Octopus Overlords

Minnesota gets it right

In a big win for property rights and due process, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton signed a bill yesterday to curb an abusive—and little known—police practice called civil forfeiture. Unlike criminal forfeiture, under civil forfeiture someone does not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose his or her cash, car or home.

The newly signed legislation, SF 874, corrects that injustice. Now the government can only take property if it obtains a criminal conviction or its equivalent, like if a property owner pleads guilty to a crime or becomes an informant. The bill also shifts the burden of proof onto the government, where it rightfully belongs. Previously, if owners wanted to get their property back, they had to prove their property was not the instrument or proceeds of the charged drug crime. In other words, owners had to prove a negative in civil court. Being acquitted of the drug charge in criminal court did not matter to the forfeiture case in civil court.

More states need to follow Minnesota's lead to curb this police abuse.

The wars on drugs and terror have done more damage to this country than we really know.

Pyperkub wrote:The wars on drugs and terror have done more damage to this country than we really know.

But if you only know what you know, how can you know that?

Grifman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:The wars on drugs and terror have done more damage to this country than we really know.

But if you only know what you know, how can you know that?

A wise man once said, "as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

The damage, then, is a known unknown.

Pyperkub wrote:The wars on drugs and terror have done more damage to this country than we really know.

I'll also point out the converse, that doing nothing would do far more damage than we really know

Grifman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:The wars on drugs and terror have done more damage to this country than we really know.

I'll also point out the converse, that doing nothing would do far more damage than we really know

Ha! Just imagine how awful things would be had we never had prohibition.

Rip wrote:

Grifman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:The wars on drugs and terror have done more damage to this country than we really know.

I'll also point out the converse, that doing nothing would do far more damage than we really know

Ha! Just imagine how awful things would be had we never had prohibition.

Now that's not what I said. I stated a fact - that doing nothing (or legalizing drugs) would do far more damage than we know - since we basically know nothing. I didn't say it would be better or worse, just that we don't really know the consequences.

Grifman wrote:

Rip wrote:

Grifman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:The wars on drugs and terror have done more damage to this country than we really know.

I'll also point out the converse, that doing nothing would do far more damage than we really know

Ha! Just imagine how awful things would be had we never had prohibition.

Now that's not what I said. I stated a fact - that doing nothing (or legalizing drugs) would do far more damage than we know - since we basically know nothing. I didn't say it would be better or worse, just that we don't really know the consequences.

To say far more damage indicates it would have been a negative, I would say doing nothing (or legalizing drugs) would have far more good than we know.

Rip wrote:

Grifman wrote:

Rip wrote:

Grifman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:The wars on drugs and terror have done more damage to this country than we really know.

I'll also point out the converse, that doing nothing would do far more damage than we really know

Ha! Just imagine how awful things would be had we never had prohibition.

Now that's not what I said. I stated a fact - that doing nothing (or legalizing drugs) would do far more damage than we know - since we basically know nothing. I didn't say it would be better or worse, just that we don't really know the consequences.

To say far more damage indicates it would have been a negative, I would say doing nothing (or legalizing drugs) would have far more good than we know.

Rip, I'll give you a hint. Go back and look at what I posted and look for what I said the far more damage was in comparison with. If you see that I was comparing it to "doing nothing" or legalization, then you are right. But if I was something else, then you are wrong. And guess which one it was

And I was just editing a poorly written post to make it worse in a hurry. Words were failing me so I just chopped up the thought and left it unfulfilled. Lol.

In the summer after my first year of law school I interned at the Department of Justice's International Asset Forfeiture Unit. It was interesting in that asset forfeiture was not something that I had ever heard of before, and it didn't really dawn on me that it was something controversial until I got back to school and was talking about it and was like "oh yeah, I guess taking people's money and houses without a full trial and forcing them to sue to prove that they didn't commit a crime with them could be a bit controversial."

Also I got some asset forfeiture unit schwag, all of which had a slogan on it - something like "Asset Forfeiture is a Tool of Law Enforcement." I was asking my boss about such a rockin' motto, and he noted that it was to remind everyone that asset forfeiture is not (supposed to be, anyway) primarily a method of generating revenue.

It is something in real need of reform. It is an important law enforcement tool - mainly designed to target organized crime organizations (including gangs that sell drugs) as they may or may not care if some of their members go to jail, but do care about (and would be hurt more by) losing the money that they are making. But the current process used is bonkers.

I also learned that the U.S. asserts international jurisdiction based upon astonishingly thin reeds.

New Mexico takes a step in the right direction if the Governor signs the new bill.

Among the other bills headed to the governor’s desk for final consideration was a bill that would prevent law enforcement from seizing money and property from people on civil grounds during an arrest.

It was approved on a unanimous 37-0 vote Saturday in the Senate, prompting applause from backers who describe the practice as “policing for profit.”

