Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
property

Posted by don_socal socal (My Page) on
Tue, Jul 16, 13 at 15:17

Written in the comments...

"I do not think the gov should get the property but he was very ignorant or stupid to rent to someone who is obviously flaunting federal law. rmemmber the gov believes all property and money is theirs they only let you work to keep it for them."

"A controversy in California that began with the state’s medical marijuana law has evolved into a battle over civil forfeiture between a property owner and the state of California on one side, and the city of Anaheim and the federal government on the other."

Here is a link that might be useful: Feds, Anaheim Try to Seize $1.5M Building . . . With No Charges Against the Owner


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: property

"Civil forfeiture allows government to take and sell property without ever charging the owner with a crime, let alone convicting the person of one."

What?! I couldn't believe what you said, but with that statement in the article--what?! My mind is blown away. I hope he takes that to the Supreme Court. Have they heard any similar cases? I don't know. I hope not and they correct this wrong. I still think Americans are gonna revolt.


 o
RE: property

Very few people understand the power government has in civil asset forfeiture. There is no court action needed. The government makes a seizure and then it is up to the owner to file a court action of objection. And one has a rather short time to file or the seizure is final. Keep in mind it is the property on trial as something used in the commission of a crime and property is not innocent until proven guilty as a person is. Since it is the property on trial, the fact that an owner had no complicity in the crime is not an adequate objection. To recover the property, one must show that it was not used in a crime. It's very difficult to prove a negative.

To make a seizure, government need not have any proof, a valid suspicion is enough. And wholly innocent people do lose their property. It happens more often to those away from the area where they live.

Civil asset forfeiture is very old law, but it's use became common under the first Bush administration as a tool against drugs. When the federal government got by with this infringement on lawful ownership, many states followed by passing similar state statutes.

And by the way, it's already been upheld by the Supreme Court's conservative majority.

While the liberal Dems maybe trying to take your freedoms, it's the conservative GOP that has been successful in doing so.


 o
RE: property

At some point, Robin, I do believe revolt is going to be inevitable. The people can only take so much...

I read about this case recently, and I cannot believe the large stones the Feds, the city, and law enforcement have, to think they can come in and take away private property belonging to a person that has done nothing illegal.

Why bother to have state laws if the Feds are going to intervene when it suits their purposes? Doesn't make much sense to me.

I'd fight it, too.


 o
RE: property

Far reaching since the property seized can be cash, cars, real estate, or a business. Seems absentee landlords and individuals allowing (with or without knowledge) friends, relatives, whoever conduct criminal activities.

It could be true that much circulated money has a drug taint - surrendering your cash if a drug sniffing dog alerts at your purse or wallet in the airport...


 o
RE: property

I had thought the idea was for the Feds to keep going after those cartels that use public lands to grow marijuana, and often destroy the environment through their efforts... and to keep arresting and prosecuting dealers and manufacturers of heavy narcotics... and to leave the state sanctioned medical marijuana growers and dispensaries alone...

So much for the legalization of medical marijuana, eh? So much for the benefits to patients. Laws enacted to be ignored in the race to fill federal coffers... and other pockets.


 o
RE: property

Rob: ***"Civil forfeiture allows government to take and sell property without ever charging the owner with a crime, let alone convicting the person of one."***

"What?! I couldn't believe what you said, but with that statement in the article--what?! My mind is blown away. I hope he takes that to the Supreme Court."

So, Rob, if the owner was charged, but not convicted, would that be acceptable behavior on the part of the government? Or no? Is charging someone enough?


 o
RE: property

So much for the legalization of medical marijuana, eh? So much for the benefits to patients. Laws enacted to be ignored in the race to fill federal coffers... and other pockets.

*

Hey, with almost half the country not paying a dime in federal income taxes and people clamoring for "more, more more" what's a government to do?

Many people do not realize how close they are to losing their assets.

