US Government Asset Seizures on the Rise

[styky]

US Government Asset Seizures on the Rise

by Simon Black

Recently by Simon Black: Why Modern Democracy Is for Idiots

The Wall Street Journal published a disturbing article earlier this week entitled "Federal Asset Seizures Rise, Netting Innocent With Guilty."

You can already imagine the crux of the article.

In the United States, there are hundreds of regulations which authorize dozens federal agencies to confiscate private property – homes, cars, bank accounts, gold, company shares, and even personal effects.

Ironically, most Americans still think that they live in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it's just another clear example of how the US Constitution has become a worthless piece of toilet paper for the federal government.

The Fifth Amendment states that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Tell that James Lieto, a New York businessman who was relieved of $392,000 when the armored car company used by his check-cashing firm was taken down by the FBI.

Lieto was innocent and not implicated in any wrongdoing, but the FBI took his money regardless as it just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Last October, another businessman named Raul Stio was suspected of wrongdoing by the Treasury Department. The government seized over $150,000 from his account, yet in the 10-months that followed, Stio has still not been charged with a crime.

According to Justice Department statistics, the total value of confiscated property exceeded $2.5 billion in 2010, more than double from five years ago. The average take per case? $166,000... and the vast majority of cases were non-criminal.

It's truly staggering to think about how much can be taken away from you in the blink of an eye, all without any judicial oversight or right to a hearing.

The reason could be anything. Maybe you violated some arcane, meaningless regulation among the hundreds of thousands of pages of US Code (ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse!). Maybe you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or maybe they had no real reason at all other than mere suspicion.

One minute you have money, the next you're completely locked out of your wealth and livelihood. They force YOU to prove to them that you aren't guilty, but they take away any means you had to defend yourself.

rest of the article......

[T.G.]

No comments? I would think something as spooky as this would generate some reaction. Seizure without due process is a very troubling development. Even at the level of seizing a vehicle for allegedly driving 50 km/h or more over the limit. Governments must not be allowed to circumvent normal rules of law for expediency or other purposes (i.e., further lining their coffers).

[Godwin]

Well the same isssue in Alberta generated barely a ripple. So why be concerned about the US?

[smallLliberal]

No comments? I would think something as spooky as this would generate some reaction. Seizure without due process is a very troubling development. Even at the level of seizing a vehicle for allegedly driving 50 km/h or more over the limit. Governments must not be allowed to circumvent normal rules of law for expediency or other purposes (i.e., further lining their coffers).

You realize that deaths on Ontario highways plunged after that law came into effect.

I support that law. It has been a very long time since some young jackass (likely a trust fund kid with his parents sports car) blew by me on the inside lane of the QEW at a 100 mph, scaring the hell out of me.

Dont want your car impounded, dont drive on our public roads like a maniac.

[free_life2]

Someone like this Armored Car company with big bucks needs to challenge this with a law suit against the government.

[LAR]

No comments? I would think something as spooky as this would generate some reaction. Seizure without due process is a very troubling development. Even at the level of seizing a vehicle for allegedly driving 50 km/h or more over the limit. Governments must not be allowed to circumvent normal rules of law for expediency or other purposes (i.e., further lining their coffers).

You realize that deaths on Ontario highways plunged after that law came into effect.

I support that law. It has been a very long time since some young jackass (likely a trust fund kid with his parents sports car) blew by me on the inside lane of the QEW at a 100 mph, scaring the hell out of me.

Dont want your car impounded, dont drive on our public roads like a maniac.

Be warned! Startling Rebel-L will result in assets seized without compensation.

[Faramir]

It IS damn scary and is happening in Canada as well. The trend in the US is to seize assets and NOT return them even though a person is never charged with a crime. It happens here in BC as some lawyers very well know.

[styky]

I watch the local auction house website to see what they have in seized goods on a weekly basis. The government agencies sell through them or through http://crownassets.pwgsc.gc.ca/mn-eng.cfm#topOfCADC The stuff at crown assets is usually items seized at the border.

[free_life2]

We need a reverse Rico Act that protects us from government. Talk about organized crime... the government needs to be seized!

