Utah Made It Easier For Cops To Seize Innocent People's Property.

[dillo]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2013/12/23/utah-made-it-easier-for-cops-to-seize-innocent-peoples-property-and-not-a-single-lawmaker-voted-against-it

Lobbying works

[Paulbot99]

Amerika.

[mad cow]

A new report published by the Libertas Institute, a free market think tank, reveals how a little-known new law greatly weakened legal protections for property owners facing civil forfeiture in Utah. Unlike criminal forfeiture, with civil forfeiture, someone does not have to be convicted of or even charged with a crime to permanently lose their property.

Sponsors of the bill, HB 384, presented their amendments as a mere “re-codification” of the state’s forfeiture law. While some of the changes to Utah’s forfeiture laws might appear minor, they have significant consequences.

Take the state’s new statute on attorney’s fees. Previously, state law provided that “the court shall award a prevailing party reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs of litigation reasonably incurred by the owner.” So if an owner won a civil forfeiture case, the government would have to pay for his or her legal expenses.

But HB 384 replaced “shall” with “may.” Before, the government was obligated to pay attorney’s fees when it lost a civil forfeiture case; now it’s optional. Even worse, the bill added a new cap on the amount of attorney’s fees: They “may not exceed 20 percent of the value of the property.”

In numerous civil forfeiture cases, the cost of litigation can be far more than the property that was originally seized. But fully compensating innocent owners for the attorneys’ fees they incur to recover their property is vital to stopping unjust forfeitures.

For those of you who have no earthly idea what the OP might be about but might be interested if you had a clue.

More at link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2013/12/23/utah-made-it-easier-for-cops-to-seize-innocent-peoples-property-and-not-a-single-lawmaker-voted-against-it/

[jmdrake]

Oh but a judge just reinstated gay marriage so Utah be free! (courtesy of red herrings are us)

[DamianTV]

So much for "... without Due Process of Law", or Holder's interpretation where Due Process and Law are separated.

Modern Day Witch Hunt

[Contumacious]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2013/12/23/utah-made-it-easier-for-cops-to-seize-innocent-peoples-property-and-not-a-single-lawmaker-voted-against-it

Lobbying works

BTW, Obama Hellcare was "adopted" in secret in a snowy Christmas eve at 1:00 AM. Senator Reid (D-USSR) used maneuvers to prevent the Republicans from objecting.

We are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

.

[dillo]

Sorry mad cow, I posted it from my phone.

Is Utah not conservative? Are they just social conservatives? Any RPF members native Utahites? This shit just blows my mind, imagine if some asshat like Arpaio lived somewhere like this.

[phill4paul]

There is nothing "Civil" about forfeiture. Free country? SMFH. If I'm traveling with $20k or even $1 and you try to take it away from me then it's not gonna end well for either of us. But that'll be the price I pay for living in a "free" country.

[Contumacious]

Sorry mad cow, I posted it from my phone.

Is Utah not conservative? Are they just social conservatives? Any RPF members native Utahites? This shit just blows my mind, imagine if some asshat like Arpaio lived somewhere like this.

Conservatism means nothing. They just want to tyrannize us in the name of a deity.

.

[Occam's Banana]

Is Utah not conservative?

"Civil" asset forfeiture has been around for a while, now. So, sure - why not "conserve" it ... ?

conservative, noun: one who is enamored of existing evils - as distinct from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with new ones
(h/t Ambrose Bierce)

[Anti Federalist]

AmeriKa.

FreeDumb.

[greyseal]

UTAH H.B. 384 TITLE 24, PROCEEDS IN “REM” section 183, MARITIME LAW
H.B. 384 PROPERTY DISPOSITION AMENDMENTS
http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/hb0384.htm

2013 GENERAL SESSION


STATE OF UTAH
Highlighted Provisions:
12 This bill:
13 . repeals the current Title 24, Forfeiture Procedures, and enacts a new Title 24,
14 Forfeiture of Property Act, which reinstates forfeiture provisions and also includes
15 various forfeiture provisions previously located in other sections of the Utah Code;
TITLE 24. FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY ACT

159
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(1) This title is known as the "Forfeiture of Property Act."
183 (6) "Complaint" means a civil in *rem complaint seeking the forfeiture of any real or
184 personal property under this title.
(b) the lead governmental entity of a multijurisdictional task force, as designated in a
227 memorandum of understanding executed by the agencies participating in the task force.
228 (14) "Multijurisdictional task force" means a law enforcement task force or other
229 agency comprised of persons who are employed by or acting under the authority of different
230 governmental entities, including federal, state, county or municipal governments, or any
231 combination of these agencies
__________________________________________________ _________-

