. And it's clear that one of the biggest incentives is the relative payout from federal versus state forfeiture. And this announcement by the DOJ changes the playing field for which law state and local [law enforcement] is going to prefer."
Previous research by the Institute for Justice has shown that when states have stricter forfeiture laws, cops are more likely to pursue forfeiture cases under federal law as a means of bypassing those stricter state restrictions.
In California, for instance, police are allowed to keep 66.25 percent of forfeiture proceeds under state law, but 80 percent if they opt for the federal equitable sharing route. And forfeiture figures reflect this: In 2013, California police forfeited $28 million worth of cash and property under state law, but $98 million under federal law, according to the Institute for Justice's research.
It's unclear how much of the total national forfeiture haul will be affected by the DOJ's change, since many states don't make their forfeiture data public. But as the case of California shows, it is potentially significant: In that state in 2013, nearly eight out of every 10 dollars of forfeited property went through federal law. Under this change, that flow of cash would be shut off.
Some law enforcement groups are less than happy with the change. The International Association of Chiefs of Police said in a statement that "this decision is detrimental to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve."
But reformers point out that the change doesn't impact law enforcement's ability to seize goods from suspected criminals -- it only changes their legal options for keeping what they take. The change "does not stop police and prosecutors from chasing criminals," McGrath said in a statement. "[Police] are frustrated because Congress put on hold their chasing cash."
Regardless, the change may not be permanent. In its letter, the DOJ hints that it may be able to restart payments later: "By deferring equitable sharing payments now, we preserve our ability to resume equitable sharing payments at a later date should the budget picture improve." The DOJ hopes to "reinstate sharing distributions as soon as practical and financially feasible," the letter concludes.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police declined to comment, and the Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/24 15:35:49
2015/12/23 23:36:58
Subject: Re:Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
It's a good start, but it doesn't go far enough. There should be no scenario in any jurisdiction in which even discussion of asset forfeiture happens prior to a conviction, if then.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/12/24 00:16:30
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
The program was ingenius when it was set up as a tool to fight against organized crime, drug cartels, and gangs.
Then people in government began to use it as a revenue generation tool and effectively began to use the law as a weapon against innocent civilians. This sort of thing is a great example of why libertarians and many conservatives hold government in contempt.
2015/12/24 02:23:39
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: The program was ingenius when it was set up as a tool to fight against organized crime, drug cartels, and gangs.
No, it was a blatant abuse of power even then. You don't get to take away basic rights just because you designate someone a Bad Person doing Bad Things.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/12/24 03:45:34
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: The program was ingenius when it was set up as a tool to fight against organized crime, drug cartels, and gangs.
No, it was a blatant abuse of power even then. You don't get to take away basic rights just because you designate someone a Bad Person doing Bad Things.
Yeah. They should catch them on tax evasion the old-fashioned way.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/12/24 03:50:44
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: The program was ingenius when it was set up as a tool to fight against organized crime, drug cartels, and gangs.
Then people in government began to use it as a revenue generation tool and effectively began to use the law as a weapon against innocent civilians. This sort of thing is a great example of why libertarians and many conservatives hold government in contempt.
... the feth? Who do you think created this program to begin with? It was the Reagan administration that pushed hard for it!
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/12/24 06:49:48
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Isn't it funny how the DoJ states how much it regrets the impact this will have on state law enforcement etc, and say nothing about the people that have been robbed by the law? Seems this program was never intended to fight crime, it was a blatant money grab from the start. Kind of like Roman proscriptions except you (probably) weren't executed on top of the robbery.
2015/12/24 07:52:08
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: The program was ingenius when it was set up as a tool to fight against organized crime, drug cartels, and gangs.
No, it was a blatant abuse of power even then. You don't get to take away basic rights just because you designate someone a Bad Person doing Bad Things.
Canada, England, the European Union, all have some sort of civil forfeiture law on the books. The concept is actually several hundred years old. Even the UN encourages civil forfeiture in cases where a defendant has died, fled, or is in hiding.
