Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Under new rules announced Friday, federal agencies will no longer be able to accept or "adopt" assets seized by local and state law enforcement agencies — unless the property includes firearms, ammunitions, explosives, child ****ography or other materials concerning public safety. Holder described the new policy as the "first step in a comprehensive review."

 

The new policy does not affect asset seizures made under joint state and federal operations, and local law enforcement may still seize property under state laws.

http://www.bostonherald.com/ne...t_forfeiture_program

 

There might not be as much here as people think. The rule may only cut out the fed's share of the haul.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Obama and Holder want to make this nations police stop murdering and robbing people. Where will such actions end?

Yes, taking property from people before they are found guilty does happen in Lauderdale county and in Lawrence County, Tenn.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yes, the asset seizures are a major problem -- police and prosecutors must share the blame.  However, don't make a blanket statement that police are on a murder spree.  Once more, about 400 persons, armed and unarmed are killed by the police annually. 

 

Considering that most were involved in criminal behavior, there could be no such spree.  If blacks are considered separately,  about 100 of the 400 are black.  There are about 6,500 blacks murdered annually (similar stat for whites).  Of the 6500, about 4500 are killed by other blacks.  Tht is the murder spree that must be corrected.

 

It would be a grim form of justice if Gracie Mansion is attacked by jehadim and Comrade de Blasio calls the NYPD for help. Then, tragically, the NYPD SWAT  team Is delayed by demonstrators against the police jamming the route.

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Obama and Holder want to make this nations police stop murdering and robbing people. Where will such actions end?

Yes, taking property from people before they are found guilty does happen in Lauderdale county and in Lawrence County, Tenn.

The last big two in the news Brown and Garner were criminals who resisted arrest and in Browns case attcaked a police officer.  While sad they were not murdered, sadly had they simply abided by the new movements phrase hands up dont shoot and complied they would be alive today!

Holder's order applies only to "adoption," which happens when a state or local agency seizes property on its own and then asks the Justice Department to pursue forfeiture under federal law. "Over the last six years," the DOJ says in the press release announcing Holder's new policy, "adoptions accounted for roughly three percent of the value of forfeitures in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program." By comparison, the program's reports to Congress indicate that "equitable sharing" payments to state and local agencies accounted for about 22 percent of total deposits during those six years. That means adoptions, which the DOJ says represented about 3 percent of deposits, accounted for less than 14 percent of equitable sharing. In other words, something like 86 percent of the loot that state and local law enforcement agencies receive through federal forfeitures will be unaffected by Holder's new policy.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/01...rated-holders-forfei

 

Again, there isn't much here. It may mean that to insure that police can still seize someones property, police agencies will first call the feds for collaboration.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Does this mean that the feds can't rob you, but the local yokels can still rob people?

___________________________________________________________

 

"Over the last six years," the DOJ says in the press release announcing Holder's new policy, "adoptions accounted for roughly three percent of the value of forfeitures in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program."

 

The feds were the biggest robber and will still be.

Maybe this thread needs to be dusted off since the potential next AG has been an overachiever on this issue.

http://watchdog.org/195553/for...re-case-lynch-obama/

 

The case was handled, and last week officially dropped, by Lynch, President Barack Obama’s pick to be the nation’s next attorney general, pending approval by the U.S. Senate.

 

Lynch, the editors of the Wall Street Journal noted in November, has been an “enthusiastic grabber of private assets” during her tenure as a U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

 

The U.S. Justice Department says Lynch’s office collected more than $113 million in civil forfeiture actions from 123 cases between 2011 and 2013 — including the $446,000 seized from the Hirschs in Long Island.

 

That’s something Lynch should be asked about when she testifies before the U.S. Senate at her confirmation hearing, the Wall Street Journal argued.

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×