PDA

View Full Version : Even NOAA is in the government asset forfeiture game.




Anti Federalist
08-28-2011, 12:23 AM
Every branch of government it seems has it's own outright theft ring.

Who the fuck is NOAA seizing property from?

:mad:




Statement from Maureen Wylie, NOAA chief financial officer on Asset Forfeiture Fund micropurchase review
August 25, 2011

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110825_AFFstatement.html

“Today, we are pleased to release an independent report from the accounting firm Clifton Gunderson, LLP, of NOAA’s Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF), that found no abuse of the fund. The report primarily evaluated fund expenditures prior to NOAA’s implementation of actions taken to improve fund management beginning in February 2010.

“The auditors who examined transactions from 2005 to 2010 found no significant deficiencies as defined by accounting standards. They further recommended ways to improve oversight and controls to ensure more transparent and effective management of the fund, consistent with actions NOAA has already implemented in response to the recommendations contained in the July 2010 Inspector General report.

“In the review of AFF transactions, the auditors identified four travel, equipment and maintenance transactions totaling $1,971 that while appropriate to NOAA’s law enforcement mission, were viewed by the auditors as not being in compliance with the NOAA AFF policy in place at the time of the transactions. The four transactions occurred prior to 2010 when NOAA began implementing significant reforms to the management and oversight of the AFF, including limiting its uses and improving internal controls and accountability.

“We have spent $427,000 to conduct a comprehensive independent audit and micropurchase review to validate that the fund has a current balance of $4.2 million available for new obligations as of August 25, 2011, and that our micropurchases were appropriate. We now intend to turn our attention and resources to implementing our new enforcement policies including improving outreach and compliance assistance.

“Over the last year, NOAA has implemented reforms that ensure a well managed fund and will take additional actions as warranted in response to today’s report. Ensuring proper use of the Asset Forfeiture Fund is essential to carrying out our duties as responsible financial managers and as stewards of coastal and marine resources.”

Background
The independent auditor’s report focuses on micro-purchases (under $3,000 for purchase cards, cell phones, and other general expenditures and between $150 and $1,000 for travel expenses) because the Inspector General and others expressed concern that this was an area not fully studied in the previous IG financial review.

The auditors review of six years of financial transactions was undertaken at the direction of Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator, as part of a comprehensive action plan to ensure that moneys collected from fisheries enforcement penalties in the Asset Forfeiture Fund are properly used and accounted for by NOAA. The retrospective review follows an earlier financial statement audit by Clifton Gunderson, LLP, for the year ending March 31, 2011, that gave the fund an unqualified (clean) opinion, the best type of audit opinion one can receive.

Today’s report is one of a series of the significant steps that NOAA has taken over the last two years to improve transparency, accountability and the effectiveness of its enforcement program.

A full timeline of NOAA Enforcement program improvements since March 2009 is at http://www.noaa.gov/lawenforcementupdates/timeline.html. To read the Clifton Gunderson report, go to http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/pdfs/Clifton_Gunderson_LLP_8Aug11.pdf.

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Facebook, Twitter and our other social media channels.

coastie
08-28-2011, 07:35 AM
NOAA is who assesses all the fines in the fishing industry that the USCG hands out...I know of one case they took a guys boat for not having the proper turtle mitigation gear on board. Took as in he didn't get his boat back, ever.

Lifesoup
08-28-2011, 09:13 AM
NOAA is who assesses all the fines in the fishing industry that the USCG hands out...I know of one case they took a guys boat for not having the proper turtle mitigation gear on board. Took as in he didn't get his boat back, ever.

Maybe this would make for an effective tool to eviscerate small family-owned operations in favor of bigger corporate type operations.
I’d imagine this would have the interesting side effect of quelling competition for those chosen to remain (and consolidate payers of campaign contributions).
I wonder.....

Play the game dirty?!!

foofighter20x
08-28-2011, 11:04 AM
Which asset forfeiture is this? Civil or criminal? It doesn't say.

If the assets are seized because they were being used to commit a crime, I'm perfectly fine with that, provided that the the asset is not the property of any person not party to the criminal transaction.

specsaregood
08-28-2011, 11:06 AM
can't wait for these govt gangs to start getting into firefights with each other over their asset seizures.

Anti Federalist
08-28-2011, 01:00 PM
Which asset forfeiture is this? Civil or criminal? It doesn't say.

If the assets are seized because they were being used to commit a crime, I'm perfectly fine with that, provided that the the asset is not the property of any person not party to the criminal transaction.

So, violation of a "regulation" means that government can come and clean you out?

You can't be serious.

Anti Federalist
08-28-2011, 01:02 PM
NOAA is who assesses all the fines in the fishing industry that the USCG hands out...I know of one case they took a guys boat for not having the proper turtle mitigation gear on board. Took as in he didn't get his boat back, ever.

I thought you guys got that...well, that explains it then.

I imagine they seize people's homes that are out of wetland code as well.

flightlesskiwi
08-28-2011, 03:38 PM
I thought you guys got that...well, that explains it then.

I imagine they seize people's homes that are out of wetland code as well.

wouldn't the fish and wildlife service do that?

Travlyr
08-28-2011, 04:08 PM
can't wait for these govt gangs to start getting into firefights with each other over their asset seizures.
Me too. Those fireworks are going to be fun to watch!

foofighter20x
08-28-2011, 04:38 PM
So, violation of a "regulation" means that government can come and clean you out?

You can't be serious.

All heat, no light. Answer my question.

Are they enforcing laws or regulations when they do it? Are the laws or regulations of a civil or criminal nature?

I'm only seeing assumptions instead of facts from your end.

