Talk:Civil forfeiture in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why copying two lines from the Washington Post is a borderline copyright violation

Regarding this reversion, please see this policy which says...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method. (bolding by tws for emphasis)

And, by the way, if anybody contributes here long enough at Wikipedia, they become quasi-attorneys regardless. So, if you'd like to keep the quote, please trim it down and attribute it properly to the Washington Post. In addition, the phrase "1980s" is repeated twice in the same sentence, repetitive, not recommended by the style manual.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Newer development

Should the article mention the related practice of seizing valuables as "evidence" and then creating enough red tape so that the original owner can not get it back? // Liftarn (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Please use references after adding material.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestion on where it may fit in? // Liftarn (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

How about here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Nebraska law out of date

I'm a complete noob to wiki editing and I don't want to mess up the article, but someone should update the Nebraska entry in the "States" section. A new law was passed which requires a criminal conviction: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/04/20/nebraska-just-abolished-civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-to-take-property/#23afc01a1e5f — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.139.194 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, updated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wisconsin law out of date

A new law was passed which requires a criminal conviction. Hopefully someone can update this that is experienced at editing wikis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/05/in-wisconsin-authorities-now-have-to-convict-you-of-a-crime-before-they-can-take-your-cash/?utm_term=.3d0992c3b8af

https://legiscan.com/WI/text/SB61/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8A90:D940:6D84:FB37:B0C3:1734 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

floated

Wikipedians with a legal background in civil rights (I hope) might look this over.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Leff is a member of the executive. He cannot be called on for an opinion on this topic. banana state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.214.201.17 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Rules about being WP:NEUTRAL require that Wikipedians try to show both sides of the argument when there is controversy, including Mr. Leff's side as well as opposing viewpoints.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the quotation by Douglas Jeff. It's highly inappropriate and in opposition to policy for a Wikipedia article to take such an incredibly non nuetral point of view, and put it prominently in large print at the very top of the page (before the table of contents!) like some kind of pullout from a newspaper editorial. It was the first thing a reader would see when arriving at the article and its placement made it look like it was the summary of main point of the entire article.

Why not instead have this quote from the Institute for Justice: "Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today."? Or perhaps this one by U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde: "Civil asset forfeiture has allowed police to view all of America as some giant national K-Mart, where prices are not just lower, but non-existent - a sort of law enforcement 'pick-and-don't-pay.". Of course this wouldn't be appropriate either.

Of course Douglas Jeff's views can be discussed in the article, in the Controvery section under Proponents, where such viewpoints belong. There is no place for his views at the top of the article in bold print. That is not what Wikipedia is.

71.193.199.18 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I agree with the others. Displaying what amounts to a banner ad from a biased proponent of a controversial issue in the lead section violates neutrality. No one's photo belongs in the lead section, nor any image-boxed quote. The person depicted isn't even a legal expert—the dean of Harvard Law, if he were additionally personally involved, would be one thing, but this is just an agent. The image must go. —wing gundam 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's keep the Leff photo out of the lede paragraph, but my concern continues (and I wrote 99% of this article and I try hard to be neutral) that the critics section outweighs the proponents section, that there is a tilt in the balance of photos and diagrams in favor of the critics, that to maintain WP:BALANCE we need to include the law enforcement point of view (which is not my personal POV but I'm trying to keep that out of this article). So I will move the Leff photo and caption to the proponents section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Controversial?

How can this even be called controversial? It is just plain robbery.--Alexey Topol (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes that is how it appears to me, but there are opposing viewpoints which we have to cover in Wikipedia to be neutral and to have balance, which is why we use this approach.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Simplistic much? This is what qualifies you to edit Wikipedia being one-sided and having a "me too!" mentality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.232.139 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"There are opposing viewpoints". Yes, there are always opposing viewpoints about everything. There are quite a lot of people even today who believe that the Earth is flat, but their opposing viewpoint is not given space in the Wikipedia article Earth. There are people who believe that smoking tobacco is good for your health, but their viewpoint is given no space in Health effects of tobacco. Most - perhaps all - of the people who regard asset forfeiture as good are people who benefit from it in some way, either as members of police forces which benefit directly, or employees of the Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section, Dept. of Justice, whose jobs depend on the continuance of asset forfeiture. "Neutral point of view" is not an absolute in Wikipedia; it does not entitle people who clearly have a financial or career interest to be given equal space with organizations like the ACLU which have no ulterior motive for their position.

