Burden of Proof Discussion

[meno377]

Here is but one video linked by pacrat...

Nothing at all to do with asset forfeiture.

LOL..

Just an cop hating idiot who doesn't actually know the law.

That about sums it up right here.

[SVT-40]

Aha, Now comes the infamous fiddletown "HOGWASH" defense. Same as always when you are disproven. Quickly followed with the historically predictable condescending attacks on any one's intelligence that dares to disagree with you. So predictable of an ivory tower academic who only lives in their own utopian world of law books. Without ever venturing into the real world of real streets and real abuses to the things you hold dear in those books.

The above bolded gives me a full belly laugh...

As if you, Pacrat have ever actually "ventured" into any "real streets" at any time in your life...and have ANY experience in asset forfeiture or any actual legal experience training or education in any subject related to the law Police work or any associated field.



So please regale us with your own first person experiences in the "real streets"?



Tell us of your own personal experiences related to asset forfeiture?

I would love to hear your own stories....LOL



Everything you write is pure interment tough guy blather and braying.

No actual experience, just hours of watching U Tube videos and reading stories on Cop Block...

[pacrat]

Pacrat, have you suffered an asset seizure recently?

No Sir, I have never been the victim of asset forfeiture. That does not blind me to the existence of "Policing for Profit". As it seems to with certain members who insist on their obsfucational deflections to continue dragging this thread off topic, into the weeds, as they do with many threads.

I will ask again. With the ongoing war on the 2A. What will happen if unscrupulous Anti 2A and their agents, start using "Asset Forfeiture". As a tool against lawful ownership of firearms? Will they be allowed to trample the Second, just as they have done with the Fourth?

Even major TV networks have done numerous exposes' about the abuses.
Channel 5 News in Tennessee was especially active denouncing the practice and publicly exposing the Bad Actors. Here is just one such of many they've done. Link and excerpt below.

Short summary...........Cop stops citizen on pretext of speeding, but doesn't even write ticket. {NO DAY IN COURT} Liberates citizens money. Forfeiture hearing of money is "ex parte". Citizen isn't notified "OR ALLOWED" to be present at hearing. Cop, DA, and Judge Bubba, find money quilty as charged. Only evidence allowed at hearing is the blatantly false affidavit filed by the cop. Which was later proven by his own admission to be falsified from get go.

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/policing-for-profit/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case

Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding.

A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.

"I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

That's when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money.

"Why didn't you arrest him?" we asked Bates.

"Because he hadn't committed a criminal law," the officer answered.

Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious.

"The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer."

"But it's not illegal to carry cash," we noted.

"No, it's not illegal to carry cash," Bates said. "Again, it's what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?"

"And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted.

NOTE..The COP just placed the burden of proof on his victim!

Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don't come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all.

"This is a taking without due process," said Union City attorney John Miles.

A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area.

He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.

That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.

"It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added.

George Reby said that he told Monterey officers that "I had active bids on EBay, that I was trying to buy a vehicle. They just didn't want to hear it."

In fact, Reby had proof on his computer.

But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit, citing his own training that "common people do not carry this much U.S. currency."

Read Officer Bates' affidavit

"On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine," Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.

"Or the money could have been used to buy a car," we observed.

"It's possible," he admitted.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was trying to buy a car?

"He did," the officer acknowledged.

"But you did not include that in your report," we noted.

"If it's not in there, I didn't put it in there."

So why did he leave that out?

"I don't know," the officer said.

Bates also told the judge the money was hidden inside "a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from locating it."

"That's inaccurate," Reby said. "I pulled out the bag and gave it to him."

It is a commonly accepted fact that the burden of proof in asset forfeiture cases is on the accused. [As RickD427 truthfully acknowledged] Just as it is a commonly known fact that asset forfeiture has been subverted from original intent. Into an abomination known as "Policing for Profit"

There are LE agencies, DA's offices, Courts, and entire cities that derive the majority of their budgets from "Policing for Profit" scams perpetrated on citizens.

[pacrat]

That about sums it up right here.

