America's Governments Resort to Theft to Finance Their Corruption!
In rem confiscations of property originated on the high seas with admiralty law usually for the confiscation of ships. In rem is a proceeding against property and not
against a person.
In the 1980s and today, racketeering laws were modified to combat organized crime. Since detectives of cities and states couldn't gather enough evidence to arrest or convict suspected organized crime
defendants, and since tax revenues couldn't support organized crime task forces, then local, state, and federal governments use in rem to take suspected ill-gotten profits from suspected
criminal activities.
Today this tactic formerly used against organized crime is now used against anyone with what officials think is too much money for a given person to have. If you have no proof that the funds or other
property belongs to you, i.e., the burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence (not the state), then govenment can steal your property. You could be a little ol' lady with a life-savings of $20,000, and if
government suspects that you shouldn't have that money. They'll take—steal—it !
If no "strict liability" is ascertained, i.e., evidence that a person perpetrated a crime, then all a law officer (thief) requires to steal your property is the officer's judgement that one's behavior is "reckless", since
they haven't bothered to gather evidence against the unfortunate person (do work, think, prove liability) who is caught with a lot of cash. The officer might think that such a person shouldn't have that much cash.
The cash should be in a bank (not to mention that banks have "red flag" reporting requirements). Since no person is charged, then uncontroverted, without a doubt evidence is no longer needed. Merely a
"preponderence of the evidence" is required to steal someone's property. The same goes for property that doesn't fit your "station in life", e.g., (to exaggerate) a homeless vagrant shouldn't be driving a Maserati,
he must be a criminal (incorrectly thinks the cop), he committed crimes and received the Maserati as a method of payment. Then the cop impounds the vehicle. Today, Cops don't think much more than this example
to steal your property.
In fact, today this is just legalized theft perpetrated by a criminal enterprise—local, state, and federal governments working together as one big organized crime family.
Anyone who believes this country is free is an idiot!
Amid headline-grabbing exchanges on Russia and sanctuary cities, Attorney General Jeff Sessions faced tough questions on civil asset forfeiture at Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee
oversight hearing.
Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., both voiced their concerns over abusive forfeiture practices and Sessions’ July order
reinvigorating the highly controversial adoptive forfeiture program, which undercuts state forfeiture efforts by encouraging police and sheriffs to circumvent restrictive state forfeiture laws.
Lee opened his line of questioning by pointing to one of the nation’s pre-eminent constitutional experts, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Earlier this year, Thomas
dissented from the high court’s refusal to hear a constitutional
challenge to civil forfeiture, noting that he was “skeptical” that the modern, almost boundless reach of asset forfeiture could be justified by the limited historical practice known to the Founders.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone.
Find out more >>
In the view of Lee and others, Thomas’ statement cast serious doubt on the constitutionality of civil forfeiture as it is practiced today, and not without good reason.
For most of the nation’s history, it was an ancillary tool in the criminal justice system used mainly in customs and admiralty law.
That changed in the 1980s, when Congress ramped up the practice to target drug kingpins, criminal organizations, and money launderers by seizing their assets and ill-gotten gains.
Law enforcement agencies were empowered to keep and spend the proceeds of successful forfeitures, creating a powerful financial incentive to seize property.
At the same time, because forfeiture is considered a civil matter, Americans caught up in these proceedings have far fewer legal protections than they would if they were actually accused of
a crime—something many Americans are surprised to learn is not required to seize a home, car, or life’s savings.
As Lee noted in the hearing:
[I]n our criminal justice system … we have robust protections for the accused. You’re entitled to a jury trial, to court-appointed counsel, you have a lot of due process protections, as someone
accused in this country. If the courts can circumvent those rights, at least with respect to the property of an accused—or to the property of somebody who may not himself or herself even be accused
of a crime … that presents significant concerns.
To his credit, Sessions noted emphatically that he takes these concerns seriously, and wants to do forfeitures “right.”
