Yup. Civil forfeiture = punishment without a trial.

A continuing travesty of American justice. How far the country already had drifted from its roots, even in the 1990s.

Reason number 10,256,828 that the War on Drugs sucks.

See John Cole for more. http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8935

Not that different from the suspects in Gitmo forfeiting their asses without a trial.

even though he was found innocent of the underlying crime

Uh, no. This is false. The person can lose his car even if acquitted. Acquitted =/= "innocent".

In this case, this is not semantics. Civil asset forfeiture uses the difference between being found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence (the threshold in a civil case) and being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (the threshold in a criminal case). For the government to keep the car, the person would have to be found guilty of a crime, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Kevin's use of the word "innocent" here is just flat false, and should be corrected.

(Kevin should know the difference between losing in a civil case and losing in criminal case, being from California and all. The OJ Simpson case is a perfect example of the same issue as in the civil asset forfeiture cases - OJ was acquitted of the criminal case against him, but was found guilty in the Goldman's civil case. The civil asset forfieture cases involving cars operate on the same principle.)

It also reduces tourism. If I were to take a small boat to a US port, they will often inspect it, possibly with a dog. Being that sailboats are normally 2-3 decades old and take long trips, the chances that a small amount of someone's long forgotten personal pot supply is in some nook or cranny are not small. Without a dog, you would never find it yourself.

But any amount found can (and is) taken as an excuse to confiscate the entire vessel, with no chance of compensation or recovery through the courts. Insurance would be null.

As a result, I've never spent even $1 in a Washington state port.

Cripes, Al, you never get anything right.

"There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not."

You're daily proof that Bush supporters are not just stupid, but willfully ignorant tools.

And that shows I am wrong, um, how, exactly?

As I said, the point is that civil asset forfeiture cases are subject to a "preponderance of the evidence standard", such that if the government shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is guilty, the asset will be forfeited, even if in a separate criminal case, the government could not prove beynd a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.

Yeah, it really was a nice Constitution ... when it was actually upheld. Those were the days, huh?:

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
.
(No excuse for Giuliani. A leader is supposed to LEAD in a principled manner, NOT simply follow the herd.)

It also reduces tourism. ...

Bruce: Well, y'know, the US is currently engulfed in a Global War on Tourism! (Or some such horse manure.) ;-)

Lots of Italians seem to have a mean streak. Comes from watching Christians getting fed to lions in the Colosseum. I'll be Rudy's a sports fan.

That can't be Al, because is a not an actual person and therefore incapable of responding to direct contact -- which is why his name should actually be AI.

Giuliani doesn't care much for the First Amendment much either. As mayor he withdrew city funding from the Brooklyn Museum because there was a planned exhibition of an artist whose paintings included one of Christ with excrement on him. Eh, depends on your taste in art perhaps in deciding whether to go to the show, but the huge uproar caused by this 'anti-religious' art in City Hall was unbelieveable. I forget all the details. It got very complicated with the Board of Directors of the Museum being split, etc. The final outcome was that the Museum went ahead with the exhibition. I'm not sure what happened financially, i.e., whether they had to find outside funding for the Museum or whether a law suit resulted in continued support from the city. Aargh, it would be such a disaster if Rudy were elected, I can't even imagine it.

even if someone is acquitted of a criminal act, the state can still seize their property based on mere probable cause that the property was criminally used

Poilu's quote of the fourth amendment actually proves Giuliani is correct.

The fourth amendment states that searches and seizures are permissible "upon probable cause." This is exactly Rudy's position because he supports seizing cars upon probable cause of a crime. So Rudy's position that the state can seize the cars of drunken drivers upon probable cause is certainly correct for those of us originalists textualists who believe we should read the Consitution as it is written and not invent new liberal rights that can't be found in the constitution.

See what I mean?

"This is exactly Rudy's position because he supports seizing cars upon probable cause of a crime."

No. Seizing != forfeiture, just as warrants != convictions.

"the point is that civil asset forfeiture cases are subject to a "preponderance of the evidence standard""

No, they are not. Probably cause is the standard that the government must meet (which you just conceeded). The owner of the asset must prove to a preponderance of the evidence that they did not know that the asset was being used for a crime.

"such that if the government shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is guilty"

Once again, no. The person is not charged; the asset is. That is why assets can be seized from people that have committed no crime and have been charged with no crime. The assets are tainted by their association with the crime, even though as non-sentient objects they can't voluntarily "associate".

Look, "Al", if you really were a conservative, instead of a water-carrying toady (or a paid disrupter), you wouldn't be defending current forfeiture practices. Simple as that.

Do we need any more evidence that Giuliani is a neofascist than this? What a bunch of horseshit – the government seizing your vehicle permanently because you smell a little like alcohol! But old footballhead, Gerald Ford, thought Giuliani was the cat’s pajamas. Even more reason NOT to vote for the repulsive little combover.

We passed such a law in the Hawaii Legislature during the late 1990s. It was an absolutely terrible idea back then, and it certainly hasn't improved with age. In fact, we learned subsequently that the police were pocketing a tidy sum by selling off the property and using the proceeds for their own official (and probably unofficial) ends.

Fortunately, our state supreme court unanimously struck it down as an unconstitutional deprivation of private property, and the legislators declined to revisit the issue.

Maybe this is a stooopid question, cuz the fact of the law seems clear, but: how do you charge an asset with a crime?

I mean -- I own the car, or the boat, or whatever it is. It's the fact of my ownership that's the issue, not that it's a car or a boat. The government seizes the thing because (in the case of the car) there is probable cause that I drove it drunk. The car wasn't drunk. The government seizes the boat cuz there are drugs in the bilge or a bulkhead or something. But the BOAT isn't charged with possession or trafficking.

I don't understand how the asset gets charged with anything.

I thought the OJ case was different cuz the issue was what HE did, as a civil matter rather than a criminal one. They weren't charging his gloves.

Civil forfeiture remains a serious problem, particularly in the states, but at the federal level the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 did make some modest improvements.

I mean -- I own the car, or the boat, or whatever it is.

That's a laugh--how the deuce am I to take you seriously when it is quite likely that the only thing you own is the stolen laptop upon which you write mash letters to Noam Chomsky?

The government can seize property that is materially linked to providing you the opportunity to commit a crime. I have expertise in this area, so shush for a minute and I'll explain how it all works.

In the early 1990s, I had a state-of-the-art computer system on a Compaq server. We had E-mail, a tape backup system to store the financial records and a "secret" location where we stored anything and everything that was not quite kosher. This is the reality of the investment banking business--sometimes you have to have a little pile of candy that the government has no business looking at. It doesn't matter how much candy there is or what flavor it is--at the end of the day, one must make legal transactions and make everything copacetic. But remember--that's my candy! If you touch it, I'll cut your hand off. Mine!

When Federal agents seized my property--the Compaq server system and the Compaq ProLinea workstations that I had provided to my 40 or so employees, they did so because they feared I would destroy them when our offices were raided. Never mind the fact that I had torn the back out of my suit jacket swinging a double-headed fire axe like a madman in the general vicinity of the whole kit and caboodle. They seized it all and I fully expected to never see that equipment again.

Flash forward to Oct 11, 2003--a moving van appears outside of my home. Two slackjawed yokels deliver seven hundred pieces of equipment at my residence--antique computers, monitors, keyboards, mouses, mouse pads, etc. They unceremoniously dumped it right there in the driveway and the breezeway. None of it functional. All of marked up with crazy stickers and whatnot. Furious, I ordered the staff to assemble these pieces so they could be examined in detail. I hired five temps to sit down and catalog everything found on the hard drives of those computers. I sent the server system to be examined by forensic experts and it was the best 12K I ever spent.

Many of the computers were used to play games and write novels. The video games "Doom" and "Wolfenstein 3D" were found on virtually all of the computers. I found outdated Quicken files that, once I had them unlocked and decrypted showed that certain agents were buying lapdances and were actually using their Quicken to detail their lapdance spending choices with a corresponding rating system. I assembled seven different pieces of fiction written by Federal agents who had used my property as if it were their own while it was in their custody. Someone wrote a full teleplay for an episode of "Seinfeld" that centered around Elaine marrying Kramer and having a baby that looked like Doug Flutie. I collected all of these things and had my lawyers file a quite nasty lawsuit.

Result? Dismissed! Federal agents can take your things and do what they wish with them and there's nothing you can do about it. They can seize whatever they want and skullf$#k! it if they choose to. So long as they have a crooked Clinton-appointed judge to back them up, they can do whatever they want.

Good luck getting satisfaction from them!

I was town engineer and maintenance foreman for a very small town in Colorado for a while. This town made a lot of money off of speeding tickets. Thery were often accused of giving ticket to people who were not really speeding, but were from out of state and could not appear in court to dispute the ticket.

While I was there the town council came upon a new moneymaker. They would seize any cars with no proof of insurance. Then they would charge an outragous daily fee for keeping the cars. This town did not have a secure impound lot, they just parked the cars in the maintenance yard, in our way. It was a mess. We could barely turn around our equipment, and we had to deal with irate car owners all day. Finally, they realized that most of the uninsured cars were not going to get bailed out, because they were really old, and those owners who could afford to pay the fees were going to use their money to sue the town. Greed is a strange thing.

Al needs to read the Fourth Amendment as his most recent post misquotes it.

Kevin's statements about property forfeiture are absolutely correct. Property is seized before a trial to determine innocence or guilt and if the seized property was ill-gained, and one must in fact go to court to, through a civil action, recover ones property even after deemed innocent of the charged crime by a jury.

The police in the USA these days essentially work on commission.

The legal theory of civil forfeiture is utterly bogus. A civil forfeiture is nothing more than a criminal proceeding under the guise of civil law.

The framers of the constitution understood criminal law to be a proceeding brought by the state. This is exactly the type of action they were seeking to prohibit.

So how is this so different from what our government does today? Here's a little heads up on how our government funds departments via forfeiture(financial incentives):

http://www.fear.org/chicago.html

"Abstract: During the 25 years of its existence, the "War on Drugs" has transformed the criminal justice system, to the point where the imperatives of drug law enforcement now drive many of the broader legislative, law enforcement, and corrections policies in counterproductive ways. One significant impetus for this transformation has been the enactment of forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement agencies to keep the lion's share of the drug-related assets they seize. Another has been the federal law enforcement aid program, revised a decade ago to focus on assisting state anti-drug efforts. Collectively these financial incentives have left many law enforcement agencies dependent on drug law enforcement to meet their budgetary requirements, at the expense of alternative goals such as the investigation and prosecution of non-drug crimes, crime prevention strategies, and drug education and treatment. In this article we present a legal and empirical analysis of these laws and their consequences. In so doing, we seek to explain why the drug war continues with such heavy emphasis on law enforcement and incarceration, and show the way to more rational policies."

Sorry about the link...here it is again re White Paper on forfeiture and the drug trade....or in other words.....keep the war on drugs going so we can keep our departments budget coffers and whatever full with cash.

here

"That's a bad deal, but in fairness to Giuliani it's hardly unique to him."

Ah, but most people don't know that, and don't know how common this is. It's perfectly fair and reasonable (given that Rudy is running for president) to make this more broadly known in the context of the presidential campaign, and to make Rudy the poster child for the whole nasty business.

Norman Rogers, that was the most incoherent, rambling non-sensical, utterly irrelevant diatribe I've yet to read from you. There was nothing in that mish-mashed collection of consonants and vowels that comes even close to approaching a logical thought. Everyone who reads it will be dumber because of it. You are awarded no points, and may God have mercy on us all.

By the way,m thanks for confirming for us - yet again - that the most die-hard conservatives are usually crooks with "candy".

