• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Civil Forfeiture

The activist RW Supreme Court made this possible many years ago.
 
It's a good idea and a good thing, which the article basically concedes. However, like many other good ideas, it has the potential for abuse. It sounds like they've crossed the line here, although it doesn't sound like this source bothered to get both sides of the story. Bottom line, if their class action lawsuit has merit, they'll win.
 
Shorty said:
Every time you post something like this, I look back at your board name to make certain it wasn't posted by a parody poster with a similar board name. Too funny.
Click to expand...

It was an activist RW Court that allowed this to start.
 
wfumike02 said:
It's a good idea and a good thing, which the article basically concedes. However, like many other good ideas, it has the potential for abuse. It sounds like they've crossed the line here, although it doesn't sound like this source bothered to get both sides of the story. Bottom line, if their class action lawsuit has merit, they'll win.
Click to expand...

Police States are fun.

You'd have made an exemplary Nazi.
 
Last edited:
wfumike02 said:
It's a good idea and a good thing, which the article basically concedes. However, like many other good ideas, it has the potential for abuse. It sounds like they've crossed the line here, although it doesn't sound like this source bothered to get both sides of the story. Bottom line, if their class action lawsuit has merit, they'll win.
Click to expand...

The lawsuits are against inanimate objects and not the individuals? Someone with a JD help me understand what's going on here please.
 
Pearl necklaces are people too, my friend.
 
Are there degrees of pearl necklace charges similar to murder charges?
 
ONW said:
The lawsuits are against inanimate objects and not the individuals? Someone with a JD help me understand what's going on here please.
Click to expand...

I've seen it more in the context of an "In re" suit than a "State v."

To those who are against the whole concept... Say you have a labrge scale heroin trafficker who has large quantities of heroin, guns and cash in a stash house. Do you think the obvious drug proceeds should have to be returned?
 
wfumike02 said:
I've seen it more in the context of an "In re" suit than a "State v."

To those who are against the whole concept... Say you have a labrge scale heroin trafficker who has large quantities of heroin, guns and cash in a stash house. Do you think the obvious drug proceeds should have to be returned?
Click to expand...

Here's the problem- the advocates for these laws always point to the kingpins but in reality it's mainly being used to go after small timers who have no means to challenge it.
Earlier this summer, in Philadelphia, I joined Louis Rulli and Susanna Greenberg in the high-ceilinged corridor outside Courtroom 478 of City Hall, as they prepared to make their case for the Adamses’ home. Gradually, respondents filed in, almost all without lawyers: a mother fighting for her property, with two young girls playing hushed clapping games beside her; a teen-age boy trying to recover the cash taken from his car. When the assistant D.A. assigned to the Adams case arrived in court, he discovered he had the wrong set of folders; he’d confused their home with another one being forfeited on the same street. Rulli and Greenberg would have to return next month. “These cases often take years,” Rulli said, shrugging.
Click to expand...
The public records I reviewed support Rulli’s assertion that homes in Philadelphia are routinely seized for unproved minor drug crimes, often involving children or grandchildren who don’t own the home. “For real-estate forfeitures, it’s overwhelmingly African-Americans and Hispanics,” Rulli told me. “It has a very disparate race and class impact.” He went on to talk about Andy Reid, the former coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, whose two sons were convicted of drug crimes in 2007 while living at the family’s suburban mansion in Villanova. “Do you know what the headline read? It said, ‘The Home Was an “Emporium of Drugs.” ’ An emporium of drugs!” The phrase, Rulli explained, came directly from a local judge. “And here’s the question: Do you think they seized it?”
Click to expand...
At the very least it should not be given to the police- it seems like a conflict of interest. And departments have shown they're willing to spend it on bonuses, first class trips, parties, etc. If you're gonna do it limit it to something like a general fund for schools.
 
wfumike02 said:
I've seen it more in the context of an "In re" suit than a "State v."

To those who are against the whole concept... Say you have a labrge scale heroin trafficker who has large quantities of heroin, guns and cash in a stash house. Do you think the obvious drug proceeds should have to be returned?
Click to expand...

These were the case titles from the article:

"One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. (Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson’s forfeiture was slugged State of Texas v. $6,037.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top