That's why they should be careful about letting people do drugs on their property--there are lots of little old ladies letting Bubba cook meth in the back of granny's house and helping fund it by turning over her social security check and her handicapped tagged vehicle to Bubba. The surprise the agents come in and poor granny's property is seized.

I drove some pretty nifty wheels when I worked--courtesy of drug dealers.


 o
RE: property

Hey, with almost half the country not paying a dime in federal income taxes and people clamoring for "more, more more" what's a government to do?

This is a highly selective seizure given the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in California and no seizures that I know of -- even after establishments were raided by the DEA during the G W Bush Administration. The dispensary that was raided on Lincoln Bl in Venice is now an Italian restaurant with no change in ownership of the building.

I think something else is going on here -- in ultra-convervative Orange County where confiscation of property, espcially in the form of taxes, is considered socialism.

Have the feds moved to seize any bank that has been found to be laundering drug money?

Silly me! What else did I expect? How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs

The [U.S.] authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.

Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.

More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn -- a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product -- into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.

"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 -- up 1% on the week of the court settlement.


 o
RE: property

But they shouldn't even be charged, right? It's legal activity. Unless I'm missing a piece of the puzzle.


 o
RE: property

It's legal within the state of California, but still not legal at the federal level.

So, even though the state says it's a legitimate business, there's always federal law enforcement to contend with. The federal law is still being broken... if you want to split hairs.

From what I understand, this is a great matter of contention for both patients and those trying to supply medicine to those patients. It's a continual game of cat and mouse as many law enforcement officers still view marijuana as an evil narcotic causing the ruination of America.


 o
RE: property

Oh. Phooey. I appreciate the distinction. I supposed it is a "loosening" of drug laws, which you can't do. You can be stricter, but not looser. So maybe the federal government should go after the state of California. If that is, in fact, what their problem is.


 o
RE: property

What the federal government ought to do is educate themselves to the reality of marijuana, then legalize it... as a crop, a medicine, and as an alternative to alcohol for the purpose of recreation.

Of course, that would upset the whole apple cart of privatized prisons, massive profiteering, and put a dent in the weapons industry, as well.

I really don't understand the draconian thinking still evident regarding what is a very useful plant... unless we account for the money flow any truth would interrupt.


 o
RE: property

That route would work too. Anything other than pick on the middle person. It's not their fault if they were doing what was legal, so why penalize them? He should make the state buy his house back and he have it debt free it wasn't already paid for.


 o
RE: property

"I appreciate the distinction. I supposed it is a "loosening" of drug laws, which you can't do. You can be stricter, but not looser."

That's right, Rob. Fed trumps state, like county trumps town.


 o
RE: property

So why not go after the state? Why the homeowner?


 o
RE: property

"So why not go after the state?"

I agree with you; states rights are very important. However, the feds stick their noses into all kinds of things these days.


 o
RE: property

nancy: "I think something else is going on here -- in ultra-convervative Orange County where confiscation of property, espcially in the form of taxes, is considered socialism. "

Agreed.


 o
RE: property

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 24, 13 at 5:22

The IRS and DEA have been using civil asset forfeiture to commit acts of piracy against the public for years. Local police departments also finance much of their operations by seizing and selling property. They also get federal funds to chase after pot on the local level, if they were to stamp it all out they would lose all the neat helicopters and machine guns - a late family friend was convinced the pot farmers in Hawaii were themselves being farmed by local law enforcement for this reason. You do have to wonder why at least all the outdoor operations in such a small state could not be found and shut down - using infrared sensors, as has been done to map at least one invasive weed there.

Google/Bing "civil asset forfeiture", it will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.


 o
RE: property

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 24, 13 at 7:31

I have known about this for years. I once lived in a drug infested building, too afraid to walk out my door sometimes ... the "slum" landlord and I had a knock down drag out fight (verbally) in the garage one day and he kept saying "I didn't know, I didn't know", so I said "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Funny thing is he hired me to manage the property and between the two of us we "cleaned house" and turned it into a safe family-oriented building.