Norman Rogers, that was the most incoherent, rambling non-sensical, utterly irrelevant diatribe I've yet to read from you.

Shows you what you know, which is less than nothing! My post was relevant and it was on topic. Your hate screed means what in the larger scheme of the discussion? I have first hand knowledge of property seizure, and I commented upon it. You have first hand knowledge of rolling papers and microwave mac and cheese.

There was nothing in that mish-mashed collection of consonants and vowels that comes even close to approaching a logical thought.

I am easily the finest writer on this blog. My stuff is so much easier to read than anyone elses stuff, to put it mildly. Do you want to know why? Three decades of E-mail, you sucker! I've been writing coherent E-mails since before the likes of you knew what the clean side of a diaper looked like. Thanks for the clumsy verbiage and the crackpot analysis.

This is the "readability" of your ONE paragraph, as estimated by Microsoft Word:
-passive sentences: 18%
-Flesh Reading Ease: 61.9
-Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level: 8.7

This is the "readability" of my entire post, as estimated by Microsoft Word:
-passive sentences: 17%
-Flesh Reading Ease: 62.3
-Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level: 8.7

How do you like me now! How DO you like me now? Whoop, whoop! I win, sir!

Everyone who reads it will be dumber because of it. You are awarded no points, and may God have mercy on us all.

Bah! God has no mercy for the likes of you. He just lets you process hemp products through your body so you'll calm down and shut up and munch on things.

By the way,m thanks for confirming for us - yet again - that the most die-hard conservatives are usually crooks with "candy".

No, businessmen are people who make money. There's a big difference between those two things that obviously escapes a simple minded dolt like yourself. Obviously, the only job you've ever had involved a name tag and hairnet, so what would you know?

I totally saw that shit on The Wire.

Yglesias Al claims to be a lawyer. Drum Al is a idiot parody of Yglesias Al. So, Drum Al botches the law. It's part of the gag.

(Drum Al and Yglesias Al contradicted each other on the same issue on the same day awhile back. Yglesias Al repudiated Drum Al as a parody. Drum Al is always obviously wrong or wrong in humorous ways. Yglesias Al usually posts tangential points or non-responsive points. That appears to be the distinction if you're keeping score at home.)

I suspect the same guy who parodies Al has now taken to parodying Norman Rogers.

Much as it pains me to say so, Norman is (except for Kevin) the best writer on this blog. Don't let us liberal morons wear you down!

So, under these arguments, we can start seizing firearms from anyone with any blemish on their record. Forget cars; let's round up some guns and get them off the street.

Remember, guns don't kill people. People kill people. But you can take a car because it might kill someone in the wrong hands? Let's get busy, cops!

I suspect the same guy who parodies Al has now taken to parodying Norman Rogers.

I usually hear that nonsense when I'm correct about the issues. When I'm not inflicting damage upon the liberal psyche, then I'm just an a$$hole or some other charming thing.

Little birds tell me this Norman manages a nice restaurant in Dublin, California.

Norman, norman, norman...you are expressing great pride because you can write at the level of an 8th grader in the spring? This is by your own posted analysis, of course.

of course, this is analysis of someone who is comparing his (mythical?) experience of having evidence seized while he was in the process of committing a felony which was subsequently returned to him, with people who have assets seized and have to sue to get them back.

Little birds tell me this Norman manages a nice restaurant in Dublin, California.

Those little birds took a crap on your quivering lower lip, sir.

Is this where you work? Slinging hash and making people throw up with tales of how you used to be a relevant thinker in the academic world? Were you posing as "charles hathaway" in order to get the drop on The Man?

The Golden Road to the Original Sambo's Restaurant
Since 1957, we have been serving the BEST Pancakes, Coffee and Views around!
Located on the BEACH in the City of Santa Barbara, CA

I loved it here!,
Reviewer: Charles Hathaway from Dublin, CA
I was allowed to take photos inside and outside of the restaurant (hence research project). Great Food (especially the pancakes). Great Service. Waiters and Waitresses were all quite friendly and cheerful. They are not open for dinner however. It is still a great restaurant despite this small fact.

