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

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

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


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: 31155
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 129.

#2. To: tpaine (#0)

No one knows who fired, but it appeared the shots were fired directly at the officers.

Uh...as opposed to the vast majority of shootings where people are injured by ricochets?

Are these reporters paid by the word to utter such drivel? Do they even have an editor?

They weren’t even Ferguson police officers.

The article doesn't explain why they were present if they weren't Ferguson cops.

Nor is there any exploration of who the protesters were, whether they were Ferguson residents or some thug types from around the greater metro area, as we saw during the riots that attracted every thug in the (larger) city.

It may be that the thugs deliberately shot cops just to provoke them into massacring the crowd to create another incident. Sharpton's crew is fully capable of it.

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

Any proof of that or will the accusation be enough to flack this sad-sack hatchet job?

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   8:39:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: TooConservative (#2)

It may be that the thugs deliberately shot cops just to provoke them into massacring the crowd to create another incident. Sharpton's crew is fully capable of it.

The zoo animals will reap what they sow... when they force a little roof top Justice.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-12   8:52:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: GrandIsland (#3)

The zoo animals will reap what they sow... when they force a little roof top Justice.

Like that is a desirable solution.

Given Ferguson's history (and constant looting of the citizens as a notable bandit town), why don't the police have some cameras outside the station? You'd think that some cop would at least pull out a smartphone and try to record all the protesters' faces in the event of rioting or unrest. Or cops getting shot in front of a police station.

The scammy website this is from has insecure, possibly malware, scripting on it.

Here are the two vids, direct from YouBoob.

Given such a lousy article, we get more actual info from these lo-res vids. And that police HQ doesn't look like a poverty-stricken precinct that can't afford cameras. They're blowing plenty of money on electricity for decorative outside lighting.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   9:01:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#5)

Like that is a desirable

Neither is being a target because you wear a uniform.

See, every once in a while, you spin. Not as much as some others... but you do spin. I never suggested it would be desirable... sticking your hand in your toilet to clean it isn't desirable... but if you keep shitting all over the bowl... it's a must.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-12   9:21:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: GrandIsland (#7)

See, every once in a while, you spin. Not as much as some others... but you do spin.

Because I suggested that vigilantes firing from rooftops isn't desirable?

Yes, I am guilty of that, I suppose. Not sure why that is so heinous or considered grounds for being accused of "spin".

Reuters filed a story, not much better than this one:

The violence grew out of a Wednesday night demonstration in which several dozen protesters gathered in front of the Ferguson police department, just hours after Police Chief Thomas Jackson resigned.

The night started peacefully but about two dozen officers clad in riot gear later faced off with the protesters. At least two people were taken into custody.

Gunshots rang out about midnight turning a scene of relative quiet into pandemonium. Many of the remaining few dozen demonstrators fled, some screaming.

The line of police scrambled, with many taking defensive positions drawing their weapons and some huddling behind riot shields, according to a video published online.

Belmar said the shooter was among the demonstrators standing across from the officers.

"I don't know who did the shooting, to be honest with you right now, but somehow they were embedded in that group of folks," he said.

Protesters at the scene, however, said on social media that the shots did not come from where they were standing.

"The shooter was not with the protesters. The shooter was atop the hill," activist DeRay McKesson said on Twitter.

"I was here. I saw the officer fall. The shot came from at least 500 feet away from the officers," he said.

I'd like to know more about the firearms used. If it was rifle ammo, then maybe the shots rang out from the Grassy Knoll, as the protesters said. If the slugs are from a pistol, most likely it came from the protester ranks.

Apparently, ballistics is a forgotten police science in Ferguson.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   9:49:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: TooConservative (#14)

I'd like to know more about the firearms used. If it was rifle ammo, then maybe the shots rang out from the Grassy Knoll, as the protesters said. If the slugs are from a pistol, most likely it came from the protester ranks.

Apparently, ballistics is a forgotten police science in Ferguson.

Do you think ANY serious, honest investigation will be forthcoming in this case??

(come on - really.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-12   9:57:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Liberator, Grand Island (#18)

Do you think ANY serious, honest investigation will be forthcoming in this case??

It's hard to imagine they'll fail to do ballistics tests and identify the type of bullets and guns used.

Maybe they'll be those 5.56 NATO steel-tipped NATO rounds that BATFE wants to ban. But it would be hard for that cop to take one to the face and still have a face left.

I'm leaning toward pistol rounds, fired within 20'. Given that there were a few dozen cops in riot gear only feet from the protesters, it seems hard to imagine that someone didn't see a flash from the gun or something to indicate where the bullet originated.

Maybe they were having a donut break and wear too busy to watch the crowd.

I still don't grasp why the cops went out in riot gear on their front step. It seems purposeless to me. "Hey, you darned protesters, get off our lawn!"

