SESSIONS REINSTATES ASSET FORFEITURE AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
This has been a tough week for blogs, because I've wanted to blog about many stories concerning space, some recent discoveries of gravitational anomalies in Weyl crystals or Weyl materials, and so on, but the cultural news has, again, taken precedence, because the assault on fundamental liberties continues. More recently, I've been complaining that the Republithug party has been - for a very long time - the party of "fake opposition" to progressivism and statism.
Well, once again, it has stepped forward, and proven me to be correct, as Attorney General Jess Sessions has decided it's "ok" for assets to be seized, effectively nullifying at the federal level the efforts of states to curtail the practice, according to this article shared by Mr. M.D., and citing, let it be noted, a lamestream media report from See B.S. News:
Sessions reinstates asset forfeiture policy at Justice Department
Note the opening three paragraphs:
The Justice Department announced their plans to reinstate the use of asset forfeiture, especially for drug suspects -- making it easier for local law enforcement to seize cash and property from crime suspects and reap the proceeds.
The practice has been criticized because it allows law enforcement to take possessions -- such as cars and money -- without indictments or evidence a crime has been committed.
"Civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement help defund organized crime, prevents new crime from committed and weakens the criminals and cartels," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Wednesday announcing the revived DOJ policy.
The problem, of course, is that one only has to be suspected of criminality, in order to lose all one's assets. It's a wonderful way to deal with potential political enemies: trump up a suspicion of criminal activity against an individual who is really a political enemy, and voila, problem solved.
And it has happened. There have been cases of Christian music groups touring the country whose assets, including some thousands of dollars of cash, were "forfeited" on the mere suspicion of criminal activity.
This can happen to you, to your children, to your friends, to me... to anyone deemed an enemy of the state. And don't put it past the "authorities" to plant evidence in order to achieve it.
The problem, of course, is that it is wholly unconstitutional. When the oligarchs met in Philadelphia to give us the current American constitution, the anti-federalists insisted upon a Bill of Rights, sensing that without it, all the vehicles of repression were still in place. One of the articles - the sixth - of that Bill of Rights, clearly states:
Article the sixth... 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.
Asset forfeiture of course, by any normal person's standards of language, customary usage, or understanding, an unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, there will be plenty of lawyers and so on to argue this case or that case, this precedent, or that precedent, to say otherwise, and that it is all "perfectly legal and constitutional."
And that is America's problem: the willingness to believe authority and clever sophistical arguments, over the clear - and regrettably unenforced - language and provisions of the Constitution. Does this mean the drug dealer gets to travel down the interstate free from unreasonable search and seizure? Yes it does, because that protects the freedom of all.
What is intriguing, however, is that the practice has been challenged by states:
CBS News' Paula Reid reports that 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.
Think about that for a moment: twenty-four states, just one shy of half the states in the union. What this means is that the federal government is now acting in opposition to almost half the state governments in the country, effectively nullifying their own wishes and their own attempt to curtail abuses, and those state governments have acted because their angry and frustrated citizenry have seen enough of the abuses of the federal Robespierres blathering about virtue and fighting crime and so on. Robespierre, of course, had his own way of cutting away the difficulties of independently thinking people. Regrettably, the comparison becomes more and more apt, because the policies of the federal government more and more resemble those, not of constitutional government, but of a Committee of Public Safety, the wet dream of every progressive, and a National Convention issuing more and more assignats (federal reserve notes), while Europe looks on in disbelief at the growing instability of a neighbor...
See you on the flip side...
26 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
ASSET FORFEITURE IS a good thing when directed where it needs to be directed. Think BIG.
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/07/28/amazon-under-federal-investigation-over-iran-linked-sales-including-to-person-on-anti-terror-list/
The Constitution is a great inconvenience to the oligarchs. Remember when Dubya wanted to include a provision in renewal of the Patriot Act and was told it was unconstitutional? He said “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a g0dd4mned piece of paper!” (Didn’t he take an oath to uphold and defend it? Maybe he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he did ;-)) State’s rights and individual’s rights cannot be taken for granted when the Supreme court says it can take away rights, as well as grant them (Scalia). http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm
This will likely never happen, but it’s worth mentioning:
As Joseph mentions, 24 states have already tried to block this monarchical-style seizure mechanism. That must reflect the population’s abhorrence of the concept. So, why not start a formal Consti tutional Amendment ‘push’ around this issue? By the stats, we are halfway there (in principle). At the least, it would raise public awareness of the basic issues. At the most, it might reaffirm our Bill of Rights…
Asset forfeiture help law enforcement meet expanded budgets; both in personal and official business. It’s all part of the new privatized[corporate government starving public in st1 tu sions] police force[fire department are steadily going private as well]. The old “protect & Serve” as been replaced by the new mantra model: “Punish & Profit”.
