6 ms·

Reagan is the one who signed "asset forfeiture" into law. I remember at the time reading newspaper articles claiming this was "just going to be used to keep dru

by nika 15y ago

Reagan is the one who signed "asset forfeiture" into law. I remember at the time reading newspaper articles claiming this was "just going to be used to keep drugs off the streets" and how "law enforcement are outgunned and now can defend themselves against drug dealers". It was obvious to me then that this was a violation of due process. Also, it is not authorized by the constitution, and thus every act of seizure under it is criminal act. (There is a federal law that makes it a felony to violate constitutional rights under color of law. Fourth amendment prohibits this.) Notably, Bush the First, Clinton, Bush the Second and Obama have not made any moves to undo this legislation. Meanwhile, this has been used to take money from bikers on their way to buy a motorcycle, and random motorists in Florida and Texas who get pulled over for speeding. "It could be drug money" says the "law enforcement officers" who take life savings and then spend it on themselves. Just because they haven't seized your assets yet, doesn't mean you aren't at risk. When the government can take whatever it wants, without any legal restraint, and in violation of the ultimate law of the land, that government is not a legitimate government. We should be outraged. We should be throwing the bums out-- from Obama down to the local state congresspeople or local sheriffs and judges who fail to take actions overturning this, or who themselves participate in this. It does not matter what party they are from, they are all culpable, and they are all criminals. Edited: I removed the reference to my property that was stolen by the FBI because it prompted many people to attack me below. I really would rather the discussion be about how to resolve this issue for domain names, or maybe some discussion about how to overturn these seizure laws. Edited: I've made the legal case in defense of those wrongfully convicted. I cannot keep up with the tide of people who have no citations of the law, but are quick to disparage me personally, for my crime of defending victims here. Frankly, I think that the ease with which people assume that "naturally" these people were "bad guys" and therefore what they did was "illegal" despite the law and the constitution, is the very proof of my central point that the government is out of control, and they are getting away with it because people can't be bothered to challenge the belief-- taught by government in government schools-- that the "rule of law" holds sway.