And I would agree that the one video that was cherry picked out of thousands which actually document "policing for profit". Was obviously made by an idiot who dislikes cops in general.

"Policing for Profit" is what the author titled the video as. So that is how he got it cataloged as such.

It's "YouTube" so of course there is lots of chaff in the wheat. That does not detract from the honest content of the relevant vids, that are factually correct.

Mr. Hogwash's claim,

Now you're just being silly. Your so called evidence was:

Is another of his obsfucatory intentionally inaccurate paraphrasings of what I actually did say. A lame ploy he regularly uses when he is unable to rebut what was actually said. Change a word here and there, inaccurately paraphrase a quote, bingo the true context of the original is obsfucated.

Rather than tell you to "go fetch" I will provide 2 links in support of my opinion. If you choose, you can then argue with "youtube" and "Yahoo search" whether asset forfeiture "might well be abused".

There is factually a great many "proofs" of my assertions contained in the 2 links. I did not say the links themselves are "evidence", as he falsely claims I did.

And the other individual, who BTW follows me around like an annoying chihuahua yapping. Again publicly airs his self imposed ignorance by facetiously asking this question. He obviously must have been busy cherry picking YouTube videos to do some actual due diligence.

You do realize "IJ" is simply a law firm don't you?

Sorry you're wrong as usual. "IJ" is actually a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. That happens to be a Legal Based Charity Foundation. Which does a crap ton of good work on the behalf of citizens against Gov Abuse.

Calling them "simply a law firm". Is like calling the
Salvation Army" and all their good works. "Simply a Church".

[fiddletown]

....There is factually a great many "proofs" of my assertions contained in the 2 links....

Really? Where?

Again it's not my job to go searching for proof of your claims. It's for you to produce the evidence supporting your claims and make your case.

....I did not say the links themselves are "evidence", as he falsely claims I did.....

Actually, I did not. I quoted exactly what you did say:

....Now you're just being silly. Your so called evidence was:

....I will provide 2 links in support of my opinion. If you choose, you can then argue with "youtube" and "Yahoo search" whether asset forfeiture "might well be abused".

10,400 results

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=policing+for+profit

24,900 results
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...&hsimp=yhs-001...

.....

...."IJ" is actually a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. ....

So is the Violence Policy Center. What's your point?

[pacrat]

Again it's not my job to go searching for proof of your claims.

I can concur that it is not your job. Obviously you see it as your job to selectively ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

That does not blind me to the existence of "Policing for Profit". As it seems to with certain members who insist on their obsfucational deflections to continue dragging this thread off topic, into the weeds, as they do with many threads.

Which is exactly what you continue to do. Simply ignore the specific documented examples I have posted as proof of your failed theory of how things should work. So you can exercise your hubris by repeatedly drag this thread off topic and into the weeds.

Which were given in direct response to your contentions that they couldn't possibly exist because of a "statute" you quoted.

Mr Threadjacker, contends that the "Burden of Proof" in on the state.

Shot to hell by the Mr. Reby incident I linked to and provided an excerpt from, for him to read. Which he conveniently ignored.

He also specifically asked. And stated why in utopia it couldn't happen.

Where is the Fourth Amendment being circumvented? 18 USC 981 specifically requires a warrant or a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in order to seize property for forfeiture. So the Fourth Amendment must be complied with.

OOPS, shot to hell by the specific case of Mr Nguyen. I provided in direct response. Which also included damning dash cam video

All across the country everyday! Where were Mr Nguyen's 4th amendment protections when his money was stolen by a cop on the side of the road? He is but one of the 35,000 examples I linked to.

The vast majority of victims just walk away. Because it isn't worth spending tens of thousands of dollars to get back what the roadside bandits seized from them.

https://jonathanturley.org/2014/05/0...-file-officer/

Which was also ignored by the very person who requested the proof.

Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
...."IJ" is actually a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. ....

So is the Violence Policy Center. What's your point?

Again with the selective parsing of a quote? In another weak attempt to obsfucate and deflect from context. In furtherance of dragging the thread off topic. Some things never change.

