Eric Holder hit his head or something. He ended a law??

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by VisuTrac, Jan 16, 2015.

  1. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    The Attorney General Just Ended The Law That Allowed Police To Seize Your Assets Even If You're Innocent - Business Insider

    The Attorney General Just Ended The Law That Allows Police To Seize Your Assets Even If You're Innocent
    • Jan. 16, 2015, 3:49 PM

    Thomson ReutersU.S. Attorney General Eric Holder leaves after making a statement about the grand jury decision not to seek an indictment in the Staten Island death of Eric Garner during an arrest in July, in Washington
    State and local police in the United States will no longer be able to use federal laws to justify seizing property without evidence of a crime, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday.

    Under the official law, theJustice Department's Equitable Sharing Program, local police departments can keep 80% of the stuff seized during drug raids and other investigations.

    The practice of local police taking property, including cash and cars, from people that they stop, and of handing it over to federal authorities, became common during the country's war on drugs in the 1980s.

    Since then, the practice, commonly known "civil forfeiture," has allowed the police to seize cash or property that they suspect is tied to a crime even if the owner isn't charged with one.

    Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made $3 billion worth of seizures of cash and property, the Washington Post reports.

    In some cases, cops even introduced the seized cash and items into their own departments, which creates a bit of a questionable incentive. For hundreds of police departments, money or assets from these types of seizures made up 20% or more of their annual budgets, according to the Post.

    In most criminal cases, the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With civil forfeiture, however, only a "preponderance of evidence"— a significantly lower stands of proof — is necessary. The prosecutors actually file a lawsuit against the items, not the person. That's why you can have your property seized even if there's not enough evidence to charge you with a crime.

    Another investigation from the Washington Post examined 43,000 reports on asset seizures dating back to 2008, which reported $2.5 billion in spending from these seizures. According to the Post's analysis, 81% of that spending came from seizures in which the property or cash owners were never indicted.

    On top of that, police have been known to make some ridiculous purchases with the money. A department in Douglasville, Georgia bought an armored personnel carrier costing $227,000, while another department spent $637 on a coffee maker.

    [​IMG]AP Photo/Matt Rourke Markela and Chris Sourovelis, pictured here, had their home seized after their son was charged with a crime.
    And once police get a hold of your assets, it's nearly impossible to get them back. You can fight for your possessions in court, but actually winning is hard task. Notably, the IRS withheld $447,000 for two years from a small business owned by three Long Island brothers.

    The Supreme Court has even upheld the practice a number of times, including its first ruling in 1827 which included some bizarre logic. That case involved the government's attempt to seize a ship used for piracy. When the owner of the ship claimed it couldn't be forfeited until he'd been convicted of a crime, the Supreme Court had this to say:

    "The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing."

    While it sounds odd that the government would want to punish "the thing," civil forfeiture cases today still reflect that line of reasoning.

    Holder cited "safeguarding civil liberties" as a reason for the change in policy. While police can still seize assets under their individual state's laws, many used the federal law out of ease, as the Post notes. State laws also usually require any money to funnel into a general fund.

    The order directs federal agencies who have collected property during such seizures to withdraw their participation, except if the items collected could endanger the public, as in the case of illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child porn.

    Holder said the ban was the first step in a comprehensive review the Justice Department has launched of the program.

    An anonymous Department of Justice official told The Post that Holder “also believes that the new policy will eliminate any possibility that the adoption process might unintentionally incentivize unnecessary stops and seizures.”

    (Reuters reporting by Julia Edwards; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

    Read more:
    JABECmfg, Tully Mars and Dunerunner like this.
  2. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    It's even on the DOJ website.
    Attorney General Prohibits Federal Agency Adoptions of Assets Seized by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Except Where Needed to Protect Public Safety | OPA | Department of Justice

    Justice News
    Department of Justice
    Office of Public Affairs
    Friday, January 16, 2015
    Attorney General Prohibits Federal Agency Adoptions of Assets Seized by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Except Where Needed to Protect Public Safety
    Today, Attorney General Eric Holder issued an order setting forth a new policy prohibiting federal agency forfeiture, or “adoptions,” of assets seized by state and local law enforcement agencies, with a limited public safety exception. A federally adopted forfeiture – or “adoption” for short – occurs when a state or local law enforcement agency seizes property pursuant to state law and requests that a federal agency take the seized asset and forfeit it under federal law. The U.S. Department of the Treasury, which has its own forfeiture program, is issuing a policy consistent with the Attorney General’s order and that policy will apply to all participants of the Treasury forfeiture program, administered by the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture.

    “With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons,” said Attorney General Holder. “This is the first step in a comprehensive review that we have launched of the federal asset forfeiture program. Asset forfeiture remains a critical law enforcement tool when used appropriately – providing unique means to go after criminal and even terrorist organizations. This new policy will ensure that these authorities can continue to be used to take the profit out of crime and return assets to victims, while safeguarding civil liberties.”