jackowayed 15y ago
> There is a federal law that makes it a felony to violate constitutional rights under color of law. Never heard of that. Link?
- nika 15y ago
  Here it is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242----... USC 18-242 I called it a felony though the law only makes it one if a "dangerous weapon" is involved.
  - ryanc 15y ago
    This law refers to race discrimination and isn't relevant to your argument. Key part with lots of sub clauses removed for readability: "Whoever, under color of any law, willfully subjects any person in any State to the deprivation of any rights, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;"
    - nika 15y ago
      No, you're rewriting it by omitting the relevant clause. The race discrimination is one of the clauses that can invoke it, not the only one. Let me quote it with line breaks for readability: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, " So, anyone who dies this. "or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, " Or who does this based on race, residency.... "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both" Shall be punished. You can invoke the law by doing the first set of things, or by doing the second set of things. It is an OR clause, meaning if A OR B are true, then the penalties apply. IF there were an AND on race, it would be the way you read it.
      - ryanc 15y ago
        If you pay attention to the commas the structure of the law is: If you do A OR B based on C A: Deprivation of rights B: Different punishments where C is on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race I removed B to make it more readable in my initial comment because you were only talking about A.
cjeane 15y ago
Constitutional law is so much more complicated than, "this is what the document says". What is happening is here is reprehensible, but I don't think you will find any defense against it in due process.
- nika 15y ago
  Actually, the document was written with the intention that anyone could read it and easily tell if their government was violating it or not. There have been a lot of people making up a body of work commonly called "Constitutional law" but much of that body of work seems to serve the purpose of trying to say that you can't just read it. But if you read it, it is very clear. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It is cut and dry. All of these siezures are not taking evidence, they are stealing property. Money is property, it is not evidence of any crime, especially when it is electronic funds in a bank account.
  - cube13 15y ago
    >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that the government can't take your stuff, full stop. It means that the government can't take your stuff without due cause and process. Both of which were followed in this case, it appears. The indictment was posted here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482
  - malnourish 15y ago
    Constitutional studies largely exist because of the 14th Amendment and the necessary and proper clause. They do confuse things a bit. Sometimes we can't rely on our elected officials, even though we should be able to; a SCotUS case might be the best way to change this.
jonknee 15y ago
While I find this ridiculous, it's quite different from the Liberty Dollar case which you mentioned losing $20 in. In the US it is clearly illegal to begin running your own currency and has been for a long time. The fact that NotHaus went as far as putting the word Dollar on it was just the icing on the cake.
- nika 15y ago
  Visa is a currency. So are travellers checks and regular old checking checks and coupons. All of these are also denominated in dollars. If you were to take some time and study the actual laws, and also check out the legal opinions, from members of boards of federal reserve branches, as well as the secret service and lawyers that were obtained before the Liberty Dollar project was started you'd recognize just how absurd this case is. But most people do not do the research. Most people assume that only the government can "make money" and most people fall for the idea that putting the word "dollar" on something somehow makes it counterfeit. It is this ignorance that lets them get away with such crimes. I'm not trying to call you ignorant (as a pejorative). I'm just trying to say that I read the relevant laws, including the ones cited in the case against NotHaus et. al. and they do not prohibit what the Liberty Dollar was actually doing. Not at all. In fact, the only thing illegal would be to make exact copies of US currency and pass them off as real. That is counterfeiting. I can make a currency out of coffee beans or silver and try to get people to trade in it... and there's nothing illegal about it. It is also known as barter.
  - cynicalkane 15y ago
    Visa is a currency. So are travellers checks and regular old checking checks and coupons If you were to take some time to study the laws--or high school economics--or the cardholder agreement you sign when you apply for a Visa card--you'd know this is incorrect. I bet you have "research" that tells you that credit cards are currency or something, contrary to very basic legal and economic interpretations of the word. One of the signs you're dealing with a nut is that the knowledge he thinks he has allows him to accept or reject facts as he so chooses.
jambo 15y ago
Are you referring to the Liberty Dollar? I remember being very interested in this (and in alternative currencies) a few years back but was put off by a video promoted on their official website which showed someone successfully passing a Liberty Dollar at a drive-through to an employee who asked, "what's this?", and was told that it was "a new dollar coin." At that point, they had unclean hands in my mind. The basis for an alternative currency should be consent, not confusion.
- nika 15y ago
