Org Mobile Site
So if the local bank becomes a hotspot of crime it can be seized?
Sorry Mr Bank Manager apart from the fact you were robbed half a dozen times, you also were found to have money deposited by the local hotel and as such are guilty of aiding a series of crimes.
Sorry Mr Bank Manager apart from the fact you were robbed half a dozen times, you also were found to have money deposited by the local hotel and as such are guilty of aiding a series of crimes.
There was a quote in the piece Sasaki linked that suggested hotel staff knew that drug dealing was going on in the premises, very different from your bank analogy.
A) Should a business or corporation have it's assets seized if some of it's people are aiding crimes?
B) Should a bank have it's assets seized if one or more of it's employees aid in a crime?
B) Should a bank have it's assets seized if one or more of it's employees aid in a crime?
Let's say the police are tracking some drug dealers who are using a boat to bring the stuff in. They have proof that the boat is involved. If they have enough evidence to make a case on the owner, they do and seize the boat as well (criminal forfeiture). But maybe the owner isn't actually dealing any drugs. He just has an agreement with the dealers to let them use his boat and turn a blind eye. He's acting as a kind of front. In this case the government, after proving the boat is involved, seize it (and for some 
reason this is referred to as seizing "guilty" property). The owner can then contest that he is innocent.
The revision to the law around 2000 added:
What's missing in the video and most things you'll find googling it (just had a look) is any sense of perspective what so ever. According to one informed person I found in a comment section (which I have no qualms "citing" given the OP
):
You can't just pick out a case and saying a bunch of handwavy scaremongering things about the law. Quoting some web journalist who thinks some guy was unjustly robbed just doesn't cut it. You need some sense of perspective on how the law is used on the whole, what most cases are like, what good it does. Sometimes the police listen in on innocent people, but we don't get rid of warranted wiretapping just because it doesn't work perfectly. The idea that the police are fabricating cases on people, seizing their property, and then selling it to pad their own pockets is
worthy.
reason this is referred to as seizing "guilty" property). The owner can then contest that he is innocent.The revision to the law around 2000 added:
Originally Posted by :
(1) require the federal government to prove that seized property is related to a crime; (2) create an "innocent owner" defense, to allow property owners who are unaware of the criminal activity associated with their property to recover their assets; (3) provide indigent defendants with appointed counsel; and (4) eliminate the cost bond required of owners to contest the seizure in court.
(1) require the federal government to prove that seized property is related to a crime; (2) create an "innocent owner" defense, to allow property owners who are unaware of the criminal activity associated with their property to recover their assets; (3) provide indigent defendants with appointed counsel; and (4) eliminate the cost bond required of owners to contest the seizure in court.
What's missing in the video and most things you'll find googling it (just had a look) is any sense of perspective what so ever. According to one informed person I found in a comment section (which I have no qualms "citing" given the OP
):Originally Posted by :
Civil asset forfeitures typically give 2 options to a claimant. The first is the ability to contest the forfeiture administratively. The claimant submits his claim and evidence to the seizing agency for review of the merits of the claim. This incurs no legal fees for the claimant, but it IS an administrative review by the seizing agency, so some claimants prefer the 2nd option, which is to demand a trial in front of a judge. The claimant is not required to hire an attorney, but most claimants that go the judicial route usually have an attorney. The trial is handled like any other trial. Interestingly, the vast majority of forfeitures are resolved administratively -- most innocent owners that can prove legitimate claims can get their property back pretty quickly. It is the claimant with the more questionable claim that typically tries to litigate, hoping to beat the system.
...
Third, even once the government proves that the property is eligible to be forfeited, it is possible for a truly “innocent owner” to argue that it should still get the property back. This often happens in cases of jointly-owned property (i.e. a husband and wife owning a car together, and the husband used the car to smuggle drugs without the wife’s knowledge), or a lienholder (i.e. your bank actually has an ownership interest in your car as collateral, until your car loan is paid off). These claimants will get a chance to prove that they had nothing to do with the underlying illegality, and get the property back.
