Proposed NJ Law: Seize Homes w/Illegal Guns

World Net Daily ^ | May 10, 2005 | Ron Strom

[robertpaulsen]

"Relevant only if they believed themselves Constitutionally empowered to outlaw slavery."

You are a piece of work.

They wrote and ratified the rules of the game -- hypocritical to claim after the fact that the U.S. Constitution doesn't give them the power.

[robertpaulsen]

"Not only is that not true, but further, they would not even allow it if the person WERE convicted of a crime."

Asset forfeiture as a result of treason is expressly forbidden by Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. That's it.

Federal asset forfeiture for all other federal crimes was forbidden only by statute. There's no constitutional protection, simply a law providing one.

That's the way the people felt then. Today, they feel differently. They call that democracy.

[robertpaulsen]

First, that's not "stems and seeds". Second, are you proposing to argue each case? Do I have to defend each and every case that you bring up to make my point? Does the application of the law have to be 100% perfect for you to be satisfied?

Debating is more than some "cut and paste" job from a conspiracy website like fear.org.

(CAFRA made it illegal for a government agency to share the proceeds of an asset forfeiture with a private entity -- the driving force behind the above cases.)

[robertpaulsen]

So you're saying that a scumbag drug dealer should be allowed to keep the assets purchased with drug money? I suppose a bank robber should be allowed to keep the money when caught? Ditto for a white-collar embezzler?

According to you, if they get off on some technicality the money's theirs, right?

[Nov3]

Are you serious? Give me a break. It is people like you that fought for the British.

[robertpaulsen]

Serious as a heart attack.

[publiusF27]

Many. But that's not to say that the decision was unconstitutional, as you seem to be saying in this thread.

Glad to hear you've seen a court get it wrong. For a minute there, I thought you believed that impossible.

In this thread, I've been saying it's a bad policy, and it's wrong. You're confusing this thread with that other one I started.

[publiusF27]

So you're saying that a scumbag drug dealer should be allowed to keep the assets purchased with drug money? I suppose a bank robber should be allowed to keep the money when caught? Ditto for a white-collar embezzler? According to you, if they get off on some technicality the money's theirs, right?

Who PROVED that he was a dealer, or that the assets came from the drug biz? Because if no one proved it, the government should not be able to act like someone did by saying that the property looks guilty of something, so forget about proving anything about the person.

Who proved that he was a bank robber, and that is the money he stole? Because if no one proved it...

As you can see, we can talk about all the examples you want. My friend, the Monkey Business, Willie Jones, any of them. It's always going to be the same issue: pretending that property can commit a crime, and punishing property, as if that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the owner.

[publiusF27]

Debating is more than some "cut and paste" job from a conspiracy website like fear.org.

I've posted two pieces from them (among other things) in this thread. Where is the conspiracy? Where are the inaccuracies? Or are you just hoping to get away with a general slam, without actually pointing out any deficiencies in the arguments?

[TalBlack]

"Don't you believe in state's rights? 10th amendment and all that? Or do you want the federal government to write your laws?"

C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N.

[robertpaulsen]

"Glad to hear you've seen a court get it wrong."

I didn't say that. I said I've disagreed with their decisions.

Since Marbury v Madison, the USSC interprets the U.S. Constitution. If they do the interpretation, by whose standards are they "wrong"?

[publiusF27]

Did you disagree because you thought they got it right?

I didn't say that my interpretation should govern. Obviously, it should not. I'm saying mine is right, theirs is wrong, and we ought to work to change both the law and the interpretations until crimes are punished under criminal law, and debts and other such things are handled under civil law. Punishing crimes under civil law is wrong. IN MY OPINION, BY MY STANDARDS.

[robertpaulsen]

"Punishing crimes under civil law is wrong."

Fine. Guy robs a bank, they've got it on video, he confesses, his lawyer gets him off because some rookie cop forgets to read him his Miranda rights, and he gets to keep the money -- IN YOUR OPINION, BY YOUR STANDARDS.

[robertpaulsen]

"Did you disagree because you thought they got it right?"

No. I simply interpreted the U.S. Constitution differently.

[Mr. Mojo]

Hate your neighbor? Toss a gun on his property and call the police.

Absolutely. ....and it works with drugs, too.

Corrupt cops can get in on the action as well (and sometimes do).

These types of laws are made-to-order for criminals. ...both within the gov't and without.

[publiusF27]

Fine. Guy robs a bank, they've got it on video, he confesses, his lawyer gets him off because some rookie cop forgets to read him his Miranda rights, and he gets to keep the money -- IN YOUR OPINION, BY YOUR STANDARDS.

Do they get to throw him in jail? Why not? Because punishment requires a conviction.

It seems to me that the important thing in that case would be to get the thug off the streets. We're willing to give up that important goal for one more important: due process. Is grabbing the money so much more important than protecting society from the thug, so that we must circumvent due process in order to achieve it?

Taking property is punishment. It's punishment for the person, not the property, and this fiction that property can be guilty and that property is being punished is what I just can't swallow. By taking that money, you're talking about punishing a crime without a conviction. That's wrong.

[publiusF27]

No. I simply interpreted the U.S. Constitution differently.

Uh huh. And the difference would be...?

Maybe that you thought your interpretation was better or more correct than the one reached by the courts? In other words, that you were right, and they were wrong?

[publiusF27]

By the way, I don't mind working with far-fetched examples that are one sided and completely made up by you. Just so ya know. ;)