  You're misremembering. The primary educational effort of the Liberty Dollar focused on, whenever someone asked what it was, or you offered it, making clear that it wasn't US currency. Nobody associated with the Liberty Dollar in any official capacity would call it "a new dollar coin" and as the word "coin" is one of the magic ones that denotes government money. They might say "its 20 dollars in silver" or "a silver piece". And if asked if it was "real" or "genuine" they were told to say "It is not government money, its better" or "its genuine silver, but it is not made by the US government". They were very careful because passing it off as if it were government money would be a crime. Despite not doing this, they have been lied about to the point that even you are misremembering. There are many reasons to decide to not be involved with the liberty dollar-- not the least of which is the indoctrination that "money" must come from the government, something I had to overcome myself. But the claim that they were pretending it was government money is not one of them. The entire point of NORFED-- the National Organization for the Repeal of the FEDeral reserve-- was that government money was not as good as silver rounds.
  - jambo 15y ago
    Even "it's 20 dollars in silver" is iffy. To most, dollar means USD, and there's no constant dollars-silver ratio any more. This is the video that I was misremembering (works in newest VLC): http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050206004912/http://www.libertydollar.org/graphics/media/texas_news_libertycoin.ram http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050206004912/http://www.l... via: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050206004912/http://www.libertydollar.org/html/learnmore.asp http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050206004912/http://www.l...
andrewbadera 15y ago
Wish I could undo my upvote. The seizure is still subject to court proceedings. FUD.
- nika 15y ago
  After the fact you are able to try and prove that the money or assets were not used in the commission of a crime. How one could ever prove a negative is beyond me, and the burden of proof is higher than that required by the constitution which (IIRC) take the innocent until proven guilty perspective. These poker sites have not been convicted of anything, nor was there a court proceeding where the siezure was proposed and the owners of the property had an option to defend their rights. Further, as we've seen in case after case, even in situations where the victims are not involved in crime at all, the courts are stacked against them.
- LordBodak 15y ago
  The poker sites domains have already been seized.
scott_s 15y ago
"It could be drug money" says the "law enforcement officers" who take life savings and then spend it on themselves. Reference?
- llimllib 15y ago
  This should get you started: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=forfeiture+site%3Awww.theagitator.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=forfei... edited to add a feature article he wrote on it: http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket
pbj 15y ago
This is actually increasingly common, and in some states the burden of proof is on you to prove that anything confiscated was not purchased with money obtained illegally. In addition, many states allow 100% of the profit from what is confiscated to go directly to police departments. One department where I used to live has both a police Hummer and a Tank. You can read about a state by state study at: http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeitu... [Note: PDF]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
moron4hire 15y ago
Hear, hear. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. We have allowed our government to create a separate ruling class that is above the law. Any honest reading of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will admit that the government was meant to be more restricted than the people.
BrandonM 15y ago
This post really highlights the needs for collapsible threads. I'd be very interested in discussing more about asset forfeiture at large, but it's ridiculous to have to wade through all the Liberty Dollar bullshit in order to do that.
- yurifury 15y ago
  Here you go: http://alexander.kirk.at/2010/02/16/collapsible-threads-for-hacker-news/ http://alexander.kirk.at/2010/02/16/collapsible-threads-for-...
  - gte910h 15y ago
    Thank you so much sir. That is my #1 issue with HN
  - bermanoid 15y ago
    Very nice, that helps a lot. Still, though, this feature really should be part of HN proper, especially since it's so simple to implement. I think a lot more attention would hit posts that aren't already at the top, which would encourage people to write new posts instead of responding to whatever happens to be above the fold. It's not going to fix the comment quality problems, but it would give a bump in the direction of wider, shallower comment trees, which will probably help a bit (deeply nested comments tend to either meander off topic or degenerate into arguments between a couple of people).
- ftpoker2 15y ago
  Simple. IT IS ILLEGAL to play at Pokerstars or FullTilt or any of the typical places from anywhere in the USA. The US Gov cracked down on them. I quote: "Here is an EXCELLENT alternative where it is COMPLETELY LEGAL for USA players to play and win lots of real money and prizes, and never lose any money." You may want to consider http://www.clubwpt.com/?cmpgn_id=6242&bnr_id=110 http://www.clubwpt.com/?cmpgn_id=6242&bnr_id=110 As stated at FTC: "Use Club WPT Bonus Code PLAYFREE, No deposit needed. No Risk Play System. COMPLETELY LEGAL! " With the above link I provided, you cannot lose money, and only win money. No limit on how much you can win, but maximum you can lose is something like $0.49 per day (yes, I said 49 cents), which is what your full membership daily cost would be. So, as you can see, or the point being, there is another model out there.
anigbrowl 15y ago
I've made the legal case in defense of those wrongfully convicted. No you haven't. Even though I happen to agree with you about this, you are talking through your hat and are arguing politics, not law. You are your own worst enemy, because you have so little knowledge of how your own system of governance or justice works that you spend all your effort on venting your anger without achieving anything. Get educated, then get organized. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