If there are academics in respected law faculties, not employed by government, who are proponents of asset forfeiture, then it would be reasonable to quote them in this article. That would conform with the NPOV requirement of Wikipedia. Quoting people holding senior positions in the Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section of the Dept. of Justice, or police officers in departments which have used seized funds to (e.g.) top-up police pension funds is a bit like giving senior executives of the Imperial Tobacco company space in the Wikipedia article on the health effects of smoking tobacco. It is not reasonable, it is a perversion of the NPOV concept, and their clearly biased opinions should be removed. Sayitclearly (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Civil "forefiture" vs. "siezure"

We at Wikipedia use the standard terms used in Reliable Sources, (WP:RS) recognized by the general public, whether technically completely accurate or not. When East Germany was named the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic), the official German name of East Germany, but was clearly NOT democratic, the news media didn't just call it by some name they created to more accurately describe it as Communist (and neither would we at Wikipedia), they used the country's official name, which was chosen by that country.

@Tae Hyun Song: Also, as Begoon has repeatedly noted, this is NOT A FORUM for discussing what you don't like about the laws, it is a place to discuss improvements that we can make to the article describing the current state of these laws, AS DESCRIBED IN Reliable Sources, not what you or I think I we know about these laws. As Begoon said, please limit your comments to clear, short, concise, and specific suggestions for improvements. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Judged Unconstitutional in South Carolina

Asset Forfeiture was ruled unconstitutional in South Carolina https://www.postandcourier.com/news/civil-asset-forfeitures-violate-sc-and-us-constitutions-horry-judge/article_0be33ecc-f1bf-11e9-a531-0f1042038223.html and you edited to say "described as unconstitutional". You are showing bias in Asset Forfeiture. Tae Hyun Song (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Do not accuse other editors of bias (read the link).

From the source in the article: "Though the decision currently doesn’t extend statewide, if it’s appealed and upheld, or if lawmakers abolish the practice, South Carolina would become the fourth state to end civil forfeiture, joining North Carolina, Nebraska, and New Mexico."

Now that I've answered your question - please answer mine about the reasons for your inconsiderate edit-warring and repeated disruption above. Thank you. -- Begoon 07:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit it, don't edit it. It's only your opinion that it's unclear. I am trying to make it clear. I showed how badly it was worded and you tried to hide it. Why don't you ask other people what they think about it? Unconstitutional, not allowed by the constitution (= set of rules for government) of a country or organization: Civil violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment Rights, by definition it's unconstitutional https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unconstitutional. South Carolina Judge, judged it to be unconstitutional https://apnews.com/4f7129a446834278a5841b7015832a26. That it's not officially unconstitutional at the federal level is a merely formality. This is a serious problem, or are you not aware of all the problems it's causing. 73.225.182.47 (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please log into your account (see WP:SOCK), and please stop ranting incoherently. Please also read Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs and confine your comments to lucid suggestions for article improvement. Thank you. -- Begoon 09:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please indicate what makes you think it's ranting? Tae Hyun Song (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please learn to WP:INDENT correctly - it's considerate to do so.

Sure, that would be the incoherence, the strident appeals to emotion ("are you not aware of all the problems it's causing?"), the bizarre unsupported accusations ("I showed how badly it was worded and you tried to hide it."), the silly, condescending links to dictionary definitions, the refusal to make any clear, actionable suggestions for article improvement despite multiple requests, the edit-warring, and the continual fiddling with the impenetrable diatribe which nobody is likely to manage to struggle through. And the manic edit warring and socking with IP/account both on the article and this page. Is that clearer?

Did you read Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs yet?

Regardless, I see no point in further engagement with you until you bring forward something clear, lucid, supported and actionable which is likely to lead to article improvement - particularly since it seems extremely one-way, in that I have answered all your questions yet you have ignored mine and failed to withdraw your personal attack(s). Do bear in mind, though, as I explained on your talk page, that you won't be permitted to continue the disruption indefinitely. Thanks for the note. -- Begoon 12:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon No where does the link you gave say I can not call you biased. You removed the Unconstitutional in South Carolina section, depriving accurate information form being posted. You kept removing any wording that shows it to be unconstitutional. That's called bias.