“Crime should not pay,” said Paul Gessing, president of the Albuquerque-based Rio Grande Foundation. “This bill strikes exactly the right balance by allowing law enforcement to bring criminals to justice, while protecting the property rights of innocent New Mexicans.”

The bill would not prevent law enforcement from seeking criminal forfeiture after someone was found guilty. It would, however, require proceeds from forfeitures to be put into the state’s general fund.

Waiting until someone is found guilty before stealing their property and having the proceeds go to the state's general fund should help curtail a lot of the asset forfeiture abuse.

The Need to Reform Asset Forfeiture

Staring Rand Paul and Institute for Justice among others.

Moliere wrote:Staring Rand Paul

Montana Legislature Votes to Require Conviction for Asset Forfeiture, But Federal Bypass Remains

Another state legislature has massively voted in favor of reforming their asset forfeiture laws to require criminal conviction. Today Montana's House of Representatives joined the state's Senate in passing some major updates to its asset forfeiture laws to make it harder to take the property of its citizens—particularly the innocent ones.

AWS260 wrote:

Moliere wrote:Staring Rand Paul

South Gate, that town where U.S. Marshal smashed that persons camera rakes in millions thanks to federal forfeiture rules, it even pulls in more than San Francisco

Obama Wants to Freeze CyberCriminals' Assets, Before They've Been Tried

No court review. No arrest required. No conviction required. And don't try to get help from your friends.

That's pretty normal I thought. Actually I have no idea.

Freezing is not the same thing as taking and buying an expresso machine with it.

GreenGoo wrote:That's pretty normal I thought. Actually I have no idea.

Freezing is not the same thing as taking and buying an expresso machine with it.

How do you hire a lawyer and defend yourself if all your assets are frozen? Why is this happening without a hopefully impartial court to oversee?

Moliere wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:That's pretty normal I thought. Actually I have no idea.

Freezing is not the same thing as taking and buying an expresso machine with it.

How do you hire a lawyer and defend yourself if all your assets are frozen? Why is this happening without a hopefully impartial court to oversee?

Beats me. Public defender?

How do poor people defend themselves?

GreenGoo wrote:How do poor people defend themselves?

They plead guilty.

Moliere wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:How do poor people defend themselves?

They plead guilty.

Well everyone gets the same justice now, right?

Equality for all!

For the record I am in no way suggesting that people should be stripped of their personal property/wealth/rights when arrested. I assumed that funds obtained through illegal actions were frozen until the result of the trial. Who gets to decide that? The DA of course. No conflict there.

Justice Department now wants banks to actually call the popo if you withdraw $5000 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-2 ... ls-america

Better make sure all those lights on your vehicle are in fine working order, and bright so you don't end up short some cash on your way home from the bank.

One of my friends wanted to take out $20K for a few hours to make point to his less-than-studious son. He was going to show him the cash, roughly one year of high school tuition, and say "You want me to burn this? I'll burn it. Because that's what I do every goddamn year you go to school and piss about." Then he'd stuff it in a bag and go into a long lecture during which he'd surreptitiously replace the bag with one filled with fake bills. Then he'd give the fake-money bag to his son and tell him to burn it in the backyard fire pit.

He didn't tell the bank his plan, but they still gave him no end of difficulty and said they'd have to file a SAR. So he said, "Ok, just give me $1 under the limit and I guess I can make that look like $20K to my kid..." and it set off all their red flags. The branch people knew him and worked it out but they said that normally they probably would have notified the FBI directly once he left.





It's funny, banks can launder billions and get away with it but if anyone tries to take out $5K they are immediately under suspicion and get the obligatory SAR. Alerting local law enforcement is crazy but I don't think the comments of one AAG make national policy. We'll see.

LawBeefaroni wrote:One of my friends wanted to take out $20K for a few hours to make point to his less-than-studious son. He was going to show him the cash, roughly one year of high school tuition, and say "You want me to burn this? I'll burn it. Because that's what I do every goddamn year you go to school and piss about." Then he'd stuff it in a bag and go into a long lecture during which he'd surreptitiously replace the bag with one filled with fake bills. Then he'd give the fake-money bag to his son and tell him to burn it in the backyard fire pit.

He didn't tell the bank his plan, but they still gave him no end of difficulty and said they'd have to file a SAR. So he said, "Ok, just give me $1 under the limit and I guess I can make that look like $20K to my kid..." and it set off all their red flags. The branch people knew him and worked it out but they said that normally they probably would have called the police.





It's funny, banks can launder billions and get away with it but if anyone tries to take out $5K they are immediately under suspicion and get the obligatory SAR. Alerting local law enforcement is crazy but I don't think the comments of one AAG make national policy. We'll see.

Wow that was an amazingly dumb plan that your friend came up with. First, of course that's going to look insanely suspicious to a bank. And second, what happens if something happens to that $20,000 in actual cash in those few hours?