    The Attorney General ordered that federal agency adoption of property seized by state or local law enforcement under state law be prohibited, except for property that directly relates to public safety concerns, including firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography. The prohibition on federal agency adoption includes, but is not limited to, seizures by state or local law enforcement of vehicles, valuables, cash and other monetary instruments. This order is effective immediately and applies to all Justice Department attorneys and components, and all participants in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program. The new policy will ensure that adoption is employed only to protect public safety, and does not extend to seizures where state and local jurisdictions can more appropriately act under their own laws.

    Both the Justice and Treasury Departments regularly review their asset forfeiture programs to ensure that federal asset forfeiture authorities are used carefully and effectively to take the profit out of crime, combat organized crime groups, and enable victim compensation, while ensuring that laws are followed, civil liberties are protected, and our constitutional system is strengthened. Since 2000, the Justice Department has returned approximately $4 billion in forfeited funds to victims of federal crime. Both departments will be part of the Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group, which will provide recommendations to the President regarding actions that can be taken to improve programs, like asset forfeiture, that help local law enforcement obtain equipment.

    The Justice Department’s policy permitting federal agencies to adopt seizures dates from the inception of the Asset Forfeiture Program in the 1980s. The Treasury Department’s adoption policy has been part of its Asset Forfeiture Program since its inception in 1993. At the time that these policies were implemented, few states had forfeiture statutes analogous to the federal asset forfeiture laws. Consequently, when state and local law enforcement agencies seized criminal proceeds and property used to commit crimes, they often lacked the legal authority to forfeit the seized items. Turning seized assets over to federal law enforcement agencies for adoption was a way to keep those assets from being returned to criminals. Today, however, every state has either criminal or civil forfeiture laws, making the federal adoption process less necessary. Indeed, adoptions currently constitute a very small slice of the federal asset forfeiture program. Over the last six years, adoptions accounted for roughly three percent of the value of forfeitures in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program.

    The new policy applies only to adoptions, not to seizures resulting from joint operations involving both federal and state authorities, or to seizures pursuant to warrants issued by federal courts. The policy does not limit the ability of state and local agencies to pursue the forfeiture of assets pursuant to their respective state laws. Law enforcement agencies working on joint task forces are required to follow the 2015 Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.

    Criminal Division
    Forfeiture (civil & criminal)
    [​IMG] attorney_general_order_prohibiting_adoptions.pdf
    Updated January 16, 2015
  3. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    This is an illegal practice as there is no requirement for probable cause in the initial search. It should have never been allowed, no matter the circumstances!
  4. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    Here is where the thinking monkey goes .. Ok, but what is the catch? This has been a boon to departments and agencies that partake of the practice. This spigot has been turned off .. where is the other shoe?

    This is going to have some unintended consequences methinks.
    ghrit, oldawg, Tully Mars and 2 others like this.
  5. NotSoSneaky

    NotSoSneaky former supporter

    Is Halliburton experimenting with a thought control device and why aren't they using it on Obama ? [tongue]
    Yard Dart, 3M-TA3 and VisuTrac like this.
  6. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    have to have a brain to control perhaps.
  7. Stealth Camper

    Stealth Camper wild foodie

    There is a catch. Firearms are still allowed to be confiscated under a "public safety" pretense... Couldn't be all good news.
    ghrit likes this.
  8. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    There are a bunch of "catches" Stealth.

    He only stopped the practice of LOCAL police using FEDERAL law to seize property WITHOUT WARRANT OR CHARGES.

    Nothing about the practice itself and the feds being able to seize under federal law without charges or the local's ability to do so with state laws...or the locals' ability to do so by obtaining a "ham sandwich" indictment for a state crime and still doing the seizure under fed laws.

    If you look even in the article about the BIGGEST abuses you will find many of them were perpetrated by the various federal agencies who have somehow obtained police power over the past half century...not to mention our friends at the IRS, FBI and (in recent years) US Marshals Service.

    It is good as an admission that it is a rotten program that may help get a real law ending it, but we also need to attack the practice at the state and local level.
  9. 3M-TA3

    3M-TA3 Cold Wet Monkey

    Holder is about to resign and join us as part of the great unwashed. He simply doesn't want his crap confiscated during his own impending investigation.
    tulianr and Mountainman like this.
  10. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus

    Mayhap he will end up resisting arrest? And no, I'm not advocating anything.
  11. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Metal weldin' monkey

    EXACTLY! The .gov never gives back. There is a catch somewhere. I don't believe for a sec that Holder/The Bummer hasn't got something up their sleeve.
  12. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Well, it surely is not the Constitution, because they can't get that close to it without bursting into flames....
  13. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    He has been resisting arrest ever since he got in and our congress will not take him out, not part of the NWO agenda. Real resisting arrest would be good for him.....I'm thinking K9's then tasers and to complete the arrest nightsticks.
    Yard Dart and Tully Mars like this.
  14. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary