Civil forfeiture shouldn't even exist. All property seizure should be PART of the criminal trial as either proceeds of the crime or restitution or fines for the crime.

Under absolutely no circumstance should the government be able to go into a civil court and take your money outside a debt owed. These forfeitures are supposed to be criminal forfeiture and they should be handled in the criminal side where the defendant has rights and assumption of innocence. I'm horrified you would suggest that the government should be able to prevail in anything on the standard of most believable instead of without a reasonable doubt.

And the horse you road in on!

God damn horse fuckers.

You forgot the best point.

To seize the money they don't sue you, they sue the cash. And because you aren't being sued you don't have standing to oppose even though your cash isn't very good about standing up for your rights. Yes the courts allowed the government to sue property and deny the owner the right to appear. So when they go to court to take your cash you aren't even allowed to speak or even be part of the process. It's done entirely behind closed doors and you have to ask permission to even oppose it.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

BTW the local sheriff isn't involved in a border stop, it's already a federal case so this example doesn't even apply.

The way the article reads they can only seize the computer equipment involved in the child porn, not the car you were driving. Not saying that's how it will work out in function but the way the holder statement reads he's only allowing it to seize the equipment involved, not every single thing the person owns or had on them or saw at some point (like how the current system is used).

If he is subsequently found guilty, THEN taking his stuff can be a part of the punishment.

Here here! There shouldn't be ANY forfeiture to government without a finding of guilt (or debt owed). I consider this a blatant end run around the US property rights and I'm terrified the supreme court not only allowed it but has continually allowed it to expand ever outward.

Oh and when did they conclude it was unworkable? When Obama proposed it? You couldn't show a verifiable source that shows dis-ownership of this plan before Obama and the "democrats" proposed it in 2007/2008 if your life depended on it.

The ACA is nearly word for word the Heritage plan. The VERY same plan the Republicans under Gingrich counter proposed to Clinton when Hillary was pushing her healthcare overhaul to congress. And it's the very same plan the GOP and Heritage both endorsed and supported as a "market based reform of the healthcare system" when Romney created Romneycare and right up until Obama was elected when it was suddenly unworkable.

And every time someone like you tries to deny the history there is going to be someone there pointing out that this IS the republican healthcare plan (and also the reason they never proposed a counter to Obamacare). Had Romney proposed it instead of Obama it would be being touted from the hills as the work of the Heritage foundation and a "market based reform" that places "responsibility to pay for healthcare on the people using the system" and endorses "individual responsibility" and all the other buzzword phrases the Heritage foundation used when they created and supported it.

You can still hate Obamacare, even if it was born by Conservatives on the libertarian GOP side funded by the Koch brothers. That doesn't mean you have to like it, unless you are one of those mindless freaks that thinks that just because someone on "your side" created it that you have to like it or you were one of the people that drafted it. But there is no memory hole, you don't get to rewrite history.

Do you expect Obama to pass a law? Congress needs to end it, based on this action it's apparent Obama would sign the bill but without congress this is as far as Holder can go. You know checks and balances and all that.

Thank god for John Oliver bringing this to the attention of millions that didn't know about it. He should get an award for it, and I mean that seriously.

Civil forfeiture allowed small time cops to basically rob people at gun point with no trial and no criminal activity involved. It LONG ago turned into a funding source rather than an avenue to shut down crime. Notice that better than half the post article discusses how this will cut funding to police departments and how it's going to hurt policing even though studies have shown the vast majority of civil forfeiture never involves a criminal trial.

Unfortunately for us the part of the Republican party that supports civil liberties is for the most part dead outside support for the 2nd. Civil forfeiture is a GOP creation, and it's received it's strongest and most vocal support from that same party since it's creation. There are a few of the tea party stripe that care about civil liberties outside the 2nd, but their number is quite small and they are all tea party (and hated by the non tea-party gop).

The saddest part about this was that prior to Regan, the GOP was the primary party that defended civil rights. The democrats are far too likely to pass hate speech laws and to otherwise curtail rights. When the GOP shifted to the law and order party during the Nixon and Regan years they tacitly decided to abandon civil rights (except for the 2nd, and that's only because the 2nd is well defended by a well financed grass roots group).

I totally agree. Lets completely eliminate checks and balances in the system. That way we can have a gerrymandered congress decide everything for us and absolutely no way to check that power to ensure it's not abused.

Or we could trust that checks and balances in this country is one of our strongest features of government. You know like the founders believed. But you probably think they are a bunch of fucking morons.

According to the charging documents he most certainly did. They document a case where he hired a hitman to wipe out a former developer but the job went to the FBI who faked the death and provided "proof". Said person is one of the witnesses against him that he is DPR. You might argue that it's a made up story but the story exists.

There are over 100 Linux distributions. I can guarantee with absolute certainty that not everyone one of them has switched to systemd. You don't like the new car Ford released so you switch to a boat, makes perfect sense.

Would you like a burp and a nap too?

Regardless about the specifics of the case, it's illegal to actively block someones wifi, for whatever reason. At least in the US the only people that can do that are the military and FCC. The FCC could authorize someone to do it, but by all appearances they will not ever allow that. The FCC is chartered to protect the airwaves and people actively jamming other people (even if it's targeted jamming) are damaging the airwaves.

I point you to the ordinary guy driving around with a cell phone jammer that got hit with a 5 digit fine.