Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just reading this sickens me.... I don't know what to make of it. (Original Post) V0ltairesGh0st Aug 2015 OP
You know that our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, loves civil asset forfeiture and also djean111 Aug 2015 #1
.... i am so fucking angry right now V0ltairesGh0st Aug 2015 #2
And this is why is is totally irrelevant for Obama to he favors legal medical marijuana - djean111 Aug 2015 #3
yeah i hear ya V0ltairesGh0st Aug 2015 #4
Maybe combine these 2 items discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2015 #5
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
1. You know that our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, loves civil asset forfeiture and also
Sun Aug 9, 2015, 06:19 PM
Aug 2015

does not think marijuana should be legal, right?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/11/25/loretta-lynch-has-no-problem-with-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-thats-a-problem/

Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem

After the tumultuous Attorney Generalship of Eric Holder, what the country badly needs is a replacement who will uphold the law fairly and guard against injustices perpetrated by the government. President Obama’s nominee to replace him, federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch is questionable in that regard because of her enthusiastic embrace of civil asset forfeiture, which often deprives perfectly innocent people of their property.

In an editorial published November 22, “Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot,” the Wall Street Journal revealed that during her tenure as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch has used civil asset forfeiture in more than 120 cases, raking in some $113 million for federal and local coffers. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture cases is that they frequently inflict severe losses on people who have only the most tenuous connection with a crime – or even no connection at all. (For some very distressing examples, see my September 12 Forbes article.)
........................
Bi-County sells candy and snack food items to small retailers on Long Island, but, disfavored as such things may be by the Washington elite, that business is entirely legal. There has never been any allegation of any wrongdoing by the company or its owners, but they were under suspicion because of many cash deposits of less than $10,000. Under IRS regulations, banks must report cash deposits of $10,000 or more, but the feds look at substantial deposits of smaller amounts as grounds for suspicion, thinking that the depositor must be trying to avoid detection.


Now, if Ms. Lynch’s office had bothered to inquire about Bi-County’s business, they would have found that it is clean. But they did not bother to inquire. Under civil asset forfeiture, authorities can take money (or other property) and then dare the owner to battle through legal obstacles to get it back. To do that, the owner must prove innocence.
Charge someone with a crime and the burden of proving guilt is on the government, but confiscate property under civil asset forfeiture and the government keeps the spoils unless the owner is able to prove his innocence. That is not the way our system of justice is supposed to work.
........


No wonder the feds and local sheriff departments happily raid state-legal dispensaries and pounce on people who have a right to have marijuana - it pays.
 

V0ltairesGh0st

(306 posts)
2. .... i am so fucking angry right now
Mon Aug 10, 2015, 10:41 AM
Aug 2015

I mean there isn't anything they can't seize either, cash, checks, COD's, Travelers checks, It details how to secure and then aquire the assets from the banks.... This is fascism defined.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
3. And this is why is is totally irrelevant for Obama to he favors legal medical marijuana -
Mon Aug 10, 2015, 10:50 AM
Aug 2015

she is not even interested in reclassifying pot to be safer than heroin. And, despite the announcement that federally funded raids would stop in states where pot is legal - the raids have not stopped. Probably because the civil forfeiture more than makes up for losing the funding.
Watch who politicians hire, and what they do - what politicians say is often not only irrelevant but a cover or a distraction.

 

V0ltairesGh0st

(306 posts)
4. yeah i hear ya
Mon Aug 10, 2015, 11:05 AM
Aug 2015

Obama hasn't turned out to everything i hoped he would be, but my concerns about this center more on the way they USE this procedure to rip innocent people off, merely by the suggestion the property itself is suspected somehow linked to illegal activity. They can say that at will and the only way people can fight it is fight it in courts, which are already predisposed to agree with the seizure because..... PROFIT $$$. I know this isn't a new issue but damn that PDF just makes me want to riot!

Cops/Attorneys DA/Judges all automatically back up each others stories and reasoning no matter what the reason. The purpose of this program was to prevent structuring and catch ACTUAL criminal money laundering, but it has been turned against hard working law abiding citizens. I wonder what are some of the practical tactic ordinary people could use to make this more difficult or impossible for them.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Civil Liberties»Just reading this sickens...