When it was sold and the new "management" took over those who could afford to move and had been there for awhile "knew" what would happen when I left and they were right, as a senior told my DD recently it is like new jack city up in there.

One of those things you got to live where the real action is, not from a distance to understand what hard drugs have done to entire communities ... ah well out of sight out of mind until there is an article/shot on the nightly news and then folks sit around and wring their hands and talk about all those "people of color" shooting each other.

........and the bankers? Well they LOL all the way to the vault.


 o
RE: property

The IRS seizing property is piracy against the public??????

In my experience, the IRS only seizes property as a last resort. You have to be a pretty big offender that has ignored the IRS' attempts to collect the taxes you legitimately owe before the IRS takes your property. I consider not paying the income taxes you legally owe as piracy against the citizens of the US. Before the IRS seizes property, there is plenty of notice that they are going to do so. Not responding to the multiple notices, some of which are delivered certified, will get you in trouble with the IRS every time.


 o
RE: property

I think the real burn to the public comes when a state allows the legal growing and dispensing of medical marijuana, and the feds persist in chasing the growers and dispensaries, under the idea that it's still not federally legal.

In my opinion, the failed "war on drugs" should be officially called, and we should approach the whole problem from a different angle. What we're doing now is so very obviously not working.


 o
RE: property

well, the government can force you to buy a certain product, health insurance, so why cant they do anything else they want? They can decide which companies will survive or fail so why cant they seize whatever thay want.


 o
RE: property

"Civil forfeiture allows government to take and sell property without ever charging the owner with a crime, let alone convicting the person of one."

Civil forfeiture is an abusive crime against citizens by their governments, and it's very profitable for municipalities. Unfortunately not many people notice it until their own ox is being gored.

It's largely ignored by media, although it made a number of headlines in the 1980s and you see the occasional story by special interest groups that don't garner much attention. The practice continues, but very little attention is given to this (what I believe is) crime that is committed by government - government's version of organized crime.

It's much related to the same abuses that occur with Eminent Domain.


 o
RE: property

I would agree, Lionheart... especially when the problems these agencies continue to "fight" persist at the level they do.

What exactly are they accomplishing, anyway? Getting a few kilos off the street now and then? Filling privately owned prisons with minor offenders? Please... at what cost to the taxpayers?

Policymakers have only themselves to blame for the mess America is in with regard to drug sales and usage. If faced with the choice of working a decent job with decent pay and benefits, or selling drugs while constantly trying to stay one step ahead of LE... a vast majority would take the former, not the latter.

NAFTA was sort of the beginning of the end...


 o
RE: property

So do I have to again point out to all you 'theyers'and 'themers' that we are still 'users'? We are our government as much as we don't like to take credit or responsibility for it. If something is happening that we don't want to happen we are supposed to do something about it-plus the weird notion here that some how the Feds aren't the States. We are a federation for heaven sakes-The UNITED States. Carping about Federal law vs States law as if the states aren't part of the feds is ignorance.

I live in a state that has moved to make marijuana legal. It is still illegal here. That is reality. To ignore that is to put myself at peril. The present administration has stated that they do not intend to enforce federal laws against either the shops that sell marijuana nor those who are of age and who buy quantities for their own use but it is still going to be illegal. I think I will wait. I absolutely agree with Jodik that federal and state laws against marijuana are dumb. I do believe that all the money going into interdiction could be better spent dealing with drug abuse on its most personal level. It solves two problems at once and serves the pubic better in my estimation. It is going to take a change of federal law though for that to happen.

This is a weird thing-my state recently finally got rid of state oversight of liquor sales left over from prohibition. We had something called The Liquor Control Board-a bunch of well paid bureaucrats who decided exactly what liquor products and brands we could buy and then oversaw the entire thing for fees..so you will never guess who is being reconfigured to over see marijuana sales-its is like cockroaches I swear. You cant get rid of them.


 o
RE: property

I posted this once before so I'll do again just to remind you all why this country has spent $1 trillion to sponsor a failed war on drugs.