Spetulhu wrote: Seems this program was never intended to fight crime, it was a blatant money grab from the start.
When the law was enac9ted in the US, the intent was to act against white-collar criminals in the way the RICO act acted against the mob and gangs. It was also designed to provide restitution to victims of fraud. Congress clearly had no idea of the level of corruption that would arise from it. They honestly believed that this tool would be used against embezzlers, money launderers, those engaged in various types of fraud, etc.
The problem is, there are many laws that have unintended consequences. Laws designed for abc reasons wind up being used for xyz reasons and that opens the door to abuse. Because this program allowed a share of money taken to go to local police, local governments quickly began using this as revenue generation instead of law enforcement. The law began to be used against joe sixpack and not wallstreet fatcats like it was intended. It turns out that "white-collar" criminals actually can afford lawyers and make it difficult on prosecutors. Joe sixpack can't and thus it's easy money.
Still, the level of abuse from this program was evident decades ago and it should have been shut down back then. I give Loretta Lynch kudos for shutting the program down. She's turning out to be a hell of a lot better than Holder ever was.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/24 08:02:14
2015/12/24 08:01:37
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: Canada, England, the European Union, all have some sort of civil forfeiture law on the books. The concept is actually several hundred years old. Even the UN encourages civil forfeiture in cases where a defendant has died, fled, or is in hiding.
That doesn't make it any less of a terrible idea.
They honestly believed that this tool would be used against embezzlers, money launderers, those engaged in various types of fraud, etc. The problem is, there are many laws that have unintended consequences.
No, they believed that it would be used against people who are accused of those crimes. Right from day one the law was a blatant and unconstitutional abuse of power. The ability to seize a person's property without having to establish their guilt was the deliberate intent of the law, not an unintended consequence. And saying "but the abuse would only be used against Bad People" doesn't in any way justify it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/12/24 08:09:24
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Peregrine wrote: The ability to seize a person's property without having to establish their guilt was the deliberate intent of the law, not an unintended consequence.
First, the Supreme Court upheld three separate challenges to the law in 1993, 1996, and 1999.
Second, you're twisting my words. Deliberately. Doing so does not win the argument for you, it only adds to your warehouse full of strawmen.
2015/12/24 08:20:28
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: First, the Supreme Court upheld three separate challenges to the law in 1993, 1996, and 1999.
Those decisions were wrong.
Second, you're twisting my words. Deliberately. Doing so does not win the argument for you, it only adds to your warehouse full of strawmen.
How am I twisting what you said? You claimed that the abuse of the law was an unintended consequence, didn't you?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/12/24 08:30:01
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Second, you're twisting my words. Deliberately. Doing so does not win the argument for you, it only adds to your warehouse full of strawmen.
How am I twisting what you said? You claimed that the abuse of the law was an unintended consequence, didn't you?
I did say that. However your original statement is,
Peregrine wrote: The ability to seize a person's property without having to establish their guilt was the deliberate intent of the law, not an unintended consequence.
Nothing in that statement mentions abuse of the law nor have I ever said seizure without establishing guilt was unintended.
2015/12/24 08:36:44
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: Nothing in that statement mentions abuse of the law nor have I ever said seizure without establishing guilt was unintended.
Yes you did. Your own words:
They honestly believed that this tool would be used against embezzlers, money launderers, those engaged in various types of fraud, etc.
"Embezzlers, money launderers, those engaged in various types of fraud, etc" are people who have been convicted of crimes. From the point of view of the legal system a person who has been accused of those crimes without any establishment of guilt is not any of those things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/24 08:37:11
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/12/24 09:03:04
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: When the law was enac9ted in the US, the intent was to act against white-collar criminals in the way the RICO act acted against the mob and gangs. It was also designed to provide restitution to victims of fraud... (snip)
The problem is, there are many laws that have unintended consequences. Laws designed for abc reasons wind up being used for xyz reasons and that opens the door to abuse.
