U S GOVERNMENT now CONFISCATING Homes, Cars and ASSETS

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by SamSkwamch, Jul 20, 2016.

  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you take the police to court if your assets have been seized? Most of us dont have a law degree or lawyers on retainer, or really even the expendable income to fight a lengthy court battle vs the govt even if we havn't had all our **** stolen.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
    AlNewman likes this.
  2. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually I don't need to start anywhere. I started more than 40 years ago studying law. The difference between you and I, one is based on conjecture and the other stands tall in any court of law in this land, including Tax Court. You would be surprised at how easy life can become when you learn to litigate.

    Let's see right at the top of the title there is this: "This title was enacted by act July 30, 1947, ch. 388, § 1, 61 Stat. 633". Now if you were around in August 1947, this title was positive law and was word for word as the statute at large. However there is this little problem, congress likes to change things like:


    So now unless congress again enacts a new Statute at Large making Title 1 positive law, it has expired. So let me state this again, Titles are not law. Titles are codified excerpts from the Statutes at Large sorted by subject. They help you find the real statute, nothing more.

    Oh by the way, Title 1 is just general provisions. My favorite is:

     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I knew all those facts, and I've read several of Spooner's books 20 years ago. I've read Irwin Schiff 20 years ago. Don't be so pedantic. What matters is how the information is interpreted. You want to give me a lecture about something from a long time ago.

    What matters is that we do not have constitutional governance being administered in this country. Democracy is a complete illusion, and this is a government of men, not laws.
     
  4. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you knew those facts then why did you post false numbers? You may have read Spooner's books but they seem to mean nothing to you. Irwin Schiff was a fool and even his son has stated so. I would say your judgement is about as clouded as your use of words. Interpretation is only needed when that information is foreign and needs translated for comprehension. What really matters is whether you can comprehend that information. A couple of centuries are but a twitch in time. Would you like to discuss Socrates?

    Now the meat of the issue. This country has the exact government is demands. This constitution you are ranting about was established as a republic and long ago crossed the threshold to democracy in the early 19th century and into socialism in the early 20th century. That government of men is the result of democracy, isn't that what you demand?
     
  5. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, there is not due process. The government just takes it. End of story unless you are wealthy enough to fight it and even then you lose because of legal fees. It also is presumed you are guilty for which the burden of proof is placed upon you to prove you aren't a criminal.
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's exactly right. The laws are all there, hidden in the details, to give particular officials license to do whatever they want.

    The question isn't 'Does the law allow the government to do this?' but which government official the law allows to do it.

    Laws have two functions: to limit what the government is allowed to do and to tell them what they are allowed to do. We have a lot more of the latter.

    When it comes down to it, it's not that different than in old times where you had an appointed chief decide everything in the tribe. "Rule of law" is sort of an illusion; the law hands out personal discretion to all sorts of officials, and then the law is "interpreted" by other officials. There are Constitutional protections, but they get ignored all the time on an individual basis.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't tell you the in's and out's of the risks and how it works but many lawyers advise people to not carry much cash in their car, ever. If you're traveling out of state to buy a car, a boat, an RV, etc., from a private owner you have to figure out another way to pay as your cash is at constant risk of loss to the authorities.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In Mexico if a large business is transporting something very valuable they will often hire two police officers to accompany the truck. This is to help guard against robbers posing as police officers, or even real police officers robbing the truck.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now there is a substantive issue you raise, my "false numbers". I said 40 some odd, the correct number is 55. You are a sleuth sir! :fart:
     
  10. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That seems to be a totally distorted point of view but sadly it seems to be the norm. This country has been trying to obtain the goal of matching the IQs with the Muslim world. The problem isn't with the government but the ignorance of it's citizenry.
     
  11. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yeah that's a real solution, cower in fear, disrupt your life because tyrants have rights, you don't. Living life as a mouse because you refuse to stand as a man does not seem a very fulfilling life to me.
     
  12. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your false number is the substantive issue, who would have guessed?
     
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In context, 15 is a substantive issue only for small minds, insecure minds, pedantic minds.
     
  14. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree with you totally, it is a small mind that would find this a substantive issue. I guess the rest of that post was just standard everyday knowledge not worth mentioning.
     
  15. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male



    Funny how right wingers never fight to get legislation passed that would end police seizures of property. While these deluded political pundits claim they want limited government, somehow they stay silent in the face of these criminal actions by the cops. The problem is that all too often it is someone else whose property or personal liberty is being hazarded by the criminal cops. Case in point - the pat downs and strip searches of innocent black men in NYC ~ none of those stupid actions did anything to stop drugs like the cops said it would. This not because such searches were actually intended to stop drugs. Instead, they were about control and intimidation. If the stupid cops really wanted to stop drugs, they would go into the wealthy white suburbs, strip search and pat down white men and white women and they would find FAR more drugs such as meth. Furthermore, they would find the organized criminal elements that are responsible for importing and creating drugs in laboratories.