No, I was never a wealthy businessman from the Northeast who still lives in Manchester, New Hampshire on a fine piece of property. (bwah hah hah hah!)

Yes, I used to run the something called the Red Tractor Cafe in Dublin, California. No, I refused to wear a hair net. The pudding recipe was one that I stole from one of Nelson Rockefeller's mistresses.

Red Tractor Cafe 4920 Dublin Blvd
Dublin, CA 94568
the tractor and farm animal decor is a big winner... the food is so fresh and healthy... very busy and noisy... plenty of highchairs... can be a bit difficult to get a stroller in, but it's usually manageable... brunch is a favorite... try the 3 cheese egg pie and the biscuits and gravy... the butterscotch bread pudding is yummy... children's artwork is hanging all over the walls"

Are you the stupidest liberal on the planet? Your sources are worse than Bob Woodward's.

of course, this is analysis of someone who is comparing his (mythical?) experience of having evidence seized while he was in the process of committing a felony which was subsequently returned to him, with people who have assets seized and have to sue to get them back.

Of course, someone who starts a paragraph with the phrase "of course" is someone to be taken seriously in the "writing" field.

I never asked to get my property back. In 2003, they simply dumped it on my driveway and in my breezeway. (This is in New Hampshire, for those of you not named "the Americanist.) They had seized it and I thought, well, I'll never see that stuff again. Full disclosure--yes, the plea deal sent me to prison and yes, I've paid my debt to society. That's not the issue at hand--the issue at hand is the seizure of materials that allow you to commit crimes. And almost ten years later, what possible good is it to get outdated and used computers back? What possible use could those items have had? The Compaq computers, for instance, were the ProLineas with the 66 MhZ processor!

Could you imagine trying to get onto the Internet with a processor that slow? What on Earth could you do, except stare at a blank screen with drool running into your shoes. (a hint for those of you who happen to be named "the Americanist.)

Sometimes the Feds take things from you and give them back with no warning when they have no further value. That was the point of my on-topic and quite relevant and quite readable post.

And you wonder why I think you're all such morons!

Can we all agree that Norman Rogers is a perfectly fine writer, but is also a boorish, condescending tool?

Norman Rogers is a ... condescending tool?
He's either a brilliant parody of one, or else so totally schizo that he should be in a museum somewhere. Keep it coming, Norman. You light up my life.

"Slinging hash and making people throw up with tales"

But the hash, at least, is blameless.

Can we all agree that Norman Rogers …The Ultimate Literary Critic at 11:13 AM

I'm mouth one of those guys with dribbling out of his who wanders into a with a

shoppingsaliva bag screaming about
socialism.
cankers

Last night as I was simultaneously listening to: An American Lion: Norman Rogers Sings Sondheim and hoping Julio Lugubrioso would manage to finally crack a smile when Boston wrapped things up, I happened to also be reading this Greenberg story.

And I asked myself, "When is the rest of America going to notice what a fucking nutcase Rudy is? And who does Big Papi think he's kidding with that MLB player file weight of 230? I've heard more convincing stories at the DMV." Just then, Norman launched into "I'm Still Here," and as usual when he does this song, all my questions--about everything--were answered.

(Aw, come on, Mike. We know from bores on this blog, and Normie is never monotonous.)

Borrrrrrring!

Civil Asset forfeiture is theft. Full stop. It is a complete mockery of our civil liberties and every single candidate for office should have to either oppose it or explain why he supports theft by government. This is not taxes. It is not criminal prosecution. It is not excusable. It is theft.

Hey, we ate at that restaurant when we were in Santa Barbara this summer. It's a nice place.

The Rogers parody is not good writing: florid insult is juvenile, and lengthy insult is tedious.

"Short views! Short views!"

With the Bosox winning another World Series, we can expect Schilling to endorse Giuliani.