You called my links to definitions "silly and condescending"? It's there for the reader to verify the information is accurate. Let's see you backup your claims it's "impenetrable diatribe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tae Hyun Song (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Dissection and Analysis

Analysis of Civil Forfeiture/Seizure Law

Civil Forfeiture Law is mislabeled. In almost every instance, it is an act of seizure. Count the number of times the word seizure is used instead of forfeiture. It would be more accurate to call it Civil Seizure Law, in which case it would probably never pass.

Legalese or badly worded. "The property is the Defendant". Defendant is defined in the dictionary as "an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law." To show the company does not mean property. For example, if Exxon is responsible for an oil spill. An Exxon building would not be liable for the spill. People working at Exxon would be. Also "sued or accused in a court of law."

https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture Quoted from Justice Department website, "Civil judicial forfeiture is an in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary."

"... in rem ..." - Use of Latin, to obscure meaning and give it artificial legitimacy.

"... action brought in court ..." - act of seizing property takes place outside the court.

"... no criminal charge against the owner is necessary." - Direct violation of the 5th Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment Amendment V -

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment Amendment IV -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Civil Forfeiture Law is severely flawed. Tae Hyun Song (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Dissection: "Civil judicial forfeiture is an in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary."https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture

   "In rem" 

Use of Latin, Prevents easy understanding of the sentence and sophistry for artificial legitimacy. A second sentence is required to explain what the first sentence says.

   Fail #1 "... action brought in court against the property". 

To the contrary: This so-called law misleads law enforcement into believing they can seize property without proof, without involving the court.

   Fail #2 "The property is the defendant..."

Defendant in the dictionary is an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=in+rem

Fraudulent use of "The Property is the defendant". "The Property is the defendant" is used when the owner is not available, deceased or outside U.S. Jurisdiction. Not only is the owner present, the owner is forced to prove the property was not involved with a crime, even when the government failed to prove it was a crime. Due Process as in not a optional process.

   Fail #3 "... and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary." 

In direct violation of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You are required by law (Constitution) to have a warrant to seize an item. "or things to be seized".

The title of this so-called law is inaccurate.

   Fail #4 "Civil Forfeiture Law"

In action it is really Civil Seizure Law and violates the 5th Amendment.

5th Amendment states "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Analysis: Civil Forfeiture/Seizure can be traced back to British Law. https://www.heritage.org/testimony/civil-asset-forfeiture-when-good-intentions-go-awry

The 4th and 5th Amendments were created to prevent something exactly like this from happening. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ It's two sentence. One has Latin and almost incomprehensible, but has the word "court" in it. It needed a second sentence to explain what the first sentence meant. It has what amounts to 4 counts of failure at writing a law. One law violating not one but two or more Amendment Rights, and therefore unconstitutional. Unconstitutional means unlawful. It does not need the Supreme Court to call it unconstitutional.

Tae Hyun Song (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional Information: not only is Civil Forfeiture unconstitutional, Government Official Oath requires allegiance to the Constitution and promise to defend it.

Note: Someone has removed all links and wording related to Unconstitutionality of Civil Forfeiture

Note: Unconstitutional is not a criticism or an opinion. "Civil Forfeiture is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing." It's whats called seizing property without due process and unconstitutional. Tae Hyun Song (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect other editors to struggle through that rambling, unclear, disjointed, badly formatted, confusing WP:WALLOFTEXT to try and work out what point, if any, related to article improvement you are trying to make? That is an unreasonable, unfair expectation. On your talk page I asked that if you have a clear suggestion for improving the article then feel free to make it succinctly and clearly in a few words, but to please not uncollapse that incomprehensible diatribe again - yet you ignored that request and just stubbornly, blindly reverted, edit-warring over the collapse, with no attempt whatsoever at clarification. Why? -- Begoon 07:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon I see, you don't understand what's is been explained. Act of seizing property does not even follow the wording in Asset Forfeiture. "In Rem" means it would have to be determined in a court of law, by a judge, that the property was involved in a crime BEFORE it can be seized by the police. You can verify this as the second sentence also says "in a court of law". Only in a court of law, can the words "the defendant" be used to label an inanimate object.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Proponents

Reenacted by (Republican) Ronald Reagan (1980-1988) under the propaganda "War of Drugs". Reinstated by Attorney General (Republican) Jefferey Sessions on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 under (Republican) Donald Trump (2016-2020) under the slogan "Making America Great Again".

