Civil forfeiture finds a champion in Jeff Sessions

[jct74]

Civil Forfeiture Finds A Champion

By Robert Everett Johnson
May 13, 2015

Opponents of civil forfeiture — myself included — have been waiting for someone to take the other side of the debate. Every year, the federal government uses civil forfeiture to seize more than $1 billion dollars in private property simply by alleging it was somehow involved in a crime. Property owners are forced to engage in protracted legal battles to prove their own innocence and get their property back. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it has been difficult to find anyone willing to defend this controversial and constitutionally suspect practice.

That changed at a recent hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when civil forfeiture finally found a voice in GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Now we know what a full-throated defense of civil forfeiture sounds like. And that defense is unconvincing.

It’s not hard to see why champions of civil forfeiture are difficult to find. Consider the case of Russ Caswell, who testified at the recent Senate hearing. The government invoked civil forfeiture to take his family-owned motel, not because he did something wrong, but because some customers violated the law in the privacy of their own rooms. Caswell was forced to prove his own innocence to prevent the forfeiture of his business, which also happened to be his life-savings and retirement plan, all rolled into one.

Few are willing to go on record defending a practice that so blatantly disregards the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty — to say nothing of the right to private property.

Enter Sessions. Midway through the committee hearing, he declared that he was “very unhappy” with criticism of civil forfeiture, because in his view “taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong.” Apparently drawing a number from thin air, Sessions announced “95 percent” of forfeitures involve people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.”

...

read more:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/home/civil-forfeiture-finds-a-champion-commentary

[tod evans]

“95 percent” of forfeitures involve people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.”

That's called earning an honest living asshole.

Something a lawyer for government would know nothing about.

[jkr]

Just another common pirate traitor

BEHOLD

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Jeff sessions " Nah, fuk dat noise"

the only amendment they care about is the 16th...thieves the lot of them.

[AZJoe]

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/uncle-sam-theft.jpg

Confiscation for Profit

[Theocrat]

A President-Elect who has a history of using eminent domain for his own personal gains (even suggesting that we help foreign nations in war if it means we get to take their oil) and a possible Attorney General who champions civil forfeiture...wow! This new administration really believes in the principle of individual property rights and equal protection under the law! Liberty! 642D Chess!

[Weston White]

Asset forfeiture is the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition; for the religion of the state has simply come to the realization that it's vastly more beneficial to take the property of supposed evildoers and send them back as wolf among the sheep rather than outright burn them at the stake.

Directorium Inquisitorum:


for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit

[jct74]

The answer to the question is an obvious yes, but nice to see George Will give these important questions about Jeff Sessions some exposure.



Does Anyone Besides Jeff Sessions Defend Today’s Civil-Forfeiture Practices?

by GEORGE WILL
December 24, 2016

Sentence first, then the verdict. No ‘judicial process.’ And good luck if you want your house back.

“The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world. . . . The worst thing in the world varies from individual to individual.” — George Orwell, 1984

Philadelphia — For Christos and Markela Sourovelis, for whom the worst thing was losing their home, “Room 101” was Courtroom 478 in City Hall. This “courtroom”’s name is Orwellian: There was neither judge nor jury in it. There the city government enriched itself — more than $64 million in a recent eleven-year span — by disregarding due-process requirements in order to seize and sell the property of people who have not been accused, never mind convicted, of a crime.

The Sourovelises’ son, who lived at home, was arrested for selling a small amount of drugs away from home. Soon there was a knock on their door by police who said, “We’re here to take your house” and “You’re going to be living on the street” and “We do this every day.” The Sourovelises’ doors were locked with screws and their utilities were cut off. They had paid off the mortgage on their $350,000 home, making it a tempting target for policing for profit.

Nationwide, proceeds from sales of seized property (homes, cars, etc.) go to the seizers. And under a federal program, state and local law enforcement can partner with federal authorities in forfeiture and reap up to 80 percent of the proceeds. This is called — more Orwellian newspeak — “equitable sharing.”

No crime had been committed in the Sourovelises’ house, but the title of the case against them was “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. 12011 Ferndale Street.” Somehow, a crime had been committed by the house. In civil forfeiture, it suffices that property is suspected of having been involved in a crime. Once seized, the property’s owners bear the burden of proving their property’s innocence. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” says the queen in Alice in Wonderland.