Seems dumb but maybe you had to be there to get why the supervising officer sent them out.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   10:18:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: TooConservative (#22) (Edited)

It's hard to imagine they'll fail to do ballistics tests and identify the type of bullets and guns used.

Maybe they'll be those 5.56 NATO steel-tipped NATO rounds that BATFE wants to ban. But it would be hard for that cop to take one to the face and still have a face left.

I like the way you're thinking here. Of course your theory that 5.56 wouldn't leave much face would obviously disprove that this round was used, but I wouldn't expect "investigators," the media, and the Regime to dismiss rhetoric and propaganda that would be so useful.

I'm leaning toward pistol rounds, fired within 20'. Given that there were a few dozen cops in riot gear only feet from the protesters, it seems hard to imagine that someone didn't see a flash from the gun or something to indicate where the bullet originated.

In a universe where there's an honest investigation. law, and justice? Yeah. ("Remember: SELMA!!!!")

I still don't grasp why the cops went out in riot gear on their front step. It seems purposeless to me. "Hey, you darned protesters, get off our lawn!"

HA!

Well, there's two trains of thought -- strap it on, OR, play it passively (which would be perceived as weak.) Look -- Ferguson is Ground Zero for "The Beginning."

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-12   10:43:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Liberator (#29)

I'm leaning toward pistol rounds, fired within 20'.

If they fired from the crowd under fluid nighttime conditions and managed to hit two cops, I assume they had to be close. Or they were really terrific shots with a pistol. Given the gunslinging skills of your average homeboy, I'm thinking they were close, not expert pistoleros from Da Hood.

[Notice how I deftly managed to reply to myself while only pretending to reply to you? LOL.]

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   10:51:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: TooConservative (#33)

If they fired from the crowd under fluid nighttime conditions and managed to hit two cops, I assume they had to be close.

Good assumption,given the fact that the typical black thug almost always missed the guy he is shooting at and hits children 10 feet away from them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-12   16:56:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: sneakypete (#45) (Edited)








Italians: be gone!

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   17:28:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: TooConservative (#46) (Edited)

Italians: be gone!

Fixed?

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-12   17:36:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: tpaine (#48) (Edited)


Yeah, I tried. I think it's twisted in a HTML knot with unclosed B and I and SPAN tags mixed together. You can confuse a browser if you do enough of those.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   17:42:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: TooConservative (#49)

Is it busted forever?

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-12   17:47:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: tpaine, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Murron (#50)

I dunno. Neil might know a trick. Otherwise, it's just this thread that's borked. Or Stone could just delete Murron's comment.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   18:05:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: TooConservative, tpaine, A K A Stone, Murron (#51)

I dunno. Neil might know a trick.

It can be fixed by admin editing the offending comment and removing the stray bold tag.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-13   3:02:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Pinguinite, TooConservative, tpaine, A K A Stone (#64)

It can be fixed by admin editing the offending comment and removing the stray bold tag.

HUH? What 'offending comment' did I post?

Murron  posted on  2015-03-15   14:48:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Murron (#65)

HUH? What 'offending comment' did I post?

I'll suggest that Pinguinite isn't saying you comment was offensive, in the literal term... but he/she is suggesting that your comment is the "offender" that caused the corrupt text to be continued down this thread.

He or she is saying you are guilty of Aggravated Font Change in the 1st degree. A LF Class B Misdemeanor. Sentence, already served.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-15   14:58:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: GrandIsland, Murron (#66)

As much as I disagree with GI on many important issues, in this case s/he is correct. It's not offending in the literal sense, only "offending" in the context of the font spillover that damaged the thread display. Some how, a comment ended up with a stray Bold & Italic HTML codes that got through the normally tight HTML clean-up code that runs right before comments are posted. My hat's off to you if you managed that, and it's something to figure out.

But at the moment I posted the fix solution, "offending comment" was the first descriptor that came to mind, so that's what I called it. I think I was in a bit of a hurry at the time. I wrote that even without knowing in who's comment the stray HTML code was introduced.

Cheers...

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-15   16:55:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: Pinguinite (#67)

As much as I disagree with GI on many important issues

Say what... can't be true. lol

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-15   17:06:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: GrandIsland (#68)

Say what... can't be true. lol

Well, I was surprised to see you getting so hard lined about smoking rights, even to the point of telling neighbors they can go pound sand if they don't like smoke entering their homes. Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though. Seems you would object to all of your neighbors complaining about your smoking, but submissively give in to the demands of legislatures voted into power by the exact same neighbors that would put the exact same prohibition on a sheet of paper and call it a "law". Is that right?