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984: https://www.justice.gov/afp/fund

Reenacted by Attorney General Jeffery Sessions: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-issues-policy-and-guidelines-federal-adoptions-assets-seized-state

Tae Hyun Song73.225.182.47 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Errors - Note Bernie Madoff section belongs in Criminal Asset Forfeiture

Civil Asset Forfeiture is when the property is seized without charging the owner with a crime.

Bernie Madoff was _charged and convicted_ of a ponzy scheme (a scam). The section belongs in criminal asset forfeiture, not civil asset forfeiture.

The contributor is obviously padding and doesn't know the difference (bad sign) or trying to deceptively add credibility to civil asset forfeiture (bad sign) using criminal asset forfeiture.

You can verify criminal asset forfeiture "Criminal asset forfeiture proceedings occur against a person after being convicted of an underlying criminal offense."

The properties seized were necessary to reimburse victims.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is where assets seized are kept and divided up by the police, like criminals sharing stolen money.

73.225.182.47 (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song 73.225.182.47 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Prosecution of Government Officials using Civil Asset Forfeiture (also Administrative Forfeiture) as Fraud

Violation of Constitutional Rights

Violations:

 4th Amendment - protection from theft by government officials (unreasonable seizure)
 5th Amendment - Process of law, where government must prove a crime was committed before seizing property (Due Process, not an optional)
 8th Amendment - Punishment must be prescribed by law (listed as specific amounts)
 9th Amendment - Laws shall not be construed to deny the rights listed in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) or others (unspecified rights) retained by the people.

The prosecution can prove Civil Asset forfeiture is unconstitutional (already listed), specifically the 4th and 5th Amendment.

Taking property is therefore theft.

Intentional proves the government official is a criminal with intent.

Unintentional proves the government official incompetent at law. Law enforcement who do not know the law. What do they enforce if they don't know the law? Dystopian police state. Property is seized on suspicion rather than proof. Also leaves the owner to prove innocence, when the government has failed to prove there was a crime.

Criminal charges: theft, fraud, money laundering, grand larceny, and racketeering Other charges: government corruption

The deplorable state of law enforcement. Unintentionally committing crimes, proves law enforcement does not know the law. If intentional, then criminal running law enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.225.182.47 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

73.225.182.47 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Civil Asset Forfeiture Propaganda

Claims of how much money they seized from criminals. No one was charged with a crime.

or

Dismantling crime organizations. No criminal charges were presented. No proof or judgment was made in a court of law.

or

"Fighting Money Laundering"

It's just propaganda.

There is already a process for fighting money laundering. Law enforcement finds money, they charge the suspect(s) of money laundering and prove it in a court of law. That is called Due Process.

The money they seized is money stolen, as they never charge anyone with a crime.

The joke is if you can call it a joke. Having law enforcement steal money from victims (spelling is correct), because they do not know the law.

Who are they? Criminals inside the government. Or they are absolutely incompetent at law.

Other propaganda/fraud including criminal asset forfeiture (where criminal charges are presented and proven) cases mixed in to make Civil Asset Forfeiture seem legitimate, like Bernie Madoff and his ponzee scheme.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.225.182.47 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

73.225.182.47 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

73.225.182.47 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Things to be aware of: Underhanded or Dishonest Tactics

Law Enforcement also involve the words Truth and Justice. Dishonesty has no place in Law Enforcement.

Police planting evidence is not unheard of.

News 4 JAX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFMwL3VQIA

Scent marking property is even easier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs

Notice the both police officers handled the bag before pulling the dog out to sniff for it. Time stamp 8:05 minutes.

Also, the dog giving "positive alert" (scent of drugs) is only circumstantial, not conclusive proof. The bills could have been contaminated.