    Where is the NRA and the Tea Party to demand all this??? Shít, they do nothing because in their deluded political correctness, government is correct when it is suppressing the rights of innocent blacks and other from the ghetto. But once the government commits these acts against suburbanites then you hear stories of the need for armaments to limit government.

    All that is hypocrisy at its worse.
     
  16. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Mexican police are even more corrupt than American police.

    I will NEVER forget an episode many years ago from the 60 Minutes show dealing with Mexican police corruption: a police captain in Texas had his car stolen and he heard it was in a Mexican town. To make a long story short, he discovered it had been stolen by that town's police chief.
     
    kazenatsu likes this.
  17. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    The Federal courts have repeatedly approved of Title 26.
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we can all agree that government should be able to confiscate property. The question is what type of safeguards should be in place.
    Unfortunately the justice system has demonstrated that using judges as impartial arbiters doesn't really work. Judges are too few and far between and overburdened with too many caseloads, and they very typically (the rule rather than the exception) seem to just delegate out most of their authority to whatever government official is filing an application with them. Basically operates as a rubber stamp conveyor belt.
    There needs to be an opportunity for the owner of the property to try to reclaim his property and some sort of hearing where the officials who confiscated the property should have to show a burden of proof, with the owner of the seized assets being able to hear the evidence and respond at that time.
    And perhaps there should be a multi-panel of judges, or a judge and two neutral arbitrators, to hear cases involving very high value assets.

    There are also, in the U.S., Constitutional issues at play when the federal government begins to confiscate property, and by that I mean the appropriate role of the federal government versus the states. I doubt many officials pay attention to this, but they should.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  19. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is a very disturbing belief that is the root of the whole problem. Perhaps reading Title 18, Chapter 46 on forfeiture would let you understand your wish has been fulfilled and this is what you got. What legislation are you referring to, that which is followed or that which is ignored?

    What does the NRA or Tea Party have to do with anything? Innocent blacks, why must there always be a victim class? So by your argument what is being done is ok so long as the innocent blacks are excluded? Or should we be just absolutely politically correct and expand the innocent to any not white? Just wanted to know how large a circle that innocent should cover before you would no longer have a problem with the issue?
     
  20. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't agree at all, theft is theft. Calling it confiscation does not change that it's theft. Using government to provide a strong arm solution does not change the fact it is still theft. Only a court at law can remove a man's property for payment of judgement.

    It is not the government that is at fault for it is by a fiction of man that governments are instituted. It is but words upon a document, it has no power to do anything but oxidize. It is the concept of power not possessed given authority by fear of the coercive power of "government".

    Justice is available to those that understand it is up to them.
     
  21. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What utter BS. This isn't either a liberal or a conservative issue. It is a bureaucratic malfeasance issue. The issue is we have organizations that have a "right" to confiscate property because there is a legal allowance built into a law for it. Of course, those laws were inherently not designed to create civil forfeiture, they were designed to punish drug offenders. But, as most bureaucracies are want to do, police agencies discovered (after being educated about the process) that they could dramatically increase their local budgets on the backs of "criminals" they confiscated property from. So, now, from the smallest local police force to the TSA or Boarder Security folks, these organizations are confiscating property without due process based on any number of flimsy excuses with almost zero standards or review of said confiscations.

    At least in my state, we have actively engaged the legislature in an attempt to make these civil forfeitures a crime, and to date we have been met by the very bureaucracies of the police departments that fund their headcount and their capital expenditures on the backs of civilians denied their due process and property. Why? Because its millions of dollars in revenue to these organizations. It likely will not effectively change anytime soon. But the conservatives of my state, at least, are in fact trying to eradicate these onerous, unconstitutional seizures.
     
  22. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Horsebleep, buddy.

    Bureaucrats in the form of government police engage in criminal confiscatory practices with the knowledge, consent, and blessings of the far right. Not one deluded pundit from that ilk ever steps up and affirms that the 2d Amendment was intended from the very beginning to stop this type of government criminality. As I have shown you before, this is what our Founding Fathers did to those government bureaucrats:


    [​IMG]




    Anyone who denied that TRUTH is not a principled conservative and is not a patriot.
     
  23. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    That has nothing to do with pat downs and strip searches - but it does involve the need for due process - when the government fails to adhere to this concept, the loud mouths in the NRA and Tea Party should be the first ones to shout their usual howls of protest. But as in the case of the inner city, such a thing is not so readily convenient for those hypocrites
     

Share This Page