Civil asset forfeitures typically give 2 options to a claimant. The first is the ability to contest the forfeiture administratively. The claimant submits his claim and evidence to the seizing agency for review of the merits of the claim. This incurs no legal fees for the claimant, but it IS an administrative review by the seizing agency, so some claimants prefer the 2nd option, which is to demand a trial in front of a judge. The claimant is not required to hire an attorney, but most claimants that go the judicial route usually have an attorney. The trial is handled like any other trial. Interestingly, the vast majority of forfeitures are resolved administratively -- most innocent owners that can prove legitimate claims can get their property back pretty quickly. It is the claimant with the more questionable claim that typically tries to litigate, hoping to beat the system.
...
Third, even once the government proves that the property is eligible to be forfeited, it is possible for a truly “innocent owner” to argue that it should still get the property back. This often happens in cases of jointly-owned property (i.e. a husband and wife owning a car together, and the husband used the car to smuggle drugs without the wife’s knowledge), or a lienholder (i.e. your bank actually has an ownership interest in your car as collateral, until your car loan is paid off). These claimants will get a chance to prove that they had nothing to do with the underlying illegality, and get the property back.
You can't just pick out a case and saying a bunch of handwavy scaremongering things about the law. Quoting some web journalist who thinks some guy was unjustly robbed just doesn't cut it. You need some sense of perspective on how the law is used on the whole, what most cases are like, what good it does. Sometimes the police listen in on innocent people, but we don't get rid of warranted wiretapping just because it doesn't work perfectly. The idea that the police are fabricating cases on people, seizing their property, and then selling it to pad their own pockets is
worthy.epic triple post
epic triple post
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
(all the details of which obviously won't be in news articles, especially the ones whosemain source author is the defense lawyers ) that he was running the place as a safe haven.
Fixed that for ya! (all the details of which obviously won't be in news articles, especially the ones whose
) that he was running the place as a safe haven.@acin: I don't see the point since he talked about warranted wiretapping, not warrantless wiretapping here.
Originally Posted by Oh! TheLastDays!:
Fixed that for ya!
@acin: I don't see the point since he talked about warranted wiretapping, not warrantless wiretapping here.
Whoops! Must have misread. My bad. All that triple post for nothing.Fixed that for ya!
@acin: I don't see the point since he talked about warranted wiretapping, not warrantless wiretapping here.
at this point, I got too much work to ask questions online.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Okay, ACIN's open mind time. This is related to the Anwar thread, and after going over the conversation we had there I am still not getting it exactly. Even if such stories about blatant abuse of the law are hyperbole and lies, where exactly do you the line between "it's ok to give this power (warrantless wiretapping or what have you), because realistically nothing like that will ever happen" and "this is way too much power, and shouldn't be given to x person/position/official" is this a pragmatic view you are drawing, where intelligence communities don't really care about average civilians inane chatter, so warrantless wiretapping should be fine? Sorry if this conversation tires you.
Okay, ACIN's open mind time. This is related to the Anwar thread, and after going over the conversation we had there I am still not getting it exactly. Even if such stories about blatant abuse of the law are hyperbole and lies, where exactly do you the line between "it's ok to give this power (warrantless wiretapping or what have you), because realistically nothing like that will ever happen" and "this is way too much power, and shouldn't be given to x person/position/official" is this a pragmatic view you are drawing, where intelligence communities don't really care about average civilians inane chatter, so warrantless wiretapping should be fine? Sorry if this conversation tires you.