73.225.182.47 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Bad Civil Asset Forfeiture Contributors Back Again

They reverted back to look similar to original article as before.

"Bernard Lawrence Madoff was an American fraudster and financier who ran the largest Ponzi scheme in history." - Wikipedia

He was convicted of fraud, and the forfeitures were criminal forfeiture, not civil forfeitures.

Movtive: They are criminals in the justice system and probably stealing millions from victims.

73.118.175.67 (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Civil Asset is Actually Fraud

Civil Asset Forfeiture is not just Unconstitutional, it's actually fraud (a crime)

Easy way to tell is use of "against the property" action when the owner is present. "Against the property" action is use when the owner is inaccessible, for example disceased or outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Use of Latin in American law is another clue. When you don't use Latin/legal terminology "In rem" it becomes easier to detect what's wrong with the wording.

5th Amendment requires Due Process, to insure every property seized is lawful taken. As failure to do so is theft (a crime) by the government. Also why it is unconstitutional.

Forcing owner to prove property was not involved with a crime when the government has _failed_ to prove the property was involved with a crime, proves the government skipped out on Due Process (4th and 5th Amendment violations) and is unwitting committing fraud (a crime), grand larceny (a felony) in many cases and even be charged with racketeering (a felony).

Another way to test for fraud and criminal activity. Have the government prove money seized wasn't stolen. They have no proof as they never proved (skipped Due Process) the property was involved with a crime.

73.225.182.47 (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song Tae Hyun Song 73.225.182.47 (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It is technically not a fraud, but highway robbery at gunpoint sanctioned by the law of the state. If any cop gets to decide that your shiny new car appears to him like the unlawfully gained proceeds of a drug trade, yet you do not get charged with anything, no proof is required and you cannot defend yourself in court, this is even below the legal standards of a banana republic. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It is literal fraud (a crime). The owner is present, while using "against the property" action in court. "Against the property" action is used when the owner is not available, outside US jurisdiction or deceased, for example. 76.135.14.59 (talk)Tae Hyun Song 76.135.14.59 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice: Sections Missing: Someone Removed Comments in Talk Section, Text for Comprehensive Understanding of Civil Asset Forfeiture as Fraud/Theft

Hypothetical prosecution of government officials stealing (SIC) property using Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF).

Easy proof of theft and fraud. Government never proved properties were involved with a crime.

Due Process of law, means required process of law. That means they have to prove it, before any property can be legally seized.

There are no exceptions.

If you do a simple audit, they took property, but no record of any wrong doing. That's called theft.

It's look very much like there are criminals in government stealing property using CAF and vandalizing Wikipedia.

174.61.215.220 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song

I'm not interested in doing edit war, so I'll just leave this note. They keep coming back, when no one's paying attention to it anymore.

Need Revert.

174.61.215.220 (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song

Suggested updates and edits to this page

           Introduction

·       Suggested edit the final sentence of the final paragraph in the introductory section on this page, it should read:

A 2020 study found that the median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was less than $1,300

           War on Drugs (1980-present)

·       The final paragraph of this sentence is inaccurate, out of date and incomplete. We suggest the following edits to make it accurate:

In 2015, Attorney General Eric Holder temporarily ended the policy of "adoptive forfeiture", which occurred "when a state or local law enforcement agency seizes property pursuant to state law and requests that a federal agency take the seized asset and forfeit it under federal law" due to abuse. Adoptive seizures account for just 30% of equitable sharing forfeiture cases and 17% of the total value forfeited under equitable sharing between 2000 and 2015. [Cite] Although states dramatically reduced proceeded to curtail the powers of police to seizures of assets for adoptive forfeitures while Holder's policy was in place, in July 2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions largely actions by the Justice Department in July 2017 have sought to reinstated these police seizure powers that simultaneously raise funding for federal agencies and local law enforcement.

           Seizure of real estate

·       In the section, the photograph is of a motel located in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, not Chelmsford, Massachusetts.