Earlier this week, Sessions
established a new position within the deputy attorney general’s office, the director of asset forfeiture accountability. This new director will be tasked with overseeing all federal forfeitures, with the goal
of advancing the “integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness of the program.”
This is welcome news, particularly after the
release earlier this year of a damning report—just one of several—by the Justice Department’s
Office of Inspector General, which noted that poor data collection and analysis made it impossible to say conclusively whether property seizures “benefit law enforcement efforts, such as advancing criminal
investigations,” or “the extent to which seizures may present risks to civil liberties.”
Indeed, this same report went on to analyze 100 cash seizures by the Drug Enforcement Administration, noting that only 44 could be tied to an arrest, prosecution, or the initiation or furtherance
of a criminal investigation.
This is a far cry from the picture painted by Justice Department officials—including the attorney general at Wednesday’s hearing—of civil forfeiture as an indispensable tool in the criminal justice
system.
Unfortunately, the attorney general appears to have little appetite for broader forfeiture reform. He fervently defended the status quo, in which property can be forfeited based only on a
preponderance of the evidence.
Although Sessions is correct that this is “the normal civil standard in a civil lawsuit,” given that the Supreme Court as far back as
1886 in Boyd v. United States recognized that forfeitures are
quasi-criminal, and that what is often at stake is someone’s home or life’s savings, the “normal civil standard” is too low.
This is especially the case as property owners bear the burden, often without the benefit of counsel, of essentially proving that they are innocent of any alleged crime.
Sessions also defended his July order to reinstate adoptive forfeitures, the most controversial element of the federal equitable sharing program.
Adoptions allow property to be seized by state or local officials, and then be handed off to federal officials for forfeiture under lax federal law in exchange for up to 80 percent of the proceeds.
The program has been heavily criticized for financially incentivizing state and local law enforcement agencies to ignore and circumvent state laws that restrict how forfeiture funds may be used, or
even eliminate forfeiture altogether.
In fact, in the last three years alone, 24 states have passed laws seriously curtailing or ending the practice. Sessions’ order undermines these hard-won victories for the rights of innocent property
owners.
Fortunately, Congress has taken notice, and is beginning to take action.
Last month, the House of Representatives
approved no fewer than three amendments to the Make America Secure
and Prosperous Appropriations Act that cut off all funding to implement Sessions’ adoptive forfeiture order.
Bipartisan legislation has been introduced, including the
FAIR Act (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2017) and
DUE PROCESS Act of 2017, that seek to curb federal forfeiture, rebalance a skewed
system, and refocus civil forfeiture to its original, narrow, and laudable goals of relieving the worst-of-the-worst offenders of their illicit profits.
Flake noted late in Wednesday’s hearing that it is clear that forfeiture has been abused at every level of law enforcement, and called minor procedural tweaks to Justice Department forfeiture
protocols “cold comfort” to innocent people who often spend years fighting to get their cash and property returned.
Congress should keep this in mind as it once again moves toward addressing the urgent issue of criminal justice reform. Americans are demanding reforms to our criminal sentencing laws, our
methods for reintegrating prisoners into society, and protections against unjust prosecutions in the form of a default mens rea standard.
But they are also demanding protection from unjustifiable property seizures.
Americans expect their criminal justice system to be focused on arresting and convicting criminals, not simply seizing cash and property that then enrich agency coffers. Perpetuating such a system
risks painting the law enforcement community as driven more by avarice than justice.
Forfeiture has a role to play in the criminal justice system, but only when properly balanced by protections for the innocent. As it stands today, too many innocent people are victimized by a callous
system that is stacked against them in every meaningful way.
