txyaloo said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

You guys are so short-sided:

---

No, we aren't.

We've seen what civil asset forfeiture laws do. They're terrible for America and need to go away. If the government want's someone's property, they should get a court order. They should never be able to take first and then make you prove the legitimacy. That goes completely against our justice system.

Did you not watch any of the reporting last year of the DEA harassing people in airports stealing their money? Hard no.

---

I agree.

But, those are the rules. Play the game by the rules of the game.

If you only let one side take advantage of bad rules, you aren't really trying.

Do you think that Dean Smith really liked the four-corner's offense? You think he was sad to see a shot clock implemented?

Take every f-ing dime from all of those illegal aliens and grifting NGO administrators with a freaking vengeance.

BusterAg said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

**** no. Civil asset forfeiture is government criminality. Some of yall "conservatives" have absolutely lost your damned minds.

---

"The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it good and hard against the interests most important to grifting law-makers." Seize so much from illegals and "Riot Inc" that there's a massive upswell against it and congress kills it. Win-win.

---

FIFY

---

edit accepted.

Furlock Bones said:

---

**** no. Civil asset forfeiture is government criminality. Some of yall "conservatives" have absolutely lost your damned minds.

---

Couldn't have said it better. OP sounds like he needs some of his/her property stolen by the gov't. And he/she pretended to care about McDonald's rights not to have unlawful searches. Unreal.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

That's a hell no from me.

Asset forfeiture is already abused and needs to be dialed back.

You want to seize my property? Go thru the judicial process.

---

A good example of not understanding forfeiture and just relying on what the internet is saying.

It does go through the judicial process.

So, no more 1983 cases against bad cops, unless they are criminally prosecuted?

No more being able to take anyone to civil court without a criminal conviction?


The civil and criminal court systems are both in existence for a reason.

Criminals and criminal organizations have no right to assets, money or otherwise, that they gained through criminal activity.

It has rarely been abused by the federal government.

It should never be abused by the government, there needs to be robust guardrails to prevent abuse.

InfantryAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

That's a hell no from me.

Asset forfeiture is already abused and needs to be dialed back.

You want to seize my property? Go thru the judicial process.

---

A good example of not understanding forfeiture and just relying on what the internet is saying.

It does go through the judicial process.

---

There are plenty of examples out there of assets being seized without judicial review.

Wanna see examples…start with local government agencies. See Tenaha, TX and Sulpher, LA.
Tenaha finally got a smack-down.

Ag83 said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

**** no. Civil asset forfeiture is government criminality. Some of yall "conservatives" have absolutely lost your damned minds.

---

Couldn't have said it better. OP sounds like he needs some of his/her property stolen by the gov't. And he/she pretended to care about McDonald's rights not to have unlawful searches. Unreal.

---

Would it surprise you to learn that I have assisted clients with the valuation of the property that the federal government illegally took in cases with the Federal Court of Claims?

Maybe read the thread.

InfantryAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

That's a hell no from me.

Asset forfeiture is already abused and needs to be dialed back.

You want to seize my property? Go thru the judicial process.

---

A good example of not understanding forfeiture and just relying on what the internet is saying.

It does go through the judicial process.

---

The judicial process is ****E!

It basically boils down to:

I have probable cause that your property was used or was the result of a crime, so your property is guilty, and you have to sue me to get it back.

I want so see a bunch of rich men that live north of Richmond getting fat off my tax dollars to feel that pain.

One reform that I would put in place is that I would give more teeth to the regulations related to the government paying attorneys fees if they lose. Specifically:

• If the government drops the case before final ruling, the government has to pay all litigation fees up to that point anyways.
• If the government returns some, but not all, of the property in the middle of the case, the government has to pay reasonable fees related to litigation costs related to that property.

Even the federal government plays games with the system. It needs more reform.

Again, these laws are on the books for exactly the kind of RICO actions that we are seeing being carried out by our own politicians and their cronies. They should be weaponized to the fullest extent to extract the most pain, using the same tricks that lawyers that our governments use to their maximum advantage, in hopes for more reform against federal fraud and against the unevenness of these laws against the seized property.

