And speaking of our civil rights....

[B.D.F.]

It looks like Montana and New Mexico took a huge stride in passing laws regarding civil forfeiture in their respective states. About time. I never could understand how the gov't could seize (take ownership of, not strict its use or access) private property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS as is guaranteed all of us.... It all seems to have started back in the 80's with the increase in the 'war on drugs'... and civil rights.

[/url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/
Brian

[VirginiaJim]

Gotta link or are you making this up?

[B.D.F.]

I thought I put one in the original post. Try this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/

And not in my wildest dreams could I make this up- I believe the gov't or any gov't agent seizing private property, without due process (a trial and a verdict showing guilt) is unimaginable. I cannot believe it happened, and I cannot believe it has been in effect for minutes, never mind decades. I do not care who or what (corporation, tax shelter, fraudulent church, etc., etc.)  you are, all entities are entitled to due process. Otherwise we might just grab ourselves a king and be done with the entire hoax (civil rights, a level playing field, the constitution et. al).

Brian

Gotta link or are you making this up?

[Deziner]

I got linked to Katy Perry. No, not THAT kind of linked. 

[Rick Hall]

Try this one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/


And/or for NM:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/final/HB0560.pdf
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/uploads/FileLinks/11a0326a344f4283b63b3f88c21627c4/HEM25.pdf


And/or for MT:
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W%24BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20151&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=463&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=


Rick

[Deziner]

If you're referring to government seizure of "believed assets of illicit gain", yep, it's all the rage for funding scholarships here in AZ

[B.D.F.]

Yeah, opps- and I never saw anything about her so I have no idea how I got that link. ?? The correct link is:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/

I got linked to Katy Perry. No, not THAT kind of linked. 

[B.D.F.]

I am referring to ANY gov't (or an agent of gov't) seizing ANYTHING without DUE PROCESS. They simply do NOT have that ability. At least not until the 1980's.

The US Constitution- great document, short read and usually pretty easy to follow;

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

    [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[5]

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

    [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[6]

Now lookie there, they said the same thing.... twice.

Brian

If you're referring to government seizure of "believed assets of illicit gain", yep, it's all the rage for funding scholarships here in AZ

[Deziner]

In AZ, they are giving scholarships to students if they sign a contract stating that they will stay drug free while in school. It was an end run to skirt law.

I got nothing. I'm speechless.

[B.D.F.]

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I ain't none too happy with that one (seizure based on accusation). There are a few others that are way outside the curve too IMO but I will not bring those up.

Trying to run a country and base all things in written rules (laws) is bound to have unforeseen results and occasionally, laws in direct conflict with each other. Things like freedom of speech (where you can say anything you want about, say, the gov't) versus things like the Sedition Act of 1918, which prevents a person from casting the gov't in negative light (meaning you cannot say anything yo want about, say, the gov't). We puzzle our way through these conundrums as best we can and generally move along pretty well. But denying anyone (or any entity) their right to property based solely on accusation and belief is just too far IMO.

Brian

In AZ, they are giving scholarships to students if they sign a contract stating that they will stay drug free while in school. It was an end run to skirt law.

I got nothing. I'm speechless.

[Deziner]

Back in the '90s, they raided property belonging to a militia member in Phoenix. All of his machinery and tools were confiscated because "The equipment COULD be used to produce illegal  weapons." SMH

[gPink]

And right behind this in the outrageous acts of government department is the increasing instances of  eminent domain abuse.
This case opened the floodgate, thanks again to our ever loving SCOTUS...

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]

[VirginiaJim]

Not real happy about this at all...

[Conniesaki]

I thought I put one in the original post. Try this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/02/civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-in-montana-and-new-mexico/

And not in my wildest dreams could I make this up- I believe the gov't or any gov't agent seizing private property, without due process (a trial and a verdict showing guilt) is unimaginable. I cannot believe it happened, and I cannot believe it has been in effect for minutes, never mind decades. I do not care who or what (corporation, tax shelter, fraudulent church, etc., etc.)  you are, all entities are entitled to due process. Otherwise we might just grab ourselves a king and be done with the entire hoax (civil rights, a level playing field, the constitution et. al).

Brian

I feel like we currently have King Obama  He breaks the law all the time, and nobody seems to do anything about it.

[Conniesaki]

I did a job recently for a school board here in the SE, and one of the higher-ups I was talking to said, "The SB is out of land here and has been having to build UP instead of out, which is more expensive. And the kicker is, the farm next door ... the previous owners offered to just deed it over to the SB some years ago, and the SB declined it. The current owners say we're never getting it from them. We could take it of course ... but that would be a PR nightmare."

 

[T Cro ®]

I feel like we currently have King Obama  He breaks the law all the time, and nobody seems to do anything about it.

Can't touch him.... Just look crosswise at O'DumbOne and someone pulls the race card out on ya.....

One caught staring at Caligula's bald spot could be put to death.... Yet in the beginning the common people loved him too!

[VirginiaJim]

I feel like we currently have King Obama  He breaks the law all the time, and nobody seems to do anything about it.

We're talking state laws here or am I missing something?

[Conniesaki]

We're talking state laws here or am I missing something?

King Obama also isn't concerned with silly 'state laws'.

Anyway, I guess you didn't notice the bolded part of BDF's post I was specifically replying to.

[VirginiaJim]

Ok, I see the bolded part but what has that to do with states seizing property?  The IRS can seize property for tax obligations but that's been going on for years.  I just don't see your point or Brian's as it applies to this thread about states and local governments siezing property.  It happens everywhere, especially when roads are being built.  They usually give you something for it...never enough.

As far as seizures relating to drugs or criminal activity I can see that and support it.  However, the seizure should only be permanent after a conviction.  If someone wants to fight it there is always the court system.

[B.D.F.]

So you are saying that should I accuse you of selling drugs, then the gov't (state, local or federal, makes no difference) can seize your property(s) until such time as you can get on a court's docket, fight the case, PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT (not guilty) and then the gov't agency should give you your property(s) back?

Nah, not in my country. We are all entitled to due process. That means that once accused of a specific crime(s) (meaning: no 'shotgunning' with regard to they think you may have violated some law or another, it must be a specific charge or charges), the law enforcement has extremely tightly regulated rules as to what they can and (mostly) cannot do until you are brought before a judge. Before property is seized, a person must be found guilty of some crime that warrants that, and ONLY THAT property seizure.

Due process is a fundamental civil right guaranteed all of us in the Constitution (twice!). I have no problem with punishment and loss of property.... AFTER someone is convicted of doing something(s) to warrant it. Al Capone, Charles Mason, Ted Bundy.... all got trials before they were punished. As it should be. Except when the IRS or DEA decides someone may have acted improperly and they seize property at the time of accusal. I believe this is easily the greatest violation of the constitution going on right now, or at least one of two that I know of and the other one has at least limited merits in favor of it.

The fact that you support it is fine and all but there is no force of law behind that approach.

Brian

Ok, I see the bolded part but what has that to do with states seizing property?  The IRS can seize property for tax obligations but that's been going on for years.  I just don't see your point or Brian's as it applies to this thread about states and local governments siezing property.  It happens everywhere, especially when roads are being built.  They usually give you something for it...never enough.

As far as seizures relating to drugs or criminal activity I can see that and support it.  However, the seizure should only be permanent after a conviction.  If someone wants to fight it there is always the court system.