[Red Green]

No comments? I would think something as spooky as this would generate some reaction. Seizure without due process is a very troubling development. Even at the level of seizing a vehicle for allegedly driving 50 km/h or more over the limit. Governments must not be allowed to circumvent normal rules of law for expediency or other purposes (i.e., further lining their coffers).

You realize that deaths on Ontario highways plunged after that law came into effect.

I did not realize that. How many deaths occurred on Ontario highways for the 5 years prior to the law and how many per year since? Also, how many of those deaths were ruled to be from speeds in excess of 50kph above the speed limit?

[Red Green]

Still waiting.....

[smallLliberal]

No comments? I would think something as spooky as this would generate some reaction. Seizure without due process is a very troubling development. Even at the level of seizing a vehicle for allegedly driving 50 km/h or more over the limit. Governments must not be allowed to circumvent normal rules of law for expediency or other purposes (i.e., further lining their coffers).

You realize that deaths on Ontario highways plunged after that law came into effect.

I support that law. It has been a very long time since some young jackass (likely a trust fund kid with his parents sports car) blew by me on the inside lane of the QEW at a 100 mph, scaring the hell out of me.

Dont want your car impounded, dont drive on our public roads like a maniac.

Be warned! Startling Rebel-L will result in assets seized without compensation.

They get the car back after a couple of days. The government does not keep the cars.

Dont speed like a maniac on Ontario and it will not effect you.

[smallLliberal]

No comments? I would think something as spooky as this would generate some reaction. Seizure without due process is a very troubling development. Even at the level of seizing a vehicle for allegedly driving 50 km/h or more over the limit. Governments must not be allowed to circumvent normal rules of law for expediency or other purposes (i.e., further lining their coffers).

You realize that deaths on Ontario highways plunged after that law came into effect.

I did not realize that. How many deaths occurred on Ontario highways for the 5 years prior to the law and how many per year since? Also, how many of those deaths were ruled to be from speeds in excess of 50kph above the speed limit?

I dont know. I do remember reading the story after the Ministry of Transportation released the news. It had the numbers in it.

Anecdotally, if have noticed a big difference on the highways. Way more civilized out there now that people have realized there is a consequence for driving like a thoughtless jerk in your Daddy's sports car. Apparently, these idiots fear what their parents will say when the car gets impounded. Hard to hide that from your parents I guess.

[styky]

No comments? I would think something as spooky as this would generate some reaction. Seizure without due process is a very troubling development. Even at the level of seizing a vehicle for allegedly driving 50 km/h or more over the limit. Governments must not be allowed to circumvent normal rules of law for expediency or other purposes (i.e., further lining their coffers).

You realize that deaths on Ontario highways plunged after that law came into effect.

I support that law. It has been a very long time since some young jackass (likely a trust fund kid with his parents sports car) blew by me on the inside lane of the QEW at a 100 mph, scaring the hell out of me.

Dont want your car impounded, dont drive on our public roads like a maniac.

Be warned! Startling Rebel-L will result in assets seized without compensation.

They get the car back after a couple of days. The government does not keep the cars.

Dont speed like a maniac on Ontario and it will not effect you.

Oh really http://crownassets.pwgsc.gc.ca/mn-eng.c ... f=1&test=1

[Red Green]

You realize that deaths on Ontario highways plunged after that law came into effect.

I did not realize that. How many deaths occurred on Ontario highways for the 5 years prior to the law and how many per year since? Also, how many of those deaths were ruled to be from speeds in excess of 50kph above the speed limit?

I dont know. I do remember reading the story after the Ministry of Transportation released the news. It had the numbers in it.

So the people who implemented the seizure law and benefited from it came out saying what a smashing success it was? I am shocked! That is indeed amazing news.

Let's put it this way, unless you did some independent research, what you have is a recollection that a govt agency that makes its living off of convincing taxpayers they need to part with more of their money to be safe claiming that the ability to seize private property had indeed allowed them to make the roads safer, without any real solid evidence that it did.

When Phillip Morris claimed that cigarette smoking did not cause cancer, did that settle that argument for you as well?