Teslag said:

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

It's a purposefully controversial topic

---

Funny, when non-MAGA post things like that, it gets called trolling and doesn't stay up long.

---

Are you going to actually debate the ****ing topic or just troll for hypocrisy?

---

It's not a very interesting topic though. Almost everyone is against it, and most of those presumably for it are too ashamed to come here and admit it.

So in the end the most interesting thing it that's it's a topic created to be provocative.

This is bad ...this "idea".

BusterAg said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

**** no. Civil asset forfeiture is government criminality. Some of yall "conservatives" have absolutely lost your damned minds.

---

Couldn't have said it better. OP sounds like he needs some of his/her property stolen by the gov't. And he/she pretended to care about McDonald's rights not to have unlawful searches. Unreal.

---

Would it surprise you to learn that I have assisted clients with the valuation of the property that the federal government took on the value of that property in the Federal Court of Claims?

Maybe read the thread.

---

I don't gas. Your view is appalling. You need some of your property stolen. Maybe then you'll get it.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

That's a hell no from me.

Asset forfeiture is already abused and needs to be dialed back.

You want to seize my property? Go thru the judicial process.

---

Ag83 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

**** no. Civil asset forfeiture is government criminality. Some of yall "conservatives" have absolutely lost your damned minds.

---

Couldn't have said it better. OP sounds like he needs some of his/her property stolen by the gov't. And he/she pretended to care about McDonald's rights not to have unlawful searches. Unreal.

---

Would it surprise you to learn that I have assisted clients with the valuation of the property that the federal government took on the value of that property in the Federal Court of Claims?

Maybe read the thread.

---

I don't gas. Your view is appalling. You need some of your property stolen. Maybe then you'll get it.

---

It is interesting to me that you think that turning an unjust rule around on Leviathan, which has the power to change the rule, to be appalling.

You just don't get it. You need some of your property stolen.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

That's a hell no from me.

Asset forfeiture is already abused and needs to be dialed back.

You want to seize my property? Go thru the judicial process.

---

A good example of not understanding forfeiture and just relying on what the internet is saying.

It does go through the judicial process.

---

There are plenty of examples out there of assets being seized without judicial review.

---

We were talking about judicial process, which asset forfeiture always goes through.

But this has also passed judicial review.

This subject to conservatives and libertarians is their version of the anti-ICE protesters saying the illegals have had no judicial process.

These threads read like reddit, so I'm not going to argue the points with a bunch of people who haven't even red the laws or understand the process.

Let's start with the Somalis. I will say nothing, because I am not Somali.

esteban said:

---

Please tread on me, daddy!

---

Govern me harder daddy

Civil forfeiture should be banned by the courts as an illegal taking. If you want to take someone's money convict them of a damn crime. This is just like the beyond a reasonable doubt standard - we set a high bar because we don't want innocent people jailed. We've seen enough cases of wrongful civil forfeiture situations to require the same protections - everybody reading this thread is a potential victim if you own a car or a bank account.

InfantryAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

That's a hell no from me.

Asset forfeiture is already abused and needs to be dialed back.

You want to seize my property? Go thru the judicial process.

---

A good example of not understanding forfeiture and just relying on what the internet is saying.

It does go through the judicial process.

---

There are plenty of examples out there of assets being seized without judicial review.

---

We were talking about judicial process, which asset forfeiture always goes through.

But this has also passed judicial review.

This subject to conservatives and libertarians is their version of the anti-ICE protesters saying the illegals have had no judicial process.

These threads read like reddit, so I'm not going to argue the points with a bunch of people who haven't even red the laws or understand the process.

---

You can keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about if you want, but that's not constructive. I'm simply making a point there are many cases of people having their stuff seized by LEOs without a judge involved in that decision, and that is BS. While I'm a huge supporter of LEOs, I do not agree with that and want to see the laws changed to prohibit it. Just because a judge has said the process is legal does not mean that the facts of an individual situation have been reviewed and approved by a judge. Confiscating people's property should be a very high threshold that requires judicial review in each and every case.