Forfeiture Laws

[ACCT]

King John, at the time of the Magna Carter, said that his mouth was the law. I find that attitude disturbing and I find it disturbing now. Look at our forfeiture laws. Those laws were outlawed under the Magna Carter and are unconstitutional today.

Should a teenager’s computer be seized under the forfeiture laws? The law makes no distinction between free speech and theft. Most hackers are just playing around or swapping information. They have no intention to steal. However, an accusation of hacking results in seizure of property. The mouth of a bureaucrat is the law.

The role of the government is an umpire. Thomas Jefferson supported this idea, and it is embedded in our laws going all the way back to 1775 (e.g. Virginia and Massachusetts Constitutions).

The IRS, Social Services, and all the “alphabet police” incorporate another idea, the idea that government is a participant. There is no Constitutional justification for this idea, as far as I can see. Additionally, government bureaucracies violate another intent of the Founding Fathers, the separation of powers. For example, Congress gives the IRS very broad powers to make law (legislative). The IRS has the power to go out to find the people who break “the law” (executive). Additionally, the IRS has the power to judge a taxpayer guilty (judicial).

For what it is worth, I do have ideas on how to reverse judicial activism. Power legitimately belongs to the jury, not the judges.

 

[KScoyote]

Sad fact = A good many Catholics have and continue to vote for candidates who support and further these very kinds of legislation.

As a recent convert (4yrs) I am astonished to find the Church rife with socialist, outright communists and many who do not intended to follow the teachings of the Church.

As this country is going at present, it is very soon to come that Christians will begin to suffer real persecution.

Pray my brothers and sisters for the Church, repent and do penance.

Then vote as one who believes in Christ should vote.

 

[ACCT]

Sad fact = A good many Catholics have and continue to vote for candidates who support and further these very kinds of legislation.

As a recent convert (4yrs) I am astonished to find the Church rife with socialist, outright communists and many who do not intended to follow the teachings of the Church.

As this country is going at present, it is very soon to come that Christians will begin to suffer real persecution.

Pray my brothers and sisters for the Church, repent and do penance.

Then vote as one who believes in Christ should vote.

“If you believe in ‘abortion rights,’ and knowingly and willfully vote for a candidate who promises to protect those ‘rights,’ you have committed a sin.” This is especially true for Catholics who have 2,000 years of Church teaching and tradition to back them up. “A voter who votes for a candidate who supports abortion has intentionally and deliberately helped someone who promotes a violent and destructive activity. That vote is similar in seriousness to participating in a pro-abortion rally, or writing an editorial that supports abortion (Priests for Life).”

These are the moral implications of voting. I once belonged to the Democrat Party, then I joined the Republican Party, and I now belong to the Constitution Party. However, my moral obligation is to keep out candidates who support abortion, usually Democrats; therefore, I often vote for Republicans who oppose abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

. Should a teenager’s computer be seized under the forfeiture laws? The law makes no distinction between free speech and theft. Most hackers are just playing around or swapping information. They have no intention to steal. However, an accusation of hacking results in seizure of property. The mouth of a bureaucrat is the law…

Would you be just as supportive of someone whose computer was seized for having child porn pictures on it? Or someone whose free speech amounted to promoting bombing public buildings? I think there are some forfeiture laws that you would while heartedly embrace.

 

[KScoyote]

Would you be just as supportive of someone whose computer was seized for having child porn pictures on it? Or someone whose free speech amounted to promoting bombing public buildings? I think there are some forfeiture laws that you would while heartedly embrace.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The governments of the States of the United States of America as well as the Federal government are not following this right we as citizens possess.

It is only worse now that President Bush got his way and the Patriot Act was passed without one Congressman having read such act!

We now have in effect the same law that King George imposed upon the colonies, The Writ of Assistance Act (The Stamp Act). These rogue law enforcement agencies can now write their own search warrants! They no longer have to swear an oath before an impartial judge in order to obtain a search warrant.

This very act, I am afraid, will be used to confiscate religious people property, bank accounts, etc. when it is deemed that we are not wanted or needed in this country any longer. Example, a priest speaks against sin in his homily.

Freedom lost, is seldom regained.

Maybe it time to watch Braveheart for the umpteenth time.

 

[ACCT]

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The governments of the States of the United States of America as well as the Federal government are not following this right we as citizens possess.

It is only worse now that President Bush got his way and the Patriot Act was passed without one Congressman having read such act!

