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.
Rand Paul is not the Dictator of the Senate. He can't make things happen by snapping his fingers. He produced a bill and did fight for it. You can't "push so hard that it doesn't die," that's not how Congress works. Perhaps you should take a civics class.
Did he go on and make speeches about it? Did he maybe go on tv shows, and start naming names on the commitee?
I understand the civics of it just fine. What you don't seem to understand is that if a politician would actually fight some they would impress me.
Not quite. Its filed against property, not people-a important distinction, and its often used to seize funds with no evidence of a crime at all. Simply having a lot of cash on hand has been used to define a preponderance of evidence of criminal activity.
The owner is a third party to the hearing, and its not a preponderance of the evidence anymore for it to be seized. Instead the owner of the property is burdened with showing by a preponderance of the evidence that it should not be seized.
This is in fact the opposite of what you have stated.
steven- my department employs about 1400 people about 30 are in the section that uses civil forfeiture. The balance of us that know what goes on believe the law needs to be changed.
Wait You were the one who just defended it! Can't keep your positions straight?
Defended what? Feel free to qoute what you are refering too. Because I assure you I am NOT a fan of civil forfeiture. If it was more narrowly defined I might be, but what it is now, and how its used is UnAmerican in my opinion.
BTW in my posting history you will find I have been consistent on this topic in the past as well.
edit-Never mind, you realized that was someone else
steven- my department employs about 1400 people about 30 are in the section that uses civil forfeiture. The balance of us that know what goes on believe the law needs to be changed.
You'd think that if divisions of goverment labor believe the laws are bad, they'd get changed in a hurry. I guess there's just too much money to steal legally.
Defended what? Feel free to qoute what you are refering too. Because I assure you I am NOT a fan of civil forfeiture. If it was more narrowly defined I might be, but what it is now, and how its used is UnAmerican in my opinion.
BTW in my posting history you will find I have been consistent on this topic in the past as well.
edit-Never mind, you realized that was someone else
Did he go on and make speeches about it? Did he maybe go on tv shows, and start naming names on the commitee?
I understand the civics of it just fine. What you don't seem to understand is that if a politician would actually fight some they would impress me.
Quote:
Civil forfeiture can serve a more altruistic purpose in law enforcement, but in recent years, officers have taken extreme liberties with the law, using it as an excuse to take cash from motorists during routine traffic stops or, in one case, seize the house of a Philadelphia family whose son was suspected of selling $40 worth of heroin.
Lynch, whose nomination to replace Eric Holder as attorney general has stalled in the face of Republican opposition, has a dubious record on civil forfeiture. Back in November, TheWall Street Journalreported that the Eastern District of New York—which Lynch oversees as U.S. attorney—took in more than $113 million in civil assets between 2011 and 2013.
One of those cases involved a trio of brothers who run a distribution company in Long Island. In 2012, federal agents seized nearly $500,000 from Jeffrey, Richard, and Mitch Hirsch, but never charged them with a crime. In January—after the Hirsch case gained greater national attention, and a week before Lynch's Senate confirmation hearings began—Lynch's office quietly returned their money.
Paul has been one of the staunchest opponents of Lynch's confirmation, and one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of civil forfeiture. At Wednesday's hearing, he brought up the Hirsch brothers' case, accusing Lynch's jurisdiction of accruing a "Herculean" level of civil forfeiture and saying Lynch seems "unconcerned with the need for reform." At the hearing, Paul—who was there as a witness, not a senator on the panel—argued that civil forfeiture disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities. A Washington Post exposé from September found that minorities made up the majority of federal cases where people challenged the government's seizures and ended up recouping some of their money.
Sen. Rand Paul will oppose—very publicly—the nomination of U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States.
The Kentucky Republican is unveiling his opposition to Lynch on Greta Van Susteren’s On The Record program on Fox News.
Earlier Wednesday, in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, Breitbart News watched as the senator’s legal and press team briefed him final time before the interview. Sergio Gor, Paul’s communications director, his press secretary Eleanor May and attorney Brian Darling were all present.
At least one U.S. senator is hoping to raise the evidence threshold federal law enforcement officers would have to meet in order to seize property from American citizens.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in July introduced the FAIR Act — for Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration — which would force federal law enforcement officers to prove “a clear and convincing” tie to criminal activity before they would be allowed to seize property from the public.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced legislation in July that would increase the evidence threshold government agents would have to prove before they could seize civil assets such as homes or businesses. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime,” Paul told TheBlaze.