by nika 15y ago

jackowayed 15y ago

> There is a federal law that makes it a felony to violate constitutional rights under color of law. Never heard of that. Link?

nika 15y ago
Here it is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242----... USC 18-242 I called it a felony though the law only makes it one if a "dangerous weapon" is involved.
- ryanc 15y ago
  This law refers to race discrimination and isn't relevant to your argument. Key part with lots of sub clauses removed for readability: "Whoever, under color of any law, willfully subjects any person in any State to the deprivation of any rights, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;"
  - nika 15y ago
    No, you're rewriting it by omitting the relevant clause. The race discrimination is one of the clauses that can invoke it, not the only one. Let me quote it with line breaks for readability: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, " So, anyone who dies this. "or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, " Or who does this based on race, residency.... "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both" Shall be punished. You can invoke the law by doing the first set of things, or by doing the second set of things. It is an OR clause, meaning if A OR B are true, then the penalties apply. IF there were an AND on race, it would be the way you read it.
    - ryanc 15y ago
      If you pay attention to the commas the structure of the law is: If you do A OR B based on C A: Deprivation of rights B: Different punishments where C is on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race I removed B to make it more readable in my initial comment because you were only talking about A.

cjeane 15y ago

Constitutional law is so much more complicated than, "this is what the document says". What is happening is here is reprehensible, but I don't think you will find any defense against it in due process.

nika 15y ago
Actually, the document was written with the intention that anyone could read it and easily tell if their government was violating it or not. There have been a lot of people making up a body of work commonly called "Constitutional law" but much of that body of work seems to serve the purpose of trying to say that you can't just read it. But if you read it, it is very clear. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It is cut and dry. All of these siezures are not taking evidence, they are stealing property. Money is property, it is not evidence of any crime, especially when it is electronic funds in a bank account.
- cube13 15y ago
  >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that the government can't take your stuff, full stop. It means that the government can't take your stuff without due cause and process. Both of which were followed in this case, it appears. The indictment was posted here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482
- malnourish 15y ago
  Constitutional studies largely exist because of the 14th Amendment and the necessary and proper clause. They do confuse things a bit. Sometimes we can't rely on our elected officials, even though we should be able to; a SCotUS case might be the best way to change this.

jonknee 15y ago

While I find this ridiculous, it's quite different from the Liberty Dollar case which you mentioned losing $20 in. In the US it is clearly illegal to begin running your own currency and has been for a long time. The fact that NotHaus went as far as putting the word Dollar on it was just the icing on the cake.

nika 15y ago
Visa is a currency. So are travellers checks and regular old checking checks and coupons. All of these are also denominated in dollars. If you were to take some time and study the actual laws, and also check out the legal opinions, from members of boards of federal reserve branches, as well as the secret service and lawyers that were obtained before the Liberty Dollar project was started you'd recognize just how absurd this case is. But most people do not do the research. Most people assume that only the government can "make money" and most people fall for the idea that putting the word "dollar" on something somehow makes it counterfeit. It is this ignorance that lets them get away with such crimes. I'm not trying to call you ignorant (as a pejorative). I'm just trying to say that I read the relevant laws, including the ones cited in the case against NotHaus et. al. and they do not prohibit what the Liberty Dollar was actually doing. Not at all. In fact, the only thing illegal would be to make exact copies of US currency and pass them off as real. That is counterfeiting. I can make a currency out of coffee beans or silver and try to get people to trade in it... and there's nothing illegal about it. It is also known as barter.
- cynicalkane 15y ago
  Visa is a currency. So are travellers checks and regular old checking checks and coupons If you were to take some time to study the laws--or high school economics--or the cardholder agreement you sign when you apply for a Visa card--you'd know this is incorrect. I bet you have "research" that tells you that credit cards are currency or something, contrary to very basic legal and economic interpretations of the word. One of the signs you're dealing with a nut is that the knowledge he thinks he has allows him to accept or reject facts as he so chooses.

jambo 15y ago

Are you referring to the Liberty Dollar? I remember being very interested in this (and in alternative currencies) a few years back but was put off by a video promoted on their official website which showed someone successfully passing a Liberty Dollar at a drive-through to an employee who asked, "what's this?", and was told that it was "a new dollar coin." At that point, they had unclean hands in my mind. The basis for an alternative currency should be consent, not confusion.

nika 15y ago
You're misremembering. The primary educational effort of the Liberty Dollar focused on, whenever someone asked what it was, or you offered it, making clear that it wasn't US currency. Nobody associated with the Liberty Dollar in any official capacity would call it "a new dollar coin" and as the word "coin" is one of the magic ones that denotes government money. They might say "its 20 dollars in silver" or "a silver piece". And if asked if it was "real" or "genuine" they were told to say "It is not government money, its better" or "its genuine silver, but it is not made by the US government". They were very careful because passing it off as if it were government money would be a crime. Despite not doing this, they have been lied about to the point that even you are misremembering. There are many reasons to decide to not be involved with the liberty dollar-- not the least of which is the indoctrination that "money" must come from the government, something I had to overcome myself. But the claim that they were pretending it was government money is not one of them. The entire point of NORFED-- the National Organization for the Repeal of the FEDeral reserve-- was that government money was not as good as silver rounds.
- jambo 15y ago
  Even "it's 20 dollars in silver" is iffy. To most, dollar means USD, and there's no constant dollars-silver ratio any more. This is the video that I was misremembering (works in newest VLC): http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050206004912/http://www.libertydollar.org/graphics/media/texas_news_libertycoin.ram http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050206004912/http://www.l... via: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050206004912/http://www.libertydollar.org/html/learnmore.asp http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050206004912/http://www.l...