I disagree with Norman over just about everything he writes, but he is by far the best writer (and the most interesting) among the trolls. If you want to talk trash take on Fake Al, Egbert, Ex-liberal or the rest of the mouth breathers. If you want to take on Norman please bring your best game, cause I hate to see him score points.

Maybe the Bosox' owners can afford a new stadium. They can afford it, they just bought 2 World Series in 4 years.

I find Norman's comments hilarious, and occasionally they make a lot of sense (he once called supply-side economics pure fantasy), even when laden with sneering condescension. I can never figure out how "real" he is - some of what he writes doesn't sound like things a pure troll would make up. (I miss tbrosz. He was always completely honest and actually seemed to want to debate rather than annoy, but I guess I was driven off by being called a troll so many times.)

All that aside, Norman's first comment sounds pretty real to me. Except for the part about Clinton-appointed judges - Norman, the entire law enforcement establishment nationwide is engaged in this systematic theft. The responsible parties are the let's-get-tough-on-crime, keep-the-hippies-down, three-strikes-you're-out-even-for-shoplifting, let's-fry-the-poor-retarded-black-man-guilty-or-not politicians and bureaucrats like Joe Arpaio who think the proper approach to maintaining civil order is an iron gauntlet. They have no single party affiliation; the Democrats will happily forget their commitment to civil liberties or the Republicans ditch their respect for property rights when there's a chance to look like the most unrelenting bad motherfucker about stopping "crime", even when this means seizing your house because they found a doobie in your glove compartment. It's an excellent way to raise funds to buy more SWAT gear for torching buildings or storming little old ladies' apartments commando-style in putative drug busts, all without raising taxes or having to answer to your constituents, because no one except for the libertarians or Greens or those obnoxious defense lawyers is going to stick up for someone the authorities have marked as a dealer.

And oh yeah, this stuff has made me a libertarian. Don't worry, Kevin, you'll see the light eventually. Remember all of those stories from the mid-90s about scary militia types carrying assault weapons to defend themselves against the government? Do they still sound as crazy? If Rudy is elected president I will exercise my 2nd Amendment rights, and I used to be strongly in favor of gun control. Too bad CA state laws prevents me from buying *real* guns.

So let me get this straight. We criticize the MSM because they can't run real stories on important topics. But on the topic of Civil Asset Forfeiture, the main discussion here is on a crazy troll's writing style. WTF?!

Hey, you heard shortstop: real debate is booorrrring.

Not to beat the dead horse into a coma, but I really did want an answer: how can the asset commit a crime?

I can understand how a CORPORATION, as a legal 'person' in some sense, can be convicted of fraud or something, and be made corporately to suffer civil penalties, along with (or perhaps even instead of) the individuals who did this or that.

And I think I understand how OJ can be convicted in a civil court of killing his wife and Goldman, and have his property seized, even though he beat the rap in criminal court.

But this seems different, and if you guys are describing it right, I don't get it: the only thing that makes the car guilty in a drunk driving case, is the drunk driver. Seizing the car is an act against the DRIVER -- and if the driver is acquitted, how can the car be guilty? It's not a legal person, like a corporation, and it doesn't seem like the OJ case.

Is that REALLY the legal theory?

"Is that REALLY the legal theory?"

Yep. Baffling, eh?

We criticize the MSM because they can't run real stories on important topics. But on the topic of Civil Asset Forfeiture, the main discussion here is on a crazy troll's writing style

Maybe because we don't disagree about Civil Asset Forfeiture. Maybe because it's the comments section of an (admittedly excellent) political blog, not the front page of the New York Times.

Al,

As Kevin Drum said, he's aware of the legal theory behind civil forfeiture. And the fact that it depends on the civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence" doesn't help your case. The fact that a legal theory is being twisted to allow de facto criminal conviction without due process of law, under color of a civil process, is precisely the cause of outrage. The state is able to deprive an individual of his property--essentially a criminal act--by only a preponderance of evidence. In other words, without criminal due process of law.

