[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Two Officers Shot in Ferguson After White House Declares Open Season on Cops
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 12, 2015
Author: sara noble
Post Date: 2015-03-12 08:20:15 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 30943
Comments: 162

www.independentsentinel.com www.independentsentinel.com

Officer Cries In Pain On One Video

Ferguson “protesters” gathered outside the Ferguson police station following the resignation of Chief Jackson. Shortly after midnight, someone shot two police officers. No one knows who fired, but it appeared the shots were fired directly at the officers.

The DOJ released a scathing report accusing Ferguson police of racism knowing it would reignite the nearly-burned out furor in Ferguson.

A 32-year-old officer from nearby Webster Groves was shot in the face and a 41- year-old officer from St. Louis County was shot in the shoulder, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said at a news conference. Both were taken to a hospital, where Belmar said they were conscious. He said he did not have further details about their conditions but described their injuries as “serious.”

They weren’t even Ferguson police officers.

You can hear the officers screaming in pain on this video.

There were about 60 to 70 protesters and their behavior prompted the police to send officers in riot gear.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar told reporters, “I’ve said many times we cannot sustain this without problems and that’s not a reflection of those expressing their first amendment rights. But this is a very dangerous environment for our officers to work in.”

At least three shots were fired and the wounds were “very serious”, Belmar said.

Some said the shots seemed to come from a house but there was no house nearby and others said they might have come from a small hill.

Prior to the shooting, “protesters” were chanting to show they weren’t satisfied with the resignation of Chief Jackson. Others were angry and potentially dangerous. They smell blood in the water.

One protester said it was mostly peaceful until the shots rang out. Mostly peaceful?!?

If the participants were in the Tea Party, would it be described as mostly peaceful?

The acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division released a statement saying the U.S. government remains committed to reaching a “court- enforceable agreement” to address Ferguson’s “unconstitutional practices,” regardless of who’s in charge of the city.

What about the rights of the police who they are endangering with their race baiting?

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz wants Ferguson police disarmed.

The riots/protests were funded by George Soros among others and engineered by Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

The video of the shooting via Matthew Keys:

After the shooting, the leftists chanted this allegedly:

after the shooting

The chanting was utter nonsense. The only ones losing their freedom are the police and the normal people in Ferguson being subjected to these Soros-communist funded riots/protests which are based on a lie. They still have the hands up, don’t shoot posture.

This was one of the “chants”:

And another – “hands up, don’t shoot, stop this shit, we’re bullet proof”.

Don’t expect any words of comfort from the White House or calls to families of the officers.

One confused protester thinks the cops are “trigger happy”.

CNN

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-104) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#105. To: redleghunter (#104)

Thanks for making my point.

You're welcome.

Though, I must add that..... I have no idea what your point was.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   3:33:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: GrandIsland (#90)

Negative, I won't be a "victim" of "asset forfeiture" because to actually be able to keep those assets as a LE agency, YOU MUST GET A CONVICTION on the crimes associated with the assets.

That is not true. Many asset forfeitures are done prior to a conviction and people have to fight to get their money or property back once it is declared forfeit.

Perhaps NY state had some protections on forfeiture but you need to check the states you live or travel in. You'd be surprised at the horror stories, especially in some states that otherwise have a good reputation for clean government.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   6:22:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: Pinguinite (#102)

Is this how discussions go when cops question suspects? I guess being a cop must really take its toll on one's sanity. You are demonstrating hostility and paranoia.

I'm demonstrating nothing of the sort. You hear what you want to hear... you see what you want to see.

Pick and choose what laws you'll follow at your own risk. You are certainly FREE to act in any way you feel is right.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   6:25:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: Pinguinite (#101)

The difference between you and I is this, I base my ideals on direct knowledge. I've dealt with asset forfiture. I know what a department must do, the hoops they must go through before the asset is finally awarded to the department. You base your vast constitutional law degree on YouTube videos.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   6:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: TooConservative (#106) (Edited)

That is not true. Many asset forfeitures are done prior to a conviction and people have to fight to get their money or property back once it is declared forfeit

Obviously, if I stop you on the highway with a duffle bag of cocaine, your F250 Ford truck you are mule-ing the drug with will be confiscated FOR EVIDENCE at the time of arrest and kept for EVIDENCE until after your conviction. The truck still belongs to YOU. However if the truck qualifies for asset forfiture, and the department jumps through all the hoops and files all the legal paperwork, a judge might order the truck forfeited if it's proved by the department that the truck was purchased with money from illegal activity. THEN the title of the truck is changed and the truck gets removed from IMPOUND and transferred to the departments fleet of vehicles to be used for LE purposes.

I use this as an example because the last asset forfiture I worked on was a Ford diesel pickup truck. The defendant couldn't produce a single pay stub for the past 5 years... but he could pay cash for a 46K truck with hidden compartments built in, aftermarket.

To a non cop, of course it LOOKS like we take your property before conviction, but they don't. It's EVIDENCE until conviction and then forfeited AFTER.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   6:43:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: GrandIsland (#109)

Again, maybe NY has some citizen protections but in many states this is not true.

As with so many LEO stories, it's the state laws and the very significant differences between them that leads to a lot of public confusion.

You might check forfeiture laws and cases in your new home state, just to see how they match up with NY.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   6:50:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: TooConservative (#110)

You might check forfeiture laws and cases in your new home state, just to see how they match up with NY.

I could check Pa law (I'm only here for a few years until I flip the house)... but I'm honestly not worried about any of my assets being seized and forfeited. I don't break laws and all my assets I can prove I bought with money I EARNED legally.

In NY, it was actually a pain in the ass to permanently seize property. If there was a loan on the property and the defendant owed anything even close to its value, we never even bothered. We returned the property after the trial.

It was just the very obvious drug related purchases.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   7:00:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: GrandIsland (#111)

In NY, it was actually a pain in the ass to permanently seize property.

NY and some of the Blue states do a much better job of protecting their citizens on a wide variety of issues, asset forfeiture and warranty limitations and other consumer protection measures being only a few of the obvious examples.

Regardless of their other virtues, the Red states don't do as well on these measures.

We shouldn't be surprised by this. The CCW movement swept the states, the Red states and the South in particular. Yet there are still significant differences between state laws on matters like Stand Your Ground, castle doctrine, etc.

As Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics are local." Unfortunately (at times) so are criminal statutes.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   7:07:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: GrandIsland (#108)

You base your vast constitutional law degree on YouTube videos.

lol, good one

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-03-18   9:43:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: GrandIsland, Biff Tannen, Pinguinite, nolu chan (#108)

I've dealt with asset forfeiture.

You dealt with asset forfeiture in the state of New York.

There are also federal forfeiture laws and all the other states and territories have their own forfeiture laws, many with considerable differences between them.

Even in states with abusive forfeiture laws, not every PD is using them abusively. But some bandit towns will use every provision to line their pockets.

It is a pattern that is quite clear. It is useless for G.I. to pretend that the forfeiture laws of NY state are operable elsewhere in the country. We all know they are not.

I see that Wyoming (among the worst forfeiture laws among the States) got a bill passed to curb abuses and the governor vetoed it. Apparently, Minnesota passed a big reform bill that really cleaned things up, kind of a model reform bill for other states. Tennessee is trying but didn't get the job done yet AFAIK.

Holder rescinding the federal program does help in more ways than is readily apparent because many of the states' seizures were actually justified under looser federal laws, not under criminal statutes in the states where they were passed. We don't know if the new A.G. will leave Holder's order in place or will subvert it to maximize police/federal partnership in looting the citizens. It is certainly a black mark on Holder that he tolerated these abuses constantly until he signed an order to abolish much of the abuse just as he was shutting off the lights in his A.G. office and leaving. A despicable act.

I wish I could find better state-by-state comparisons on this because I think most people would be surprised at how much variety there is among the States on forfeiture. Also, not every locale in every state uses these laws abusively. You can have a bandit town anywhere in the country, making use of forfeitures to line their pockets and keep taxes down for themselves or to fund police expansion and other goodies without having to ask elected officials for the funds. It's mad money that the cops can spend as they please generally. Under normal budgeting, there is a lot more discipline and regulation of funds.

Maybe nolu knows a source that could settle this matter of how local the issue of forfeiture really is.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   10:58:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: Pinguinite (#105) (Edited)

Though, I must add that..... I have no idea what your point was.

You: There is a limit to what should be morally tolerated.

Me:By whose standards?

You: By the only moral standards each of us have to adhere to, of course. Our own. Or would you feel good about adhering to Obama's moral standards. Or maybe mine? Do what I tell you to do because you have faith in my morals, even if they contradict your own?

Me: Thanks for making my point. You: Though, I must add that..... I have no idea what your point was.

Each having their own moral "standard" is really not a moral standard at all. It is a multitude of 'islands' of opinions and self values. In effect each individual validates their own moral values relative to many others. Some of course will come close to others but none of them have a 'ruler' in which to measure said values. Each man or woman becomes their own form of metrics, their own 'measurement' aka ruler.

I find it odd in a society in which every profession has a set of metrics to evaluate measures of performance (MOP) and measures of effectiveness (MOE), the same sees no need for such when it comes to morals.

As we know from such professions which use MOPs and MOEs they are very results oriented. And they cannot hide their failure in relativism as many seem to do with morals. In effect in industry and other professions if one ignores MOEs and MOPs they will go bankrupt. Same for the moral revisionism...Moral bankruptcy.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-18   11:15:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: TooConservative (#114)

There are also federal forfeiture laws and all the other states and territories have their own forfeiture laws, many with considerable differences between them.

I have no direct knowledge on federal asset forfiture. I'm sure the Feds do the same after a federal conviction. I'll assume they have more red tape than we had to seize property permanently... but I have nothing to base that assumption on.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   13:15:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: TooConservative (#114)

I wish I could find better state-by-state comparisons on this because I think most people would be surprised at how much variety there is among the States on forfeiture. Also, not every locale in every state uses these laws abusively.

I wish you did too. I'd be interested in the information. I would hope that the one standard would be to prove the asset was bought or being paid for through funds gained by illegal activity that they arrested for and received a conviction.

IMHO, every asset forfiture should be put in front of a judge and decided by a judge if the seizing of said property was proper.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   13:19:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#98)

Juries will never hear any such argument that drug laws are unconstitutional because judges will not allow it as a defence.

Trial court judges do not have discretion to permit such a defense. Binding federal precedent prohibits any trial level court in the United States from entertaining such a defense.

The trial court judges need not agree with the Supremes but they are required to comply with all binding higher court precedent. SCOTUS holdings are binding in all jurisdictions.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/

SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2004
GONZALES V. RAICH

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 03–1454.Argued November 29, 2004—Decided June 6, 2005

California’s Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The District Court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law. The court relied heavily on United States v. Lopez,514 U. S. 549, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power.

Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6–31.

(a) For the purposes of consolidating various drug laws into a comprehensive statute, providing meaningful regulation over legitimate sources of drugs to prevent diversion into illegal channels, and strengthening law enforcement tools against international and interstate drug trafficking, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II of which is the CSA. To effectuate the statutory goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except as authorized by the CSA. 21 U. S. C. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). All controlled substances are classified into five schedules, §812, based on their accepted medical uses, their potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body, §§811, 812.Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, §812(c), based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment, §812(b)(1). This classification renders the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). Pp. 6–11.

(b) Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States,402 U. S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154–155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127–128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. E.g., Lopez, 514 U. S., at 557. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U. S. C. §801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Pp. 12–20.

(c) Respondents’ heavy reliance on Lopez and Morrison overlooks the larger context of modern-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence preserved by those cases, while also reading those cases far too broadly. The statutory challenges at issue there were markedly different from the challenge here. Respondents ask the Court to excise individual applications of a concededly valid comprehensive statutory scheme. In contrast, in both Lopez and Morrison, the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety. This distinction is pivotal for the Court has often reiterated that “[w]here the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power ‘to excise, as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez, 402 U. S., at 154. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the laws at issue in Lopez and Morrison had nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise. See Lopez, 514 U. S., at 561; Morrison, 529 U. S., at 610. In contrast, the CSA regulates quintessentially economic activities: the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational means of regulating commerce in that product. The Ninth Circuit cast doubt on the CSA’s constitutionality by isolating a distinct class of activities that it held to be beyond the reach of federal power: the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law. However, Congress clearly acted rationally in determining that this subdivided class of activities is an essential part of the larger regulatory scheme. The case comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the CSA’s findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progeny foreclose that claim. Pp. 20–30.

352 F. 3d 1222, vacated and remanded.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/opinion.html

OPINION OF THE COURT
GONZALES V. RAICH
545 U. S. 1 (2005)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 03-1454

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 6, 2005]

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

[...]

Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128–129 (1942). As we stated in Wickard, “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. When Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See Perez, 402 U. S., at 154–155 (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 259 (1927)(“[W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so”)). In this vein, we have reiterated that when “ ‘a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.’ ” E.g.,Lopez, 514 U. S., at 558 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196, n. 27 (1968)).

Our decision in Wickard,317 U. S. 111, is of particular relevance. In Wickard, we upheld the application of regulations promulgated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 31, which were designed to control the volume of wheat moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and consequent abnormally low prices. The regulations established an allotment of 11.1 acres for Filburn’s 1941 wheat crop, but he sowed 23 acres, intending to use the excess by consuming it on his own farm. Filburn argued that even though we had sustained Congress’ power to regulate the production of goods for commerce, that power did not authorize “federal regulation [of] production not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm.” Wickard, 317 U. S., at 118. Justice Jackson’s opinion for a unanimous Court rejected this submission. He wrote:

“The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee’s own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.” Id., at 127–128.

Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

[...]

In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Lopez, 514 U. S., at 557; see also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.,452 U. S. 264, 276–280 (1981); Perez, 402 U. S., at 155–156; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 299–301 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 252–253 (1964). Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U. S. C. §801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels,[Footnote 33] we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Thus, as in Wickard, when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to “regulate Commerce … among the several States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8. That the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment. As we have done many times before, we refuse to excise individual components of that larger scheme.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-18   15:31:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: redleghunter (#115)

Each having their own moral "standard" is really not a moral standard at all. It is a multitude of 'islands' of opinions and self values. In effect each individual validates their own moral values relative to many others. Some of course will come close to others but none of them have a 'ruler' in which to measure said values. Each man or woman becomes their own form of metrics, their own 'measurement' aka ruler.

But if one does not act according to his own sense of right and wrong, then one must act according to the dictates someone or something else, in effect then sometimes doing things contrary to his own conscience.

In cases like this, I sometimes think of the Nuremberg trials where soldiers that followed orders of their superiors were convicted of crimes against humanity, because "following orders" was no defence. In effect, they were convicted of crimes against humanity because they placed the dictates of their superiors above what should have been a clear mandate of their own conscience.

If what you say is true, then these men should not have been convicted of anything, because they would have been wrong to place their own sense of right and wrong above all else, because their own sense of right and wrong could not have been reasonably trusted.

I'm going to second guess you here and anticipate your responding that it is correct that our own consciences cannot be trusted, and that is why we need the Bible to show us right from wrong, or perhaps the Holy Spirit to show us the right and wrong path. But certainly the old testament is hardly a guide for moral living, otherwise I could rally all the fighting men in my town and lead a raid on the next town to kill every man, woman and child in it, and bring all the loot from it back to my town because the people in my town are God's chosen people. Point being, that interpretation of the Bible is still in the eye of the beholder. What you say the bible calls us to do is not what I say the bible calls us to do. And if I insist the Holy Spirit is telling me to do something you consider a sin, how could you possibly tell me that I'm wrong and you are right, that my perception of my moral duties is off base?

You may reasonably say that one man with an axe chasing another man down the street trying to kill him is committing a horrible sin. But what if the man being chased is on his way to kill the axe-weilding man's family? Then one's perception changes dramatically. Point is, you cannot know for certain what is in my heart. You cannot judge whether I sin or not. Only I and God can judge that, and the only reason God can is because He knows what my perceptions were. And that is why I maintain that each of us only has his own moral compass to judge right and wrong from, and nothing else. Trying to say we need to rely on other sources of moral judgement would still require such information be passed through our own compass. I.e. a decision to apply a biblical passage to a course of action still requires one to decide by his own compass if it is the right thing to do.

This is another area where Michael Newton's portrait of the spirit world makes things so clean. According to MN's findings, our behavior is judged according to what we truly believed, our moral conscience, not according to some absolute standard of which we may well have been completely, honestly and justifiably ignorant. That said, our sense of morality comes from our ever growing spiritual experiences by which we learn the eternal truth that loving others is the highest calling.

Ergo, my response to your original question of who's moral standards we are called to follow. Answer: The only one we can possibly have: Our own. Sure individual senses of right and wrong can vary somewhat, but that's okay.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   15:41:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: Pinguinite (#119)

If what you say is true, then these men should not have been convicted of anything, because they would have been wrong to place their own sense of right and wrong above all else, because their own sense of right and wrong could not have been reasonably trusted.

Again you are making my point.

There was an established rule of law addressing war crimes. There were several Geneva accords which were violated. There was a law giver to the warriors to measure their actions/inactions against. And in the case of the Nuremberg trials, those who violated the LOAC and those who did nothing to stop the violations were punished.

And thanks for the mind reading, or second guess. I did not mention anything about what you anticipated I would opine on. I'm still on moral metrics.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-18   15:52:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: nolu chan (#118)

Trial court judges do not have discretion to permit such a defense. Binding federal precedent prohibits any trial level court in the United States from entertaining such a defense.

The trial court judges need not agree with the Supremes but they are required to comply with all binding higher court precedent. SCOTUS holdings are binding in all jurisdictions.

The reason lower courts will not permit arguments against the constitutionality of drug laws be made by the defence to juries is not pertinent to my response in this discussion. Only the fact that they will not permit it is.

My position is that the court system as a whole is basically a failure in serving the nation it is supposed to serve. I look not at the mechanics of operation to find fault, only the end result, which has all manner of failures, from cops that kill innocent people going unpunished even though they provoke confrontations to the point of making people flee out of fear for their lives, or even place illegal chokeholds on them. Fourth amendment protections have been all but completely gutted, all forms of electronic communications being secretly recorded, extra-judicial executions of US citizens, and the list goes on and on and on and on.

The US Constitution used to be construed as a document that gives limited power to the central government, but now is construed as a document that sets the limits the power of the central government. There is a massive difference. The US government in particular no longer serves the interests of the people, only the interests of those in it and those corporate interests able to milk it in whatever manner for their own benefit, whether it being spending or sponsoring a coup in Ukraine (which provides no benefit to any state of the union -- which the Fed gov is supposed to be a servant of -- in any way).

Every branch has it's share of the blame in destroying what was a great USA, but the courts, including the USSC, may well carry the most blame of the three.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   16:00:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: redleghunter (#120)

There was an established rule of law addressing war crimes. There were several Geneva accords which were violated. There was a law giver to the warriors to measure their actions/inactions against. And in the case of the Nuremberg trials, those who violated the LOAC and those who did nothing to stop the violations were punished.

