Jump to content

Montana passes law to protect from asset forfeiture


Recommended Posts





I hate seeing stories like this one:

http://www.vox.com/2...ivil-forfeiture

Can anyone explain how civil forfeiture can be Constitutional?

I doubt you'll find any forfeiture supporters who have the first genuine concern about constitutionality. The only arguments I see ususally involve fearmongering about scary drug cartels that ignores the reality of the situation. This was a giant bill of goods we got suckered into through fear and paranoia, and its about time we started making it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the reasoning behind it and if an asset is actually used in the commission of a crime by the owner of that asset then yes take it upon conviction but not before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the reasoning behind it and if an asset is actually used in the commission of a crime by the owner of that asset then yes take it upon conviction but not before.

The biggest problem I have with it is the govt has seized citizens' assets with NO evidence of crimes having been committed. Unbelievably, once they have the assets it takes years and $thousands of attorney fees to get them back which is the classic guilty til proven innocent system of justice that our system is supposedly the antithesis to. This is the most egregious example of govt abuse of power that I know of so, good for Montana!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the reasoning behind it and if an asset is actually used in the commission of a crime by the owner of that asset then yes take it upon conviction but not before.

The biggest problem I have with it is the govt has seized citizens' assets with NO evidence of crimes having been committed. Unbelievably, once they have the assets it takes years and $thousands of attorney fees to get them back which is the classic guilty til proven innocent system of justice that our system is supposedly the antithesis to. This is the most egregious example of govt abuse of power that I know of so, good for Montana!

Me too. Unless they can prove guilt in court then I don't care what the person may be or do. Their assets are off limits. I'd say that even upon conviction that they have to just place a lien or hold so as to allow for one appeal. If it gets overturned then you take the hold off. If it is upheld then do what you wish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm affraid we found an issue we may all agree on. Knock on wood.

Yet, we are so ideologically divided and distracted that, we are helpless to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

:thumbsup::laugh:

This is a patently false statement. There is a significant diffference between paying premium prices and they would have been premium to appraised value and simply TAKING what people have worked their whole lives for. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

:thumbsup::laugh:

This is a patently false statement. There is a significant diffference between paying premium prices and they would have been premium to appraised value and simply TAKING what people have worked their whole lives for. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that

"TransCanada has used eminent domain on another part of the pipeline route (NYTimes). In a 2012 ruling, Texas Judge Bill Harris HRS -0.81% of Lamar County upheld TransCanada’s takeover by eminent domain of a strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture in Paris, Texas to build part of its Keystone XL pipeline. The ruling was delivered in a 15-word text message sent from the Judge’s iPhone, demonstrating the seriousness with which the Judge handled such a constitutionally-charged case. Not sure if that ruling is a first in judicial history, but I guess it was better than a Tweet." http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/02/24/foreign-company-tries-to-seize-u-s-land-for-keystone-pipeline/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

:thumbsup::laugh:

This is a patently false statement. There is a significant diffference between paying premium prices and they would have been premium to appraised value and simply TAKING what people have worked their whole lives for. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that

"TransCanada has used eminent domain on another part of the pipeline route (NYTimes). In a 2012 ruling, Texas Judge Bill Harris HRS -0.81% of Lamar County upheld TransCanada’s takeover by eminent domain of a strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture in Paris, Texas to build part of its Keystone XL pipeline. The ruling was delivered in a 15-word text message sent from the Judge’s iPhone, demonstrating the seriousness with which the Judge handled such a constitutionally-charged case. Not sure if that ruling is a first in judicial history, but I guess it was better than a Tweet." http://www.forbes.co...stone-pipeline/

you do realize that eminent domain does not entitle them to simply TAKE their property right? The are paid handsomely for their property nitwit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

:thumbsup::laugh:

This is a patently false statement. There is a significant diffference between paying premium prices and they would have been premium to appraised value and simply TAKING what people have worked their whole lives for. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that

"TransCanada has used eminent domain on another part of the pipeline route (NYTimes). In a 2012 ruling, Texas Judge Bill Harris HRS -0.81% of Lamar County upheld TransCanada’s takeover by eminent domain of a strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture in Paris, Texas to build part of its Keystone XL pipeline. The ruling was delivered in a 15-word text message sent from the Judge’s iPhone, demonstrating the seriousness with which the Judge handled such a constitutionally-charged case. Not sure if that ruling is a first in judicial history, but I guess it was better than a Tweet." http://www.forbes.co...stone-pipeline/

you do realize that eminent domain does not entitle them to simply TAKE their property right? The are paid handsomely for their property nitwit.

Uncalled for. Stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

:thumbsup::laugh:

This is a patently false statement. There is a significant diffference between paying premium prices and they would have been premium to appraised value and simply TAKING what people have worked their whole lives for. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that

"TransCanada has used eminent domain on another part of the pipeline route (NYTimes). In a 2012 ruling, Texas Judge Bill Harris HRS -0.81% of Lamar County upheld TransCanada’s takeover by eminent domain of a strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture in Paris, Texas to build part of its Keystone XL pipeline. The ruling was delivered in a 15-word text message sent from the Judge’s iPhone, demonstrating the seriousness with which the Judge handled such a constitutionally-charged case. Not sure if that ruling is a first in judicial history, but I guess it was better than a Tweet." http://www.forbes.co...stone-pipeline/

you do realize that eminent domain does not entitle them to simply TAKE their property right? The are paid handsomely for their property nitwit.

