Mediaboss Marketing

Recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the revival of civil asset forfeiture practices. Such a phrase is ambiguous enough to disinterest average citizens, yet anyone whose assets have been sized through this method may attest to its truly malevolent and un-natural ramifications.

Effectively, civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to confiscate possessions from anyone suspected of illegal activity without filing any criminal charges; cases are between law enforcement and alleged criminally-connected assets, not owners. Notorious case names include Texas v. .39 Acres and Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet Silverado. During such cases, 59.02 (c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires forfeiters to prove their innocence instead of requiring law enforcement to prove guilt.

One stark example of abuse was endured by Austin resident Javier Gonzalez in 2005. The Texas Observer reported Gonzalez was traveling from Austin to Brownsville with approximately $10,000 budgeted for his aunts funeral; however, despite no contraband, after Jim Wells County sheriff deputies stopped him for missing a front license plate, he was arrested and coerced into forfeiting the funds. Javier was told forfeiture represented the only way to prevent felony money laundering charges. Similarly, under Sessions direction, any UT student could experience disenfranchisement and have their possessions removed under the pretense of mere suspicion.

Civil asset forfeiture exists as an un-natural legal practice. The term un-natural reflects Ciceros timeless observation that, true law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain Civil asset forfeiture, conversely, represents wrong reason in disagreement with nature. Imagine no property laws, or any laws whatsoever, existed: Would theft suddenly become acceptable? One does not need statutes to grasp the concept that taking from another without cause is not tolerable.

Unfortunately, even the Texas Supreme Court has ostensibly sanctioned civil asset forfeiture by holding in Texas v. Richards that the Texas Constitution does not protect owners from having assets forfeited, and in El-Ali v. Texas the Court refused to review its previous ruling. Courts, attorneys general and other entities may attempt to defend civil asset forfeiture, yet they stand in perpetual contempt of natural law enshrined within the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment states, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, which represents a restatement of natural law existing before ratification.

Sessions has promised reforms to curb previous abuses, yet law enforcement will still have perverse incentives to seize assets, which they regularly retain for local funding. Nonetheless, a ray of hope has emerged through Rep. Beto O'Rourke and Rep. Randy Webers bipartisan sponsorship of legislation guaranteeing legal representation for those whose assets have been seized, and redirecting seized assets into the U.S. Treasurys general fund. One hopes bipartisan legislative opposition and an engaged citizenry will quickly stymie civil asset forfeitures, because un-natural laws cannot be gradually reformed: They must be actively abolished.

Wayne R. Beckermann is a member of the Texas Law Class of 2020 from Brenham, Texas.

The rest is here:
Civil asset forfeiture: Un-natural law - UT The Daily Texan

On July 17, 229 years after ratification of the Constitution, Jeff Sessions, the honorable attorney general of the USA, issued his recommendation that asset forfeiture be increased.

Meanwhile in middle town USA, a collective shrug of the shoulders was the response. Who cares if a few drug dealers have their ill-gotten gains taken from them? Yet, it is a shame if innocent Americans happen have their property and cash taken from them without due process of law. There must be a good reason for this gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.

As a matter of fact, thanks to Sessions, we now know the Founding Fathers had it all wrong. We are not innocent until proven guilty, and we owe Sessions our gratitude for correcting a 200-year-old mistake in our justice system.

Since he has determined we are all inherently guilty, it is futile to try to prove our innocence. Therefore, the only patriotic thing to do is to voluntarily forfeit our assets so he won't waste our tax dollars seizing them.

Donald Harris

Whitehall Township

See original here:
Attorney General Sessions ignores 4th Amendment - Allentown Morning Call

WisBar

Refusing Interior Inspection: Right to Challenge Property Assessment Not Lost WisBar Kelly concluded that the Milewskis had a constitutional right to refuse the tax assessor's entry, because government entry to obtain information would be a search under the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

See more here:
Refusing Interior Inspection: Right to Challenge Property Assessment Not Lost - WisBar

Congress must put an end to the Justice Department's flagrant disregard for the Fourth Amendment.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed an order this week making it easier for law enforcement officials to seize property from persons who have not even been charged with a crime.

