Asset Forfeiture Laws Immoral?

[benidict]

COMMENTS AND NOTES: Civil Forfeiture: A Fiction That Offends Due Process
2000 / 2001
13 Regent U.L. Rev. 259
Author
David Benjamin Ross *
Excerpt
I. INTRODUCTION

It began as any other day for Billy Munnerlyn, successful operator of an air charter service located in Las Vegas, Nevada. 2 Albert Wright, a businessman, booked a flight to Ontario, California. When the airplane landed, DEA agents suddenly arrested Wright and Munnerlyn, seizing Wright’s luggage and the $ 2.7 million it contained. 3 The DEA also confiscated Munnerlyn’s plane, the $ 8,500 charter fee, and all of his business records. 4 Why? Unknown to Munnerlyn, Wright was a convicted cocaine dealer. 5 Although criminal charges were dropped against both parties, Munnerlyn spent $ 85,000 in legal fees to fight the government’s civil asset forfeiture action against his plane. 6 He raised the money by selling three other airplanes. 7 In the course of recovering the plane, Munnerlyn won a jury verdict in Los Angeles, only to have it reversed by a U.S. district judge. 8 Eventually, Munnerlyn was forced to settle with the government, “paying $ 7,000 for the return of his plane,” only to discover “that DEA agents had caused about $ 100,000 worth of damage to the aircraft.” 9 For Billy Munnerlyn, the American dream came crashing to a tragic end. “Unable to raise enough money to restart his air charter business, he had to declare personal bankruptcy. He is now driving a truck for a living.” 10

This note uncovers fundamental deficiencies in our civil asset forfeiture scheme that lead to deprivation of property without due process of law. Section II traces the …

litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=13+Regent+U.L.+Rev.+259&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=69a14cdaa954ac8466bc14514bac6345

FROM ByzCath-
Forfeiture of the gains from a criminal enterprise are not immoral or unconstitutional.

Please stop stating your opinions as fact.

Show where the Church Teaches that forfeiture of the gains from a criminal enterprise are immoral and a court ruling that they are unconstitutional. Br. David, O.Carm.

ME- Yes the current laws are Immoral and Unconstitutional. They deny Due Process. What are YOUR facts?

---

 

[ChadS]

It would be one thing if only criminals were having their assets seized and forfeited. The theory goes that it’s reasonable to suspect that many of their belongs were purchased using ill-gotten gains from criminal enterprises.

However, it’s the innocent person caught up in all of this that ends up suffering. Like the pilot in this story he apparently didn’t know his client was a drug dealer or that he had several million dollars in a bag, but in the end he lost his plane and then had it torn apart and had to liquidate his other planes to pay legal costs to get this one back.

I’m not sure the Church has specific teachings on this one law. On the surface though it seems to violate several principles Americans hold dear and also seems contradictory towards laws already established and on the books.

ChadS

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Happens all the time.

Hundreds of similar stories.

If the LEO’s take pride in it, then it is a sin.

If they refuse to make restitution, then the sin is increased, although the “soverign” has certain rights.

I read about one seizure in which a citizen was alleged to have illegal narcotics; turned out to be Ovaltine in a baggie; the guy was on a camping trip.

 

[benidict]

Happens all the time.

Hundreds of similar stories.

If the LEO’s take pride in it, then it is a sin.

If they refuse to make restitution, then the sin is increased, although the “soverign” has certain rights.

I read about one seizure in which a citizen was alleged to have illegal narcotics; turned out to be Ovaltine in a baggie; the guy was on a camping trip.

I agree with both post. The way the laws are currently written, there are unintended consequences. This is a huge problem. If it were only the Guilty that were punished it would be fair and just. But then only AFTER, there was a conviction. The constitution of the United States clearly forbids the taking of such until after a person has received a fair trial, and has had due process. The way they are written now, Cleary states you are guilty until proven innocent. This could happen to you or me. I am Law Enforcement when I am not deployed. and I dont like this either. All citizens Costitutional rights must be protected. I applaud both you posters for seeing this. Peace

 

[benidict]

ByzCath. I am waiting to run some scenarios by you. Lets see if you think These would be moral, constitutional or even justice. These laws could affect you too. I dont think you realize this, at this point though. Peace

 

[markomalley]

For me, I have no problem with asset forfeiture laws if the assets are forfeited at the point of conviction…as part of the sentence.

