Monday, February 13, 2017

The Aging Rebel on Asset Forfeiture



A blog reader just sent me a link to this timely article on Asset Forfeiture from the Aging Rebel's blog. I have a lot of respect for the Aging Rebel. He's a smart man that is familiar with the US Courts. The subject of civl forfeiture has come up in Canada and for the most part we have been for it. It's all about reducing the proceeds of crime. The problem is who's the bigger criminal? The criminal or the government stealing from the criminal?

This dilemma was made very clear in Freeway Ricky's movie Crack in the System. In that documentary which is tied directly to the Gary Webb story, they interviewed a DEA agent who admitted after the CIA pulled the plug on the Oscar Blandón bust they were all on the take. The DEA agent admitted the new directive wasn't to get drugs off the streets, it was to seize as much drug money as they could to fund operations letting them keep finder fees for themselves.

The CIA ended up corrupting the whole lot of them. It's also reminiscent of the Documentary on New York Cop Corruption in the /80's called the Seven Five named after the 75th precinct that was dirty as f*ck. So the CIA are the ones bringing the drugs into the country and every other agency under the sun wants a piece of the pie. Now Donald Trump wants in too.

Seemingly in the States they can seize assets without a criminal conviction. Now that's criminal.

15 comments:

  1. The Aging Rebel is smart, but his perceptions are extremely biased by his views of "freedom" and not being able to distinguish between freedom and licence.

    I think Sieg summed the article (and the blame on Trump) pretty good in his comment:

    "Asset forfeiture. Well, it sucks, no doubt, but it’s been around a long, long time. IT sure nuff isn’t something that the Donald has thought up, just to pesterlate you! Oh, it may get pushed a little harder under Sessions, it’s possible, but believe me, it gets pushed awful godamn hard right now, and has been for decades. I’ll even give you a little example. When the FedCoats popped me, one of their intentions, as stated later on during discovery, was to seize my farm, my vehicles, and my weapons. Unfortunately for them, I had bought all of the above with money earned working a JOB. Had the income tax records to back it up. Bottom line? They WANTED to seize all that stuff, but they didn’t get a goddamn thing. Even had to give my weapons back, as they were all legally held.

    Turns out if they can’t prove you bought something with “ill-gotten gains”, then they can’t seize it. That isn’t going to change. Oh, they can make life miserable for you, wipe you out financially, for sure-they did me. BUT. They always have been able to.

    Just to close out this little tribute to IronRider (!), let me agree with The Kraut. Anyone who is a part of the Life, whether it’s as a 1%’er, a hustler, ANY type of non-conforming lifestyle, has always been in the crosshairs. To what degree depends largely on what you’re into. To a citizen, it would probably seem like daily stops, daily searches, hassles, threats, all of that, are insuperable encroachments on a Citizens rights. To a PH, at least when I flew one, that’s the price of wearing the Rag. For an actual outsider, someone engaged in a trade that society has labeled “criminal”, you know, like selling a little weed, the price is all of the above, plus periodic incarceration, interrogation, beatings, you know, that whole bit. The citizen sees this conduct and can’t imagine living with it. The PH, or other outsider, sees it as a major pain in the nads, but normal.

    Kitchens, heat, dues, crime, punishment, all that good stuff. If you don’t want to ever get wracked-up, don’t ever do any kind of crime. If you do, and you get popped, don’t blame a political partei, and in one of the oldest, and surely the first lesson any real criminal ever learns, don’t look at what your rappie gets as a guideline for what YOU will get."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Aging Rebel supported Trump. It's possible to support a candidate and disagree with a policy. I find the blind devotion to Trump or Hillary cult like myself. In this article the Aging Rebel expresses some legitimate concerns which have been validated by Freeway Ricky's documentary.

      The inherent problem with civl forfeiture is the fact that it is a game changer. Getting drugs off the street is no longer the objective. Instead the objective is seizing money from the proceeds of crime while they are actively engaged in promoting it instead of stopping it. It's like how a privatized prison has no motivation to rehabilitate prisoners.

      The other obvious concern is guilty until proven innocent. In Canada there is no duty counsel or legal aid for civl court just criminal court. If your property is seized in civil court, unless you are in fact a drug dealer you can't afford a lawyer to get it back.