Ignoring the rest of the "actual quote" and what it was in response to.

You do realize "IJ" is simply a law firm don't you?

Sorry you're wrong as usual. "IJ" is actually a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. That happens to be a Legal Based Charity Foundation. Which does a crap ton of good work on the behalf of citizens against Gov Abuse.

Calling them "simply a law firm". Is like calling the
Salvation Army" and all their good works. "Simply a Church".

MY POINT is and was, that "The IJ" is what it is. Not what SVT-40 in his typical fashion denigrates it to appear, in another of his failed attempts to cast aspersions. But hey, you knew that. You just couldn't resist another OT weed dragging effort, could you.

Your "weed dragging" deflective comparison of them to VPC, who promotes government abuses. And is basically antithetical to the goals of "IJ". Is just another of your transparent lame obsfucatory deflections.

Your own deflections in relation to "IJ", and SVT-40's denigration of same. Give a strong appearance that you both have issues with them because I used them as accepted "scholarly analysts", who do in fact agree with me, and their case files as verifiable proof of your failure to support your OT contentions.

But hey, why should you bother, when it is so much easier to just obsfucate, deflect, dodge, and ignore those pesky "fact" things

The MODS might as well lock this thread. It is abundantly obvious after many requests that the WEED DRAGGERS refrain from deflecting it off topic. That they just can't overcome their compulsion to do so.


BYE!

[TRICKSTER]

Pacrat, why is it that your arguments always seem to boil down to this with the "your reality" simply changed to "reality"?

[RickD427]

Pacrat,

Did you even read your own description of the incident involving Mr. Reby? I would think not. Please let me cite the following quotation from your earlier posting (Post #18) describing the incident (with bold font of the critical part):

"I (Mr. Reby) said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he (referring to the officer) said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

Later, in Post #21, you suggest that Mr. Reby's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. It's clear from Mr. Reby's own words that he consented to the search. Where is there a violation?

[fiddletown]

....Simply ignore the specific documented examples I have posted as proof of your failed theory of how things should work....

Well what I ignore are your specious arguments, phony "evidence", and emotional rants.

...Mr Threadjacker, contends that the "Burden of Proof" in on the state....

And I've shown that the applicable federal statute governing civil forfeiture by the federal government (1) defines what facts must be true in order for property to be forfeitable; and (2) places the burden of proving those facts on the government.

That's how it's done in court. If you claim it isn't done that way in court, you need to back that opinion up with court documents and court opinions -- not stories from the popular news media. The news media is not a reliable source of technical information.

The funny thing is that folks here are always pointing out how inaccurate news stories on guns matters are. Why are they suddenly getting it right because now you like what they say about civil forfeiture.

...Where is the Fourth Amendment being circumvented? 18 USC 981 specifically requires a warrant or a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in order to seize property for forfeiture. So the Fourth Amendment must be complied with.....

...OOPS, shot to hell by the specific case of Mr Nguyen. I provided in direct response. Which also included damning dash cam video

All across the country everyday! Where were Mr Nguyen's 4th amendment protections when his money was stolen by a cop on the side of the road? He is but one of the 35,000 examples I linked to.

The vast majority of victims just walk away. Because it isn't worth spending tens of thousands of dollars to get back what the roadside bandits seized from them.

https://jonathanturley.org/2014/05/0...-file-officer/

Which was also ignored by the very person who requested the proof. ...

Phooey! None of that is proof of anything. The only actual proof that someone's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated would be a decision by the judge in the case to that effect.

The question of a Fourth Amendment right being violated is one for a court -- not you or Mr. Turley. You might have opinions on the question, but those opinions are neither proof nor fact. Until the question has been properly adjudicated it remains an open question.

....It is abundantly obvious after many requests that the WEED DRAGGERS refrain from deflecting it off topic. That they just can't overcome their compulsion to do so.


BYE!

You apparently can't remember what you asked to start this thread:

...."CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE" aka "Policing for Profit".

Is specifically antithetical to the "burden of proof" definitions quoted by Fiddletown....