CONFORMITY WITH FEDERAL “in rem” MARITIME LAW
Title 24 UTAH LAW. treason

Appendix A: Select Federal Forfeiture Laws
http://www.popcenter.org/responses/asset_forfeiture/10
18 USC § 981: Civil forfeiture.
18 USC § 982: Criminal forfeiture
28 USC § 2461: Criminal forfeiture authority.
Appendix B: Disposition Statutes by State (all 50 states)
Utah Utah Code Ann. § 24-1-15

THE ARREST IS FOR A SHIP

XIII. SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME CLAIMS AND ASSET FORFEITURE ACTIONS › Rule C. In Rem Actions: Special Provisions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_C
RULE C. IN REM ACTIONS: SPECIAL PROVISIONS
(1) When Available. An action in rem may be brought:
(a) To enforce any maritime lien;
(b) Whenever a statute of the United States provides for a maritime action in rem or a proceeding analogous thereto.
3) Judicial Authorization and Process.
(a) Arrest Warrant.
(i) The court must review the complaint and any supporting papers. If the conditions for an in rem action appear to exist, the court must issue an order directing the clerk to issue a warrant for the arrest of the *vessel or other property that is the subject of the action.

In an admiralty and maritime proceeding governed by paragraph (b), a statement is filed only by a person claiming a right of possession or ownership. Other claims against the property are advanced by intervention under Civil Rule 24, as it may be supplemented by local admiralty rules. The reference to ownership includes every interest that qualifies as ownership under domestic or foreign law. If an ownership interest is asserted, it makes no difference whether its character is legal, equitable, or something else.
Paragraph (a) provides more time than paragraph (b) for filing a statement. Admiralty and maritime in rem proceedings often present special needs for prompt action that do not commonly arise in forfeiture proceedings.

COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT
18 U.S.C. 981-985 MARIRITIME LAW THE STATE OF UTAH IS ENFORCING
Rule C(3) is amended to reflect the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §985, enacted by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 202, 214–215. Section 985 provides, subject to enumerated exceptions, that real property that is the subject of a civil forfeiture action is not to be seized until an order of forfeiture is entered. A civil forfeiture action is initiated by filing a complaint, posting notice, and serving notice on the property owner. The summons and arrest procedure is no longer appropriate.
Rule C(6)(a)(i)(A) is amended to adopt the provision enacted by 18 U.S.C. §983(a)(4)(A), shortly before Rule C(6)(a)(i)(A) took effect, that sets the time for filing a verified statement as 30 days rather than 20 days, and that sets the first alternative event for measuring the 30 days as the date of service of the Government's complaint.
Rule C(6)(a)(iii) is amended to give notice of the provision enacted by 18 U.S.C. §983(a)(4)(B) that requires that the answer in a forfeiture proceeding be filed within 20 days. Without this notice, unwary litigants might rely on the provision of Rule 5(d) that allows a reasonable time for filing after service.

TITLE 28 U.S.C. section 2461 MARITIME LAW THE STATE OF UTAH IS ENFORCING
28 USC Ch. 163: FINES, PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES
From Title 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDUREPART VI—PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS
http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml;jsessionid=5D978684544CD8400B41F434DF62 DB30?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-chapter163&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUyOC1zZ WN0aW9uMjQ2MQ%3D%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim&edition=prelim.


§2461. Mode of recovery
(a) Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil action.
(b) Unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a forfeiture of property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of Congress and the seizure takes place on the high seas or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in admiralty but in cases of seizures on land the forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty.
(c) If a person is charged in a criminal case with a violation of an Act of Congress for which the civil or criminal forfeiture of property is authorized, the Government may include notice of the forfeiture in the indictment or information pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the defendant is convicted of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture, the court shall order the forfeiture of the property as part of the sentence in the criminal case pursuant to to 1 the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 3554 of title 18, United States Code. The procedures in section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853) apply to all stages of a criminal forfeiture proceeding, except that subsection (d) of such section applies only in cases in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of such Act.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 974; Pub. L. 106–185, §16, Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 221; Pub. L. 109–177, title IV, §410, Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 246.)

REFERENCES IN TEXT (MARITIME DRUG LAW)
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subsec. (c), are set out in the Appendix to Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
The Controlled Substances Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is title II of Pub. L. 91–513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1242, as amended, which is classified principally to subchapter I (§801 et seq.) of chapter 13 of Title 21, Food and Drugs. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 801 of Title 21 and Tables.
__________________________________________________ _______
One of the reasons reason why the Opium in Afghanistan, and cocaine in Columbia is a boom for the de-facto government, they use maritime law to confiscate all property of American citizens, in possession, or planted.

[tod evans]

This is what happens when folks elect "law makers".

This country is in dire need of "law repealers".

[tommyrp12]

......