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-15   18:56:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Pinguinite (#69) (Edited)

Well, I was surprised to see you getting so hard lined about smoking rights, even to the point of telling neighbors they can go pound sand if they don't like smoke entering their homes. Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though. Seems you would object to all of your neighbors complaining about your smoking, but submissively give in to the demands of legislatures voted into power by the exact same neighbors that would put the exact same prohibition on a sheet of paper and call it a "law". Is that right?

No. I don't feel I'm hard lined about a smokers rights. I loath smoke like any other ex smoker.

I'm hard lined at the rights of legal activity INSIDE your home. I feel that if you are doing something legal inside your home, you shouldn't be restricted at all.

Obviously, living in row housing, apartment buildings, condos and trailer parks causes a closer habitat to your smelly and loud neighbors. If you might be bothered by what your neighbor LEGALLY does INSIDE their home, then buy a single family home with a large lot.

Look, by code, there is a brick or cinder block firewall between the two homes. There is no reason the complainer can't seal up every hole inside his house... to keep the smokers smoke out.

Telling a person they can't smoke in their own home is a slippery slope. It's the kind of slippery slope that has allowed big brother government to not only feel like they must exist or citizens can't survive... but the pathway that allows governmrnt rights and loss of citizen freedoms.

You can't possibly be against intrusive government and in the same breath support a court action telling a homeowner that they can't smoke in a house he's lives in for 50 years.

I feel the burden is on the smoke hating complainer for change... or even to move.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-15   20:03:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: GrandIsland (#70)

You are apparently avoiding the point of my question, but... okay....

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-16   0:15:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Pinguinite (#71) (Edited)

Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though.

It would if recreational marijuana was legal in the state in question. When you learn the difference between illegal and legal activity, well then your puzzle is solved.

No where in the constitution does it give you the right to break constitutional laws inside your home. Drug laws are constitutional.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-16   0:44:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: GrandIsland (#72)

You still miss my point. Perhaps your time in law enforcement has biased your perspective.

For you, there's apparently a strong distinction between "legal" and "illegal" activity. But at the same time, you state that you have a moral right to tell everyone in your community to go fly a kite if they all came to you to tell you you can't smoke in your house.

But these people are also voters. If they *vote* to make smoking in your home illegal, would you then adhere to the "law" they enacted and comply with their demand, and agree that you no longer have a moral right to smoke in your house?

In one case, you refuse to adhere to the will of the people, and in the other, you would acquiesce to it. Does your moral right to do as you please in your own home change *solely* because of the degree of the formality taken by the majority of your neighbors to decree what is and is not legal activity?

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-16   1:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Pinguinite (#74)

But these people are also voters. If they *vote* to make smoking in your home illegal, would you then adhere to the "law" they enacted and comply with their demand, and agree that you no longer have a moral right to smoke in your house?

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

No law prohibiting smoking, inside your own home, would ever stand the test of constitutionality. When you compare it to marijuana, it isn't "smoking it" that's illegal in your home.... IT'S POSSESSING IT. it's a banned substance in most states, and that's a constitutionally tested law.

Yes, smoking marihuana, IN PUBLIC, is also against the law, in most states...but the inside of your home isn't public, now is it.

Your analogy, is ridiculous, at best.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-16   6:25:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: GrandIsland (#75)

Okay, let me get this straight.

Drug laws are constitutional.

Tobacco is a drug.

Marijuana is a drug.

A ban on tobacco would be unconstitutional.

The ban on marijuana is constitutional.

Neither marijuana nor tobacco is mentioned or referred to in any way in the Constitution.

Laws are enacted by the will of the people as a whole.

You have a moral right to reject the will of the people with regard to tobacco, but not the will of the people with regard to marijuana.

Is there any item listed here that is incorrect?

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-16   13:30:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Pinguinite (#76)

Tobacco is a drug.

Tobacco is not classified as a drug. I stopped reading your reply at the word "tobacco"

I don't entertain spin. Reword and resubmit your response

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-16   15:08:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: GrandIsland (#77)

Tobacco is not classified as a drug. I stopped reading your reply at the word "tobacco"

Had you continued reading, you would have seen:

Is there any item listed here that is incorrect?

No, this is not about "spin". Not by me, at least. This is about trying to understand your logic. I'm a bit puzzled that you have exhibited both a sense of freedom to do in your home what you please with regard to tobacco, but not with regard to marijuana. But okay, I'll reword:

* Drug laws are constitutional.

* Tobacco is not classified by law as a drug, and legislatures are constitutionally banned from classifying it as a drug, and therefore cannot ban tobacco.

* Marijuana is classified by law as a drug, though legislatures are free to classify it as a non-drug if they so choose.

* A ban on marijuana is constitutional because legislatures have decided to classify it as a drug.

* Neither marijuana nor tobacco is mentioned or referred to in any way in the Constitution.

* Laws are enacted by the will of the people as a whole.

* You have a moral and Constitutional right to reject the will of the people with regard to tobacco, but no moral or Constitutional right to reject the will of the people with regard to marijuana.