In fact, it's really not even civil process. The state isn't even required to show a preponderance of the evidence in court, unless the individual posts a bond equal to 10% of the value of the seized asset, for the privilege of contesting the forfeiture. The burden of proof is actually on the individual.

As a historical matter, civil forfeiture is repugnant to the ideology of the American revolution. Its roots are lie the Roman civil law, which was used in the English prerogative courts. It was one of the outrages that led to the downfalls of both Charles I and James II. In the American colonial case, it was the basis of the admiralty courts' seizures of goods without due process, and was in large part the motivation behind the "due process" clauses in the various state constitutions after the revolution. It was also, needless to say, the motivation behind the Fifth Amendment, written to assure the states that the new "imperial" government would not be as tyrannical as its predecessor.

Nevertheless, the prerogative law was imported piecemeal into American law, including civil forfeiture. It was originally used by customs, and upheld by Supreme Court in the 1830s on the grounds that the taxing power would be null and void if the federal government had to secure a criminal conviction of tax evaders beyond a reasonable doubt before seizing their property. Since then, it has become the basis of American administrative law, with around two dozen federal agencies having the power to seize property without criminal conviction or even prior civil process.

As F. Frederson said, a genuine small-government conservative of the American variety would be opposed to such practices. I think Al is closer to the continental, absolutist, throne-and-altar type--perhaps a cape-wearing Habsburg fetishist of some sort. In the American context, the folks at Lew Rockwell refer to this ideology as "red state fascism": an authoritarian, law'n'order ideology of state-worship. Except for Eric Dondero, of course, the "libertarian" who seeks to apply the "libertarian" label to Benito Giuliani.

Hey, you heard shortstop: real debate is booorrrring.

LOL! Yep, that's exactly what I said. Only you, with your unusual medical chart and fabulous credentials--Oops! Am I name dropping?!-- can translate what I actually wrote into my double-super-secret true message! Damn us all for ever doubting you.

DO let us know, shortstop, when you think of something useful to add.

Well, it ain't the weirdest legal theory I've ever heard, but it's definitely in the top 10.

The thing is, the optics are bad. For one thing, most folks believe (with good reason) that lots of bad guys are never charged, much less convicted, so you start off with two strikes trying to argue that any sort of innovative 'go get 'em' is wrong.

And most folks, I suspect, applauded the OJ civil case, and wouldn't see any useful distinction here. (Which I why I asked for one.)

And the principled argument against it is essentially abstract, and therefore ineffective.

It's the old line: ALWAYS concede on principle. So if ya want to win this one, find some other way to argue it.

I, for one, enjoy reading your posts. You can be counted on to always create well written drivel. But, at the end of the day, it is still drivel.

In addition, I am sure you know that comparing a sample paragraph of one to another sample of a few paragraphs would have no statistical or practical significance.

But, since you are wealthy beyond all avarice, you have no need to make sense or be accurate.

A little food for thought regarding "writing quality":

The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense.
~ Benjamin Franklin

DO let us know, shortstop, when you think of something useful to add.

Unbelievable--you actually say things to people that should be said to your face. It takes balls of pure brass the size of canned hams to say such a thing in public, what with your long and detailed history of adding zero substance to hundreds of conversations.

In addition, I am sure you know that comparing a sample paragraph of one to another sample of a few paragraphs would have no statistical or practical significance.

You'll be shocked to discover--no one gives a rat's ass what you have to say. But persist in your delusions. In fact, take the Americanist in hand and skip to your lou all the way down to la-la land and have a blast, sir.

"We criticize the MSM because they can't run real stories on important topics. But on the topic of Civil Asset Forfeiture, the main discussion here is on a crazy troll's writing style...

Maybe because we don't disagree about Civil Asset Forfeiture."

Actually, I don't think that's quite it: Andre Malraux had a great insight about why so many leading Communists and Marxists had soft hands, that they were intellectuals and seminary students (like Stalin) rather than bricklayers and whatnot. He pointed out that the vanguard of the proletariat wasn't made up of the working class, but of people who felt the need to feel as if they were.

