|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
The FBI Lied
Aug 11 22 03:17 pm Link Znude! wrote: Why, because they raided that megalomaniac loon Donald Trump's house? With the authorisation of the Attorney General? It doesn't look that way to me. Aug 11 22 03:30 pm Link JSouthworth wrote: Obviously you didn't watch the linked video. Besides, you seem to be in the U.K. I don't think you have much to worry about from the FBI in the UK. Or maybe you are a U.S. citizen. Don't know. Aug 11 22 05:08 pm Link Znude! wrote: LOLOLOLOL Aug 11 22 11:15 pm Link Znude! wrote: If there was ever a time when the FBI was out of control, it probably would have been when J. Edgar Hoover was in charge. Aug 12 22 02:14 am Link JSouthworth wrote: The video I posted has nothing to do with Trump or politics. Aug 12 22 04:07 am Link Thanks for the link. I agree it has nothing to do with Trump or politics but a government agency that is out of control. Aug 12 22 06:05 am Link Kens Lens wrote: Because some guy on YouTube? 😂 Aug 12 22 10:33 am Link Znude! wrote: Ha, OK. My wife had an old aunt who used to do passive aggressive stuff like that. "Oh, it isn't about her, I was talking about someone else..." Aug 12 22 10:43 am Link MN Photography wrote: Your comment makes no sense at all. Aug 12 22 11:16 am Link Znude! wrote: "Seems?" How definite of you. Aug 12 22 11:20 am Link Shadow Dancer wrote: My point is I am opposed to civil assets forfeiture. And agencies like the police and FBI will go out of their way to make use of it. I meant no disrespect to those of you who support it. I just don't support it and I don't think it leads to good things. This video is a discussion of a case in which the FBI seized safety deposit boxes and the contents of them without proper warrants or court authorization to do so. Aug 12 22 11:29 am Link Kens Lens wrote: Focuspuller wrote: Some no-name lawyer from nowhere Michigan posts a video about a class action lawsuit (evidently still pending as no one says who won) a lawsuit brought by a politically motivated libertarian organization--- Aug 12 22 11:31 am Link rfordphotos wrote: I agree it's not smart to use unregulated (and maybe regulated) safe deposit boxes. However I believe the FBI should have returned the contents of the boxes to the people who rented them as they were not a party to the money laundering conviction. Aug 12 22 11:44 am Link Znude! wrote: I don't take issue with you on this post. Aug 12 22 03:09 pm Link FBI raid and mishandling of safe deposit boxes. Yes, it is outrageous. Well, maybe. I will say it shouldn’t be this way, but I think the source and most of what is written about this case, has a fair amount of hyperbole. I am not in favor of the way the government enforces laws through civil cases when such efforts are an end run around the rights of the people. However, the FBI isn’t out control. Or at least this case is not indicative of a systemic problem in the FBI. The truth of the matter is that the FBI was doing what most other law enforcement agencies were doing. Gleefully jumping at the chance to seize cash and assets without filing charges. It is a little unreasonable to think that the authorities would not talk about the assets they will be seizing until after the judge sees the search warrant. The search warrant has nothing to do with the seizures, except that the individual boxes should have also required an affidavit of probable cause. “Law enforcement and proponents of civil asset forfeiture argue it is a key tool that helps defund organized crime, prevent new crimes from being committed and weaken criminal cartels. Critics of civil forfeiture argue that it denies property owners basic due process rights, and that giving law enforcement a financial stake in civil forfeiture can distort their priorities and encourage the pursuit of property over the administration of justice.” https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and … -laws.aspx There has been a lot of abuse by law enforcement at all levels when it comes to civil forfeiture. In Pennsylvania, little old ladies were loosing their homes because of something a kid or grandkid did. Then the onerous processes to fight it, which was difficult to navigate, did not afford victims of police excess much latitude. “Four years after the Philadelphia District Attorney seized her house without ever charging her with a crime, a 72-year-old grandmother has prevailed at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where justices strengthened protections for property owners against civil asset forfeiture.” “Court to Grandma: You Shouldn't Lose Your House Just Because Your Dumb Son Sold Some Weed There” https://reason.com/2017/05/30/court-to- … orfeiture. Though I bet there are plenty of people here that would say she should have lost her home. Harrisburg, PA – Governor Tom Wolf today signed Senate Bill 8, sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer, into law as