Actually not in all cases are they paid handsomely for their property. I have had family members have land or portions of land seized under eminent domain for pennies on the dollar and seen some make out nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

:thumbsup::laugh:

This is a patently false statement. There is a significant diffference between paying premium prices and they would have been premium to appraised value and simply TAKING what people have worked their whole lives for. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that

"TransCanada has used eminent domain on another part of the pipeline route (NYTimes). In a 2012 ruling, Texas Judge Bill Harris HRS -0.81% of Lamar County upheld TransCanada’s takeover by eminent domain of a strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture in Paris, Texas to build part of its Keystone XL pipeline. The ruling was delivered in a 15-word text message sent from the Judge’s iPhone, demonstrating the seriousness with which the Judge handled such a constitutionally-charged case. Not sure if that ruling is a first in judicial history, but I guess it was better than a Tweet." http://www.forbes.co...stone-pipeline/

you do realize that eminent domain does not entitle them to simply TAKE their property right? The are paid handsomely for their property nitwit.

Julia Trigg of Paris Texas wanted to keep her land. The GOVERNMENT forced her to sell it. The amount 'handsome' or not is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

:thumbsup::laugh:

This is a patently false statement. There is a significant diffference between paying premium prices and they would have been premium to appraised value and simply TAKING what people have worked their whole lives for. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that

"TransCanada has used eminent domain on another part of the pipeline route (NYTimes). In a 2012 ruling, Texas Judge Bill Harris HRS -0.81% of Lamar County upheld TransCanada’s takeover by eminent domain of a strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture in Paris, Texas to build part of its Keystone XL pipeline. The ruling was delivered in a 15-word text message sent from the Judge’s iPhone, demonstrating the seriousness with which the Judge handled such a constitutionally-charged case. Not sure if that ruling is a first in judicial history, but I guess it was better than a Tweet." http://www.forbes.co...stone-pipeline/

you do realize that eminent domain does not entitle them to simply TAKE their property right? The are paid handsomely for their property nitwit.

Actually not in all cases are they paid handsomely for their property. I have had family members have land or portions of land seized under eminent domain for pennies on the dollar and seen some make out nicely.

These were not the comments during the Keystone Pipeline threads... Seizing property for big oil is all good.

:thumbsup::laugh:

This is a patently false statement. There is a significant diffference between paying premium prices and they would have been premium to appraised value and simply TAKING what people have worked their whole lives for. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that

"TransCanada has used eminent domain on another part of the pipeline route (NYTimes). In a 2012 ruling, Texas Judge Bill Harris HRS -0.81% of Lamar County upheld TransCanada’s takeover by eminent domain of a strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture in Paris, Texas to build part of its Keystone XL pipeline. The ruling was delivered in a 15-word text message sent from the Judge’s iPhone, demonstrating the seriousness with which the Judge handled such a constitutionally-charged case. Not sure if that ruling is a first in judicial history, but I guess it was better than a Tweet." http://www.forbes.co...stone-pipeline/

you do realize that eminent domain does not entitle them to simply TAKE their property right? The are paid handsomely for their property nitwit.

Actually not in all cases are they paid handsomely for their property. I have had family members have land or portions of land seized under eminent domain for pennies on the dollar and seen some make out nicely.

OK I dont doubt that but the topic is the XL PipeLine per USN. I doubt very seriously given the opposition that those folks would've gotten screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While both topics have loose connections, there is a big difference between Eminent Domain and Civil Assest Forfieture .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While both topics have loose connections, there is a big difference between Eminent Domain and Civil Assest Forfieture .

Of course they do but in both instances the government is forcing an action that the land owner didn't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm affraid we found an issue we may all agree on. Knock on wood.

Yet, we are so ideologically divided and distracted that, we are helpless to do anything about it.

I don't think the Federal Gov't will ever relinqish this power unless the states step in as we see in this case. Didn't Nevada pass this too? Now that a few states have taken action others (like us) will begin asking our state leaders when they plan on addressing this topic. The change may be slow but at least someone has taken action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm affraid we found an issue we may all agree on. Knock on wood.

Yet, we are so ideologically divided and distracted that, we are helpless to do anything about it.

I don't think the Federal Gov't will ever relinqish this power unless the states step in as we see in this case. Didn't Nevada pass this too? Now that a few states have taken action others (like us) will begin asking our state leaders when they plan on addressing this topic. The change may be slow but at least someone has taken action.

Might be able to get rid of CAF but doubt eminent domain will ever get taken off the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm affraid we found an issue we may all agree on. Knock on wood.

Yet, we are so ideologically divided and distracted that, we are helpless to do anything about it.

I don't think the Federal Gov't will ever relinqish this power unless the states step in as we see in this case. Didn't Nevada pass this too? Now that a few states have taken action others (like us) will begin asking our state leaders when they plan on addressing this topic. The change may be slow but at least someone has taken action.

Might be able to get rid of CAF but doubt eminent domain will ever get taken off the books.

eminent domain has a legitimate use. It has been abused at times but it is a necessary tool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm affraid we found an issue we may all agree on. Knock on wood.

Yet, we are so ideologically divided and distracted that, we are helpless to do anything about it.

I don't think the Federal Gov't will ever relinqish this power unless the states step in as we see in this case. Didn't Nevada pass this too? Now that a few states have taken action others (like us) will begin asking our state leaders when they plan on addressing this topic. The change may be slow but at least someone has taken action.

Might be able to get rid of CAF but doubt eminent domain will ever get taken off the books.

eminent domain has a legitimate use. It has been abused at times but it is a necessary tool.

I agree it has a legitimate use, but it needs reform atleast in TX. It is abused way more than used for a legitimate purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...