In the lawsuit titled “United States of America vs. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts” the government is suing an inanimate object, the motel Caswell’s father built in 1955. The U.S. Department of Justice intends to seize it, sell it for perhaps $1.5 million and give up to 80 percent of that to the Tewksbury Police Department, whose budget is just $5.5 million. The Caswells have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. They are being persecuted by two governments eager to profit from what is antiseptically called the “equitable sharing” of the fruits of civil forfeiture, a process of government enrichment that often is indistinguishable from robbery.
h/t Kevin
Meanwhile...in the far away land..... revolution is germinating .
This kind of news just makes my blood boil .......... it's also a damned good reason for the right to bear arms.
“.....they photocopy customers’ identifications and record their license plates, and turn the information over to the police, who have never asked the Caswells to do more.”
Along with a mandatory TSA sexual assault, Obamba’s Gestapo style US looks like a fantastic vacation destination this summer. If you’re lucky you can get caught up in an Obamba inspired racial riot, a flash mob, a “whitey beat-down”, possibly just raped or robbed by some of Obamba’s “million man civilian force, just as well funded, just as well armed as the US military”.
Yup, this story sounds like another flash in the pan, another “well as long as it didn’t happen to me, who cares”.
"it's also a damned good reason for the right to bear arms."
Nope. This IS the police and Government, as much as they deserve it shooting them mano-a-mano isn't going to be helpful.
Inanimate objects can commit crimes ? Pure insanity.
Proof America has no real Property protection anymore.
How will that make investors feel? When the Police & Government conspire to steal others land? The USA is starting to look like Zimbabwe, or South Africa.
Its Constitutional safeguards all but demolished.
Its Government corrupt beyond measure . Its police now a Union Mafia.
"Rather, they are victims of two piratical governments that, IJ argues, are violating the U.S. Constitution twice. They are violating the Eighth Amendment, which has been construed to forbid “excessive fines” that deprive individuals of their livelihoods. And the federal “equitable sharing” program violates the 10th Amendment by vitiating state law, thereby enabling Congress to compel the states to adopt Congress’ policies where states possess a reserved power and primary authority — in the definition and enforcement of the criminal law."
The small business owner just can't afford to fight theft by two levels of government, in the courts, but if this isn't a good case for a charitable fundraiser, what is?
xiat, the opinion piece you linked to was well worth the read...and will be passed on. The role of government and taxation has become predatory.
Let's see...US Air Force aircraft were used to transport drugs from South Vietnam to America during that war; and no doubt are still being used to transport drugs, now from Afghanistan, Columbia and other places. Sounds like a civil suit should be raised to sieze Air Force aircraft! /sarc off!
What Obambam took lessons from Special Ed Stelmach and Red Ali? Or did they just all go to the same school.
I am sure unsustainable wages and pensions in US states, counties and cities will have no bearing on the amount of "equitable sharing" and forfeiture of property. It would be interesting to track though. It has been going on for quite a while under the facade of fighting the drug war.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket/singlepage
"Smelley’s case was no isolated incident. Over the past three decades, it has become routine in the United States for state, local, and federal governments to seize the property of people who were never even charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Nearly every year, according to Justice Department statistics, the federal government sets new records for asset forfeiture. And under many state laws, the situation is even worse: State officials can seize property without a warrant and need only show “probable cause” that the booty was connected to a drug crime in order to keep it, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, owners of seized property all too often have a heavier burden of proof than the government officials who stole their stuff.
Municipalities have come to rely on confiscated property for revenue. Police and prosecutors use forfeiture proceeds to fund not only general operations but junkets, parties, and swank office equipment. A cottage industry has sprung up to offer law enforcement agencies instruction on how to take and keep property more efficiently. And in Indiana, where Anthony Smelley is still fighting to get his money back, forfeiture proceeds are enriching attorneys who don’t even hold public office, a practice that violates the U.S. Constitution."
It is "indistinguishable from robber" because it IS robbery.
Hey, same thing going on here in McDinkyland: Property acquisition 101. Courtesy of the Provincial Policy Statement on Land Use; The Clean Water Act; Endangered Species Act; Conservation Lands Act; etc.
And the government doesn't even have to go to court to do it. All it takes is some nameless, faceless bureaucrat drawing loops and lines on a map.
Oh, and you get paid nothing, zero.
Tangentially related, since we're talking about theft. Facebook is now down about 25% since its open. Ed Saverin, the Brazilian who renounced his US citizenship to live in Singapore, has seen his shares drop to $1.8 billion in a weekend. (Where anyone got the $4B figure thrown around earlier is beyond me..)
Hope he gets out while he's still a billionaire. As for the Caswells - no such luck for them. Hotels aren't as portable as shares.
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip Searches for Any Arrest
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 2, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
Im puzzled.
arent you right wingers the great 'law and order' gang that fully supports the police?
because you cant have it both ways. you cant cheer them on when the go about cracking Occupy heads and G20 bystanders and then howl with outrage when they act like gangsters.
y'all have a nice summer now.
Rizwan >
Yup sanctioned rape.
Guess all the women out there better either wear burka’s or stay indoors.
Any perverted cop can pull you over for jaywalking or whatever they make up and molest you without any probable cause.
Suppose men now have the same issue with Affirmative Action hiring of homosexuals or any visible minority that either takes a physical liking to you or simply a racial bias.
Off with the cloths it's humiliation time guy's & gal's.
"Proof America has no real Property protection anymore."
p.s. rev, that started with george dubya's 'eminent domain' thing. google it.
Howard Hughes >
You continue to make the same idiotic statements over and over again.
- Law & Order means a civilized society enforced by a civilized, civilian police force.
- The Occupy movement is an entitled anarchist movement aimed at the wrong institutions to affect Law & Order. Namely Occupy the Whitehouse instead of shitting in parks, harassing citizens, and destroying public property.
Not remotely the same argument although you hopelessly try to paint it as such. If you cared about change, you would have supported the peaceful Tea Party movement aimed at change from the government, where it can be affected. The left shot them down as racists, then went and stood in front of a bank with their hands out.
“p.s. rev, that started with george dubya's 'eminent domain' thing. google it.”.....HH
And what happened to the “Hope & Change”?
This one truly has me stumped. A property or possession has no status under the law. Only a legal entity such as a person or corporation can be deemed to have behaved wrongly under the law. If the Caswells have not committed any offence, how can their possession have committed such?
We need a lawyer here to explain this, because I have trouble imagining any judge giving this the time of day before throwing this case into solar orbit.
You're in need of clarification, " Howard Hughes ", and here it is: the eminent domain thing started with Kelo vs. city of New London, and it was the liberal-friendly side of the court - Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens- who decided it was okay for local government to seize private property to maximize their tax revenue from said property. George W. Bush had nothing to do with it.
By the way, where were your fellow one percenters getting their heads cracked? Somehow that failed to make the headlines, both nationally, and locally. And the relevant actor in this lawsuit is Eric Holder, attorney general of your Occupy-friendly figurehead, Barack Obama.
There's not a conservative, or a fact, in sight in your entire post.
Thank God this can't happen in Canada!
If we ever get property rights in this country lets make sure we check out the fine print. Meanwhile it's time for the USA to start throwing civil servants into Boston Harbor. Even the British are starting to look good compared to the out of control bureaucrats that now run the country. Land of the free.......wonder whatever happened to that?
gunney99 >
"Thank God this can't happen in Canada!"
I can and it does - read their own words:
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/apropos-about/fi-fs/bs-spm-eng.html
Canadian Statistics
The total value of items seized or restrained was:
•$35 million in 1999-2000
•$36 million in 2000-01
•$39 million in 2001-02
•$71 million in 2002-03
•$56 million in 2003-04
•$96 million in 2004-05
•$83 million in 2005-06
•$88 million in 2006-07
•$87 million in 2007-08
•$87 million in 2008-09
They are doing the same thing in Alberta only under the guise of requiring private land for "utility rights of way". That is why you saw basically all of Southern Alberta vote Wildrose -- those benevolent PC's after all think they know what's best for other people's land.
gunney99 said: "Thank God this can't happen in Canada!"
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! Good one!
Howard Hughes and small c conservative:
Eminent domain, or expropriation as we call it in Canada, has its roots in English common law from the 1300's. It was discussed prior to the writing of the US Constitution, and Marshall mentions it in his Fifth Amendment:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
To suggest that eminent domain began under Bush is simply ludicrous. However, this particular case is NOT about eminent domain, as the property in question is not being taken for "public use" (which was overly construed in the New London case to mean "to generate more tax revenue"), but merely to be sold to enrich the government.
Someone might remember the short story where a homeowner, about to have his home wrongfully taken, stuffed it full of explosives and trip wires, so that when the thugs showed up to take possession, they got a bit more than they bargained for; the story's name escapes me.
@ KevinB
the short story where a homeowner, about to have his home wrongfully taken, stuffed it full of explosives
That's a leaf from the Swiss defense doctrine:
"As early as the 1950s, the national defense plan included destroying key strategic infrastructures and constructing private and public shelters to protect the population against nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks. All bridges, tunnels, and highways and most of the industrial base could be destroyed within a few hours with explosive charges pre-positioned in the immediate vicinity. Even 19th-century landmark tunnels--St. Gotthard and Simplon--would have been destroyed without any reservation."
(emphasis added)
To "xiat" and "revolution is germinating" - I used to practice commercial restaurant design in Toronto for the "gentlemen of the Mediterrean" AKA Italians, Greeks, Jews and Lebanese. They were always buying stuff which fell off of trucks (coke and other restaurant supplies) and they would stay up late to "cook the books" to avoid paying GST or business income tax. And to Revnant Dream-Obama is an African Thug in a nice business suit - just like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. What else would you expect of him or his administration?
|Big Momma
"they would stay up late to "cook the books" to avoid paying GST or business income tax."
I know what you mean. Maybe they should give a prize to the first immigrant who pays taxes on his business income.
Knight 99; "Thank God this can't happen in Canada!"; was my attempt at sarcasm; the lowest form of humor.
"Inanimate objects can commit crimes ? Pure insanity"
You do not understand the legal process. This is forfeiture law, underscored by the fact that either the property was obtained by the proceeds of crime, which is contraband (a couple of hundred kilos of cocaine is as much contraband as the monies generated by the sale of same), or that the property in question has been used to commit serious crimes (marijuana grow op houses are subject to seizure and forfeiture).
In the US the legal process concerning forfeiture requires that the suit is brought against the property, in order to facilitate forfeiture. These types of legal actions have been going on for decades, typically the lawsuit will be cited as something like "US Governemt against $433,000).
The same types of laws exist in Canada. Persons arrested in Canada do not have property rights to the hundred kilos of cocaine that they are found in possession of. I am sure we would all agree on that.
Similarly, they are not entitled to the possession of the proceeds of the sale of that cocaine.
There are NO property rights to items that have been illegally obtained. If there were, try getting your stolen car back from the thief, even after he has been convicted.
Point being, there is no such thing as absolute property rights. Think about it.
gunney 99 >
I knew that, just spring boarded off your comment.
The info was put out for anyone else who might think otherwise.
Here's a somewhat similar case where the police seized bail money which they said had to be presented as cash. It took a lawyer and 4 months to get the money back. Apparently this is a bit of a racket in Wisconsin as up to 80% of the forfeiture proceeds may go to the police.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/asset-forfeiture-wisconsin-bail-confiscated_n_1522328.html
Ontario passed a civil forfeiture law under Mike Harris, which was probably his worst single action as premier.
A case called Chatterjee was decided by the Supreme Court in 2009 that involved civil forfeiture. The Court was actually only deciding whether the law was legitimate under the (alleged) constitutional division of powers, but the background is quite appalling.
Meanwhile:
1. almost all currency has drug residue on it
2. A state in which the police can benefit financially from seized items is a police state. This should be unconstitutional in a free society. Doing something about this is something the Wisconsin governor should be all over.
Hi Bruce
Thanks for the lecture but I am not convinced. If there are no absolute property rights then there are no rights at all, only those that are recognized by the whim of government. Good luck with that.
I don't agree that one would not have full property rights to the 100 kilos of cocaine. In order for it not to be legitimate it would have had to have been purchased fraudulently. However, it's no different than purchasing 100 kilos of wheat provided that no stolen property was used to make the purchase. The only reason it is not legitimate is because the government doesn't recognize your sovereignty over your own person.
Ontario is doing exactly same thing to Bruce Montague's farm right now. Does anybody except me care? Sounds like no, everyone is fine with that.
Mr. Censored, the Ontario Landowners Association cares and has done a lot of work in making Ontarians aware of Land Patent Grants which are the most effective means of securing property rights in Ontario. Of course, Ontario governments are in the process of destroying land registry documents which makes it impossible to do title searches as far back as the Grant. Get your Land Grant before you become another Montague.
@ potato
!!!
Posted by: potato at May 22, 2012 10:45 AM
I'm going to disagree with you there, Spud.
The OLA has definitely done some hard work on the property rights front, but you're fooling yourself if you think that possession of your Crown Letter Patent gives you the type of property rights we Canadians so desparately need.
Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at May 22, 2012 1:38 PM
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with since I didn't suggest that this is the type of property rights we need. I wasn't suggesting that this is some kind of Libertarian concept of property. It specifically pertains to land as property. In that sense the Land Grants specify that the government has no rights other those originally specified or subsequently agreed to. Much better than nothing, IMHO. These Land Grants are court tested and at least give the landowner a fighting chance which is much more than I can say for Alberta, say. In fact, a class action lawsuit is being formulated against the Conversation Authority based on the strength of the Land Grants.
...the Land Grants specify that the government has no rights other those originally specified or subsequently agreed to. Much better than nothing, IMHO. These Land Grants are court tested and at least give the landowner a fighting chance...
Posted by: potato at May 22, 2012 3:13 PM
The Crown letters patent specified the rights that landowners 'had'. They are certainly a useful tool to reflect upon how much we have lost.
And, as for the notion that the government has no rights 'other than those originally specified or subsequently agreed to', here's a thought for you.
Back in the days when Canada was just a pup, our forefathers decided to go with a form of government called democracy, wherein we assign our rights to bargain to our duly elected MPs and MPPs. So, over the last century or so, our diligent representatives have subsequently agreed (on many, many occasions)to bargain away our property rights.
And as for the Crown Letters Patent being 'court tested', they certainly have had some value in a few very limited situations - such as determining boundaries, shorelines, etc. But no court has ever determined that the original rights specified in the letters patent can stop or roll-back the thefts-by-regulation that are plaguing Rural Ontario.
There is only one way to stop that: legislation. On the provincial scene we need a Property Owners Protection Act...on the federal side, property rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But you're not going to hear a word from anyone about that - whether it's from Harper or Hudak.