My impression, right or wrong, was that the convictions related at least in part to the famed "following orders is no defence" phrase, which implies that they should simply have known better from their own conscience. (Of course this applied only to German soldiers taking orders from the German military, not to American CIA agents torturing people, because that's somehow completely different, even though such agents were also just following orders). I think Japanese officers were also executed after the war by the US for crimes against humanity, even though Japan was not a party to the Geneva Convention accords.

These German soldiers were basically convicted because they didn't refuse to follow orders, even though not doing so may well have gotten them executed. IOW, they were executed after the war because they chose not to risk being executed during the war.

And thanks for the mind reading, or second guess. I did not mention anything about what you anticipated I would opine on. I'm still on moral metrics.

Second guessing is not mind-reading, as with second guessing, you don't have to be right. :). But I hope it helped make my point clear, even though for you I guess it hasn't.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   16:23:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Pinguinite (#122)

My impression, right or wrong, was that the convictions related at least in part to the famed "following orders is no defence" phrase, which implies that they should simply have known better from their own conscience.

Now we are getting somewhere:)

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-18   16:53:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: GrandIsland, nolu chan (#116)

I have no direct knowledge on federal asset forfiture. I'm sure the Feds do the same after a federal conviction. I'll assume they have more red tape than we had to seize property permanently... but I have nothing to base that assumption on.

My reading indicates that in some states, PDs will use the federal forfeiture laws because their state's laws are not flexible enough for their booty grab. The federal forfeiture is claimed to be a much lower standard than in many states.

I looked a little longer to find some summary of this state-by-state but maybe it's too complex a topic to fit in a neat table with columns and rows.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   17:14:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: TooConservative (#124)

My reading indicates that in some states, PDs will use the federal forfeiture laws because their state's laws are not flexible enough for their booty grab. The federal forfeiture is claimed to be a much lower standard than in many states.

I don't doubt it... but the original crime charge would probably have to be a federal crime charge instead of a state charge.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   17:44:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: GrandIsland, nolu chan (#125)

I'm hoping nolu knows how to google the right phrase. Sometimes Google opens up like a treasure chest if you just have the magic phrase. Maybe nolu will play Ali Baba for us and know the right "Open Sesame" to find it.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   17:52:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: redleghunter, pinguinite, GrandIsland, Y'ALL (#123)

Pinguinite (#122) --- My impression, right or wrong, was that the convictions related at least in part to the famed "following orders is no defence" phrase, which implies that they should simply have known better from their own conscience.

Now we are getting somewhere:) --- redleghunter

Indeed, we are getting somewhere, --- back to the original discussion that GrandIsland and I had.

An American cop has no excuse (I'm just enforcing 'established law'), for zealously arresting non-violent suspects of our arguably unconstitutional drug, gun, and 'morality' wars..

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-18   17:53:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#128. To: TooConservative, GrandIsland, Biff Tannen, Pinguinite (#114)

[TooConservative #114] Maybe nolu knows a source that could settle this matter of how local the issue of forfeiture really is.

I would surmise that it is not substantially a local problem regulated by State law. There is an out for the willing State or Local authorities to join up with the Federal program for Equitable Sharing of forfeited assets. Technically, it is a federal asset forfeiture with State or Local participation, and the Feds give equitable sharing of the loot. That is nationwide.

It can be viewed as the Feds enlisting the locals to do the work, the Feds will do the prosecution, and the Feds will decide, at their sole discretion, how much of the booty to kick back to the locals as an equitable share. The Feds present it as their rendering their assistance to States and Locals.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forfeiture

Forfeiture

"They don't have to convict you. They don't even have to charge you with a crime. But they have your property."

--Henry Hyde, as quoted in CNN Article

Introduction

Forfeiture, the government seizure of property connected to illegal activity, has been a major weapon in the Federal government's "war on drugs" since the mid-eighties. Two recent developments, however, have called attention to the darker side of this practice: a decision by New York City's Mayor, Rudolph Guiliani, to deploy forfeiture against drunk drivers, and a House-approved bill that would, if signed into law, drastically narrow the scope of the federal forfeiture statutes. Forfeiture is a potent deterent, as well as a revenue source on which law enforcement has grown increasingly dependent. However, it brings with it far fewer procedural safeguards than the criminal law.

In the words of former President George Bush, "Asset forfeiture laws allow the government to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets." New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir invoked deterence when he said, "We believe that ... the threat of civil forfeiture and the possibility of losing one's car, have served to reduce the number of motorists who are willing to take the chance of being caught driving drunk." On the other hand, a civil liberties group has filed suit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the New York City program. Citing some of the same constitutional concerns, the House passed a Bill that would drastically curtail the federal operation of the law.

Concerned about the the broad effect of federal forfeiture laws, Henry Hyde (R-Ill., House Judiciary Committee Chairman) and John Conyers (D-Mich., the senior Democrat on the Committee) teamed up to introduce the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act in a rare display of bipartisan unity. The Representatives were concerned about the problem of police using seized property or funds to finance their own operations. As Bob Barr (R-Ga.) put it, "In many jurisdictions, it has become a monetary tail wagging the law enforcement dog." Testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Willie Jones of Nashville, TN, gave an example of this abuse. Engaged in the landscaping business, Mr. Jones planned to buy a shrubbery in Houston, TX. Nurseries prefer cash from out-of-town buyers, so Mr. Jones planned to go there with $9,000 in cash. Officers detained him at the airport: suspicious of the large amount of cash, they accused him of being involved in drug-related activities. They eventually let him go, but they kept the money, and refused to even give him a receipt for it. Because he did not have 10% of the money seized to put up as a bond, he could not afford to challenge the seizure in the usual way. Disturbed by this and other similar stories of excess, the House members voted to approve H.R. 1658 to curb this abuse. The Clinton administration said that the bill would have a negative impact on the war on drugs. The House soundly rejected an administration-favored alternative, however -- supporters of H.R. 1658 said the alternative bill would expand the federal power, not narrow it.

Most forfeiture activity occurs under Federal law, and most of that is connected to the traffic in illegal drugs. The Department of Justice established the National Assets Seizure and Forfeiture Fund in 1985 and realized $27 million from drug-related forfeitures that year. By 1992 the total take had climbed to $875 million. Many states followed suit by establishing their own civil forfeiture programs. Cities and other municipal governments have cooperated in forfeiture actions under both Federal and state drug laws. They have used such laws on their own to deal with local concerns ranging from unsafe housing to prostitution, and now for the problem of drunk driving.