Anti Federalist
08-28-2011, 05:21 PM
All heat, no light. Answer my question.

Are they enforcing laws or regulations when they do it? Are the laws or regulations of a civil or criminal nature?

I'm only seeing assumptions instead of facts from your end.

From a USCG LEO in this thread:


NOAA is who assesses all the fines in the fishing industry that the USCG hands out...I know of one case they took a guys boat for not having the proper turtle mitigation gear on board. Took as in he didn't get his boat back, ever.

This man lost his only means of making a living.

For violating a regulation.

Do you agree with that?

Do you agree with the actions of the Tampa PD in the OP of this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?312204-FL-Tampa-mayor-tooling-around-in-SUV-seized-from-man-not-convicted-of-anything.

...that the state can seize assets even before you are convicted of anything?

Anti Federalist
08-28-2011, 05:24 PM
All heat, no light. Answer my question.

Are they enforcing laws or regulations when they do it? Are the laws or regulations of a civil or criminal nature?

I'm only seeing assumptions instead of facts from your end.

Read up:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

foofighter20x
08-28-2011, 07:08 PM
I know what it is. I'm asking about NOAA specifically. Your link says nothing about them.

Anti Federalist
08-28-2011, 07:49 PM
I know what it is. I'm asking about NOAA specifically. Your link says nothing about them.

It says NOAA has a 4.2 million dollar slush fund of seized property.

My initial question was: what was NOAA seizing and from whom?

Secondary to that is when did NOAA become a federal LEO arm that would even have access to seized property?

You said:


Which asset forfeiture is this? Civil or criminal? It doesn't say.

If the assets are seized because they were being used to commit a crime, I'm perfectly fine with that, provided that the the asset is not the property of any person not party to the criminal transaction.

I am opposed to all asset forfeiture, because of the clearly demonstrated potential for horrible abuses.

You support it.

Do you support it in the instances of seizure before a conviction? (which is the vast majority of cases)

Do you support it in the instances of seizure without a charge being filed? (also many of the cases)

If, by "civil" charges, you are saying that somebody should have to sell their assets when sued by a fellow citizen for damages they might have caused, you are comparing apples to bowling balls here and we talking past each other.

That is not the case with NOAA or any other government agency.

truelies
08-28-2011, 08:01 PM
So, violation of a "regulation" means that government can come and clean you out?

You can't be serious.

Yeppers gotta repress those kulaks, anti-state elements & counter-revolutionary wreckers

foofighter20x
08-28-2011, 10:56 PM
It says NOAA has a 4.2 million dollar slush fund of seized property.In the Reason article? Sorry, no it doesn't. I searched all 5 pages of that link for "NOAA", "national", and "atmos" separately and it returned 0 results. So, please, again, point me to where the link you provided talks about NOAA.
Do you support it in the instances of seizure before a conviction? (which is the vast majority of cases)If by seizure you mean the government takes possession, but not title, to the property, and returns the property to those acquitted, then yes. If you mean seizure as simply taking title, then no.
Do you support it in the instances of seizure without a charge being filed? (also many of the cases)Definitely not.
If, by "civil" charges, you are saying that somebody should have to sell their assets when sued by a fellow citizen for damages they might have caused, you are comparing apples to bowling balls here and we talking past each other.It's clear you don't know what the difference is between the two. Traditional (read: criminal) asset forfeiture is when the state seizes the property in question because it was used in the commission of a crime and takes title to the property only after conviction.

Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes the property because they suspect it has been used or is intended to be used in the commission of a crime (regardless of whether the government actually charges anyone), and then sues in civil court to take title because the burden of proof therein is preponderance instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, answer my question, please. Did NOAA seize and take title because the assets were being used to commit a crime, or were they going the civil court route?

specsaregood
08-29-2011, 06:24 AM
In the Reason article? Sorry, no it doesn't. I searched all 5 pages of that link for "NOAA", "national", and "atmos" separately and it returned 0 results. So, please, again, point me to where the link you provided talks about NOAA.
It is right in the article linked in the OP of the thread.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110825_AFFstatement.html


We have spent $427,000 to conduct a comprehensive independent audit and micropurchase review to validate that the fund has a current balance of $4.2 million available for new obligations as of August 25, 2011, and that our micropurchases were appropriate. We now intend to turn our attention and resources to implementing our new enforcement policies including improving outreach and compliance assistance.

Anti Federalist
08-29-2011, 11:04 AM
Now, answer my question, please. Did NOAA seize and take title because the assets were being used to commit a crime, or were they going the civil court route?

Jesus.

As post 17 notes, the OP in this thread (that is post numero uno) gives the information that NOAA has a $4.2 million fund of seized assets.

I have no idea what legal mumbo jumbo NOAA used to take people's property. I have not looked into the story that deeply yet. I was shocked to come across the article while checking forecasts. What's next? FDA seized asset fund?

We do have first hand accounts from a former federal LEO who stated that one man's property was seized and means of making a living lost for violating a federal TED regulation.


If by seizure you mean the government takes possession, but not title, to the property, and returns the property to those acquitted, then yes. If you mean seizure as simply taking title, then no.

And, pre-conviction, if possession or title is taken to all of your assets, you mount a defense, how, exactly?

Last time I checked, lawyers don't work for free.

Asset forfeiture is one of the most grossly abused state powers that exists right now.

I cannot believe you are defending it, either as a concept or in practice.

Or are you just yanking my chain?

DamianTV
08-29-2011, 05:02 PM
...

This man lost his only means of making a living.

...

...that the state can seize assets even before you are convicted of anything?

Wins thread.