Posted on 02/18/2017 8:22:41 AM PST by Makana
So, you’re sitting on millions of dollars’ worth of confiscated property. You want to give your workers a raise, but federal rules bar you from using seized assets to fund salaries. What’s an attorney general to do?
Well, if you’re Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, you turn to a strange source for the solution: the very U.S. Justice Department officials who are responsible for enforcing the rules you want to skirt.
They told Herring he could use the funds to cover routine costs “so long as your overall budget does not decrease.” Herring promptly started using seized funds to cover operational expenses like vehicle maintenance and rent payments — and then diverted funds that normally would have paid those bills into hefty salary hikes — up to $15,000 each for 64 attorneys.
(Excerpt) Read more at richmond.com ...
Incredibly dangerous tactic for our elites. Need to pay the hacks more, just grab some property.
Tactics similar to these is what caused the storming of the Bastille and French nobility “haircuts”.
The freedoms we lose from anti-drug laws, such as asset forfeiture, are far more harmful than the security we gain.
In ANY issue where the underlying controversy is criminal in nature (no matter if it is murder, theft, fraud or whatever) there should be no civil liability, and therefore no asset forfeiture, without an actual conviction for the crime first.
No conviction: No civil liability
Another option is to arrest Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring on a charge of misfeasance.
I agree, civil prosecution should only follow criminal conviction as the threshold for criminal conviction is much higher. Seizing and forfeiture of cars because an individual drives drunk or is found operating one under influence of drugs should never be sufficient to seize a person’s property IMO. Impounded, OK, forfeited, no way.
...No conviction: No civil liability...
This falls beyond the “No taxation without representation” category. And that was part of what led to the unpleasantness with George III.
Sometimes, the seizing entity will try to make a “Deal” where the government gets to keep a percentage of the take in return for the balance of the property. This amounts to legalized extortion.
Formal hearings often have to be held when the Prosecutors office wants to keep the ill gotten proceeds anyway. The burden essentially falls on the owner. And the owner must hire a lawyer to be on equal footing with the state’s attorney or take a chance on representing themselves.
It’s a stacked deck any way you look at it.
Note that I said doesn't, not wouldn't...
Unfortunately the seized property is not collected in accordance with ‘due process”
Usually misfeasance is addressed via tort not criminal. That being said, is there a Virginal that allows for criminal charges? My quick research only came up with charges regarding conduct of Sheriffs, deputies, court clerks.
You are arguing a potential procedural wrong to counter a stance against a very real moral and ethical wrong?
Now, mind you, asset forfeiture stinks of excessive fines. So perchance it would be good to ALSO limit it to the fines collectible as a consequence for conviction.
I’m good with neutering the government’s ability for recourse to the civil courts against private citizens.
Neither were the “taxes” incurred under Obamacare because people didn’t comply with a government regulation.
But call it a “tax” and there is no due process! You can even require self incrimination on the tax forms. Right?
Government: You have too much and we want to assert its for the wrong reasons. Give us some and we may not take all!
There is a section in the Virginia Security for Public Deposits Act that refers to misfeasance of any agent of the Commonwealth or any state court. I don't know if that would be applicable to Virginia's AG.
It's bad enough for an agent of the government to seize a citizen's property under color of authority, it's far worse to incentivize that same agent to destroy one's good name and well as his wealth and property.
What police agency doesn't think having a drunk driver's (max fine in the $1000's) $200,000 Ferrari would be a fine addition to it's drug sting task force?
Now you want the only way they get to keep the car is to convict the driver?
Might this not color the arresting officer's testimony just a wee little bit???
Slippery slope just became a cliff. When they benefit PERSONALLY from stealing your things on the flimsiest of rationales, they will become dependent on it, personally. Not departmentally or citywide, PERSONALLY. Suddenly every cop sees dollar signs with ever arrest. What could happen next?
Hey, preach it.
But if you say I say “Now you want the only way they get to keep the car is to convict the driver?”
How is that worse than them being able to take stuff from alleged criminals without convictions as they are doing now?
Then there’s the fact that asset forfeiture is basically, by intent, an excessive fine. A fine far in excess of fines that may be allowed by the laws broken.
As I said: restrict them to the fines that the law permits and deny the government recourse to the civil courts against Persons.
Then they won’t be taking the proverbial Ferraris from drunk drivers.
... just his drivers license....
You don't see how a deliberate wrongful conviction robs a man of his reputation, something more precious than mere property?
The common phrase is adding insult to injury.
And this insult, a deliberately wrongful felony conviction, PERMANENTLY destroys a person's ability to work in many fields and PERMANENTLY damages his ability to gain employment with anyone who does a background check, and PERMANENTLY* removes the right to vote or own firearms.
You don't see how that is worse than just losing a car, a house and/or a bank account?
* In rare cases a petition to the court to reinstate civil rights can be successful, but where does one go to get his reputation back?
Wow, he’s a democrat. No mention of that in the article.
Are you being intentionally dense? Have you not noticed me suggesting limiting them to fines allowed as well?
You imagine that the government, if suddenly required to convict before they seize, will run after every offense because they want stuff. But here’s where you’re missing the boat: pursuing criminal convictions isn’t easy, it’s frequently expensive and takes time. Sometimes LOTS of time. Sometimes LOTS of expense.
Asset forfeiture is, as this time, pretty much easy peasy. Due process? Smell you losers later, we’ve got your stuff right now.
In short, asset forfeiture is a short cut, a pound of flesh without working hard and incurring expense.
And in, the way things are now, there being no worry a jury may not see things your way first.
Do you really think the folks in government will undertake expensive and hard work, with no guarantees of success, before they even have a chance to take your stuff with the same attitudes they now seize stuff when it’s easy and cheap to do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.