The authority to seize property in this way is not inherent. Rather, it is established by statute. It is constrained by those authorizing laws and by the U.S. Constitution. The expansion of forfeiture activity has not gone on without Constitutional challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard at least half a dozen forfeiture cases during the nineties, but its rulings have not done much to rein in the practice. This short survey of the law of forfeiture draws upon these Court decisions. Its introduction to the essential statutory provisions focuses on the Federal statutes. State and local provisions tend to be quite similar.

Forfeiture takes two distinct forms -- criminal and civil. Nearly all contemporary forfeiture involves the civil variety. Criminal forfeiture operates as punishment for a crime. It, therefore, requires a conviction, following which the state takes the assets in question from the criminal. Civil forfeiture rests on the idea (a legal fiction) that the property itself, not the owner, has violated the law. Thus, the proceeding is directed against the res, or the thing involved in some illegal activity specified by statute. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in rem forfeiture does not require a conviction or even an official criminal charge against the owner. This is the source of its attractiveness to law enforcement, and its threat to those concerned about abuse or circumvention of Constitutional protections.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/1658

H.R.1658 - Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, 106th Congress (1999-2000)

Sponsor: Rep. Hyde, Henry J. [R-IL-6] (Introduced 05/04/1999)
Committees: House - Judiciary | Senate - Judiciary
Committee Reports: H. Rept. 106-192
Latest Action: 04/25/2000 Became Public Law No: 106-185.
Major Recorded Votes: 06/24/1999 : Passed House

Bill Text

Summary: H.R.1658 — 106th Congress (1999-2000)

Shown Here:
Passed Senate amended (03/27/2000)

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal criminal code (the code) to establish general rules relating to civil forfeiture proceedings.

(Sec. 2) Sets forth notification requirements with respect to seized property and civil forfeiture proceedings, including: (1) a requirement that the notice the Government is required to send to interested parties in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute be sent to achieve proper notice as soon as practicable and within 60 days after the date of the seizure; and (2) required conditions for extending the notification period.

Sets forth procedures for filing claims for seized property. Directs the Government, within 90 days after a claim has been filed, to file a complaint for forfeiture consistent with specified requirements or return the property pending the filing of a complaint (allows a court to extend the period for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties). Provides that if the Government does not file such a complaint, return the property, or, before the time for filing a complaint has expired, obtain a criminal indictment containing an allegation that the property is subject to forfeiture and take the steps necessary to preserve its right to maintain custody of the property, the Government shall promptly release the property and may not take any further action to effect the civil forfeiture of such property.

Authorizes the Government, in lieu of or in addition to filing a civil forfeiture complaint, to include a forfeiture allegation in a criminal indictment. Specifies that if criminal forfeiture is the only forfeiture proceeding commenced by the Government, the Government's right to continued possession of the property shall be governed by the applicable criminal forfeiture statute. Bars dismissal of a complaint on the ground that the Government did not have adequate evidence at the time the complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of the property.

Allows any person claiming an interest in seized property, in any case in which the Government files a complaint for forfeiture, to file a claim asserting such person's interest, with an exception. Directs such person to file an answer to the Government's complaint within 20 days after the date of the filing of the claim.

Authorizes the court, if a person with standing to contest the forfeiture of property is financially unable to obtain representation by counsel, to: (1) authorize counsel to represent that person with respect to the claim where the person is represented by counsel appointed in connection with a related criminal case; or (2) insure that the person is represented by a Legal Services Corporation (LSC) attorney, at the person's request, where the property subject to forfeiture is real property that is being used by the person as a primary resident.

Places the burden of proof, in an action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property, on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture. Authorizes the Government to use evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for forfeiture to establish that property is subject to forfeiture. Directs the Government, if its theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in such commission, to establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.

Declares that an innocent owner's interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. Places on the claimant the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.

[snip]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.+5212:

Note: 2014 proposed legislation died in committee.

H.R.5212 Latest Title: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2014
Sponsor: Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] (introduced 7/28/2014) Cosponsors (20)
Latest Major Action: 9/26/2014 Referred to House subcommittee.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

ALL ACTIONS:

7/28/2014:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

9/26/2014:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

Some of the proposed provisions would have changed the burden proof to make it more difficult for the government to show the property is subject to forfeiture, and less difficult for the individual to sustain a claim of innocent ownership.

Also, note at the end, "The Attorney General shall assure that any equitable sharing between the Department of Justice and a local or State law enforcement agency was not initiated for the purpose of circumventing any State law that prohibits civil forfeiture or limits use or disposition of property obtained via civil forfeiture by State or local agencies.'."

When the Executive Branch read that, they must have gotten the vapors.

HR 5212 IH

113th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5212

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to civil asset forfeiture,
and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 28, 2014

Mr. WALBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to civil asset forfeiture,
and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2014'.

SEC. 2. REPRESENTATION BY ATTORNEY.

    Section 983(a)(1)(A)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following: `The Government shall include in any such
notice that the person receiving the notice may be able to obtain free or
reduced rate legal representation under subsection (b).'.

SEC. 3. BURDEN OF PROOF.

    Section 983(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

        (1) in paragraph (1), by striking `by a preponderance of the
evidence' and inserting `by clear and convincing evidence'; and

        (2) in paragraph (2), by striking `by a preponderance of the
evidence' and inserting `by clear and convincing evidence'.

SEC. 4. INNOCENT OWNER DEFENSE.

    (a) In General- Section 983(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
so that paragraph (1) reads as follows:

        `(1) The innocent owner defense shall be available to a claimant.
Where a prima facie case is made for such a defense, the Government has the
burden of proving that the claimant knew or reasonably should have known that
the property was involved in the illegal conduct giving rise to the
forfeiture.'.

    (b) Knowledge by Owner of Criminal Activity- Section 983(d)(2)(B) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--

        (1) in clause (i), by striking `a person may show that such person did
all that reasonably could be expected may include demonstrating that such person
to the extent permitted by law' and inserting `the Government may show that the
property owner should have had knowledge of the criminal activity by
demonstrating that the property owner did not';

        (2) in clause (i)(I), by striking `gave' and inserting `give'; and

        (3) in clause (i)(II)--

            (A) by striking `revoked or made' and inserting `revoke or make'; and

            (B) by striking `took' and inserting `take'.

SEC. 5. PROPORTIONALITY.

    Section 983(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended so that paragraph
(2) reads as follows:

        `(2) In making this determination, the court shall consider such factors
as the seriousness of the offense, the extent of the nexus of the property to
the offense, the range of sentences available for the offense giving rise to
forfeiture, the fair market value of the property, and the hardship to the
property owner and dependents'.

