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

The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 130 posts

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#51

Post by _heimdall »

ajb wrote: post #6

Seizures allowed to be kept by the organisation doing the seizing is a terrible incentive. In other countries, seizures go to general revenue, which means that the incentive to do it is diluted enormously. This is especially a problem with small police forces, or small polities where fines become a large proportion of revenue. You'd think that for the FBI the incentive would be diluted, given how huge they are, but m…

This is actually the same reason why I'm surprised when anyone that is into bitcoin likes the idea of the federal strategic reserve. The government specifically saying they won't buy any, they'll just put any seized bitcoin into the reserve to be used later.

Why would anyone like that the government created an incentive to seize more bitcoin?

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#52

Post by eesmith »

wjnc wrote: post #31
delichon wrote: post #2

About two years post-seizure, the bureau returned Martin's money—shortly after she filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit. But while the bureau may have hoped that would persuade her to drop it, she has continued with her suit, which was back in court last week and seeks a ruling that will prevent the FBI from proceeding with others as it did with her. Hero.

I've listened to a series of podcasts (More Perfect) where it became clear to me that in the US to get lawsuits go all the way to the Supreme Court, you need both a case (de jure) and a plaintiff that is marketable. This is not a diss on Linda Martin. Going forward with this case in a attempt to get civil forfeiture more constrained after getting your money back is heroic. Just saying that the US legal system needs h…

Yes. And it's been this way for a long time.

Rosa Parks was not the first to refuse to move to the back of the bus. She was, however, more suitable for the lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Refusal_to_move

Plessy's "violation" of the despicable Separate Car Act was staged, with the conductor and private detective part fully aware of the planning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Plessy points out that the early test case planning included looking for a woman of "not more than one-eight colored blood" as the possible plaintiff.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#53

Post by darkwater »

ajb wrote: post #6

Seizures allowed to be kept by the organisation doing the seizing is a terrible incentive. In other countries, seizures go to general revenue, which means that the incentive to do it is diluted enormously. This is especially a problem with small police forces, or small polities where fines become a large proportion of revenue. You'd think that for the FBI the incentive would be diluted, given how huge they are, but m…

> Seizures allowed to be kept by the organisation doing the seizing is a terrible incentive.

In a country where tips at restaurants are not only socially accepted but actually expected, this seems "expected behavior" as well, in my opinion.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#54

Post by Yeul »

f_devd wrote: post #10
potato3732842 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General revenue is barely better. It's probably worse in many cases becase the elected part of the government can ask the thugs to seize harder to keep money coming in and then kick it back to them in the form of resource allocation or preferential treatment. That's how every speed trap town operates The only solution is to let the petty drug dealers get away with their cars and let the mob bosses get away with their…

If the last few years should have showed anything it's how little the elected officials typically care about balancing, let alone create excess, budget.

Well there was that Tea Party movement. But the reality is that America is addicted to spending more money than comes in.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#55

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

spwa4 wrote: post #47
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not have the revenue go to victims of crime? Setup a general fund so that judges can allocate recovered funds to help the worst affected.

Because then some people make a career out of causing crimes.

> Because then some people make a career out of causing crimes.

I don't really follow you. Are you suggesting that the victims fund would over-compensate victims so that they make a profit from being robbed etc?

Currently, lots of people do make a career out of causing crimes - we call them criminals.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#56

Post by glitchc »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #12
potato3732842 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General revenue is barely better. It's probably worse in many cases becase the elected part of the government can ask the thugs to seize harder to keep money coming in and then kick it back to them in the form of resource allocation or preferential treatment. That's how every speed trap town operates The only solution is to let the petty drug dealers get away with their cars and let the mob bosses get away with their…

Speed traps catch people actually committing crimes. While you as a driver may be disappointed you can't speed (read: break the law) with impunity, I as a pedestrian and public transit user would prefer more speed traps and harsher enforcement. On the other hand, what happened in the linked article appears to be the FBI seizing the women's assets with approximately zero evidence she committed a crime.

Afraid not. Most regular traffic is aware of speed traps, it will slow down in the zone and speed up right after to make up time.

It's far more effective to lower the road's natural speed by introducing curves, roundabouts, rumble strips, flexible barriers and speed bumps.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#57

Post by teeray »

guappa wrote: post #18
cmeacham98 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed traps catch people actually committing crimes. While you as a driver may be disappointed you can't speed (read: break the law) with impunity, I as a pedestrian and public transit user would prefer more speed traps and harsher enforcement. On the other hand, what happened in the linked article appears to be the FBI seizing the women's assets with approximately zero evidence she committed a crime.

I'm not sure that violating a speed limit going abruptly from 100 to 10, with the sign hidden behind a bush, and without any apparent reason for the limit to be changed is anything else than a scheme to collect money.

