GOP eyes seizing mansions, yachts of corrupt executives

Washington Times ^ | 7/27/02 | Dave Boyer

[kattracks]

House Republican leaders, heading home to face voters anxious over retirement security, announced yesterday they will introduce legislation to seize the mansions and yachts of corrupt corporate executives.

"We need to do more to strip corrupt corporate kingpins of their ill-gotten gains," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. "We're taking the mansion. We're draining the accounts. And we're coming after the yacht."

[steve50]

I don't think the investors will see much of the loot. I'll bet ya a buck they start making noises about using it to fund the investigative/enforcement functions of the feds.

[LadyX]

STAND BY TO REPEL BOARDERS!

Aye, aye, Captain!

Snow Bunny and I will follow The Plan - after reeling in Fred, she and I will exercise on the bow to divert their attention, so the fellas can concentrate fire upon them ~ ~ ~

Crew - prepare to hoist the bras um...'signals' from the mast!

[Kerberos]

"I don't know what to tell you."

Then don't take the time to bother.

[cynicom]

Drag off the business thieves is a fine idea. Too bad we cannot drag off most of those professional politicians from inside the beltway.

[strela]

"Introduce legislation" to strip corrupt CEOs of their ill-gotten chattels? I thought burglary and theft by deception were already illegal, and that the authorities could seize and return the fruits of said crimes to their rightful owners.

Why in the world does it take a new act of Congress (with its accompanying gasbaggery, outraged polemics, and another forest of trees chopped down to produce the new pages in the Congressional Record and the lawbooks) to simply return what one man stole to other men (who probably stole it as well)? The beat cop doesn't need new legislation to drive down to the pawnshop and seize Aunt Tilly's TV set when it shows up there after her place was burglarized.

[galt-jw]

talk about politically expedient and covering your copious ass....these guys are a joke....yeah, stand and fight for this crap? I just hope more folks are waking up to what has transmogrified into the two parties today...neither of them are for liberty and freedom as espoused by the founders.

[earplug]

How many votes and deals can the GOP buy with my mansion and yacht? Our property rights will be trashed. The federal government will use this power much the same way they take property from people accused of dealing in drugs. The bad will always find new ways to hide assets overseas. We who are unlucky enough to be accused of corruption in the future will be stripped of all our assets.
People loved Stalin when he cleaned up post war Russia of organised crime. His police state will be our model.

[dirtboy]

What you said, plus one other issue - IMO this is basically an ex post facto law, trying to add punishment after the fact. As much as I'd like to see these swindling jerks end up in a double-wide, you can't change the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed - assuming of course, that there WAS a crime committed, which everyone seems to be in a headlong rush to do here. Must be an election year.

[Snuffington]

[Amendment IV]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sounds like this is not a power Congress has. Not if we actually follow the Constitution anyway, which is anyone's guess these days.

[laredo44]

And Rep. Jose E. Serrano, New York Democrat, boasted to reporters that he will control the Appropriations subcommittee that holds the purse strings for the FBI next year when Democrats win back the House. Mr. Serrano has been critical of the FBI's surveillance of Puerto Rican nationalists from the 1950s to the 1970s.

We're in something of a financial meltdown and all this moron can think of is squaring some 40 year old grudge? He must have latent sympathy for al Queda, Hamas, and the IRA.

Where do the Democraps keep coming up with such idiotic leaders?

[dirtboy]

"If you happen to be selling drugs and you're in somebody else's car, that car gets impounded, put in a lot and protected until the issues have been resolved," Mr. Baker said. "So, we seize assets so that they don't run off to the Caribbean or off to trial lawyers, that they stay in a bank account so that they can be allocated to their rightful owner."

A rampant expanion of federal power, done in the heat of public outrage. Asset forfeiture - it's not just for drugs any more. Soon they'll be seizing your property if you get a speeding ticket.

[LS]

I don't see how it is "property rights" for a CEO of a company that he CLEARLY defrauded, and thus imposed losses of millions of dollars on others, has any right to "private property." Like any criminal, he should not be allowed in any way to benefit from his crime. It is outrageous that Ken Lay kept his mansion, and that the guy from WorldCOm (I think--it was shown on the news) kept building this multi-million mansion even as the employees and stockholders were taking it in the rear.

There is a difference between protecting legitimate property rights of law-abiding individuals and putting the mob in the slammer, and I'm all for mobsters and corporate crooks sharing the same rooms.

[LS]

Yes, abolutely right. This cannot go to some government agency, but in the case of FRAUD bankruptcy, as opposed to normal Cha. 11 or whatever, where bond holders and other creditors get first dibs, the stockholders and employees ought to get the first shot at this. I think a reasonable law could be written.

[wita]

We are certainly in agreement on this point.

[wilmington2]

Seizure of people assets before a conviction of guilt should be resisted with force. If it comes to this we are just a third world nation and the laws have no meaning only force and resistance will have meaning.

[grania]

Me: how can they be convicted with a law that is passed after-the-fact?

You: They can't, and that isn't what is being proposed, so why you are off on that tangent is beyond me

I don't think it is a tangent. If you read the arguments of those who want to "seize now, ask questions later" they seem to think new laws being passed after the fact will put these people in the streets. It can't, and it shouldn't, or anyone could find themselves guilty of a law that didn't exist when they broke it.

[Wolfie]

I posted this last week. Looks like somebody's taking this guy up on some of his suggestions.

We Can Stop CEO Fraud - Here's How

[Wolfie]

Seizure of people assets before a conviction of guilt should be resisted with force.

Read up on asset forfeiture. No conviction is necessary. Heck, no charges are necessary. The presumption of innocence is completely turned on its head. Its up to the defendant to prove he, and his property (yes, his property) are innocent of any wrong-doing.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I saw this press conference and none of the GOP leadership looked like they'd ever held a press conference before. To think DeLay will be the Majority Leader is pathetic. Rep. Pryce who will likely take J. C. Watts' place in House leadership wasn't very good either. They were just reading from pieces of paper and were stumbling over words and never looked up at the camera. What the hell is wrong with the Republican Party?

[j271]

One study shows 80% of people whose property is seized under federal law are never charged with a crime.

See here for more information.