Comments on: Military Asset Forfeiture

By: The Slow Motion Coup « Scott Rhymer

The Slow Motion Coup « Scott Rhymer — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:41:57 +0000

[...] the shortfall from their reckless spending, have been embracing the evil of asset forfeiture, and now the DoD’s Criminal investigations Service is looking to get into the business of stealing …. Consider the implications for a military force policing your streets armed with the power to [...]

By: » US Military can steal your stuff Neo Abolition

» US Military can steal your stuff Neo Abolition — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:48:04 +0000

[...] force, freedom, government, military, money, police, robbery, slavery, stealing 0 Tweet Military Asset Forfeiture by Eapen Thampy, Americans for Forfeiture [...]

By: Bergman

Bergman — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:12:27 +0000

Legally speaking, text is speech, right?

A civil asset forfeiture is a court action against an object, not a person, right?

Interesting fact: ANY elected member of the executive branch can call up militia within their area of authority. If your city dog catcher is an elected position, then he can deputize people to catch dogs.

So stick a label containing a service oath on a piece of property and have an elected official administer that oath to it, reading the label as a reply.

Voila! The object is now a member of the military and cannot be the subject of a summary judgment under the SCRA!

By: Yizmo Gizmo

Yizmo Gizmo — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:26:22 +0000

So let me get this right–now the cops AND the military
can come take my shit?

By: SJE

SJE — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 04:58:17 +0000

The rationale behind making the property the defendent is that the owner is not always clear. e.g. you come upon an abandoned car with 100kg of cocaine and a million dollars. When the owner IS clear, this is a bogus scheme to deny defendents their constitutional rights. It is made worse with the defendent/claimant is in the military: the government is your employer AND the claimant on the property AND can send you overseas etc making it very difficult to assert your claim.

By: John David Galt

John David Galt — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:25:02 +0000

The legal notion that the property is the defendant *is* ridiculous, obviously nothing but an end run against the Bill of Rights, and should have been scuttled along with its authors’ careers the first time it ever came up in court. Even today I don’t see why some judge doesn’t simply take judicial notice that inanimate objects are incapable of mens rea, boom, case dismissed!

But as long as that notion does stand, I doubt that SCRA will help anyone. The property owner is lucky to be considered to have standing, since he isn’t even a party to the case.

I like the aircraft carrier comment, though. Maybe Willie Nelson can bring a case to have the White House forfeited since he got Jimmy Carter high on its roof.

By: Felix

Felix — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:32:45 +0000

Waaaay back in the 70s, when I was a member of Uncle Sam’s canoe club, the joke was that the Coast Guard, whose mission was always being expanded while its budget was being cut, should raid an aircraft carrier, find a marijuana seed, and confiscate the carrier. They could secure budgets for years to come.

By: Leon Wolfeson

Leon Wolfeson — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:30:32 +0000

@2 – If a company is a person, why can an asset not be a defendant? You’ve already held a legal fiction to have substantially equivalent rights…

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:15:43 +0000

Every time I see it, I’m amazed by the legal fiction that the asset is the defendant, rather than the person from whom it is taken. How can that possibly square with legal precedent, which has a strong presumption of agency running throughout it? Does a pile of money get a public defender? Can a car plead the 5th? (I realize these are mostly civil actions, but the point remains.)

Perhaps we should bring charges against the rock that I stubbed my toe on the other day. I seem to recall there being a trend of sentencing animals to death for various reasons in Africa and medieval Europe.

By: Phil in Parker

Phil in Parker — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:14:06 +0000

Due to the in rem nature of civil forfeiture actions, the defendant is the asset itself, and thus will never be in military service

If inanimate objects can be accused of a crime, why shouldn’t they be allowed to proudly serve their country?