Hacker News Reader

Comment by jared314 | Hacker News Reader

> I am not a lawyer, but I do have to wonder, how is 'civil forfeiture' as a whole compatible with the U.S. constitution

IANAL: Last I heard, the logic was that you, the owner, are not accused of anything. Your property is accused of being used in a criminal act. Your property is guilty until proven innocent, because it is not a person protected by the bill of rights.

The idea was to seize the assets of organized crime without having to completely prove they were committing a crime (which is hard). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Also, if your plan is to use the bill of rights against a prosecutor, you need a better plan.)

View on HN

That demonstrates again why people should reject the argument of "if we don't do this, law enforcement would be hard" or "we'd do it only to the bad guys, don't worry". Because as soon as it's allowed to do this to the bad guys, it is amazing who becomes the bad guy when needed.

>Your property is accused of being used in a criminal act.

what happened to that case of the slave who tried to sue for his freedom, but his suit was rejected because he was property, and property couldn't sue?

Edit: found the case, it was Dred Scott vs. Sandford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

So does this mean that I can sue the Federal Reserve and 'hold' their assets indefinitely until they prove they are not guilty? do I get to keep the interest generated while the case slowly goes through due process?

If you have an army, yes.

Maybe we need to become an army.

I don't see how that logic flies. My property may be guilty until innocent, but I am still being deprived of property without due process.

As far as I can tell, "due process" only means "a judge approved it".

Due process isn't the problem. The seizure is sanctioned by a court and you can challenge it, so there's your due process.

The reason it's a total scam is that they're claiming it's a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one. The government is making an accusation of criminal wrongdoing and is ostensibly acting on behalf of the people rather than any government agency but somehow it isn't a criminal case. So then the government claims it doesn't have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, they can just steal your stuff and leave you with the burden of suing to get it back.

It's not guilty til proven innocence, but a lower standard called a preponderance of evidence.

The hearing you get is the due process.

>IANAL: Last I heard, the logic was that you, the owner, are not accused of anything. Your property is accused of being used in a criminal act. Your property is guilty until proven innocent, because it is not a person protected by the bill of rights.

This kind of twisting the meaning of explicit passages in the constitution etc, is only fit for a dictatorship and/or a nation of slaves. It means those documents are more or less jokes.

Second, the "property is "accussed"", really? How does that fit with the "nor be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY"?

The same obvious BS twisting I saw in justifying no gun control, by twisting the "militia" thing to mean anyone at anytime.

That this twisting was made by the higher judges with prestigious degrees, 20 medals and awards, and 40+ year career doesn't mean much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com