andrewbadera 15y ago

Wish I could undo my upvote. The seizure is still subject to court proceedings. FUD.

nika 15y ago
After the fact you are able to try and prove that the money or assets were not used in the commission of a crime. How one could ever prove a negative is beyond me, and the burden of proof is higher than that required by the constitution which (IIRC) take the innocent until proven guilty perspective. These poker sites have not been convicted of anything, nor was there a court proceeding where the siezure was proposed and the owners of the property had an option to defend their rights. Further, as we've seen in case after case, even in situations where the victims are not involved in crime at all, the courts are stacked against them.
LordBodak 15y ago
The poker sites domains have already been seized.

scott_s 15y ago

"It could be drug money" says the "law enforcement officers" who take life savings and then spend it on themselves. Reference?

llimllib 15y ago
This should get you started: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=forfeiture+site%3Awww.theagitator.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=forfei... edited to add a feature article he wrote on it: http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

pbj 15y ago

This is actually increasingly common, and in some states the burden of proof is on you to prove that anything confiscated was not purchased with money obtained illegally. In addition, many states allow 100% of the profit from what is confiscated to go directly to police departments. One department where I used to live has both a police Hummer and a Tank. You can read about a state by state study at: http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeitu... [Note: PDF]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

moron4hire 15y ago

Hear, hear. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. We have allowed our government to create a separate ruling class that is above the law. Any honest reading of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will admit that the government was meant to be more restricted than the people.

BrandonM 15y ago

This post really highlights the needs for collapsible threads. I'd be very interested in discussing more about asset forfeiture at large, but it's ridiculous to have to wade through all the Liberty Dollar bullshit in order to do that.

yurifury 15y ago
Here you go: http://alexander.kirk.at/2010/02/16/collapsible-threads-for-hacker-news/ http://alexander.kirk.at/2010/02/16/collapsible-threads-for-...
- gte910h 15y ago
  Thank you so much sir. That is my #1 issue with HN
- bermanoid 15y ago
  Very nice, that helps a lot. Still, though, this feature really should be part of HN proper, especially since it's so simple to implement. I think a lot more attention would hit posts that aren't already at the top, which would encourage people to write new posts instead of responding to whatever happens to be above the fold. It's not going to fix the comment quality problems, but it would give a bump in the direction of wider, shallower comment trees, which will probably help a bit (deeply nested comments tend to either meander off topic or degenerate into arguments between a couple of people).
ftpoker2 15y ago
Simple. IT IS ILLEGAL to play at Pokerstars or FullTilt or any of the typical places from anywhere in the USA. The US Gov cracked down on them. I quote: "Here is an EXCELLENT alternative where it is COMPLETELY LEGAL for USA players to play and win lots of real money and prizes, and never lose any money." You may want to consider http://www.clubwpt.com/?cmpgn_id=6242&bnr_id=110 http://www.clubwpt.com/?cmpgn_id=6242&bnr_id=110 As stated at FTC: "Use Club WPT Bonus Code PLAYFREE, No deposit needed. No Risk Play System. COMPLETELY LEGAL! " With the above link I provided, you cannot lose money, and only win money. No limit on how much you can win, but maximum you can lose is something like $0.49 per day (yes, I said 49 cents), which is what your full membership daily cost would be. So, as you can see, or the point being, there is another model out there.

anigbrowl 15y ago

I've made the legal case in defense of those wrongfully convicted. No you haven't. Even though I happen to agree with you about this, you are talking through your hat and are arguing politics, not law. You are your own worst enemy, because you have so little knowledge of how your own system of governance or justice works that you spend all your effort on venting your anger without achieving anything. Get educated, then get organized. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.