If enacted, the legislation would protect the rights of property owners when government agencies attempt to seize their property. State law enforcement agencies would still abide by state law when forfeiting seized property, but the law would remove the “profit incentive for forfeiture” by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture fund to the Treasury general fund instead.
“My bill … will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime, ” Paul said.
But Paul doesn’t have much hope of success — for now.
“We have to look to the next Congress and hope to jump-start a debate on a range of these issues concerning the tools the criminal justice system uses,” a Paul aide told TheBlaze. “I wish Congress would debate this issue … the Senate has been all politics this year there’s no opportunity to real debate on any piece of legislation that really matters to the American people, and that’s the problem.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he won't vote to confirm Loretta Lynch as President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general because of her support for laws allowing civil forfeiture of property.
"Civil forfeiture turns justice on its head," Paul told Greta Van Susteren during an interview on the Fox News show "On The Record." "Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent. The government takes your cash -- $1,000, $100, $500, whatever it is. This program predominantly has targeted black individuals, poor individuals, Hispanic individuals. And when Sen. [Mike] Lee asked her about it in the committee, she said, 'Oh, no, as long as there is a valid court order.'"
FAIR Act: This bill ensures that the federal government would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that seized property was being used for illegal purposes before it’s forfeited. Forfeited assets would be placed in the Treasury’s General Fund instead of the DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Fund. This shift would remove the profit incentive police officers currently have to seize and forfeit property. The bill would also protect the property rights of citizens by eliminating the ability of state law enforcement to circumvent state asset forfeiture laws and use more lenient federal standards instead.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was a hit speaker on the campus of Bowie State University on Friday, earning several rounds of applause and a standing ovation for the conservative message he delivered to a predominantly liberal audience at the historically black university—part of an outreach effort to traditionally non-Republican communities the senator and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate has been engaged in nationwide for the five-plus years he’s been in the U.S. Senate. Paul wove individual examples of people throughout history and in modern times who have faced unfair consequences as a result of government’s heavy hand, making his case to the room on the basis of the need to defend the full Bill of Rights in the Constitution—a classic Tea Party style of speech—all while citing the Founding Fathers, and making economic and social limited government conservative pitch that seemed to resonate throughout the theater inside the student center.
----------------------------------
“One of the laws that bothers me the most is something called civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is where the government can take your stuff whether they’ve convicted you of a crime or not. I think this turns justice on its head. I think that most of our judicial system, for those who believe in it, it’s that you are innocent until proven guilty.”
The audience at the historically black university erupted in applause for Paul.
“I want to reinforce in our judicial system that you are innocent until proven guilty. And the problem is with civil forfeiture, it’s the opposite,” Paul added before diving into several examples of people across America who he argues have been wrongly targeted by civil forfeitures.
One case he cited involved Christos Sourovelis, a Philadelphia man whose son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs off the back porch of his house. In response, the government seized his home—and the case caught national attention, which prompted the authorities to eventually abandon the home seizure under civil asset forfeiture because of the political pressure to do so.
“Their teenage son sold $40 worth of illegal drugs off the back porch,” Paul said. “The government took their house, evicted them and barricaded them. It’s like, how are we making anything better when we take the house? Maybe the house is a stabilizing force in the family? Maybe it’s grandma’s house and the kid’s 15 years old? Why would we take grandma’s house? Why would we take the family’s house based on not even a conviction but an accusation against a child who doesn’t even own the house? It’s way out of control.”
Paul’s express focus on civil asset forfeiture cases in this speech is interesting, given the fact that he’s also vehemently opposed to U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch’s nomination to succeed Eric Holder as the next Attorney General of the United States on the grounds she is a leading advocate of using the practice. Lynch, who is black, is in open disagreement with even President Obama over the practice.
Its a civil action that allows law enforcement to file for asset forfeiture gain thru criminal means. Like all civil suits it requires the same perpondurance of evidence standard as all civil suits. Its stops criminals from keeping the fruits of their crimes.
No, it does not. Do a little research. Many people have had their assets taken without even being charged with a crime.
steven- my department employs about 1400 people about 30 are in the section that uses civil forfeiture. The balance of us that know what goes on believe the law needs to be changed.
Good for you.
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.
Rand Paul is not the Dictator of the Senate. He can't make things happen by snapping his fingers. He produced a bill and did fight for it. You can't "push so hard that it doesn't die," that's not how Congress works. Perhaps you should take a civics class.
You were the one who just defended..... sorry, that was texdave
...and before you hit POST