Contested seizures

·       In the section, please consider adding the following information, which will provide specific examples to readers about those who successfully contested the seizure of their money and other property:

In 2013, Terry Dehko a grocery store owner in Fraser, Michigan filed suit against the IRS, which had seized Dehko’s bank account without charging him with a crime but claiming he had made frequent deposits of less than $10,000 into his bank account in an effort to avoid bank regulations. Later that year, the IRS returned Dehko’s money.

In 2014, residents of Philadelphia filed a class action lawsuit challenging the city’s of civil forfeiture, which often targeted minorities and the poor. In 2018, the city agreed to return $3 million in seized assets to those whose cash and property was taken.

Iowa restaurant owner Carole Hinders had her bank account of $33,000 seized by the IRS, despite never being accused of a crime. She fought the forfeiture and in 2014 the IRS agreed to return all of her money.

Jeffrey, Richard and Mitch Hirsch from Long Island, New York filed suit after the IRS seized $446,000 from their candy and snack wholesale company without filing any criminal complaint against them. The Hirsch brothers had made deposits of under $10,000 into their bank account, which the government called “structuring.” In 2015, the IRS agreed to return all of the Hirsch’s money.

While on a fundraising tour of the United States to help raise money to fund an orphanage in Thailand and a school in Burma, members of a Burmese Christian rock band had more than $53,000 seized by Muskogee, Oklahoma sheriff’s deputies in a traffic stop. In 2016, the Institute for Justice secured the return of the band’s money.

Additional lawsuits successfully challenging civil forfeiture have been litigated in North Carolina, Kentucky, New Mexico, Connecticut and Wyoming.

Critics

·       In the second paragraph, in the beginning of the fourth sentence, please consider updating Scott Bullock’s title from “senior attorney at” to “president of” the Institute for Justice.

Critics are from both sides of the political spectrum, from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the libertarian Institute for Justice, and right-leaning groups such as The Heritage Foundation.

Efforts at reform

·       Because there are more than two sides of the political spectrum, please consider the following edit:

Critics are from both sides of the political spectrum, from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the libertarian Institute for Justice, and right-leaning groups such as The Heritage Foundation.

Innocent owners ensnared.

§  Please consider adding the following example:

While on a fundraising tour of the United States to help raise money to fund an orphanage in Thailand and a school in Burma, members of a Burmese Christian rock band had more than $53,000 seized by Muskogee, Oklahoma sheriff’s deputies in a traffic stop.

In 2018, the Institute for Justice earned two court victories on behalf of Arlene Harjo from Albuquerque, New Mexico, after the government seized and sought to forfeit her vehicle after he son drove under the influence. In a four year period from 2010 to 2014, Albuquerque had seized more than 8,600 vehicles, one vehicle for each 66 residents, and had earned more than $1,000,000 a year through the seizures, giving the government a direct financial incentive to take as many vehicles as possible. Lyrical42 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Civil Asset Forfeiture - Constitutional Violations

4th Amendment Violation - Property can not be seized without a crime (cause). 5th Amendment Violation - Due Process of Law, government must prove a crime has been committed, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 Death Penalty - Government must prove a crime has been committed, and execution a proscribed punishment.  Failure to do so, is homicide (a crime) by government. 

 Imprisonment - Government must prove a crime has been committed, and imprison a proscribed punishment.  Failure to do so, is abduction (a crime) by government. 

Seizing of Property - Government must prove a crime has been committed, and seizing of property a prescribed punishment.  Failure to do so is theft (a crime) by government.

Due Process of law, as in not an optional.

8th Amendment Violation - Excessive Fines, no crime is charge, property is stolen (SIC) from owner.

9th Amendment Violation - Does not allow enumerated rights to be infringed, denied or depreciated.

76.135.82.13 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song

I am noticing removal of sections in the Talk Tab, necessary for comprehensive understanding of Civil Asset Forfeiture. 76.135.82.13 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Monetary Incentive to Vandalize Civil Asset Forfeiture Article

Proponents tout how much money they have seized (stolen). Literally billions of dollars. Apparently, there are types of people who see nothing wrong with abusing government powers. Or so ignorant they don't even realize they are stealing money and supposedly in law enforcement.

Possibly they do know they are in fact stealing money, proves they are criminal.

The article needs protection from being vandalized by people making money off Civil Asset Forfeiture or ignorant law enforcement.

76.135.82.13 (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song