I also suspect that he's underestimating the difficulty of surreptitiously switching out $20,000 in real money while in the middle of lecturing his son without his son noticing.

El Guapo wrote: Wow that was an amazingly dumb plan that your friend came up with. First, of course that's going to look insanely suspicious to a bank. And second, what happens if something happens to that $20,000 in actual cash in those few hours?

I also suspect that he's underestimating the difficulty of surreptitiously switching out $20,000 in real money while in the middle of lecturing his son without his son noticing.

We said the same thing. But he's old school and his plans are his plans. We've kind of gotten used to it. He's one of those people who exist outside normal cause and effect, a 50-year-old man who hasn't had/needed a job for at least the decade I've known him, spends his days fishing and smoking weed, and his evenings at bars and going to sporting events. His son is going to Georgetown (or George Washington, I can never keep those two straight) in the fall, so it seems like the plan worked. And it worked with a mere $5K in the paper bag. You're right, he probably benefited by not having the full $20K though I never though to ask what denominations he asked for. That's only 200 $100s.

As for losing the cash, he knew the risk surely.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Wow that was an amazingly dumb plan that your friend came up with. First, of course that's going to look insanely suspicious to a bank. And second, what happens if something happens to that $20,000 in actual cash in those few hours?

I also suspect that he's underestimating the difficulty of surreptitiously switching out $20,000 in real money while in the middle of lecturing his son without his son noticing.

We said the same thing. But he's old school and his plans are his plans. We've kind of gotten used to it. He's one of those people who exist outside normal cause and effect, a 50-year-old man who hasn't had/needed a job for at least the decade I've known him, spends his days fishing and smoking weed, and his evenings at bars and going to sporting events. His son is going to Georgetown (or George Washington, I can never keep those two straight) in the fall, so it seems like the plan worked. And it worked with a mere $5K in the paper bag. You're right, he probably benefited by not having the full $20K though I never though to ask what denominations he asked for. That's only 200 $100s.

As for losing the cash, he knew the risk surely.

I need more friends who are very casual about possession of $20,000 in cash.

Trust me, no you don't.

Zarathud wrote:Trust me, no you don't.

I LOL'd ... literally.

Regardless of the merits of that specific plan, the idea that taking 5k out in cash (or even, according to the article, that a transaction with an *aggregated amount* of over 5K) is automagically suspicious is utterly and completely absurd.

geezer wrote:Regardless of the merits of that specific plan, the idea that taking 5k out in cash (or even, according to the article, that a transaction with an *aggregated amount* of over 5K) is automagically suspicions is utterly and completely absurd.

It is absurd. And as Hastert learned, so is structuring (taking out <$10K multiple times to avoid the $10K SAR).

Especially when you consider that the $10K threshold is like 45 years old. Inflation adjusted it's like a $1500 limit back then (guessing?). Conversely, the intent of the law back then would mean an inflation adjusted law would be like $65K today.

LawBeefaroni wrote:It's funny, banks can launder billions and get away with it

Exactly which banks have laundered billions and gotten away with it? And exactly how would you be in possession of such information?

Grifman wrote:Exactly which banks have laundered billions and gotten away with it? And exactly how would you be in possession of such information?

Depends on how you define "Gotten away with it". Here's HSBC settling for $1.9 billion after:

[admitting] that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows."

And how they give crap to legal marijuana businesses after laundering billions for drug cartels.

And they're going to break my stones over a $5K withdrawal? They can get stuffed.

I personally would not define "getting away with it" as paying a $1.9 billion fine, myself.

Yeah, those fines were so large it put those banks right out of business - especially after those CEOs went to jail. They transferred $7+ billion from Mexican branches to the US and paid $1.9 in penalties for not disclosing the transfers properly. I'm totally sure they learned a hard lesson.

Smoove_B wrote:

Grifman wrote:Exactly which banks have laundered billions and gotten away with it? And exactly how would you be in possession of such information?

Depends on how you define "Gotten away with it". Here's HSBC settling for $1.9 billion after:

[admitting] that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows."

I would say paying a $1.9B fine is not getting away with it. That's fare more than any profits they made (mis)handling these funds.

Which is exactly my point. If a bank is getting away with it, one wouldn't know about it. And if what they did is public, it was because they were caught and fined, and hence, did not get away with it

Smoove_B wrote:Yeah, those fines were so large it put those banks right out of business - especially after those CEOs went to jail. They transferred $7+ billion from Mexican branches to the US and paid $1.9 in penalties for not disclosing the transfers properly. I'm totally sure they learned a hard lesson.

The goal is not to put them out of business, if they wanted to do that, there are other ways than fining them. HSBC's 2014 profits were about $18B so the fine was 10% of earnings. That's a pretty steep fine and well exceeded any money they made on the illegal transactions.

It's time to hoard paper money! Thanks, Obama.

Honestly, I can see where one might want that much cash to buy something as nefarious as an used car. $5k is getting down to the level where normal people operate.