[Editor's Note: So, what is the purpose of government? WHY do people need government? It is true that Defense of the USA
against enemies, foreign and domestic is necessary, but there is no other service besides Defense provided by federal government today that could not be provided by private enterprise for a fee and
probably much more efficiently with much less waste and fraud. How much factual evidence is required to convince a significant majority of Americans that government
should be cut by at least 50%? No one can deny that the "Legislative-Executive-Judicial Cabal's" organizational failures
detrimentally effect citizens. In fact, wasteful, fraudulent government agencies exist
merely to expand government employee union ranks and their power both financially and politically. Not one government department or agency provides a NECESSARY service except Defense. The
Executive branch with its "independent" agencies is so huge, complex, and
organizationally "top heavy" that accountability does not exist. Each generation of Americans loses more "true" information about how government infringes their rights. Each generation loses more and
more freedom.]
A recent survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that a majority of Americans are unaware of what is considered basic knowledge of the Constitution.
This information, which was released Wednesday, comes on the cusp of the 228th anniversary of Constitution Day (Sept. 17).
Here are some of the most surprising findings from the survey:
1 in 3 Americans believe the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to home ownership.
1 in 4 Americans believe the Bill of Rights guarantees “equal pay for equal work.”
1 in 3 Americans (31 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government and 32 percent could not identify a single branch.
1 in 4 Americans (28 percent) believe a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling is sent back to either Congress for reconsideration or to the lower courts for another decision.
1 in 10 Americans (12 percent) believe the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to own a pet.
25 percent of respondents agreed that “it might be better to do away with the court altogether” if it started making a lot of rulings most Americans disagreed with.
26 percent said when Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decisions, it should pass legislation saying the court can no longer rule on that issue.
26 percent favored requiring a person to testify against himself in court.
46 percent opposed a prohibition on “double jeopardy,” or retrying a person for the same crime twice if new evidence emerged after a not-guilty verdict.
54 percent believe the government should not be able to prohibit a peaceful march down a main street, even if the marchers’ views are offensive.
50 percent believe the government should not be able to prohibit practice of a religion if a majority of voters thought that it held un-American views.
76 percent opposed giving the government “prior restraint,” the right to stop the press from publishing articles critical of the government.
The survey was conducted during the last few days of August among 1,012 adults ages 18 and up. Its margin of error is plus or minus 3.7 percent.
See the following links for more related articles:
[Editor's Note: what I have dubbed the "Legislative-Executive-Judicial Cabal" which the American People have caused by ignoring the generational transition from our Constitutional Republic to what now is, in effect, an "elected" dictatorship. Never mind who is elected. Never mind which bogus party is in power. The superficial, theatrically staged, choreographed appearance of debate, disagreement, and stalled legislation always resolves into more government and less FREEDOM. We the People still lose more freedom after every "emergency" or unnoticeably when CON-gress passes another general, open-ended law(?) that enables the Executive (dictator) and its unaccountable agencies to formulate more freedom-restricting regulations (200 pages a day get posted to the Federal Register). The "Dictator's" agencies (police force) continue to pile-up more weapons to squelch uprising(s) when the People finally realize and understand their tyrannical government.
Currently, CONgress is just a group of socialists, progressives, and faux-conservatives (career politicians) that, on a daily basis, ignores the Constitution, many of their own past statutes, and cedes their responsibilities to the president ("elected" dictator). A comparison to the history of Rome becomes more and more credible with the Executive and its "featherbedded" lackeys gaining more power while CONgress sits back all fat-dumb-and-happy.
CONgress has made recent efforts to expose State Dept. failures in Benghazi (inept political leader), Fast-and-Furious gun-running (criminal AG), IRS 1st amendment violations, gov't union Veterans Administration fraud, and whining about Obama(Reid)-killer-Care, but these efforts are mostly politics as usual. Most "citizens" will forget about these infringements from our unaccountable, uncontrollable Executive branch with its tyrannical agencies staffed by socialist unions that extort "juicy" contracts from the "elected" dictatorship.
Most positions in the federal government whether elected, appointed, or hired are nominal, make-work jobs (confidentially) designed merely to grow government, bilk money from private businesses and citizens, and eventually fully transform America into a totalitarian state. When this happens, CONgress will have destroyed the economy and the country by their negligence and counter-liberty policies, and it will be almost impossible to Restore America. The 'Restore America' list is only a beginning too.]