      Delete
    2. Everything is illegal to the "Revenue extortion Agency" if you're not giving them a piece of the action.

      Delete
  2. Forfeiture up here as well by the Crown


    Guilty by association without conviction

    Guilty till proven innocent


    Tables are reversed


    No Probably cause reasonable doubt due process timely adjudication etc



    Oh ye lest we forget eh




    ReplyDelete
  3. there have been some very interesting cases in the U.S.A. with this "legal stealing". People of colour are more frequently targeted by police than Caucasians. One person in Las Vegas did fight back after they took his $50K he won at a casino. Many police departments engage in this behaviour because they can not adequately fund police services from the tax base.

    I don't know who took lesson from who because small and large organizations do it. It is beyond me how they got this one past the Supreme Court of the U.S.A, must have too many Republicans on the court........To take some one's assets away without proving they are guilty of a crime, I just don't know how it can be proceeds of crime. Its not like they usually find any evidence of crime when they are taking away the money/asset. In some cases I get the impression its a way to keep people in line.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Governments are or have always been a money racket

    Democracy$$$$$$$





    Take and we may give back


    Just around the time for an election


    As for the government police etc seizing my property without conviction is another thing


    Equality before the law


    Fair application of due process

    Some penance deserved ie guilty then if forfeiture is a component of that legal ruling


    No conviction etc no forfeiture


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think no conviction no forfeiture would be far more appropriate. The police are in court trying to seize the Kelowna Hells Angels clubhouse. They have to show all the criminal activity that chapter was involved with which is extensive. That is a clear case where drug rings and stolen car rings tied to the Kelowna Hells Angels brought numerous convictions. That clubhouse should be seized. Seizing other property without a conviction doesn't seem right.

      Delete
  5. Seizing a property owned by a group of people allegedly involved in a criminal or criminal proceeding???,


    Like I have 15 stolen tvs in my house but

    Ya seize the tvs but Ya don't seize my house


    Innocent till proven guilty


    The crown seizing property prior to conviction is wrong


    Whether a motorcycle club or citizen


    ReplyDelete
  6. It is really one of those self-fulfilling type of "prophecies". It starts with an idea that seems good,

    "Hey, why don't we use the money we get from selling off stolen unclaimed goods and seized goods and use that money to go right back into law enforcement?!"

    "It would allow us to do more without having to just worry about the current budget limitations - things are tight."

    "Hey, we're making good money at this, finally, we can get the equipment we need!"

    "Hmm, those law enforcement agencies are getting a lot of money that is not part of our budgets - we can direct some of the funds that would go to them to other areas now!"

    "Oh, oh - they're cutting our budgets!"

    "We will just have to make sure we get more tickets so we will put a quota in place, unofficially of course, seize more illegal goods and especially proceeds from crime because the first is peanuts compared to the last the second does not make any money but does show we are being somewhat effective."

    "inflation …"

    "Yeah, I know. There's only one thing to do that will give us the funding we want (*note not NEED*)."

    "Yeah, proceeds of crime - the bigger and more exorbitant the better!"

    "Hey, guys, there's also another way …"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wait till you guys read this article look closely at the language of the " attorney general " http://m.torontosun.com/2017/02/12/financially-and-emotionally-drained-by-lengthy-court-battle-with-attorney-general

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. It appears the property was in fact a crack house. The question remains were the landlords directly profiting from the proceeds of crime or were they simply negligent slum lords that turned a blind eye to it.

      Delete
  8. Well let's be honest rooming houses are not great rental establishments but the fact that police investigated for months and then when they finally raided found personal amounts of drugs on the tenants that lived there they decided to try and seize the house from the owners??? Who were not implicated by the tenants cause they would have been charged if they were no doubt. It's just inanse how the civil forfeiture act has taken over the greedy minds of the government officials. This attorney general is something we want our children to aspire to be??? I'm at a loss of words over are civil liberties being trampled on

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right in that if the owners weren't charged there shouldn't be a seizure. However, if it was a crack house, it needs to be shut down. That is sometimes easier said than done.

      Delete
  9. well the next negligent slum lord will not be turning as much of a blind eye, which maybe a good thing. In most cases landlords know what is going on in their properties, they just don't care. yes, it is possible they don't know but in most cases they do, especially if the neighbours have been in touch.

    ReplyDelete