Act 13 of 2017. The bipartisan bill reforms asset forfeitures, which are civil proceedings against property that allow law enforcement to take possession of property of certain persons suspected of crime.Jun 29, 2017 https://www.google.com/search?q=pensylv … p;ie=UTF-8 The following is an article about the case referenced in the OP, from the Institute of Justice, an organization with libertarian ties. https://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-un … th-crimes/ Articles about this story first appeared in June of 2021. The event happened in May of 2021. The June 2021 article was also from the Institute of Justice. This article from Oct 2021 talks about the judge and a decision in the case. https://ij.org/federal-judge-deals-anot … ults-raid/ What about the TSA? “Retiree Who Had Over $82,000 Seized Sues TSA and DEA For Violating The Fourth Amendment” "It’s not a crime to travel with cash. But that hasn’t stopped federal agents from treating innocent Americans like criminals. Now a new class-action lawsuit states that the Transportation Security Administration and Drug Enforcement Administration have routinely violated the Fourth Amendment at U.S. airports by seizing cash without probable cause." "Filed earlier this month by the Institute for Justice, the lawsuit was prompted by an outrageous seizure last August at Pittsburgh International Airport. Rebecca Brown was carrying her father’s life savings—more than $82,000 in cash—to fly back home to Boston where she would deposit it in a joint bank account." https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibill … 33670129be "Civil asset forfeiture has its roots in maritime and customs law, but modern civil asset forfeiture practices were introduced by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This law established the Assets Forfeiture Fund at the Department of Justice (DOJ) for asset proceeds and the Equitable Sharing Program. Equitable Sharing allows state and local law enforcement agencies to transfer seized assets associated with federal crimes to federal agencies, which then carry out forfeiture proceedings. Once the assets are successfully forfeited to the federal government, the proceeds are deposited in an appropriate forfeiture fund and state and local agencies receive a percentage of the total, depending on the specific type and circumstances of a particular case." "In 2000, Congress comprehensively reorganized federal civil asset forfeiture law. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act expanded forfeiture to “any specified unlawful activity,” and introduced procedural tools and time limits. In 2015, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder implemented a new policy prohibiting the federal agency forfeiture, or “adoptions” of, assets seized by state and local law enforcement agencies, with a limited public safety exception. In 2017, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the policy, allowing the federal government to take all assets associated with federal crimes that have been seized lawfully by state and local governments, and reviving the Equitable Sharing Program.". https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and … -laws.aspx There was a Republican majority in both houses of Congress in 2000. Making forfeiture more ruthless was part of the tough on crime and drugs initiatives. In 1984, the Senate majority was Republican and the House majority was Democrat. What did the US Supreme Court have to say about civil forfeiture? (9-0) March 15, 2019 “The 84 percent of Americans who oppose civil asset forfeiture can be forgiven for having the impression that the U.S. Supreme Court ended abusive use of this practice last month in Timbs v. Indiana when it ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states. Some media hailed it as a huge victory. But the celebration is premature.” "As we noted in our amicus brief, the historical roots of the Excessive Fines Clause indicate that courts need to consider an individual’s financial circumstances in order to evaluate whether a fine or forfeiture is excessive. But the Supreme Court has never squarely answered this crucial question, and it didn’t reach it in Timbs. So far, the court has only held that a criminal asset forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause when it is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.” "This “grossly disproportional” standard is a start. But, as the almost entirely unchecked growth of civil asset forfeiture has shown over the last 30 years, it is too vague, too general, and too varied in application to provide a meaningful limit on asset forfeitures. The court has similarly referenced a “grossly disproportionate” standard when evaluating whether a criminal sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments." "Protections under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause have been minimal in practice. Punishments struck