I don't believe in economic classes (not in America, anyway), but the need to IDENTIFY with somebody or something, and the way it's done, is just about the most powerful force in representative politics.

The reflex most posters here have (and Kevin reflects it) is to identify first with being smart and well-informed, but almost invariably with opposition to Bush and various designated knuckleheads, regardless of the issue. The only way to BE smart and well-informed, in fact, is to identify instantly and unanimously with opposition to Bush and the designated knucklheads: you guys could give schoolfish lessons in groupthink.

It's Bushbashing, not insight or even curiousity (I really am baffled over the law here) that defines most threads. When somebody says something intelligent or skeptical that's NOT obviously first defined by its opposition to Bush and designated knuckleheads, the template is, well -- shortstop's posts. She (he?) likes Norman cuz he reinforces her prejudices.

That's no different from the MSM's approach to issues -- if any complex issue can be characterized as f'r 'r or agin 'em, that's the ONLY way to cover it, in he said/she said stories that can't go any deeper cuz then they'd stop being f'r 'em or agin 'em stories.

Norman is just a blogthread, political version of Britney Spears getting out of a limo. (Now, THERE'S a disturbing image.)

Norman is just a blogthread, political version of Britney Spears getting out of a limo. (Now, THERE'S a disturbing image.)

Amazing, again--you say things that one would expect are said to you a thousand times a day. This is a fascinating example of the psychological phenomenon called "projection."

Do share more of your disturbing lack of self-awareness with us. I am quite entertained watching you have a full-blown psychotic episode in public. This is better than watching Cops. Plus, I don't have to look at someone who doesn't own a shirt.

thAmericanist: She (he?) likes Norman cuz he reinforces her prejudices.

Or maybe just because he's fun to read. But that's just me;, I can't actually speak for shortstop. But anyone who takes Norman seriously as a spokesperson for conservatism (or any other 'ism) is irony deficient.

I am fairly sure that no one has ever compared me to Britney Spears.

F. Frederson: "There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not."

Al: And that shows I am wrong, um, how, exactly?

As I said, the point is that civil asset forfeiture cases are subject to a "preponderance of the evidence standard", such that if the government shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is guilty, the asset will be forfeited, even if in a separate criminal case, the government could not prove beynd a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.

No, you're wrong again. The government is not required to provide "a preponderance of evidence" (much less "prove beyond a shadow of doubt") that the seized property was used in a crime. The government is not required to do anything to keep the seized property. In order to recover his own property, it's the owner who must provide "a preponderance of evidence" that the property was not used in a crime. The burden of proof is entirely upon the victim of a seizure, on top of which it is obviously much harder to prove a negative ("not used in a crime") than a positive ("was used in a crime").

This gets at what I was asking in the first place: say I buy a big boat, like one that I know of, a big cutter-rigged cowhorn on the West Coast that once spent a whole tide shift on rocks without serious leaks cuz of the ton of cement ballast poured and set inside. This particular boat, I gather, was used for years by "an importer". It's forty years old or more, now, and I bet I could get it cheap at an auction.

So I'm offshore someplace, and the Coast Guard moseys up, brings a dog aboard, and discovers a few ounces of what was once high-grade Mexican marijuana inside the bulkheads where it spilled long ago, which is now full of dead crabs and God knows what.

So they seize the boat, and charge me with possession with intent to sell.

I am acquitted, cuz it's obvious that the marijuana has been in the boat since the White Album, that I had no way of even knowing it was there since it was behind a bulkhead that had to be torn out after the dog smelled it.

I understand that now, the burden of proof would be on me to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the boat had not been used in a crime THAT I COMMITTED (so simply sailing around with marijuana in the bulkhead doesn't qualify, cuz I didn't know it was there, therefore I didn't commit a crime).

But what I don't get is the seizure itself. How did the BOAT commit a crime? It's MY ownership, not the existence of the boat, that's at issue.

How is my ownership of the boat affected? Since I was acquitted, why do I have to prove anything -- ain't it still MY boat?