I have a major problem with asset forfeiture laws that allow the government to seize assets at the point of arrest. This same problem applies to the seizure of assets belonging to a bystander, such as you illustrated in your example.

 

[benidict]

For me, I have no problem with asset forfeiture laws if the assets are forfeited at the point of conviction…as part of the sentence.

I have a major problem with asset forfeiture laws that allow the government to seize assets at the point of arrest. This same problem applies to the seizure of assets belonging to a bystander, such as you illustrated in your example.

Thank you. I totally agree. Lets just look at a hypothetical example. To my knowledge this scenario has never happened, but it could. Lets say there is a monk who has a cocain habit. (No pun intended) He has a dealer who visits him regularly. Well turns out, the Feds have been monitoring this individual, and his visits to the monastery. So, on a particular day, they catch the monk with the coke dealer red handed. They could then, at that point, arrest the monk, arrest the dealer, and theoretically seize any and all assets. In this case property. the property held my the bretheren. after all, we dont know who else was buying from this guy. Think it cannot happen? But the question is, Would this be moral, or an act of justice? To take said property, and possesions without a fair Trial? I think all of agree so far, that it is not justice and it certainly is not moral. ByzCath? your thoughts? Im still waiting. Peace

 

[Monte_RCMS]

An arrest is not needed.

Routine traffic stop. Search the car. Find $500,000 in cash. Seize the cash. Driver or his attorney never requests return of the money.

 

[benidict]

An arrest is not needed.

Routine traffic stop. Search the car. Find $500,000 in cash. Seize the cash. Driver or his attorney never requests return of the money.

I took a class for customs certification. Are you aware that some foreigners, such as Saudi Arabian royal family members travel with Very large sums of money? Sometimes in exess of a million dollars? there was also the case of the gentleman who won the lottery in west virginia.Some may know who Im talking about. Sad story, but he used to travel around with tons of cash. Big cash does not always mean drugs. Ive traveled myself with several thousand at one time, for a trip to Reno. No drugs or alchohol involved.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Auctions require immediate payment.

Some real estate transactions are subject to fees and other charges and must be paid at the settlement table. It may not be possible to know the exact amount until the last minute. I remember years ago being terrified because I was carrying around cash in the amount of close to 10% of the transaction cost.

 

[benidict]

Auctions require immediate payment.

Some real estate transactions are subject to fees and other charges and must be paid at the settlement table. It may not be possible to know the exact amount until the last minute. I remember years ago being terrified because I was carrying around cash in the amount of close to 10% of the transaction cost.

And if you are living in the United States, you should not have to live with this kind of fear. Its sad really.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

COMMENTS AND NOTES: Civil Forfeiture: A Fiction That Offends Due Process
2000 / 2001

Had to dig back 10 years to find this.

I never said that Asset Forfeiture Laws were not abused in the past.

But you can not say they are unconstitutional. That is the job of the Supreme Court and to my knowledge they have not done so.

Also I do not believe that the Church has given any statement regarding this.

To prove that these laws are immoral you need a Church Document stating it is so. To prove it is unconstitutional you need a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Neither of which have you provided.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Had to dig back 10 years to find this.

I never said that Asset Forfeiture Laws were not abused in the past.

But you can not say they are unconstitutional. That is the job of the Supreme Court and to my knowledge they have not done so.

Also I do not believe that the Church has given any statement regarding this.

To prove that these laws are immoral you need a Church Document stating it is so. To prove it is unconstitutional you need a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Neither of which have you provided.

[Bill of Rights]

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,** nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.**

Ten Commandments

You shall not steal.