"President Trump has directed this Department of Justice to reduce crime in this country, and we will use every lawful tool that we have to do that. We will continue to encourage civil asset forfeiture whenever appropriate in order to hit organized crime in the wallet," Attorney Jeff Sessions said Wednesday.

He added, "With this new policy, the American people can be confident knowing that we are taking action to defund criminals and at the same time protecting the rights of law-abiding people."

CBS News' Paula Reid explains how the newly announced DOJ policy, which marks a reverse of Obama-era restrictions, could help law enforcement officials get around state-level legislation meant to curb civil asset forfeiture:

24 states have passed laws limiting the practice, but local law enforcement can get around those restrictions by giving seized assets to the federal government instead of returning them to their owners. This practice is called "adoption" and it's been used to seize almost $1 billion in assets over the last decade.

It's bad enough that this entire practice is a clear violation of our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." But reversing previous civil asset forfeiture restrictions so that law enforcement agencies can skirt state laws goes far beyond bad.

If you're a conservative and you believe in personal property rights and the virtue of limited government, there's no defending a policy wherein law enforcement officials can work around local and state ordinances to seize an individual's property based entirely on suspicion.

That's some primo, grade-A garbage alright.

Congress has the power to rein in this Justice Department. Call your representative.

Originally posted here:
The new Justice Department directive is garbage. Call your representative. - Washington Examiner

Jennifer and Wayne Anderson of Houma sued Sheriff Jerry Larpenter after he searched their home and seized the family's computers and cellphones a year ago.

NEW ORLEANS -- A U.S. District Court judge cleared the way for a Terrebonne Parish blogger and her husband to sue Sheriff Jerry Larpenter for violations of her civil rights.

Jennifer and Wayne Anderson sued Larpenter after he searched their home and seized the family's computers and cellphones a year ago.

Larpenter ordered one of his detectives to secure a search warrant under the guise of a criminal defamation investigation into Jennifer Anderson's blog, "ExposeDAT."

Louisiana's criminal defamation statute was declared unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court decades ago as it pertains to elected officials.

Larpenter said he initiated the investigation after Houma insurance company owner Tony Alford filed a criminal complaint about ExposeDAT. The blog questioned the close ties between Alford, Larpenter and Terrebonne Parish President Gordon Dove.

At the time of the search and seizure, Anderson's true identity was not publicly known. She created ExposeDAT using the pseudonym John Turner.

While the judge who issued the search warrant found probable cause for the search, Louisiana's 5th Circuit Court of Appeal found it unconstitutional.

The Andersons filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against Larpenter, alleging the sheriff violated Jennifer's First Amendment right to free speech and Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure and for malicious prosecution.

In a ruling filed Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lance Africk denied Larpenter's motion to throw out the case in its entirety, allowing the constitutional claims to proceed.

But the judge dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim because Anderson was never formally prosecuted.

"Given the longstanding and robust constitutional protections afforded speech involving public officials (and speech involving public funds), it can be argued based on these allegations that Sheriff Larpenter acted with at least deliberate indifference to the risk that his actions would violate the Andersons constitutional rights," Africk wrote.

Larpenter has argued Anderson's blog targeted Tony Alford in his capacity as a businessman, not in his role as a member of Terrebonne Parish Levee Board. But like the state court, Africk found Alford is a public official and therefore Anderson's speech would be protected.

"Jennifer Andersons speech falls squarely within the four corners of the First Amendment," Africk wrote.

Wayne Anderson is a Houma Police officer. The day of the search he was placed on indefinite administrative leave. He then had medical problems that forced him off duty until last week.

The resulting scandal caused Jennifer Anderson to lose her job as well.

The order says Larpenter has argued there was no damage done to the Andersons because they got their phones and their computers back without them being searched.

But Judge Africk indicates in his order that the damage caused by sheriff's actions go beyond the alleged trampling of the Andersons' constitutional rights.

"That message if you speak ill of the sheriff of your parish, then the sheriff will direct his law enforcement resources toward forcibly entering your home and taking your belongings under the guise of a criminal investigation is inseparable from the injury and would certainly chill anyone ... from engaging in similar constitutionally protected speech in the future," Africk wrote.

View post:
Judge clears way for bloggers to sue Terrebonne sheriff - Houma Courier