Talk:Civil forfeiture in the United States

Civil Asset is Actually Fraud

Civil Asset Forfeiture is not just Unconstitutional, it's actually fraud (a crime)

Easy way to tell is use of "against the property" action when the owner is present. "Against the property" action is use when the owner is inaccessible, for example disceased or outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Use of Latin in American law is another clue. When you don't use Latin/legal terminology "In rem" it becomes easier to detect what's wrong with the wording.

5th Amendment requires Due Process, to insure every property seized is lawful taken. As failure to do so is theft (a crime) by the government. Also why it is unconstitutional.

Forcing owner to prove property was not involved with a crime when the government has _failed_ to prove the property was involved with a crime, proves the government skipped out on Due Process (4th and 5th Amendment violations) and is unwitting committing fraud (a crime), grand larceny (a felony) in many cases and even be charged with racketeering (a felony).

Another way to test for fraud and criminal activity. Have the government prove money seized wasn't stolen. They have no proof as they never proved (skipped Due Process) the property was involved with a crime.

73.225.182.47 (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song Tae Hyun Song 73.225.182.47 (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It is technically not a fraud, but highway robbery at gunpoint sanctioned by the law of the state. If any cop gets to decide that your shiny new car appears to him like the unlawfully gained proceeds of a drug trade, yet you do not get charged with anything, no proof is required and you cannot defend yourself in court, this is even below the legal standards of a banana republic. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It is literal fraud (a crime). The owner is present, while using "against the property" action in court. "Against the property" action is used when the owner is not available, outside US jurisdiction or deceased, for example. 76.135.14.59 (talk)Tae Hyun Song 76.135.14.59 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Prosecution of Government Officials using Civil Asset Forfeiture (also Administrative Forfeiture) as Fraud

Violation of Constitutional Rights

Violations:

 4th Amendment - protection from theft by government officials (unreasonable seizure)
 5th Amendment - Process of law, where government must prove a crime was committed before seizing property (Due Process, not an optional)
 8th Amendment - Punishment must be prescribed by law (listed as specific amounts)
 9th Amendment - Laws shall not be construed to deny the rights listed in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) or others (unspecified rights) retained by the people.

The prosecution can prove Civil Asset forfeiture is unconstitutional (already listed), specifically the 4th and 5th Amendment.

Taking property is therefore theft.

Intentional proves the government official is a criminal with intent.

Unintentional proves the government official incompetent at law. Law enforcement who do not know the law. What do they enforce if they don't know the law? Dystopian police state. Property is seized on suspicion rather than proof. Also leaves the owner to prove innocence, when the government has failed to prove there was a crime.

Criminal charges: theft, fraud, money laundering, grand larceny, and racketeering Other charges: government corruption

The deplorable state of law enforcement. Unintentionally committing crimes, proves law enforcement does not know the law. If intentional, then criminal running law enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.225.182.47 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

73.225.182.47 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Civil Asset Forfeiture Propaganda

Claims of how much money they seized from criminals. No one was charged with a crime.

or

Dismantling crime organizations. No criminal charges were presented. No proof or judgment was made in a court of law.

or

"Fighting Money Laundering"

It's just propaganda.

There is already a process for fighting money laundering. Law enforcement finds money, they charge the suspect(s) of money laundering and prove it in a court of law. That is called Due Process.

The money they seized is money stolen, as they never charge anyone with a crime.

The joke is if you can call it a joke. Having law enforcement steal money from victims (spelling is correct), because they do not know the law.

Who are they? Criminals inside the government. Or they are absolutely incompetent at law.

Other propaganda/fraud including criminal asset forfeiture (where criminal charges are presented and proven) cases mixed in to make Civil Asset Forfeiture seem legitimate, like Bernie Madoff and his ponzee scheme.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.225.182.47 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

73.225.182.47 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

73.225.182.47 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Things to be aware of: Underhanded or Dishonest Tactics

Law Enforcement also involve the words Truth and Justice. Dishonesty has no place in Law Enforcement.

Police planting evidence is not unheard of.

News 4 JAX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFMwL3VQIA

Scent marking property is even easier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs

Notice the both police officers handled the bag before pulling the dog out to sniff for it. Time stamp 8:05 minutes.

Also, the dog giving "positive alert" (scent of drugs) is only circumstantial, not conclusive proof. The bills could have been contaminated.

73.225.182.47 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Bad Civil Asset Forfeiture Contributors Back Again

They reverted back to look similar to original article as before.

"Bernard Lawrence Madoff was an American fraudster and financier who ran the largest Ponzi scheme in history." - Wikipedia

He was convicted of fraud, and the forfeitures were criminal forfeiture, not civil forfeitures.

Movtive: They are criminals in the justice system and probably stealing millions from victims.

73.118.175.67 (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song