The great long anecdote doesn’t match Sessions’ defense of civil forfeiture. Will suggests Sessions is wrong about what
T civil forfeiture is; perhaps instead, he should look for common ground. I agree with Sessions’ argumentation; if that doesn’t match the Pennsylvania practices, let’s make sure Pennsylvania comes into line with our next AG’s interpretation of what is legally defensible.
The government Should be able to seize profits from criminal activity; if the Pennsylvania family was not part of the criminal activity, they shouldn’t be included.
The burden of proof Should be lower, once it established that a crime has been committed by those whose property is seized. It would be absurd to establish reasonable doubt standards for each possession. But the story doesn’t tell ANY reason to believe the house was even the property of the guilty. Or was Will hiding something from us?
Lastly, there must be a judge and a fair hearing; what Will describes is not such a case.
.
>> “Lastly, there must be a judge and a fair hearing...” <<
Yes that hearing should be guaranteed for any property with a value of more than $500, and should be advertised in advance, and held openly in Superior Court of the state in question.
.