And yet, if we have a thread on Guantanamo Bay tomorrow, we'll see people - people who typically identify as conservative - strenuously arguing that it's OK to keep people there forever without any trial or evidence or charges or proof or anything because, after all, we're holding the worst of the worst there.
There is a real intellectual disconnect there.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/12/24 09:05:13
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Breotan wrote: Nothing in that statement mentions abuse of the law nor have I ever said seizure without establishing guilt was unintended.
Yes you did. Your own words:
They honestly believed that this tool would be used against embezzlers, money launderers, those engaged in various types of fraud, etc.
"Embezzlers, money launderers, those engaged in various types of fraud, etc" are people who have been convicted of crimes. From the point of view of the legal system a person who has been accused of those crimes without any establishment of guilt is not any of those things.
You're not only twisting my words, you're now redefining regular English words to make your point. Debate others in this forum if you want. Your need to be pedantic just bought you a spot on my ignore list.
Ouze wrote: And yet, if we have a thread on Guantanamo Bay tomorrow, we'll see people - people who typically identify as conservative - strenuously arguing that it's OK to keep people there forever without any trial or evidence or charges or proof or anything because, after all, we're holding the worst of the worst there.
There is a real intellectual disconnect there.
Gitmo is its own messy pot of tar and isn't really on topic, is it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/24 09:13:01
2015/12/24 09:54:47
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
From what I gathered from this article, this isn't gone at all, it's just on hold, and most states can do it, they just don't get to keep as much of what they steal from you.
So now instead of them getting to keep 80% of the stuff they stole from you and the rest going to the government, they'll get to keep less.
At least now I know to watchout for this if I ever get pulled over. I travel a lot and an out of state plate may as well be a giant "kick me" sign sometimes. It's pretty bad when you have to consider lying to the cops about things just so they won't rob you blind even when you haven't done anything wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/24 09:55:27
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
2015/12/24 10:13:32
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
MrMoustaffa wrote: From what I gathered from this article, this isn't gone at all, it's just on hold, and most states can do it, they just don't get to keep as much of what they steal from you.
So now instead of them getting to keep 80% of the stuff they stole from you and the rest going to the government, they'll get to keep less.
At least now I know to watch out for this if I ever get pulled over. I travel a lot and an out of state plate may as well be a giant "kick me" sign sometimes. It's pretty bad when you have to consider lying to the cops about things just so they won't rob you blind even when you haven't done anything wrong.
Don't lie, that can get you in trouble all on its own. Carry debit cards instead of cash if you can. At least they can't force you to an ATM to drain your savings account.
2015/12/24 10:41:46
Subject: Re:Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
In case American dakka members are wondering how other countries handle this, I'll give you the UK perspective.
We have the proceeds of crime act, where money and property can be sold off, and the proceeds go back into the local community e.g if a new football stadium is needing built.
But, this only happens after a successful conviction. For example, if a drug dealer is convicted, and he/she has 10 million pounds, and he/she can't present evidence that this money was earned through legitimate means, then he/she loses every penny.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/12/24 10:46:23
Subject: Re:Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In case American dakka members are wondering how other countries handle this, I'll give you the UK perspective.
We have the proceeds of crime act, where money and property can be sold off, and the proceeds go back into the local community e.g if a new football stadium is needing built.
But, this only happens after a successful conviction. For example, if a drug dealer is convicted, and he/she has 10 million pounds, and he/she can't present evidence that this money was earned through legitimate means, then he/she loses every penny.
In the US, you can have your assets seized without even being charged with a crime. The process to reclaim those assets is... kafkaesque, in which there is an assumption of guilt rather than innocence.
Breotan wrote: Gitmo is its own messy pot of tar and isn't really on topic, is it?
I was circling back to your earlier idea with how conservative values cut against abusive programs like this. You've taken a program that 30 years ago was championed by conservatives as a great idea and protested by liberals as obvioysly prone to abuse, and shown it as an example of why conservatives distrust government because they always abuse power. It seems a pretty clear parallel to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or the Patriot Act, or any other piece of bad legislation that attacks civil liberties in the name of cracking some special, unusual danger to the country.