The Prison Lobby
The richest, and most ardent opponents of decriminalization are private prison corporations. They make BILLIONS every year by incarcerating people �" primarily non violent offenders, drug users, and illegal immigrants, and have spent millions lobbying to increase mandatory minimum sentences, “truth-in-sentencing” statues (which are actually “lies” in sentencing), and imprison more people.
War on Drugs - Prison Lobby

One of the largest and most influential of these is Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which runs over 60 prisons and immigrant detention centers in 19 states and Washington D.C. It lobbies heavily, employing more than 175 lobbyists in 32 states during the last eight years. It has admitted that continuing the “war on drugs” is part of its business plan, and a crucial source of income. CCA’s lobbying paid off when our legislature awarded more new prison contracts in September 2012.

This industry worked with the American Legislative Council (ALEC) to achieve passage of SB1070, which ensured more prisoners. Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors of that legislation received campaign contributions from from private prison companies or lobbyists.

Police and Prison Guard Unions
The second major opponents of decriminalization are police and prison guard unions. Police departments everywhere have become dependent on federal anti-drug grants to finance their budgets. Cops get to arrest more people, receive more overtime court pay (via taxpayers), and receive bonuses in both pay and rank. In California, a police union lobbyist coordinated the defeat of Proposition 19, a 2010 ballot measure to legalize marijuana. In 2008, the California Correctional Officers union spent $1million to defeat a measure that would have “reduced sentences and parole times for nonviolent drug offenders while emphasizing treatment over prison.”

The Alcohol and Tobacco Lobby
Third are the alcohol and tobacco interests. Obviously, they fear competition for American recreational dollars from a new industry.

When Proposition 19 was proposed in California to legalize cultivation and distribution of pot, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors’ PAC donated to the campaign to defeat that initiative.

The Pharmaceutical Lobby
The fourth opponents are pharmaceutical corporations whose opposition is clearly based on monetary interest �" not
War on Drugs

Click to enlarge

only is marijuana alleged to have medicinal properties, but it can be a substitute for widely used “over the counter” or prescription drugs which are more expensive and profitable.

The spread of HIV, Hepatitis C and the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people are all a direct result of completely misguided policies driven by propaganda and dogma. The International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD) calls for an end to this war on our people and for a new period of peace and intelligent open debate.

Some states recently decriminalized marijuana, although there is a conflict with Federal Law, which still mandates a 50-state solution to criminalize all drugs. This may provide a stimulus, but federal authorities have consistently taken the position that state laws do not nullify federal laws. It is clear therefore, that this is not a problem that can be solved on a state-by-state basis, producing a myriad of undoubtedly differing state laws. Where are the federalist and states’ rights politicians on this? Why are their voices quelled? Could it be that lobbyists are making their mortgage payments on their mansions?

Conclusion
America spends more on prisons than higher education and have more people in prison than any other nation in the world. Corporations, which profit from incarcerating people, work with legislators to write laws requiring mandatory and longer sentences, all for profit.
War on Drugs

Click to enlarge

The conscience of this country demands that we put an end to this situation. We must follow the lead of other developed nations, like Portugal, and decriminalize the mere possession and/or use of recreational drugs. By taxing and regulating these drugs we can generate billions to pay for schools, health care, deficit reduction and other priorities, and lower the cost of law enforcement and incarceration. We can starve the cartels of their primary source of income and restore peace and order to the areas affected by their violence. The future is up to us. We have issues, and the time to act is now!

Here is a link that might be useful: We have issues


 o
RE: property

I believe our policymakers attack these issues from the wrong angle... and do so for profit, not for the betterment of the citizenry.

I think we should stop funding the failed war on drugs... and I think we should legalize, regulate, tax... and put funding toward education and rehabilitation instead of incarceration.

It's obvious that what we're doing right now is not working.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here