AG Sessions wants increased asset forefiture

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Speaking to the National District Attorneys Association conference in Minneapolis on Monday, Sessions said he’s issuing a new directive that will, among other things, aim to increase civil asset forfeiture.

“[W]e hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said. “With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners.”

Police already seize a lot of assets from people. A recent report from the inspector general at the Justice Department, for example, found that the Drug Enforcement Administration alone seized more than $3.2 billion in assets from 2007 to 2016.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ff-sessions-civil-asset-forfeiture?yptr=yahoo
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I do wish AG Sessions would look at the Clinton investigation and do the right thing, as well as the states that are sanctuary and violating drug laws.

As for money, I think it's fine to take the money and freeze it during a trial, and take it if it has been adjudicated as illegally obtained. Other than that, I'm not so good.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I agree. It's too bad our great President picked such a ####ty AG.

20 years in the Senate may have gotten him to be too friendly with his cohorts, and it seems it shriveled his manhood.
He recuses himself from important tasks in investigations while he goes after the easy shot.

By the way your sarcasm toward Trump is noted.

IMO the Senate is more a clubhouse full of people who's greatest job is to see that they stay as members.
They stopped working for America a long time ago.
 
Last edited:

Restitution

New Member
I agree. It's too bad our great President picked such a ####ty AG.

I know right? Its not like civil forfeiture laws and the abuses there of... were happening before this last election. :sarcasm:

But... you know.... because Trump! :yay:

Stiiiillll waiting on that avatar change :shrug:
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
I have nothing against seizures against dope dealers, but taking from honest citizens and making it almost impossible to get their money back is BS.

I do. I really don't think there should be any such thing as "civil asset forfeiture". If I haven't been found guilty of a crime leave your grubby hands off of my stuff.
 
The last AG said white people can't be victims of hate crimes.
This AG says it's Ok for the government to take money and property without due process.
Both parties disgust me.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I know right? Its not like civil forfeiture laws and the abuses there of... were happening before this last election. :sarcasm:

But... you know.... because Trump! :yay:

Stiiiillll waiting on that avatar change :shrug:



No, I would say that I hoped Trump would appoint an AG that thinks just maybe the peoples property cant be convicted of a crime the person who owns it wasn't convicted of. Or to at least emplace some better safeguards to prevent abuse. Instead we get an "Hell yeah!!!!! Do more of that!!!!"
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18770/awful-trump-doj-use-asset-forfeiture-even-states-aaron-bandler


The Department of Justice announced on Wednesday its official stance on civil asset forfeiture, which includes expanding the policy into states that have banned the practice.

A directive from the DOJ explains that the department will use the policy toward any property confiscated by state and local law enforcement if it feels that it relates to a federal crime. It then lists various "safeguards" for the practice as well as how people can try to regain their property. Eventually, the directive reaches a chilling note: the DOJ's policy "supersedes" states that have prohibited the use of asset forfeiture.

[clip]

Not only is the DOJ's expansion of asset forfeiture a serious violation of private property rights, it also encroaches upon federalism by stating that the practice will even be used in states that have banned it. In April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions paid lip service to federalism: (emphasis bolded)

Last week Sessions ordered his deputies to undertake a comprehensive review of all police reform activities, including any existing or contemplated consent decrees, which were binding agreements used in prior administrations to outline and enforce reform measures.

"These are, first and foremost, tasks for state, local and tribal law enforcement. ... It is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies," Sessions wrote in a memo — a federalism-tinged tone that some forecast as the beginning of the end of the department's use of consent decrees.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
What makes you think Trump would veto it.?

By the way Sessions needs firing.


Sessions does seem to be quite the mouse. I just worry that Trumps admin is in disarray. Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe that is drain the swamp thing. We shall see.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
A Justice Department inspector general report in March found that more than $4 billion in forfeited funds have been given to crime victims since 2000.

How the hell does that work? Ohh hey, we noticed you are carrying $3k in cash while walking to the used car lot, with a voicemail from the owner saying he will sell you a car for $3k, and a bank withdrawal slip showing the money came from your account. This is obviously drug money as it has trace amounts of drugs on it, we are going to confiscate it and give $600 to the victim of your (money's) crimes. Who's the victim? Who cares, I got my cut.
 
Top