We now have in effect the same law that King George imposed upon the colonies, The Writ of Assistance Act (The Stamp Act). These rogue law enforcement agencies can now write their own search warrants! They no longer have to swear an oath before an impartial judge in order to obtain a search warrant.

This very act, I am afraid, will be used to confiscate religious people property, bank accounts, etc. when it is deemed that we are not wanted or needed in this country any longer. Example, a priest speaks against sin in his homily.

Freedom lost, is seldom regained.

Maybe it time to watch Braveheart for the umpteenth time.

Ditto for all government agencies. I contend that their power is illegal under the Constitution. The SS (Social Services) can accuse anyone of a sex offense, and that accusation has the force of law. “My mouth is the law (King John).” The SS can separate any person from his family with just an accusation!

“The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” - Tacitus

 

[LeafByNiggle]

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The governments of the States of the United States of America as well as the Federal government are not following this right we as citizens possess.

It is only worse now that President Bush got his way and the Patriot Act was passed without one Congressman having read such act!

We now have in effect the same law that King George imposed upon the colonies, The Writ of Assistance Act (The Stamp Act). These rogue law enforcement agencies can now write their own search warrants! They no longer have to swear an oath before an impartial judge in order to obtain a search warrant.

This very act, I am afraid, will be used to confiscate religious people property, bank accounts, etc. when it is deemed that we are not wanted or needed in this country any longer. Example, a priest speaks against sin in his homily.

Freedom lost, is seldom regained.

Maybe it time to watch Braveheart for the umpteenth time.

Since this was your response to my query about confiscating computers with child pornography, then I assume you favor letting the child porographer keep his child porn computer?

 

[ACCT]

Since this was your response to my query about confiscating computers with child pornography, then I assume you favor letting the child porographer keep his child porn computer?

You have made the wrong assumption. What does not wanting government laws have to do with favoring child porn?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have made the wrong assumption. What does not wanting government laws have to do with favoring child porn?

Well, if you didn’t intend to answer my question then I don’t know why you bothered to quote it in your posting.

 

[ACCT]

Well, if you didn’t intend to answer my question then I don’t know why you bothered to quote it in your posting.

We should never have any forfeiture laws, period.

 

[ACCT]

“Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We should never have any forfeiture laws, period.

The Amendment IV which you so kindly quoted states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Most people would agree that seizing property used in the commission of a crime is not an unreasonable seizure and therefore is not prohibited by this amendment. You go much further than the founding fathers when you say “no forteiture laws, period”. Apparently cooler heads decided to add the word “unreasonable”.

And just to be clear, you are saying that there should be no laws that confiscate a computer used to distribute child pornography, right?

 

[KScoyote]

Since this was your response to my query about confiscating computers with child pornography, then I assume you favor letting the child porographer keep his child porn computer?

Where did I say that I was in favor of child porn?

What the constitution of the USA states is that law enforcement MUST go to an IMPARTIAL judge and swear an oath that there is probable cause to enter and take evidence. Yes, any evidence.

However as I clearly stated this is no longer the law in this country thank to President George Bush, The Patriot Act was signed into law March 9 and 10, 2006.

Your own misunderstanding and incapability to read my simple statement and understand it leaves me little doubt as to why it has been so easy for the government officials to “COW” you into falling for these kind of laws.

Yes these laws can and will be used against you too if any government official so much as wants to pilfer “your” personal effects. Just for you, EFFECTS: plural noun
goods; movables; personal property.

One day soon your beliefs will be offensive to someone who has now been given the authority to write their own search warrant. They may very well confiscate your personal computer for it having christian materials stored on it and imprison you. You don’t think that will happen? Better think again and start to move to overturn these kind of laws.

With that I will sign off and no longer argue this case.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Where did I say that I was in favor of child porn?

I didn’t say you were in favor of child porn. I said that you were in favor of letting someone who distributes child pornography keep the computer he used to do it. You have not denied this implication and in fact it is a direct consequence of your statement “There should be no forfeiture laws, period.”

What the constitution of the USA states is that law enforcement MUST go to an IMPARTIAL judge and swear an oath that there is probable cause to enter and take evidence. Yes, any evidence.

OK, so why don’t you revise your statement against forfeiture laws to conform to this understanding of what the constitution says?" Something like “There should not be any forfeiture laws unless probable cause has been demonstrated to an impartial judge”. Your blanket condemnation of all forfeiture laws goes much further than the constitution.

However as I clearly stated this is no longer the law in this country thank to President George Bush, The Patriot Act was signed into law March 9 and 10, 2006.