down as grossly disproportionate are basically the equivalent of legal unicorns. Indeed, the Supreme Court has affirmed life sentences for shoplifting." "The biggest barrier to the Excessive Fines Clause restraining civil asset forfeiture is that owners who want their property back are not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer because the proceedings are deemed civil, not criminal." https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law- … orfeitures Aug 12 22 03:17 pm Link Znude! wrote: Hunter's post above at least attempts to explain the various aspects and viewpoints of what you posted a single link in the OP, which apparently lacks a balanced viewpoint. Aug 12 22 03:56 pm Link Znude! wrote: Nothing to do with Trump or politics you say? Well, gee. Maybe it was just the timing that gave me that impression. Aug 12 22 04:20 pm Link You've all convinced me. I was wrong. Aug 12 22 04:36 pm Link Znude! wrote: True enough. However, your topical introduction of a 15-minute video (by WHO again?) during the week we've had, and concerning a little-noticed case, is disingenuous of you. It smells very troll-like, and appears to only be you gaslighting your own farts. Aug 13 22 12:42 am Link Modelphilia wrote: No. The opposing arguments changed my mind on Civil Asset Seizures completely. And setting fire to farts has always sounded very dangerous to me. Aug 13 22 04:44 am Link Here's one. I am not sure of the legality of this seizure. However, I question the morality of the capital attackers being able to profit off of their actions when the taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars in damages and costs because of their actions. "Federal authorities seized more than $62,000 from a bank account belonging to riot defendant John Earle Sullivan, a Utah man who earned more than $90,000 from selling his Jan. 6 video footage to at least six companies. Sullivan’s lawyer argued authorities had no right to seize the money." https://apnews.com/article/capitol-sieg … 1fd650962c Aug 14 22 06:27 pm Link Znude! wrote: LoL, can you please give your evidence as to the FBI being out of control? Aug 17 22 02:03 am Link John Silva Photography wrote: The topic was created to discuss civil asset forfeiture. I didn't mention politics. I don't like ANY politicians. They are all crap. From what I've read on your Trump case it was not civil asset forfeiture so is unrelated to this thread. I didn't read about the Stone case. Aug 17 22 04:06 am Link Hunter GWPB wrote: Those seizures appear to be justified, some are. But there are cases of policing for profit happening not just with the FBI but with many other police agencies. Often the seizure takes place before the subject is ever convicted of a crime. As I mentioned though I now don't care. At least as long as it doesn't happen to me I don't. Aug 17 22 04:16 am Link I am just talking about the subject. I am not trying to goad you or anything. I can see the legitimacy in 'freezing' someone's assets until due process works and then seizing it after a criminal conviction. Some of the examples I made before are inappropriate government behaviors. I think the government should also be required to provide attorneys for those that can't afford a better one in civil matters the government is involved in. This is a 2013 story about a shooting that occurred after a municipality condemned a man's land. I do not condone the man's actions leading up to the condemnation, and certainly not his actions after the condemnation. However, the municipality could have handled the situation better. Three people need not to have died. I think about this guy from time to time when I see abusive municipal behavior going on. https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/justice/ … l-shooting Aug 17 22 06:11 am Link Which thread to put his in? May be ya'll remember hearing about this when it broke or when two judges were convicted? "Two former Pennsylvania judges who orchestrated a scheme to send children to for-profit jails in exchange for kickbacks were ordered to pay more than $200 million to hundreds of people they victimized in one of the worst judicial scandals in U.S. history." "U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner awarded $106 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages to nearly 300 people in a long-running civil suit against the judges, writing the plaintiffs are “the tragic human casualties of a scandal of epic proportions.”" "Ciavarella ordered children as young as 8 to detention, many of them first-time offenders deemed delinquent for petty theft, jaywalking, truancy, smoking on school grounds and other minor infractions. The judge often ordered youths he had found delinquent to be immediately shackled, handcuffed and taken away without giving them a chance to put up a defense or even say goodbye to their families." https://apnews.com/article/crime-trendi … 47b1be50f0 Aug 17 22 12:21 pm Link |
