As a potential tourist or traveller (I am not to be fair), I wouldn't risk travelling to the US. I'm not sure if there are actual tourists who feel the same, but I'm sure there are other avoiding the US.
How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
101–110 of 455 posts
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#102For all the Americans on HN, just be clear that the DEA is acting in our name. They represent us, and we are responsible for their actions. This and worse occurs every day, and will continue to until we get our elected representatives to stop it.
So do I vote for s Republicrat or a Republicrat? Or maybe s third party with no chance?
There is a lot more than simply voting that a person living in a democracy can do to improve things.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#103I've heard this sort of thing happening in Third World countries. Perhaps the US is - for all its advanced technology and creature comforts - essentially now a Third World kleptocracy. Silicon Valley and Manhattan are like Dubai - gaudy showcases that don't represent the true nature of the hinterland. I would be very wary about working in Dubai; I would be equally wary about working and living in the US for the same…
The US still ranks among the best nations on earth when it comes to low corruption in fact. The civil forfeitures problem is non-trivial, but you're drastically exaggerating. The whole of the US has a very highly functional, low-corruption judiciary system, and a mostly still intact and strong property rights system. Most of America is low crime, low corruption, the opposite of what you're implying. In fact it's beca…
> a mostly still intact and strong property rights system
The practice of civil forfeiture on people who can't defend legally, like this guy, sure doesn't indicate that.
Maybe for the HSBC guys who laundered $378.4 billion over several years there will be a small fine, their profit for a few months. But no bank was forfeited. No board members were sent to jail for it. It seems property rights are solid, if you are rich.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.
I skimmed it, but it appears the Court is saying that Michigan is not required to have an innocent owner defense. That isn't the same as saying there can never be an innocent owner defense. But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense. US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)
US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)
Thanks for that.. that was part of the reform passed in 2000.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "…
Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
We shouldn't use technical jargon because it obscures the plain fact that they are stealing.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#106Civil forfeiture rules are disgusting. Sadly there are plenty of stories out there like this, people have lost their homes, cars and livelihoods because of these draconian laws around asset forfeiture. The circumstances under which your property can be taken are incredibly overreaching and unfair. There have been situations where people have had their homes taken away for ridiculous situations like this one: http://w…
I understand the claim that people with money could just use it all to buy a one way ticket to nowhere and never be seen again. But it seems to me that there's a very very wide line between "Use your money to keep doing bad things" and "We don't know if you're guilty but we're going to take all your money anyway and good luck with those legal costs" Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing…
Can I just lock up all of some politician's fund right before an election and only allow access to fight the case which will likely take months? Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate?
Where do we draw the line?
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#107Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.
It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof. The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no due process before they seize the money in the first place. But you do get the due process after the fact. Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from do…
> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money.
"Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars" -- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
There's no trial because they go after tiny amounts, generally with no evidence of guilt, knowing that it won't be worth the owner's time to fight back.
Read that article I linked if you haven't already, it's quite extensive and well-researched. And then tell me that this is something other than straight-up highway robbery.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#108I keep seeing these stories and, yes, civil forfeiture is a problem, but why are these people traveling with CASH in these amounts? I always get a cashier's check or similar since it offers me some protection.
Yes, or why withdraw it in cash at all? It could be kept in the bank and a debit card used to withdraw it.
Then the govt can seize it directly from the bank because your cousin has a phonetically similar last name to someone who attended the same church as a suspected terrorist
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "…
You could imagine reading it this way: DEA agents confronted the only black man in the train car and demanded he open his bags, shook him down, and stole his cash. In a brazen theft which DEA agents later claimed was legal under the veil of "civil forfeiture" the state prosecutor has refused to press charges, and the judge on the case has refused to provide relief for the plaintiff... I hope we continue to see a rele…
> I wonder how the story would have gone differently if the man had refused to consent to the search.
Probably taze the guy, then shoot him 7 times in the back as he runs off
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#110I keep seeing these stories and, yes, civil forfeiture is a problem, but why are these people traveling with CASH in these amounts? I always get a cashier's check or similar since it offers me some protection.
Why are you asking this question? The answer is none of your business. One should be able to travel with as much cash as one chooses.
My point was; if you carry cash in large amounts and lose it, then you did not prepare. Carrying around your life savings in cash is a very bad decision, because _anyone_ can take it and you have very little recourse.
I ask because there are a few ways to avoid this particular situation; fix government overreach or stop carrying your life savings in cash. Doing both seems safest, but if we can only do one, then itis obvious which is easiest.