Your own misunderstanding and incapability to read my simple statement and understand it leaves me little doubt…

I fail to understand you because your statements are rambling and unclear. Except the one statement that says “no forfeiture laws, period” which I addressed in detail .

Yes these laws can and will be used against you too if any government official so much as wants to pilfer “your” personal effects. Just for you, EFFECTS: plural noun
goods; movables; personal property.

One day soon your beliefs will be offensive to someone who has now been given the authority to write their own search warrant. They may very well confiscate your personal computer for it having christian materials stored on it and imprison you. You don’t think that will happen? Better think again and start to move to overturn these kind of laws.

With that I will sign off and no longer argue this case.

Oh, you actually call your rant an argument? I don’t think so.

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

King John, at the time of the Magna Carter, said that his mouth was the law. I find that attitude disturbing and I find it disturbing now. Look at our forfeiture laws. Those laws were outlawed under the Magna Carter and are unconstitutional today.

Should a teenager’s computer be seized under the forfeiture laws? The law makes no distinction between free speech and theft. Most hackers are just playing around or swapping information. They have no intention to steal. However, an accusation of hacking results in seizure of property. The mouth of a bureaucrat is the law.

The role of the government is an umpire. Thomas Jefferson supported this idea, and it is embedded in our laws going all the way back to 1775 (e.g. Virginia and Massachusetts Constitutions).

The IRS, Social Services, and all the “alphabet police” incorporate another idea, the idea that government is a participant. There is no Constitutional justification for this idea, as far as I can see. Additionally, government bureaucracies violate another intent of the Founding Fathers, the separation of powers. For example, Congress gives the IRS very broad powers to make law (legislative). The IRS has the power to go out to find the people who break “the law” (executive). Additionally, the IRS has the power to judge a taxpayer guilty (judicial).

For what it is worth, I do have ideas on how to reverse judicial activism. Power legitimately belongs to the jury, not the judges.

The computer is only seized with a court order such as a warrant in the USA. The state does not take it from the accused unless a separate action, usually civil, is initiated. For example, if you use a broom to break a window the police can seize that as evidence and after the court actions are done the owner can reclaim the broom from the property room at the police department.

Judges are the third branch of the government, judicial branch, in the USA. They do have power to order warrants and civil seizures as provided by law.

 

[ACCT]

The Amendment IV which you so kindly quoted states:

Most people would agree that seizing property used in the commission of a crime is not an unreasonable seizure and therefore is not prohibited by this amendment. You go much further than the founding fathers when you say “no forteiture laws, period”. Apparently cooler heads decided to add the word “unreasonable”.

And just to be clear, you are saying that there should be no laws that confiscate a computer used to distribute child pornography, right?

“There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, **the owner must prove on a “preponderance of the evidence” that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. **In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.”

I oppose ALL civil forfeitures. We have local police on I 10 seizing fancy cars and money. The only highway robbers that I know wear a uniform, especially local police.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, **the owner must prove on a “preponderance of the evidence” that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. **In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.”

I oppose ALL civil forfeitures. We have local police on I 10 seizing fancy cars and money. The only highway robbers that I know wear a uniform, especially local police.

Why don’t you just answer the simple question I asked without dancing all around it? Do you or do you not oppose the forfeiture of a computer used to distribute child pornography? Yes or no?

 

[ACCT]

Why don’t you just answer the simple question I asked without dancing all around it? Do you or do you not oppose the forfeiture of a computer used to distribute child pornography? Yes or no?

Yes, if the case is criminal forfeiture in terms of divine and natural law. No, if it is a civil forfeiture. As I pointed out before, there is almost no criminal forfeitures; therefore, your point is moot.

Almost all of forfeitures are civil forfeitures, and are therefore are unjust laws. An unjust law is no law at all.

As you can tell, I am not rules oriented. I am principles and objective oriented. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, if the case is criminal forfeiture in terms of divine and natural law. No, if it is a civil forfeiture. As I pointed out before, there is almost no criminal forfeitures; therefore, your point is moot.

Almost all of forfeitures are civil forfeitures, and are therefore are unjust laws. An unjust law is no law at all.

As you can tell, I am not rules oriented. I am principles and objective oriented. Do you have a problem with that?

No, no problem. I would rather argue principles than rules any day. And thanks for finally making some sense.

 

[ACCT]

Man-made ethics are subject to change by man. Look at all
the discussion about rules-based, principles-based and objectives-based
accounting. On the other hand, God’s ten commandments were literally
written in stone. I am not aware of any changes in the ten commandments
over the centuries.