Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 455 posts

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#141

Post by tsotha »

Tomte wrote: post #134
tsotha wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to get your money back because the government treats it as if it weren't your money. What happens is since the DEA can't prove you're involved in a crime they sue... your money. There will be a case in federal court that will be something like "Leonhart v $23,174". They don't even have to notify you. So. At this point you're not a party to the proceeding, so you can't do any of the normal things you'd do if…

I find it hard to believe that the US have anything like "presumption of innocence" in civil court. Are you sure you're not mixing up civil and criminal proceedings?

Yeah, I meant criminal. It's fixed.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#142

Post by anigbrowl »

crystaln wrote: post #51
bcook wrote: post #39

I 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.

Because what's right and what's sensible are two different things. Bear in mind that you could also get robbed the old-fashioned way - if you reach into your envelope full of money to withdraw any cash there's a small but non-zero possibility that someone will notice and get the idea to take it for themselves.

This is why people used to carry traveler's checks before plastic became ubiquitous - people know that carrying a bunch of cash as a tourist in an unfamiliar place is unwise.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#144

Post by anigbrowl »

a3n wrote: post #58
bcook wrote: post #39

I 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.

Who do you make it out to, and when?

You don't make it out to anyone. A cashier's check is a bearer instrument issued by the bank against its own funds.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#145

Post by adventured »

xroche wrote: post #126
adventured wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The US still ranks among the best nations on earth when it comes to low corruption in fact Yes, because corruption has been legalized through corruption. You can, as a rich person, or an enterprise, legally bride politicians so that they can pass laws for your own profit. "low crime, low corruption". Also remember that "no crime" has been committed in the 2008 financial crisis.

You may not be familiar with US history when it comes to that. It's actually far harder to legally bribe politicians today than it was eg 100 years ago. A century ago there were hardly any laws restricting such practices.

What has changed in that time, is now the government has vast economic controls at its disposal. If the government doesn't control the economy, you can't buy economic favors from them. When the US was still a very Capitalist nation at the start of the 20th century, in which the government had little control over the economy, political bribery would not get you very far when it comes to passing laws for your own profit.

To sum it up: political bribery is far more difficult today than it was 100 years ago, but now it can buy you a lot of things whereas before it could not, because of the substantial expansion of government control over the economy.

When it comes to the financial crisis, Western Europe committed many of the same financial 'crimes' you're referring to that, that the US did. The financial, banking and real estate boom and bust hit countries from Britain to France to Germany to Spain. What happened in the US was not unique to the US, the same things were going on in a lot of 'first world' nations.

The Fed stepped in and bailed out tons of European banks for example, the same as they did US banks.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#147

Post by adventured »

tsotha wrote: post #132
adventured wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scale of the civil forfeitures industry has increased drastically in the last 15 to 20 years. Most Americans are not yet aware of how large it has become, because it affects a relatively small percentage of people, and only in the last few years have the major news outlets begun to write about it (eg NY Times or Washington Post). When you have a country of 330 million people as large geographically as the US, it'…

Civil asset forfeitures are like those towns in BFE that operate on ticket revenue - the situation rarely gets dealt with because the number of people getting tickets is an insignificant proportion of the voting population.

We're fortunate it has become, essentially, a national government scandal at this point, with perpetually wider awareness. The national media has taken to aggressively writing about it lately.

In this case I'm confident we're going to see the forfeiture racket neutered in the next few years. It seems to have finally gotten large enough to draw serious Congressional and White House scrutiny to stop it.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#148

Post by vidarh »

itistoday2 wrote: post #62
itistoday2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. It is both. > calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation. Taxation today is theft.

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. We are unable to give consent (consent implies choice), so it is theft through coercion (prison). See "group fund" for a voluntary form of taxation: http://groupcurrency.org

I always find this line of discussion amusing, given that most forms of property only meaningfully exists in the presence of coercion or violence to restrict others access, yet in my experience the people who gives the "tax is theft" line tend to be right wing libertarians who also tend to want strong enforcement of private property laws and tends to be totally humourless about it if Proudhons "property is theft" is brought up as a counterpoint.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#149

Post by forrestthewoods »

vidarh wrote: post #140
forrestthewoods wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck that. Even criminals deserve fair legal council. And to not be treated like filthy animals. Shame on you. Edit: downvotes deserved. I read it several times and still interpreted the first paragraph to be in support of taking money because it denied full legal access. My brain flipped a word into "good". Despite being a public defender no less! Leaving comment anyways because that seems like the honest thing to d…

It would seem you might want to read the comment you replied to again.

Yup
Post reply on HN