SEC. 6. INCREASED VISIBILITY.

    Section 524(c)(6)(i) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
inserting `from each type of forfeiture, and specifically identifying which
funds were obtained from including criminal forfeitures and which were obtained
from civil forfeitures,' after `deposits'.

SEC. 7. EQUITABLE SHARING AGREEMENTS.

    Section 524(c) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:

    `(12) The Attorney General shall assure that any equitable sharing between
the Department of Justice and a local or State law enforcement agency was not
initiated for the purpose of circumventing any State law that prohibits civil
forfeiture or limits use or disposition of property obtained via civil
forfeiture by State or local agencies.'.

END

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-18/part-i/chapter-46/section-983/

18 U.S.C. § 1983(c)

(c) Burden of Proof.—In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property—

(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture;

(2) the Government may use evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for forfeiture to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property is subject to forfeiture; and

(3) if the Government's theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.

(d) Innocent Owner Defense.—

(1) An innocent owner's interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.

(2)(A) With respect to a property interest in existence at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture took place, the term “innocent owner” means an owner who—

(i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or

(ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property.

https://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture

Massachusetts Civil Forfeiture

United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass. (The Motel Caswell)

Federal & Local Law Enforcement Agencies Try to Take Family Motel from Innocent Owners

Imagine you own a million-dollar piece of property free and clear, but then the federal government and local law enforcement agents announce that they are going to take it from you, not compensate you one dime, and then use the money they get from selling your land to pad their budgets—all this even though you have never so much as been accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one.

That is the nightmare Russ Caswell and his family faced in Tewksbury, Mass., where the the federal government tried to take the family-operated motel they have owned for two generations.

Seeking to circumvent state law and cash in on the profits, the Tewksbury Police Department teamed up with the United States Department of Justice to take and sell the Caswell’s property because a tiny fraction of people staying there during the past 14 years were arrested for drug crimes. Keep in mind, the Caswells themselves have worked closely with law enforcement officials to prevent and report crime on their property. And during those 14 years, the government pointed to a mere fifteen arrests—out of more than 200,000 rooms rented during that time by the Caswells.

[...]

- - - - -

[Pinguinite #101] You don't need to be convicted or even charged to lose your property.

More to the point, the individual is not charged, and cannot be convicted, in a civil asset forfeiture proceeding. Claiming jurisdiction over an object, rather than a person, the named defendant is the object. The individual is not even a party to the proceeding.

United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 05-3295 (8th Cir. 2006)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency

United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 05-3295 (8th Cir. 2006), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that was handed down on August 18, 2006.

The form of the styling of this case — the defendant being an object, rather than a legal person — is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam (over persons) case. In current US legal practice, in rem is most widely used in the area of asset forfeiture, frequently in relation to controlled substances offenses. In rem forfeiture cases allow property (in this case, $124,700 in cash) to be directly sued by and forfeited to the government, without either just compensation or the possessor (and presumptive owner) being convicted of a crime.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 and 19 U.S.C. § 1616a, seized property forfeited to the Federal government may be transferred "to any State or local law enforcement agency which participated directly in the seizure of forfeiture of the property."

www.justice.gov/criminal/afmls/pubs/pdf/04-2009guide-equit.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section

Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies

April 2009

I. What Is the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program?

The Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program (the Program) is a nationwide law enforcement initiative that removes the tools of crime from criminal organizations, deprives wrongdoers of the proceeds of their crimes, recovers property that may be used to compensate victims, and deters crime. The most important objective of the Program is law enforcement. Equitable sharing further enhances this law enforcement objective by fostering cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

Federal law authorizes the Attorney General to share federally forfeited property with participating state and local law enforcement agencies.1 The exercise of this authority is discretionary and limited by statute. The Attorney General is not required to share property in any case.

The Controlled Substances Act most fully states the intent of Congress in the sharing of forfeited property. Section 881(e)(3) of Title 21, United States Code, provides that:

The Attorney General shall assure that any property transferred to a State or local law enforcement agency…

(A) has a value that bears a reasonable relationship to the degree of direct participation of the State or local agency in the law enforcement effort resulting in the forfeiture, taking into account the total value of all property forfeited and the total law enforcement effort as a whole; and with respect to the violation of law on which the forfeiture is based; and

(B) will serve to encourage further cooperation between the recipient State or local agency and Federal law enforcement agencies.2

A Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies applies only to the sharing of assets that were seized by Department of Justice investigative agencies and federal agencies participating in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program and that were forfeited judicially or administratively to the United States by the United States Attorney’s Offices or Forfeiture Program participants.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-21/chapter-13/subchapter-i/part-e/section-881/

Administrative and Enforcement Provisions - 21 U.S.C. § 881 (2012)

§881. Forfeitures

(a) Subject property

The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:

(1) All controlled substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of this subchapter.

(2) All raw materials, products, and equipment of any kind which are used, or intended for use, in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing, or exporting any controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter.

(3) All property which is used, or intended for use, as a container for property described in paragraph (1), (2), or (9).

(4) All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or are intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of property described in paragraph (1), (2), or (9).

(5) All books, records, and research, including formulas, microfilm, tapes, and data which are used, or intended for use, in violation of this subchapter.

(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.

(7) All real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year's imprisonment.

(8) All controlled substances which have been possessed in violation of this subchapter.

(9) All listed chemicals, all drug manufacturing equipment, all tableting machines, all encapsulating machines, and all gelatin capsules, which have been imported, exported, manufactured, possessed, distributed, dispensed, acquired, or intended to be distributed, dispensed, acquired, imported, or exported, in violation of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter.

(10) Any drug paraphernalia (as defined in section 863 of this title).

(11) Any firearm (as defined in section 921 of title 18) used or intended to be used to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of property described in paragraph (1) or (2) and any proceeds traceable to such property.

(b) Seizure procedures

Any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under this section may be seized by the Attorney General in the manner set forth in section 981(b) of title 18.

(c) Custody of Attorney General

Property taken or detained under this section shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Attorney General, subject only to the orders and decrees of the court or the official having jurisdiction thereof. Whenever property is seized under any of the provisions of this subchapter, the Attorney General may—

(1) place the property under seal;

(2) remove the property to a place designated by him; or

(3) require that the General Services Administration take custody of the property and remove it, if practicable, to an appropriate location for disposition in accordance with law.