...

read more:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department

[TheTexan]

The government invoked civil forfeiture to take his family-owned motel, not because he did something wrong, but because some customers violated the law in the privacy of their own rooms. Caswell was forced to prove his own innocence to prevent the forfeiture of his business, which also happened to be his life-savings and retirement plan, all rolled into one.

Ya, he's probably a dope dealer. They're known to own motels and plan for their retirement

[oyarde]

Asset forfeiture is the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition; for the religion of the state has simply come to the realization that it's vastly more beneficial to take the property of supposed evildoers and send them back as wolf among the sheep rather than outright burn them at the stake.

Directorium Inquisitorum:
The Templars in France were killed to erase debt owed to them by the King of France . Probably where modern govts got the idea to just steal a little more .

[jct74]

Why does Sessions think the police should be able to legally rob you?

By JOHNNY KAMPIS
12/19/16

The Morristown, Tenn., deputy who was ordered by the state comptroller to return $6,000 cash and several vehicles taken from people suspected of crimes. The Iowa state patrol officers who snatched $100,000 in winnings from California poker players who were driving through the state. The $63,530 taken from an Air Force veteran in Nebraska on his way to Los Angeles to place a down payment on a house. Officers took his plastic bag full of cash, and Mark Brewer never saw the money again.

Examples like these have fueled calls for reform of civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows law enforcement officers to take property when there is simply a suspected link to criminal activity. And when people are carrying bricks of cash, officers are all too eager to claim they must be fueling the drug trade. After all, the rise of civil asset forfeiture in the 1980s coincides with an effort to combat drug kingpins during that time, with the goal that seizing cash and property would take away the assets that could grow their empires.

But civil asset forfeiture has grown into a bloated system that critics call theft by police. An estimated $5 billion in cash and property was seized in 2014. Some reforms have been made: A handful of states, including Nebraska, now require a criminal conviction to seize property, while former Attorney General Eric Holder put some restrictions in place to try to curb state and local police's use of the practice.

Now President-elect Trump has selected Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to be his attorney general. Sessions defended civil asset forfeiture during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic in 2015. Democrats and Republicans on the committee generally spoke against the practice, including Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who went toe-to-toe with the Fraternal Order of Police on the issue. Sessions, however, said losing such seized funds "would be a huge detriment to law enforcement."

...

read more:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-does-sessions-think-the-police-should-be-able-to-legally-rob-you/article/2609904

[anaconda]

Hopefully Rand will be even more contentious and high profile on this subject during the confirmation process than he was with Loretta Lynch. He should grab the spotlight with this. Could be an enormous opportunity.

[jct74]

Wow, even the WSJ editorial board is concerned over his views on civil forfeiture.


Jeff Sessions and Civil Forfeiture
The AG nominee should be asked about an abusive practice.

Dec. 26, 2016

Democrats are wrong in most of their criticism of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General. But if they or fellow Republicans are looking for a legitimate area to probe, they should explore his views on government’s use of civil forfeiture.

The all-too-common practice allows law enforcement to take private property without due process and has become a cash cow for state and local police and prosecutors. Under a federal program called “equitable sharing,” local law enforcement can team up with federal authorities to seize property in exchange for 80% of the proceeds.

Assets are often seized—and never returned—without any judicial process or court supervision. Unlike criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture doesn’t require a criminal conviction or even charges. According to the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which tracks forfeitures, 13% of all forfeitures done by the Justice Department between 1997 and 2013 were in criminal cases while 87% were civil forfeitures. And 88% of those forfeitures were done by an administrative agency, not a court.

Civil-rights activists have campaigned for years to end forfeiture abuses. But in a 2015 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sessions defended the practice. He said he doesn’t “think it’s wrong to—for federal government to adopt state cases” and added that “taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong.”

...

read more:
http://archive.is/WrUVU

[tod evans]

The all-too-common practice allows law enforcement to take private property without due process

No we permit this behavior from our own neighbors, we tolerate it, turn a blind eye, anyway you want to describe condoning armed robbery.

And it is up to you and I to put an end to it as neighbors, not by voting or petitioning government to stop their thievery either, we know where these people live, we know who their family members are and still their actions are condoned......

Shame on us. :(

[jct74]

Hopefully Rand will be even more contentious and high profile on this subject during the confirmation process than he was with Loretta Lynch. He should grab the spotlight with this. Could be an enormous opportunity.

I don't think he will get to question Sessions though. Confirmation hearing is January 10-11 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/senate-jeff-sessions-hearing-attorney-general-232454) in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Current members are:


Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chairman
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Cornyn, Texas
Mike Lee, Utah
Ted Cruz, Texas
Jeff Flake, Arizona
David Vitter, Louisiana
David Perdue, Georgia
Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Ranking Member
Dianne Feinstein, California
Chuck Schumer, New York
Dick Durbin, Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Al Franken, Minnesota
Chris Coons, Delaware
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary

[anaconda]

I don't think he will get to question Sessions though. Confirmation hearing is January 10-11 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/senate-jeff-sessions-hearing-attorney-general-232454) in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Current members are:


Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chairman
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Cornyn, Texas
Mike Lee, Utah
Ted Cruz, Texas
Jeff Flake, Arizona
David Vitter, Louisiana
David Perdue, Georgia
Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Ranking Member
Dianne Feinstein, California
Chuck Schumer, New York
Dick Durbin, Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Al Franken, Minnesota
Chris Coons, Delaware
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary

Good point. I'll settle for a very long filibuster.

[RandallFan]

The only person might bring it up is the Arizona Senator Jeff Flake with low approval who's a big open borders guy.

Jeff Flake has nephew accused of dog cruelty in a case where a dozen dogs died.

Is there an angle where someone accused of animal cruelty can have their assets seized? I bet a lot of conservatives & PETA activists would support that.

Totally confusing messaging.

Open borders Flake (Pass the damn TPP & shove up the scumbag-voters ass) vs pro-borders Jeff Sessions.

Flake(of dog killing family fame) vs PETA.
...

[CPUd]

The only person might bring it up is the Arizona Senator Jeff Flake with low approval who's a big open borders guy.

Jeff Flake has nephew accused of dog cruelty in a case where a dozen dogs died.

Is there an angle where someone accused of animal cruelty can have their assets seized? I bet a lot of conservatives & PETA activists would support that.

Totally confusing messaging.

Open borders Flake (Pass the damn TPP & shove up the scumbag-voters ass) vs pro-borders Jeff Sessions.

Flake(of dog killing family fame) vs PETA.
...

What does this rant have to do with anything?

[oyarde]

What does this rant have to do with anything?

I dunno , way I read it was they would seize my property for making dog food of Peta people but I will be OK if I support NAFTA and TPP and if all of this happens Sessions is taking Flakes family pet.

[RandallFan]

The messenger is wrong. This Creep says X is good & Jeff Sessions says Y is good, what is Joe the semi-informed voter going to think.
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/10/Jeff-Flake-ImWithHer.jpg

[jct74]

Jeff Sessions Loves Asset Forfeiture. Will Congress Grill Him at His Confirmation Hearing?
Trump’s nominee for Attorney General is at odds with many of his GOP colleagues on asset forfeiture and a host of other criminal justice issues.

C.J. Ciaramella
Jan. 9, 2017

Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions is expected to face a barrage of critical questions from Democrats Tuesday and Wednesday during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his Republican colleagues could just as well lob a few bombs at him over his big-government stance on asset forfeiture and criminal justice reform.

Sessions, an Alabama senator and former member of the Judiciary Committee, will now be sitting across from many of his colleagues. Democrats will likely focus much of their fire on Sessions' failed appointment to the federal judiciary in the '80s, which collapsed under accusations of racism from his days as a federal prosecutor.

However, Sessions is also at stark odds with several of his former Judiciary Committee Republican colleagues on civil asset forfeiture reform and efforts to roll back mandatory minimum sentencing laws, including Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Texas senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.

Sessions has been a staunch supporter of civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize property suspected of being connected to drug and other crimes, without convicting or sometimes even charging the property owner. Civil liberties groups say civil asset forfeiture lacks due process protections for property owners—who may have their cash, cars, and even houses seized—and creates perverse profit incentives for police.

...

read more:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/09/sessions-could-face-sharp-questions-over