So yes, unconstitutional AND immoral.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

[Bill of Rights]

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,** nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.**

Ten Commandments

You shall not steal.

So yes, unconstitutional AND immoral.

Yes, I am aware of your opinion on this.

Your opinion is not the Truth though.

Please provide the sources requested from the Supreme Court and the Church.

 

[benidict]

Yes, I am aware of your opinion on this.

Your opinion is not the Truth though.

Please provide the sources requested from the Supreme Court and the Church.

The Church has no say in our laws in the United States. The 1rst ammendment gives me protection to speak out against such immoral and unjust laws. Especially when the 4th and 5th ammendment is being violate. We also have in this country what is known as Judicial tyranny. We have seen this with other issues, such as in California, when the voters overwealmingly supported a proposition protecting marriage.A Judge in the state overuled the people. If the Supreme court recognizes same sex marriage in the future, will you support them in this? The supreme court also recognizes the legality of Abortion. do you support them in this? You cannot always go by what the supreme court says to set your standards for morality.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Taking property that is gained through illegal activity is not unconsitutional.

Yes there have been abuses in the asset forteiture laws but, as I stated earlier, you had to dig back a decade to find one that supports your opinion.

As for the Church not having any say in the laws of the US. That is true but the Church does have a say in morality and it has not, anywhere, stated that the taking of property that is gained through illegal activity is immoral.

So on both cases, them being immoral and unconsitutional, you fail to provide any sources so all it is is your opinion in this.

 

[benidict]

Taking property that is gained through illegal activity is not unconsitutional.

Yes there have been abuses in the asset forteiture laws but, as I stated earlier, you had to dig back a decade to find one that supports your opinion.

As for the Church not having any say in the laws of the US. That is true but the Church does have a say in morality and it has not, anywhere, stated that the taking of property that is gained through illegal activity is immoral.

So on both cases, them being immoral and unconsitutional, you fail to provide any sources so all it is is your opinion in this.

Yes, It is my opinon. And there are many constitutionalist and attournies who would agree with it. Tell me, are you for Cannon law, being introduced into our Judicial system here in the United States?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The Church has no say in our laws in the United States. The 1rst ammendment gives me protection to speak out against such immoral and unjust laws. Especially when the 4th and 5th ammendment is being violate. We also have in this country what is known as Judicial tyranny. We have seen this with other issues, such as in California, when the voters overwealmingly supported a proposition protecting marriage.A Judge in the state overuled the people. If the Supreme court recognizes same sex marriage in the future, will you support them in this? The supreme court also recognizes the legality of Abortion. do you support them in this? You cannot always go by what the supreme court says to set your standards for morality.

Exactly. The Constitution CLEARLY states our right to due process before our personal property can be forfeited. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it.

Same with the 10 commandments. “Thou shalt not steal” is a very clear statement.

You cannot morally arrest someone on pure suspicion and seize and/or destroy their personal property without proving that they have no right to said property. This is outright THEFT.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Same with the 10 commandments. “Thou shalt not steal” is a very clear statement.

Items gained through a criminal act would not be considered legal property so when the government seizes them they are not stealing.

But again, it is very telling that you can not come up with any sources and continue to push your opinion as fact based mostly on relativism and emotionalism.

Thanks for the try but it is now time to move on until you provide actual sources to support your opinions.

 

[TedDC]

Items gained through a criminal act would not be considered legal property so when the government seizes them they are not stealing.

But again, it is very telling that you can not come up with any sources and continue to push your opinion as fact based mostly on relativism and emotionalism.

Thanks for the try but it is now time to move on until you provide actual sources to support your opinions.

The case described in the original post seems to go way beyond the original concept of asset forfeiture, wherein the seized property belongs to the criminal and is the instrumentality of a crime; for example, a drunk driver’s car, or a drug dealer’s apartment used to store his supply.

In this case, as far as I can tell, the airplane did not even belong to the criminal and was not alleged to have been acquired through anyone’s criminal act. Those are very significant points.