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison, Federalist Paper 47, Friday, February 1, 1788
Anyone who believes this country is free is an idiot!
"Extortion and thuggery are good things when they're called law!"
Larken Rose
[Editor's Note: a Constitutional Convention is required to reverse the damage to freedom and liberty since 1900.
The States must "demand" a Convention and explicitly specify an agenda of:
laws to be repealed or modified,
Amendments to existing constitutional clauses that define the co-equal branches to further specify and define, and
new Amendments or statutes to be eventually ratified by States.
These Amendments should further specify and clarify the powers of the Legislature and Executive Branches. A good example is the definition of a "Bill".
A Bill should contain ONLY verbiage in regards to the topic of the future law. NO earmarks and NO unrelated sections or attacments.
Many past Bills sent to a president for signature contained unrelated but essential funding sections that rendered the Bill veto-proof when it warranted a veto.
CON-gress can override a veto if the Bill is deemed absolutely necessary by CON-gress.
If the Bill requires SPECIFICALLY related amendments, the CON-gress can "debate" (with its usual theater) and vote any new amendments.
The original text of the Constitution contains some very GENERAL clauses enabling both CON-gress and Executive branches to write laws and
regulations with their particular nuances expanding powers beyond intent. "Intent" may be gleaned from a complete understanding of
Federalist Papers.
An example of further specification and clarity for CON-gress should be a clear, very specific definition of the boundaries for the interstate Commerce Clause.
To restore freedom, liberty, and individuality - minimally these must be repealed:
Currently, even with computer-searching systems, the list of antiquated and/or obsolete statutes (and related regulations) is unwieldy.
These statutes must be invalidated unless there remains an applicable reason for retaining the law(s).
Aside from invalidating statutes, there are many regulations that are biased in favor of large enterprises (who buy support from bureaucrats)
at the expense of the competition, effectively repressing the Free Market. Any regulations not related to public safety that gives a financial advantage
to some companies over their smaller rivals must be rescinded to enable all companies with good consumer products to excel without burdensome regulations.
Additionally, the Convention should adopt for ratification at least these new Amendments or statute modifications:
clearly define and limit the role of government in regards to the term "general welfare",
Term Limits for CON-gress (12 years) including a 6 month limit on time residing in DC,
strict Prohibition of Lobbying (with a comprehensive definition of "lobbying"), and
a Balanced Budget Amendment to stop wreckless spending. During a CON-gressionally declared "war" (only after USA is attacked or attack is proven "imminent"),
deficit spending is permissible.
Restore America to its roots, i.e. Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice. Some Agencies are required like CIA and NSA, both respectively focused on defense against real foreign aggressors and not fictitious paranoid delusions of war mongers. Other agencies help where certain interstate communications are necessary. Most agencies like Agriculture, Education, DEA, IRS (eliminated with 16th Amendment) and many other listed here should be eliminated.
Restore the world Gold Standard with five contentious steps, and
Replace the IMF, World Bank, and Export-Import Bank with facilities that reflect the new Gold Standard, and
After decentralizing and economizing, if tax revenue is needed to fund all or part of the federal government, then implement the Fair Tax.
Regarding a Constitutional Convention itself, some of the available literature warns the reader about a possible "unstructured" and "mismanaged"
Convention that might propose and adopt amendments that could damage the Republic.
Possible, however, it is difficult to envisage how much more damage could done over what the L-E-J Cabal has already done.