(d) Other laws and proceedings applicable

The provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of property for violation of the customs laws; the disposition of such property or the proceeds from the sale thereof; the remission or mitigation of such forfeitures; and the compromise of claims shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under any of the provisions of this subchapter, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof; except that such duties as are imposed upon the customs officer or any other person with respect to the seizure and forfeiture of property under the customs laws shall be performed with respect to seizures and forfeitures of property under this subchapter by such officers, agents, or other persons as may be authorized or designated for that purpose by the Attorney General, except to the extent that such duties arise from seizures and forfeitures effected by any customs officer.

(e) Disposition of forfeited property

(1) Whenever property is civilly or criminally forfeited under this subchapter the Attorney General may—

(A) retain the property for official use or, in the manner provided with respect to transfers under section 1616a of title 19, transfer the property to any Federal agency or to any State or local law enforcement agency which participated directly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property;

(B) except as provided in paragraph (4), sell, by public sale or any other commercially feasible means, any forfeited property which is not required to be destroyed by law and which is not harmful to the public;

(C) require that the General Services Administration take custody of the property and dispose of it in accordance with law;

(D) forward it to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs for disposition (including delivery for medical or scientific use to any Federal or State agency under regulations of the Attorney General); or

(E) transfer the forfeited personal property or the proceeds of the sale of any forfeited personal or real property to any foreign country which participated directly or indirectly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property, if such a transfer—

(i) has been agreed to by the Secretary of State;

(ii) is authorized in an international agreement between the United States and the foreign country; and

(iii) is made to a country which, if applicable, has been certified under section 2291j(b) of title 22.

(2)(A) The proceeds from any sale under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) and any moneys forfeited under this subchapter shall be used to pay—

(i) all property expenses of the proceedings for forfeiture and sale including expenses of seizure, maintenance of custody, advertising, and court costs; and

(ii) awards of up to $100,000 to any individual who provides original information which leads to the arrest and conviction of a person who kills or kidnaps a Federal drug law enforcement agent.

Any award paid for information concerning the killing or kidnapping of a Federal drug law enforcement agent, as provided in clause (ii), shall be paid at the discretion of the Attorney General.

[snip]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title19/html/USCODE-2010-title19-chap4-subtitleIII-partV-sec1616a.htm

19 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 19 - CUSTOMS DUTIES
CHAPTER 4 - TARIFF ACT OF 1930
SUBTITLE III - ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Part V - Enforcement Provisions
Sec. 1616a - Disposition of forfeited property
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§1616a. Disposition of forfeited property

(a) State proceedings

The Secretary of the Treasury may discontinue forfeiture proceedings under this chapter in favor of forfeiture under State law. If a complaint for forfeiture is filed under this chapter, the Attorney General may seek dismissal of the complaint in favor of forfeiture under State law.

(b) Transfer of seized property; notice

If forfeiture proceedings are discontinued or dismissed under this section—

(1) the United States may transfer the seized property to the appropriate State or local official; and

(2) notice of the discontinuance or dismissal shall be provided to all known interested parties.

(c) Retention or transfer of forfeited property

(1) The Secretary of the Treasury may apply property forfeited under this chapter in accordance with subparagraph (A) or (B), or both:

(A) Retain any of the property for official use.

(B) Transfer any of the property to—

(i) any other Federal agency;

(ii) any State or local law enforcement agency that participated directly or indirectly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property; or

(iii) the Civil Air Patrol.

(2) The Secretary may transfer any forfeited personal property or the proceeds of the sale of any forfeited personal or real property to any foreign country which participated directly or indirectly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property, if such a transfer—

(A) has been agreed to by the Secretary of State;

(B) is authorized in an international agreement between the United States and the foreign country; and

(C) is made to a country which, if applicable, has been certified under section 2291j(b) of title 22.

(3) Aircraft may be transferred to the Civil Air Patrol under paragraph (1)(B)(iii) in support of air search and rescue and other emergency services and, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding entered into with a Federal agency, illegal drug traffic surveillance. Jet-powered aircraft may not be transferred to the Civil Air Patrol under the authority of paragraph (1)(B)(iii).

(d) Liability of United States after transfer

The United States shall not be liable in any action relating to property transferred under this section if such action is based on an act or omission occurring after the transfer.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-18   18:04:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: nolu chan (#128)

If forfeiture proceedings are discontinued or dismissed under this section—

(1) the United States may transfer the seized property to the appropriate State or local official; and

So if the feds fail to seize property/money seized under their authority, they don't return it to the owner, they give it to the state or local D.A. and the owner has to keep fighting (and spending) to get it back.

The whole thing sucks balls.

I think the forfeiture laws are now more used against law-abiding citizens than against crooks like drug mules.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   18:34:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: Y'ALL (#127)

libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=38538

The New Nuremberg Defense

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-18   19:03:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: tpaine (#127)

arresting non-violent suspects

Many criminals are "non violent". Most 5 and 6 time DWI offenders are swell guys and gals. Should we give them all judicial passes?

One example... you want more? Why say such stupid things as an educated man? Your spin is the propaganda that removes your credibility.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   19:13:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: Pinguinite (#121)

Juries will never hear any such argument that drug laws are unconstitutional because judges will not allow it as a defence.

It is not allowed as a defense because it is contrary to law and constitutes no defense. There is a difference between arguing to a jury and a defense.

The reason lower courts will not permit arguments against the constitutionality of drug laws be made by the defence to juries is not pertinent to my response in this discussion.

No law may be argued to the jury. Giving the LAW is the domain of the Court. The jury is the trier of FACT.

The law may not be argued to the jury as the jury is not empowered to decide what the law is. That has been an established part of United States common law since SCOTUS handed down its holding in Sparf and Hansen v. United States in 1895.

Case Law is the Common Law of the United States. It is law. The United States uses the Common Law system of law.

You must argue law to the Court. Arguing the law to a jury is forbidden as a matter of law.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/51/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court

Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895)

Syllabus at 51:

In the courts of the United States, it is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.

Opinion of the Court at 64:

The general question as to the duty of the jury to receive the law from the court is not concluded by any direct decision of this Court. But it has been often considered by other courts and by judges of high authority, and, where its determination has not been controlled by specific constitutional or statutory provisions expressly empowering the jury to determine both law and facts, the principle by which courts and juries are to be guided in the exercise of their respective functions has become firmly established.

