How many million deaths will satisfy your bloodlust?

Try this link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090816-cocaine-money.html

It has been confirmed, and why certain PDs have asked that bail money be only in cash.

You’re chanting the views of your masters over and over, of course.
And you’re the one who knows all about your ad-homs, I haven’t used one.

Damn, this is FUN, Leon! Thanks loads for opening the door to ad hominem comments! SO much easier than making a rational argument, right?

@26 – It’s perfectly conservative, and you’re simply a far right fanatic who likes to claim a mantel of libertarianism for your support of the corperatist-capitalist complex.

As usual, you’re labeling anyone not just like you as stateist so you can ignore them.

@1 Currency is generally used as a straw to snort cocaine.

Another reason to use Bitcoin! No boogers or coke on your money.

@#24
I’d characterize SCOTUS as “statist” rather than “conservative”. Every ruling favors expanding state powers. OH, that’s right…you can “fix” it with amendments from Congress. The system works!

I thought of that too but with my luck the kind of person that would be on that jury would be the kind of douchebag that never uses cash and is suspicious of those that do.

However you label it, the court has been remarkably weak on civil rights, property rights, and deference to government. You could see the health care decision as the same deference to government. Both left and right have nasty strains of statism, which is why I am libertarian.

Back to my point: I really don’t give a F*** about how we label the court. The principal is whether we can advance liberty and end these abuses. I think that this case, in this court, would make our lives worse.

Lastly, your ludicrous notion that conservatism means deference to government and law enforcement. Sorry, pard, that ain’t conservatism: it’s corporatism/statism, and it’s more ‘left’ than ‘right’. Despite what they teach in skuel. I doona think that word means what you think it means.

The problem is that most police dogs tend to alert only when then their handlers signal them to do so. So, you could be royally screwed with that approach.

The problem is that if it goes up to SCOTUS, they might well affirm the current law. Do you really want the SCOTUS to say that there is no due process violation when the police conduct in rem seizures based on such tenuous evidence?

Once that happens, it is almost impossible to reverse, at least in my lifetime, and the legislature is not going to touch it. This is why the NRA did not bring a 2d amendment challenge for decades, and only signed on to Heller at the last moment: if they lost, they would be screwed. The current court is more conservative than it has been in decades, and already shows it is is highly deferential to government and law enforcement when it comes to 4, 5, 6 and 14th amendment rights. Do you want to chance your freedoms on that?

“Nor could any member of the jury, the prosecutor, the bailiffs, the defense attorney or the court clerk. Nor could any spectators.”

Were I a defense attorney in one of these cash forfeiture cases, I would call for a trained drug dog which had not yet been assigned to an officer to check 5 bills from each person on the jury, the judge, the bailiff and several spectators as part of the defense argument.

Oh, and if you want to fight it and get your ass kicked in court, you have to post a bond equal to the value of the seized property. Again, the IRS precedent: you get fucked coming & going. Have a nice day, y’all!

Because the statute says that the burden is different (and placed on a different party) as between civil forfeiture and (most) criminal law.

Durr may have had a good argument that the statute sets an unConstitional burden of proof for him in the civil. Not sure if he made that argument or not — part of the reson you want to have a lawyer for these things.

However, to the extent Durr is saying “the burden of proof in forfeiture is a fine-n-dandy burden and I met this burden with my story about the bank” — that is a loser argument. No judge will want to trash the conventional lawyer understanding of how a “preponderance burden” works just to avoid an injustice to Durr. That isn’t up for grabs and Judge Land was right to say that. We don’t want to mess up the whole of civil law just to “save” asset forfeiture law.

I don’t think they do. Not anymore anyway.