Perhaps in 20 years, some conservative on Dakka will point to how (now that more sympathetic people were being shipped off to our extrajudicial gulag leading to it's closure) conservatives always thought it was a bad idea because of how clearly it could be abused.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/24 11:10:15
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/12/24 11:13:03
Subject: Re:Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Ouze wrote: The process to reclaim those assets is... kafkaesque, in which there is an assumption of guilt rather than innocence.
Yep. Kafkaesque is a pretty accurate description, given that the process starts with arresting and criminally charging the assets. So, for example, the police seize your car and charge the car with being involved in illegal drug sales. If you want to get it back you have to file a counter-suit against the government, claiming that the car is innocent of the crimes it has been convicted of and requesting that its "conviction" be overturned so that it can be returned to your possession.
In practical terms what this means is the police can take whatever they want, and since getting it back would require you to spend more than the value of the property on hiring lawyers to argue your case (remember that you are not criminally charged with anything so the state does not have to provide you with a lawyer) you're not getting any of it back. Only a desire to avoid public outrage about the situation stops them from literally going door to door looting houses.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/12/24 11:39:39
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In case American dakka members are wondering how other countries handle this, I'll give you the UK perspective.
We have the proceeds of crime act, where money and property can be sold off, and the proceeds go back into the local community e.g if a new football stadium is needing built.
But, this only happens after a successful conviction. For example, if a drug dealer is convicted, and he/she has 10 million pounds, and he/she can't present evidence that this money was earned through legitimate means, then he/she loses every penny.
In the US, you can have your assets seized without even being charged with a crime. The process to reclaim those assets is... kafkaesque, in which there is an assumption of guilt rather than innocence.
Breotan wrote: Gitmo is its own messy pot of tar and isn't really on topic, is it?
I was circling back to your earlier idea with how conservative values cut against abusive programs like this. You've taken a program that 30 years ago was championed by conservatives as a great idea and protested by liberals as obvioysly prone to abuse, and shown it as an example of why conservatives distrust government because they always abuse power. It seems a pretty clear parallel to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or the Patriot Act, or any other piece of bad legislation that attacks civil liberties in the name of cracking some special, unusual danger to the country.
Perhaps in 20 years, some conservative on Dakka will point to how (now that more sympathetic people were being shipped off to our extrajudicial gulag leading to it's closure) conservatives always thought it was a bad idea because of how clearly it could be abused.
How was this not a violation of the 4th amendment and where is SCOTUS in all this?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/12/24 14:37:39
Subject: Re:Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: How was this not a violation of the 4th amendment and where is SCOTUS in all this?
I can best sum up both questions with the same answer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Bloody hell!
So much for SCOTUS riding to the rescue. That ruling is straight out of a banana republic.
And I thought the British legal system was bad.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/12/24 15:33:14
Subject: Re:Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Just to be TFG, it's John Oliver's last week tonight, not Jon Stewart's, like it says in the OP.
But yeah, the act of your home being charged with a crime and being found automatically guilty, resulting in its loss, even though the owners weren't ever found guilty of or even charged with a crime is pretty disquieting.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
2015/12/24 15:35:30
Subject: Justice Dept Shutting Down Controversial Asset Seizure Program.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Just to be TFG, it's John Oliver's last week tonight, not Jon Stewart's, like it says in the OP.
But yeah, the act of your home being charged with a crime and being found automatically guilty, resulting in its loss, even though the owners weren't ever found guilty of or even charged with a crime is pretty disquieting.
It must also surely be driving the price of haunted houses way down.
"I'm sorry sir but we're going to have to confiscate your property." "But I haven't done anything wrong officer!" "I know that sir but according to local superstition someone was once murdered in your house and still haunts it to this day and so your house is an accomplice to murder. We're taking it downtown for questioning." "But I live here! It's my home!" "Your home is a murderer, sir. Book it boys and don't forget to read it its miranda rights, I don't want a repeat of the beach house case where it gets off on a technicality!"
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/24 15:40:27
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
