Right Idea – Worng Reason

Keebler Attorney

“Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the President,” … “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the President.”

“I have the honor of serving as attorney general,” Sessions said during a news conference about a bust of an internet marketplace for drugs. “And I plan to continue to do so, as long as that is appropriate.”

I’m with PDT — but not for the same reason:

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department will issue new directives to increase the federal govenment’s use of civil asset forfeiture, a controversial practice that allows law enforcement to seize property from suspected criminals without charging them with a crime.

…”[W]e hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said. “With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners.”

…The equitable sharing program distributes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to police departments around the country.

…the perverse profit incentives and lack of due process for property owners lead to far more average citizens having their property seized than cartel bosses.

He says “No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime,” which is all well and good: but they don’t wait for a conviction — or even an indictment — before grabbing people’s possessions and spreading them around various police agencies for the Kewl New Toy Fund.

I’m not a Law expert but I don’t thing that’s even vaguely Constitutional.

12 Comments!

  1. DougM (flawed chap)
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 11:12 am |

    I concur.
    Not even remotely constitutional.

  2. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 1:26 pm |

    IIRC, it was going on even before the Buraq Extra-constitutional Regime. It’s been nibbled around the edges before SCOTUS, but how it managed to survive so long without the fundamental issue going to SCOTUS is beyond me.
    Even if the defendant were Pablo Escobar, the Feral Gummint or any other entity has no right to a person’s property without first concluding a contract or finishing due process to a guilty verdict.
    The anti gun wussies argue the second Amendment is about militias, but at least that word is in the Constitution.

    “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    The Ferals must be arguing an that an arrest with evidence of the crime in hand, or even just the evidence in hand is sufficient to grab anything related they can find. This sounds like another inch cut off the Constitution’s tail for expediency [the worthless, over-priced "War On Drugs].

    Seems to me, seizure of private assets is expressly forbidden, especially with the use of the imperative word “shall”. Following government logic, the Feral Gum should be able to execute the defendant as well, to prevent his escape from custody pending a grand jury hearing or trial.

    Let’s make it Leviathan instead of Feral Government.

  3. Brad
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 2:42 pm |

    I’ve said for a couple of decades that if civil asset forfeiture were applied in concert with deportation that illegals would break land speed records leaving the U.S.
    Think of it. You come to America and work without authorization, get caught and on top of being deported lose all of the fruits of your illegal labor.
    Like a gun, civil asset forfeiture is a tool. As such it is not inherently bad. The degree of evil it can cause is entirely dependent on how it is used.

  4. Drew458
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 3:07 pm |

    Dick, SCOTUS has been in favor of civil forfeiture for 180 years; their last ruling in its favor was in 1996.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-civil-forfeiture-2014-11

    That doesn’t make it right. It is wrong. Outside of jackboots at 3am and people disappearing for political reasons, it is the most un-American thing that the authorities can do. Screw the Supremes, they are toadies to the government power block. And Mike Pence is a dickbreath DB for favoring it. “Oh, look how much it helps the police departments”. What a crock. They have tons of money already, are up-armored, drive MRAPS, have automatic weapons, get nice budgets to begin with and then supplement it 100% through the scam called traffic court.

    Civil forfeiture is out and out corruption, a racketeering act by the biggest gang in the country.

    Notice that not one Dem is against it. And maybe the only Rep speaking out would be Rand Paul. Maybe. They all profit by it, and you the citizen are truly screwed.

  5. Posted July 20, 2017 at 3:55 pm |

    ^Yep. Civil forfeiture is big in the Midwest, despite the fact that it is obviously unconstitutional.

  6. blindshooter
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 4:03 pm |

    I see this play out fairly regular on I40, travelers with all their stuff piled beside the road while Barny paws through all of it. Funny I never see them when its raining.

  7. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 4:50 pm |

    I thought they needed ‘probable cause’ to search: what constitutes ‘probable cause’ these days?

    speeding?

    being… what?

  8. Dave
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 8:34 pm |

    Next time somebody tells me Democrats and Republicans are all the same I won’t have an argument.

  9. rickn8or
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 10:00 pm |

    I know an AG that needs to get his ass fired…

  10. Fat Baxter
    Posted July 21, 2017 at 10:14 am |

    Yes, I know a Hillary presidency would be far, far worse, but I’m extremely disappointed with the Trump administration.

    Having to fight all the Vichy Republicans in the Senate is one thing, but Trump should’ve swept out all Obama’s appointees the first day in office. Why he still won’t clean house just amazes me. He would have far fewer leaks if he’s done this and he’d have a much better chance of presenting a more coherent agenda. Instead, we have this on-going clown show. Today, he’s reshuffling his communications office, and Spicer quit in disgust.

    And this media + Democrat fixation on “Russia Russia Russia” is really pissing me off. It’s flat-out sedition at this point.

  11. DougM (flawed chap)
    Posted July 21, 2017 at 10:32 am |

    Oh, dearie dear…

  12. Posted July 21, 2017 at 4:52 pm |

    I’ve always wondered how even lawyers and judges could find that Constitutional.

    Here’s a White House petition to get rid of it.

    I wish there was a comment section.
    Or maybe not, I’m probably on enough lists already.