Opinion of the Court at 98:

Mr. Justice Curtis well said,

"to carry the clearest implication that in this and all other criminal cases, the jury may be directed by the judge, and that while the object of the statute was to declare that there was other matter of fact besides publication and the innuendoes to be decided by the jury, it was not intended to interfere with the proper province of the judge to decide all matters of law."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/common_law.html

Law Library of Congress

Case Law (or Common Law)

When your legal research involves case law (or common law), it is important to know something about the significance of precedents or the doctrine of stare decisis, which refers to “adhering to or abiding by” settled decisions. Simply put, lower courts are bound to follow decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction. For example, a federal district court in Maryland is required to follow the decisions of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is not bound by the decisions of other district courts or by the Maryland state courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals that decide individual cases, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-18   19:26:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: GrandIsland (#131)

An American cop has no excuse (I'm just enforcing 'established law'), for zealously arresting non-violent suspects of our arguably unconstitutional drug, gun, and 'morality' wars..

Many criminals are "non violent". Most 5 and 6 time DWI offenders are swell guys and gals. Should we give them all judicial passes?

Poor example, seeing that driving drunk is an inherently violent act, and commonly results in injuries to others.

One example... you want more? Why say such stupid things as an educated man? Your spin is the propaganda that removes your credibility.

Typically, you're using personal insult and a straw man argument, because you can't admit that you ignore your constitutional oath.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-18   19:28:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: TooConservative (#129) (Edited)

So if the feds fail (sic?) to seize property/money seized under their authority, they don't return it to the owner, they give it to the state or local D.A. and the owner has to keep fighting (and spending) to get it back.

It does suck. The proposed law of 2014 would have helped. The federal "equitable sharing" program encourages nationwide revenue enhancing abuse.

This is when they do seize property.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-18   19:31:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#132) (Edited)

No law may be argued to the jury. Giving the LAW is the domain of the Court. The jury is the trier of FACT.

And it is a FACT that the sixth amendment specifies that impartial juries shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations. --(and some states allow arguments on constitutionality)

The constitutional nature of the law at issue is a valid point. A jury only allowed to hear the government's view of that law is only half informed.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-18   19:43:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: tpaine (#133)

Poor example, seeing that driving drunk is an inherently violent act, and commonly results in injuries to others.

So is selling and dealing cocaine, meth, heroin or opiates. It's dangerous in the same ways... but the offenders are real nice non violent people.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   19:45:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: GrandIsland (#136)

Poor example, seeing that driving drunk is an inherently violent act, and commonly results in injuries to others.

So is selling and dealing cocaine, meth, heroin or opiates. It's dangerous in the same ways... but the offenders are real nice non violent people.

So arrest these violent dealers and sellers, and use your discretion (as per your oath) about arresting the non-violent.

An American cop has no excuse (I'm just enforcing 'established law'), for zealously arresting non-violent suspects of our arguably unconstitutional drug, gun, and 'morality' wars..

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-18   19:55:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: nolu chan (#128)

It can be viewed as the Feds enlisting the locals to do the work,

It's common. Many departments don't have the personnel or knowledge to apply for seized property. It's a lot of work. It's a case on itself... we're you gotta prove the assets were obtained via illegal funds. I can see many departments charging fed, just so the Feds control the forfeiture... and be happy with a small piece of the proceeds.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   19:56:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: GrandIsland (#136)

So is selling and dealing cocaine, meth, heroin or opiates. It's dangerous in the same ways... but the offenders are real nice non violent people.

They aren't using guns or knives to rob liquor/convenience stores or for armed home invasions or for attempted murder of peace officers.

So, yes, there is a difference and committing violence with intent is rightly more harshly punished.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   19:56:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: TooConservative (#139)

They aren't using guns or knives to rob liquor/convenience stores or for armed home invasions or for attempted murder of peace officers.

Many drug addicts are doing just that... nice non-violent people that will do anything to fund their addiction.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   20:09:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: GrandIsland (#140)

Many drug addicts are doing just that... nice non-violent people that will do anything to fund their addiction.

When caught, they get charged with their actual crimes, not the meds or illicit drugs they are on.

Two-thirds of the country is hopped up on prescription or illegal drugs. Illegal drugs just get used more by low-income people.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   20:14:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: TooConservative (#141)

Two-thirds of the country is hopped up on prescription or illegal drugs. Illegal drugs just get used more by low-income people.

Oh, this I know all too well.

The new epidemic is crushing up prescription opiates, and injecting them. Libtard NY passed a real cool law that allows drug addicts an unlimited supply of free needles.

Doctors are handing out pain killers like candy. Then the addict will sell some of his prescription, and make a false report of burglary and claim his meds were stolen.... BOOM, new refil with the false police report.

Big business.... your peers are setting an all time low.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   20:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: GrandIsland (#142)

It is surprising how little coverage there is of major prescription drug abuse in America. As you mention, some of this trade in painkillers filters down to the illegal drug market. People have their personal drugging prefs but in the end they just wanna get high.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   20:31:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: TooConservative (#143)

I made a point of interviewing addicts after arrest in regards to how they chose their poison. Kinda like a study. I was surprised to find out that most people that have direct injected all types of drugs, coke, meth, heroine and opiates, most said the high from opiates was the best high.

Meth is a new epidemic because the supplies are all legal and it's not hard to make small amounts of very unpure meth (aka crank)... so people are cooking that shit in single bottle methods... but the real devil is OxyContin.

I investigated a pad of 100 stolen blank prescriptions. They all turned up over 4 states with attempted purchases of pain killers... caught most of the "nice, non violent peaceful" perps.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   20:40:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: nolu chan (#132)

uries will never hear any such argument that drug laws are unconstitutional because judges will not allow it as a defence. It is not allowed as a defense because it is contrary to law and constitutes no defense. There is a difference between arguing to a jury and a defense.

The reason lower courts will not permit arguments against the constitutionality of drug laws be made by the defence to juries is not pertinent to my response in this discussion. No law may be argued to the jury. Giving the LAW is the domain of the Court. The jury is the trier of FACT.

The law may not be argued to the jury as the jury is not empowered to decide what the law is.

A K A Stone- It seems after Lincolns civil war that you were not in favor of. Fruit was born. In the fact that we now have a supreme court telling us to do things that are in violation of the constitution. We are supposed to judge the law also. That is what I will do if I am on a jury and no one can stop me. Mr. Chan do you support juries being told they can't judge the law? Or do you agree with the below where John Jay the first Supreme Court Justice says that we are supposed to judge the law. How dare the jury infringe on the fourth branch of government or the people or you might even consider us the first branch of government.

our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/pro...zenger/nullification.html

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-18   22:17:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (146 - 162) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com