All in all, I find your position very arbitrary. Your moral foundation of what is right and wrong is based simply on what laws have been passed, and laws passed are simply the result of popular sentiment (or all too often, just lobbying by special interests). This includes what is and is not considered a drug. The medical establishment does indeed classify nicotine and alcohol as drugs.

Slavery was once found to be Constitutional, but that didn't make it right. If tobacco was classified as a drug by statute, and then banned (something that actually could happen in the future if popular sentiment goes that far) would you then suddenly agree it's morally reasonable for a man to be prohibited by court order to not smoke tobacco in his home?

Is your moral compass simply in tune with laws, and nothing else? It seems from your postings that's precisely the case. I would say today's police officers have lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve and protect for that exact reason.

And I think we're called to be more than that.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   4:00:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Pinguinite (#78)

All in all, I find your position very arbitrary. Your moral foundation of what is right and wrong is based simply on what laws have been passed, and laws passed are simply the result of popular sentiment

Picking and choosing which constitutionally tested laws you will obey is worse than a slippery slope... It's a dangerous ideal. It will decay society (look around you, we are seeing it now and it's magnified in Ferguson). It's no different than officers that picks and chooses what laws they will enforce.

This concept I'll never waiver on... there are many laws I don't like. I'll obey them or I'll move to another state, like I did with the Adolf Cuomo's SafeAct.

Aside from that very essential ideal, we live in a free society. If we aren't breaking the law inside our castle... we need to be left alone. Regardless how much my activity inside my home bothers you. Obey my lawful activity freedom or MOVE like I did.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   6:26:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: GrandIsland (#80)

Picking and choosing which constitutionally tested laws you will obey is worse than a slippery slope... It's a dangerous ideal.

A slippery slope is what we are already on. You claim drug laws have been "constitutionally tested" and yet the only drug that appears in the constitution is alcohol. Congress has never been constitutionally authorized to ban any other drug. But courts have invented this "living document" doctrine by which they claim some law is "constitutional" even though it clearly is not. Because of that, more and more rights are trashed every year, such as the 4th Amendment, and it's the police that are the tools of the state which are used to violate these rights. Those on the police force become mindless, robots of the state, and essentially religious fanatics of sorts, enforcing any and every statute against a peaceful people because "the law is the law", or worse, with civil asset forfeiture, themselves become greedy, legalized looters of law abiding citizens.

By your own ideals, tobacco can one day be banned along with marijuana and the ban can be called "constitutional", and you'll have no choice but to accept that as law inside the home of every American. That will always be a real possibility, and your stated belief that such a think is impossible probably is a lot like the founders belief that the numerous articles in the Bill of Rights couldn't possibly be violated. But that's the USA today. And you think my position is a slippery slope? No it's not. A slippery slope is what the US has been on for a long time.

My ideals are staying put right where they are. Thanks for playing....

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   14:24:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Pinguinite (#81)

A slippery slope is what we are already on.

Even if that were true, two wrongs don't make a right.

Pick and choose what laws you'll follow AT YOUR OWN RISK... I can respect that. Respect the fact that you won't ever get my blessing.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   14:46:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: GrandIsland (#82)

Even if that were true, two wrongs don't make a right.

The D of I says when a gov becomes tyrannical and no longer serves the interests of the people, it's the moral right and duty of the people to overthrow it.

If cops break into your home to get you to stop smoking, or if cops take all your money without charging you with a crime, both under the color of law....

There is a limit to what should be morally tolerated.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   15:25:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Pinguinite (#83)

If cops break into your home to get you to stop smoking, or if cops take all your money without charging you with a crime, both under the color of law....

Neither is happening. Like I said, pick and choose what laws you will follow AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Good luck.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   16:03:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: GrandIsland (#85)

Neither is happening.

Wrong. Civil asset forfeiture IS happening, every day. I'm sure it won't happen to you since you are "one of the boys" and once you show the cops you are one of them they will instantly become your pals and they won't take your money or stuff. But the rest of us not in the club won't have that luxury. We'll be treated like lower scum because the cop rolling up to the scene will already "know my type" at a glance just as you proclaimed about me here and I'll be treated accordingly.

That is true and you know it.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   18:39:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Pinguinite (#88)

Wrong. Civil asset forfeiture IS happening, every day. I'm sure it won't happen to you since you are "one of the boys"

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.

I don't violate drug laws. I get high on life.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   18:54:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. 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.

Either you've not been keeping track of what your successors have been up to since you left the force, or you've been smoking something other than tobacco.

You don't need to be convicted or even charged to lose your property. Here's just one easily found youtube on the matter.

Having this discussion with you is becoming increasingly depressing.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   0:13:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   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.

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


Replies to Comment # 129.

#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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 129.

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