This is why, IMO, municipalities should have no ability to set their own speed limits. They should be specified by a disinterested third-party engineer at design time and be immutable without physically changing the road, or certain aspects of the road’s use (building a school, for example).

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#58

Post by ajmurmann »

nick__m wrote: post #44
brabel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law is the codification of acceptable behavior. Good luck lobbying the town to change the speed limit. They don't care what you think about the limit, if you drive past that speed you'll have to pay. And just to rant a bit: as someone who lives on a too-straight street (but very local and with pedestrians, including, children, walking on often) where dickheads constantly drive well past the limit because they proba…

The problem is that the road design doesn't fit its usage. In an ideal world the street would be redesign so the driver naturally adopt the desired speed limit.

To add to this, "redesigned" doesn't have to mean making it less straight but cheaper things like making it narrower will also slow down traffic.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#59

Post by onemoresoop »

eesmith wrote: post #52
wjnc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've listened to a series of podcasts (More Perfect) where it became clear to me that in the US to get lawsuits go all the way to the Supreme Court, you need both a case (de jure) and a plaintiff that is marketable. This is not a diss on Linda Martin. Going forward with this case in a attempt to get civil forfeiture more constrained after getting your money back is heroic. Just saying that the US legal system needs h…

Yes. And it's been this way for a long time. Rosa Parks was not the first to refuse to move to the back of the bus. She was, however, more suitable for the lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Refusal_to_move Plessy's "violation" of the despicable Separate Car Act was staged, with the conductor and private detective part fully aware of the planning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Plessy points out t…

It’s also the timing that matters so it makes it more like the straw that broke the camel’s back. That also is part of making it more marketable.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#60

Post by spwa4 »

mapt wrote: post #21
jmyeet wrote: post #3

Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft. Worse, it should be slam-dunk unconstitutional (unreasonable search and seizure, due process) but thus far courts have done what they do most of the time: sided with law enforcement. The legal justification is so laughably bogus too ("the money has no rights"... yeah but who does that money belong to?).

I contend that every judge, politician and law enforcement officer who's ever signed off on this idea is involved in a criminal conspiracy, in every colloquial sense of the term. The whole idea would moot the fourth amendment.

The whole of youth protection services and law enforcement for an entire state got caught running such a racket, imprisoning kids for money from the state, with the judges receiving kickbacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Needless to say, although the criminal records for these kids got expunged (after 15 years, WAY too late and didn't mean anything anymore, and already had caused maximum damage on these kids' lives), no restitution was paid (yes kids have a criminal record. It just gets blanked on their 18th birthday)

Needless to say, the actual crime the state, the judges, a private detention facility, public school employees, and ... participated in was kidnapping and abusing 2401 kids for a combined 380 years. The normal restitution payment for wrongful imprisonment is $50,000 per year, or in this case the state would normally owe these kids 19 million dollars, or about 8,000 dollar per kid (average). NOTHING was paid by the state for imprisoning kids through corruption for decades (plural). Oh and the private detention facility not only got to keep all the money, they are still in business.

If a private person had committed such a crime, holding 2401 kids for a combined 380 years, the punishment would obviously be unimaginable. Hell, such a case would make people would ask "is there a death penalty in Pennsylvania?" (there is)

The punishment for public servants? Everyone involved went free except one of the judges (he did not just corruptly imprison kids, he committed tax evasion), 3 people lost their jobs, and everyone kept all money that had changed hands.

They can all be judges again. The ONE person that got imprisoned retired in Florida (one of the 3 judges, the one that did not just hurt kids, but also committed tax fraud). He was physically attacked many times, even in Florida. He moved to Florida because the police in Pennsylvania after the first few attacks refused to file charges against his attackers, even when they involved week-long hospital recovery stays.

I utterly hate Trump, but it's relevant to add: Biden pardoned him.

So when you say "judge", is this the sort of people you are talking about? When you say "politician" would that be the state legislature members that voted a law specifically to exempt everyone from prosecution in this case (that's why only the tax fraud judge got "imprisoned")? And when you say "law enforcement officers", do you mean the people that helped and committed violence against kids to safeguard the money?

I say that, because this was declared, by elected officials, to NOT be a criminal conspiracy. In fact they voted in a law SPECIFICALLY to make sure this could not be considered a criminal conspiracy. So your standards need adjusting.

Frankly, as soon as you look into it, you're going to find that governments see law as something that applies to other people, not to them. Not in small things. Not in large things. And once you see this, you will notice the small things constantly (like public vs private busses behavior, to name something so small it's almost ridiculous, yet obviously it's constant crimes) ...

And, of course, this was not the only state this happened.

Post reply on HN