And again, the answer, which you don't like, is that as a matter of legal procedure it is not antithetical.

Note that throughout this thread I have never defended civil forfeiture or claimed that it was a good idea or good public policy. What I've been pointing out is that you've been doing a thoroughly lousy job of attacking civil forfeiture.

If you, as many of us do, think civil forfeiture can be unduly pernicious and abused and feel inclined to argue and educate on the point, you might want to better educate yourself on the legal issues and focus on doing your research using less sensational, and more respected, sources. You might want to start with the following:

• Forbes, "Cops In Texas Seize Millions By 'Policing for Profit'"
  
  
• Forbes, "Nothing Civil About Asset Forfeiture"
  
  
• The Washington Post, "How the fight over civil forfeiture lays bare the contradictions in modern conservatism"
  
  
• The Atlantic, "Justice Thomas's Doubts About Civil Forfeiture"
  
  
• Cornell Law Reveiw, "Forfeitures-Due Process-Supreme Court Upholds
  Forfeiture of Innocent Owner’s Property Without Prior Notice and Hearing "
  
  
• Yale Law Review,"The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture "

[SVT-40]

Jesus pacrat...don't you know anything can be abused? Nothing involving humans is perfect. However simply because there have been abuses by some, does not mean a program should be stopped..

The same argument is constantly used by anti 2A opponents.

Asset forfeiture is a valuable tool when used properly to take the profit out of criminal enterprises.

Still waiting for the stories about your own real street experiences...LOL

[hambam105]

I say state your case in less time than it takes a UPS driver to wash down a shot of bourbon with a beer chase. Ready....

[pacrat]

I say state your case in less time than it takes a UPS driver to wash down a shot of bourbon with a beer chase. Ready....

Ready....Go!

Only 10 states and DC demand that the government prove owners did something wrong before forfeiting their property, 2 of which have no CAF. The other 39 have statutes placing Burden of Proof on owner.

Refer to Fig 8.

http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/grading-state-federal-civil-forfeiture-laws/

I read that out load in 7.5 seconds.


CLOSE THREAD

[MeatyMac]

Some related reading:

Regarding burden of proof, a recent SCOTUS ruling, Nelson v. Colorado, https://www.forbes.com/sites/institu.../#2b1bae5271f6https://fedsoc.org/commentary/blog-p...set-forfeiture


Mac

[JDay]

Pacrat,

In a civil asset forfeiture case, there is no "accused". Get that thought out of your head. If someone were "accused", there would be a corresponding criminal case.

In a civil asset forfeiture case, the state proceeds against the property (not against any accused person) that was seized, on the grounds that it was either used as part of a criminal enterprise, or was the product of a criminal enterprise.

The only parties to the action are the seized property and the state. If a third party wishes to intervene then, just like any other civil case, they have the burden of proof to show standing, and as a moving party, normally have the burden of proof on the merits.

Keep in mind that I also share your opinion that there has been some abuse of the civil asset forfeiture power, along with a lot benefit derived from it. But that doesn't change the state of the law.

How can the state seize property claiming that it was "either used as part of a criminal enterprise, or was the product of a criminal enterprise" without violating your Constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure? Property is being seized by mere suspicion that it is linked to criminal activity, and the state is not producing any proof.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

[fiddletown]

How can the state seize property claiming that it was "either used as part of a criminal enterprise, or was the product of a criminal enterprise" without violating your Constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure? Property is being seized by mere suspicion that it is linked to criminal activity, and the state is not producing any proof....

First, the whether one's constitutional rights have been violated will depend on the exact facts of the particular case, and it will be a question to be adjudicated by the court.

Second, your only assuming that the government isn't producing proof. In fact, under the applicable federal law the government has the burden of proving that the property is subject to forfeit. Whether in a particular case the government has met its burden will have to be decided by the court based on the circumstances and the evidence produced.

And of course depending on the statutes forfeiture is sought under and depending on the exact facts of the case a variety of results are possible.

And to have any real hope of understanding this stuff, or law in general, one really has to read the statutes and cases. Relying on media and blogs won't do it.