It's not even particularly pragmatic*. If you approach privacy vs wiretapping with the emotional mindset where privacy is kind of sacred value, then the seriousness of any violation of that value becomes inflated. On the other hand, if you say, "I have two things I want. Privacy and the crime stopping ability of wiretapping" then you work out a balance that seems best. You accept that murderers who might have been caught with more lax standards won't be, and that people will be unjustly eavesdropped on who wouldn't with stricter standards. You accept it because they are conflicting desires and there is no magical way to have a perfect system. We're talking about accepting as in accepting the way the system works, not in a dismissing the cases where it goes wrong. Like we accept that people are going to die in car accidents and don't have a thread where news stories about deaths on the highway are posted every couple days. Now, poorly made cars that catch on fire or police trying to stop people filming them, that's an actual issue.
There are certainly many cases where there is obviously too much power and it's open for abuse, but for some reason the wacky ones tend to get posted here. This bit that I posted:
Originally Posted by :
1) require the federal government to prove that seized property is related to a crime; (2) create an "innocent owner" defense, to allow property owners who are unaware of the criminal activity associated with their property to recover their assets; (3) provide indigent defendants with appointed counsel; and (4) eliminate the cost bond required of owners to contest the seizure in court.
Is a revision to the law--correcting what I would say was a bad law before that. Perhaps the current formulation needs fixing as well, but the "institute for justice" doesn't have anything intelligent to say about it 1) require the federal government to prove that seized property is related to a crime; (2) create an "innocent owner" defense, to allow property owners who are unaware of the criminal activity associated with their property to recover their assets; (3) provide indigent defendants with appointed counsel; and (4) eliminate the cost bond required of owners to contest the seizure in court.
*or maybe it is, having a brain freeze on how to say what's pragmatic and what isn't
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
It's not even particularly pragmatic*. If you approach privacy vs wiretapping with the emotional mindset where privacy is kind of sacred value, then the seriousness of any violation of that value becomes inflated. On the other hand, if you say, "I have two things I want. Privacy and the crime stopping ability of wiretapping" then you work out a balance that seems best. You accept that murderers who might have been caught with more lax standards won't be, and that people will be unjustly eavesdropped on who wouldn't with stricter standards. You accept it because they are conflicting desires and there is no magical way to have a perfect system. We're talking about accepting as in accepting the way the system works, not in a dismissing the cases where it goes wrong. Like we accept that people are going to die in car accidents and don't have a thread where news stories about deaths on the highway are posted every couple days. Now, poorly made cars that catch on fire or police trying to stop people filming them, that's an actual issue.
There are certainly many cases where there is obviously too much power and it's open for abuse, but for some reason the wacky ones tend to get posted here. This bit that I posted:
Is a revision to the law--correcting what I would say was a bad law before that. Perhaps the current formulation needs fixing as well, but the "institute for justice" doesn't have anything intelligent to say about it
*or maybe it is, having a brain freeze on how to say what's pragmatic and what isn't
Alright, I think I understand now. As always Sasaki, thanks for the new perspective for me to think about. It's not even particularly pragmatic*. If you approach privacy vs wiretapping with the emotional mindset where privacy is kind of sacred value, then the seriousness of any violation of that value becomes inflated. On the other hand, if you say, "I have two things I want. Privacy and the crime stopping ability of wiretapping" then you work out a balance that seems best. You accept that murderers who might have been caught with more lax standards won't be, and that people will be unjustly eavesdropped on who wouldn't with stricter standards. You accept it because they are conflicting desires and there is no magical way to have a perfect system. We're talking about accepting as in accepting the way the system works, not in a dismissing the cases where it goes wrong. Like we accept that people are going to die in car accidents and don't have a thread where news stories about deaths on the highway are posted every couple days. Now, poorly made cars that catch on fire or police trying to stop people filming them, that's an actual issue.
There are certainly many cases where there is obviously too much power and it's open for abuse, but for some reason the wacky ones tend to get posted here. This bit that I posted:
Is a revision to the law--correcting what I would say was a bad law before that. Perhaps the current formulation needs fixing as well, but the "institute for justice" doesn't have anything intelligent to say about it
*or maybe it is, having a brain freeze on how to say what's pragmatic and what isn't
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO