Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now they will pay and the taxpayers suffer because it's their money.
-------------------
Albuquerque resident Arlene Harjo, 56, is paying off a loan for a car she doesn't have, because the city seized it for a crime it readily admits she didn't commit, under an asset forfeiture program that is supposed to be banned.
After her son was pulled over for drunk driving, Harjo became one of roughly a thousand people every year who have their car seized by the city of Albuquerque in a process heavily weighted against the property owner. But unlike the vast majority of those cases, she's not rolling over. A new lawsuit filed Wednesday in state court by Harjo and the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, argues the city's lucrative vehicle seizure program stands in direct contradiction of recently passed state laws and "is driven by a pernicious—and unconstitutional—profit incentive" that deprived Harjo of her 14th Amendment due process rights.
"It's a scam and a rip off," Harjo said. "They're taking property from people who just loan a vehicle to someone. It's happened a lot. Everybody I've talked to has had it happen to them or somebody they know, and everybody just pays."
and thats the way it should be, you commit a crime in a car, they should take the car, doesnt matter who owns it. even it it was a rental.
take the car or impound the car? under the state laws, the civil forfeiture is illegal, and thus should never have happened. the car should have been impounded, which is legal in every state, and impound fees legally applied. that way the owner could get their car back without having to sue the city, and causing problems.
i suspect the city was trying to use the RICO act to justify civil forfeiture, and it wouldnt apply.
From "civil forfeiture" to even "property taxes" demonstrates the fact that "ownership" is a fiction in this country. We are merely "citizens" with "privileges" and NOT people with rights.
Furthermore, any property "tax" or "forfeiture" is nothing but theft in every regard. If a person can be shown to have caused a monetary loss to another through liability or aggression, they should be made to reimburse the victim. The State is a fictional "entity" and cannot be a victim. It cannot claim a monetary loss as only people have property, fictional entities do not.
From "civil forfeiture" to even "property taxes" demonstrates the fact that "ownership" is a fiction in this country. We are merely "citizens" with "privileges" and NOT people with rights.
Furthermore, any property "tax" or "forfeiture" is nothing but theft in every regard. If a person can be shown to have caused a monetary loss to another through liability or aggression, they should be made to reimburse the victim. The State is a fictional "entity" and cannot be a victim. It cannot claim a monetary loss as only people have property, fictional entities do not.
Agree completely. Property taxes are the most oppressive taxes on the planet. Most CDErs will cry about taxes on their labor - but something you've earned after you've already been assessed taxes on your labor is now taxed over and over.
The first tax I would abolish is the property taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