If the Convention's agenda and rules of order strictly prohibit violation of the rules and enable a vote on unlisted Amendments AFTER all others are adopted,
then the Convention will be properly structured and managed. ]
See the following links for more related articles:
Those who seek out positions of power tend to be paranoid, hypocritical wimps. Consider the issue of firearms. Politicians have many thousands of mercenaries (soldiers and "law enforcers") wielding all sort of deadly weapons--guns, tanks, missiles, drones, etc. Yet those same politicians pee themselves at the thought of the rabble owning semi-automatic rifles. From their twisted, elitist perspective, it's perfectly fine for them to swipe many billions of dollars from their subjects to spend on all manner of armaments, but if YOU want to possess a rifle, they think you should have to ask their permission, and register it, and make sure they always know what you own.
They also expect to be allowed to do things in secret, while claiming the right to spy on you and everyone else. As far as they are concerned, it's none of your business what they do, or what weapons they have, but it is their business to know everything that you do and everything that you have. Of course, they will pretend that their goal is to protect you from the "criminal element," but you'd have to be pretty dense to actually believe that. Why do you suppose they mostly whine about civilians having weapons that:
are used in only a tiny percentage of actual crime, and;
are the most effective types of weapon for resisting "government"
aggression?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. People who gravitate towards political office think they have the right to rule you. That's the job they applied for. And, of course, extorting you and bossing you around could be rather more difficult if you are better armed than their enforcers. So they hand out machine guns to their mindless thugs, but have tantrums about you having a 30-round magazine.
A new Congress has been seated, and it brings the prospect of perhaps, maybe, potentially, in a possible way doing something about the runaway federal deficits. And in other news, several New York area bridges are for sale, which you can acquire at a bargain price.
Excessive Spending Destroys!
Feds Have a Spending Problem — DO NOT RAISE THE CEILING!
Feds Have a Sewage Problem!
Becky Gerritson: "...government is out of control!" and "...our representative government has failed us."
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the IRS to detail under oath how some of former agency official Lois Lerner’s emails went missing, as well as any potential methods for recovering them.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington gave the Internal Revenue Service exactly a month — until Aug. 10 — to file a report, which he demanded as part of a lawsuit from a conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch, against the agency.
Judicial Watch is seeking a wide range of documents from the IRS, including Lerner’s emails, as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. It has complained that the IRS didn’t tell it that the agency couldn’t recover all of Lerner’s emails from 2009 to 2011.
Sullivan cast his ruling as a compromise, and a potential way for Judicial Watch to get answers without the court wading any deeper into the matter. Judicial Watch had asked the court to potentially compel IRS officials to testify about the lost emails, through a process called limited discovery.
The FairTax is a consumption tax unilaterally applied to all Americans at the same rate. For businesses, payroll taxes would no longer exist. Our exports would include a heavy tax for overseas buyers purchasing our products, while our imports would be cheaper for us to purchase. I'm not sure how this would affect GDP, as more information is necessary.
According to the FairTax website, "Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate." The prebate gives every legal resident household an "advance refund" at the beginning of each month so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free.
So a family of four making something like $50,000/year should not have to pay taxes, thus preventing an unfair burden on low-income families. Since the FairTax eliminates both federal and payroll taxes, you get to keep your gross pay amount of each paycheck earned.
John Adams said, “Without [term limits] every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey”. That being said, here are some of the reasons we believe our country needs Term Limits.
Term Limits can help break the cycle of corruption in Congress. Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests.
Term Limits will encourage regular citizens to run for office. Presently, there is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.
Term Limits will break the power special interest groups have in Congress.
Term Limits will force politicians to think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted.
Term Limits will bring diversity of people and fresh ideas to Congress.
[Editor's Note: If you want to get rich, i.e. advance from a low paying government bureaucrat job on the local or state level, THEN GET ELECTED TO THE US CONGRESS (House or Senate). Once you're elected, it's easy to steal from your campaign contributions or the Congressional budget allocated to your seat and staff. You can go on a government-funded junket with 'lavishly' paid expenses. The list of ways to steal from the government while in office is inexhaustible. There are only a few Congressmen who left Congress just wealthy instead of a multi-millionaire. Of course, there are several who arrived in Congress as multi-millionaires and don't need to steal from the government.]