Here it is plain & simple
[go 25 minutes in and listen for a minute]
https://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/397415-episode-max-keiser-1101‘
Economist Milton Friedman argued in 1991 that legalization of drugs would destroy the black market: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/friedm1.htm Apparently this kind of thinking is inconvenient for the “ideologues” like Sessions. His escalation of the drug war is a windfall for the cartels and is resulting in increased criminality. As the stakes are raised gangs become splintered and violence increases, as we are seeing now with the ongoing mayhem in Mexico: http://www.businessinsider.com/mexico-violence-monthly-homicide-record-2017-4
Look to Europe for some sanity. Since Portugal decriminalized drugs fifteen years ago addiction and injecting drug use has fallen. Drug addicts are reconnected with their communities rather than being incarcerated in drug war concentration camps..
Perhaps Trump/Sessions are among those elites who are sustained by the black market cash flow and money laundering: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-taj-mahal/index.html as opposed to those like George Soros (a major contributor to the Drug Policy Alliance that is promoting the regulation of drugs) who most likely see the drug swamp as an impediment to their dreams of a cashless society.
What can one expect from a ruling class who are street punks at heart. Who haven’t the foggiest idea how a society works at any level. We are dealing with a group of thieving greed heads who dream is they own everything of value on this Earth. The problem is these incompetents is all they know is how steal and do not know how to bargain and trade on any level. They wont know when the gravy train finally drays up.
HERE ARE TRUTHFUL FACTS MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW, …. BUT SHOULD…:
http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/2012/07/these-documents-are-not-secret-they-are.html
Ignorance of the law is no excuse:
http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/2015/10/ignorance-of-law-is-no-excuse-11-3-15_3.html
The short version: You have no assets to be seized, not even what you think is your own body, it was all pledged to service the bankruptcy. This is a matter of public record. You are given a STATE funded education to keep you ignorant of these facts.
god makes the heir not man – that website is ancient and filled with claims that contradict basic maxim research – cut through the legalese using roman maxims – the romans were owners, they owned their life and their deaths…they created an empire management system in the bible to get all the very different groups on the same page- they succeeded last i checked as the high imperial language of english was given to the progeny in time and is quietly bringing their commerce into/under one tongue…
If the state has all the power, who created it? And who granted the original grant? How can someone be pledged when involuntary servitude is against all laws? Oh ya…its called volunteering for a reason b/c the supreme power can not bind itself permanently but may dissolved or destroy ALL BONDS…
who is the supreme power in man’s system of law? and whose the supreme power outside of that one? dig deeper…or repeat the jesuit mind F that a creation of the most high can be owned by ANYONE but the generator/grantor 🙂
Agenda 21. Community Oriented Policing System (COPS). Asset Forfeiture. Open borders. With these four things alone the DSA now has a flexible set of tools to harvest all assets from dissenting citizens without impunity and ease. The Deep State of Amer-ica’s version of fascism has the potential to make Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia look like a kindergarten. Add to this Common Core you now see the Roman System in full bloom and the descent of a new Dark Age as it’s cultural offspring. With or without another internal period of warfare and unrest we could see yet another Reconstruction Period in our history to squash all opposition to the new order—followed by another Great Depression to flatten the whole financial infrastructure for a new monetary system based on digital currency.
When my youngest son was only three he would often come to crawl in bed between us for comfort. “Son, what’s wrong?” “There’s monsters in my room.” “Where?” “In my closet,” or “Under my bed.” were the usual responses. I didn’t have the heart to tell him then, and still swallow hard when I tell him now, that the only monsters I know are in human form. You do not know they are there until they reveal themselves by their policies and programs. The bulk of them reside in the fields of finance, industry, politics, law, military, intelligence. These categorical vocations are preciously those places where power can be concentrated in the fewest hands, and where the greatest evil can be inflicted on the greatest good. They love their fascism and insist we all learn to love them for providing it.
OC, I hate to tell you, but your young son was probably right. Youngsters are sensitive to psychic influences, having not yet had it drilled out of them that they don’t exist. If someone attempted a psychic contact or even ‘astral-ed’ into his room, your son may have picked that up. With no ‘education’ about those matters, your son’s mind assigned it to ‘monsters’ and assigned age-appropriate places for the monsters to reside. By now, as an adult (presumably), he has likely been taught to ignore the psychic cues…
(The above does not refute that there are monsters in human form. Granted.)
Sessions is diddling while Rome burns. Totally ineffectual, afraid to take on the Swamp or prosecute the rampant DNC — Clintonista mafia criminality, murders, leaks and treason. Then this.
For the love of God, fire him already and let him tend his petunias and put in a Rottweiler like Scaramucci to to clean house.
Sessions is part of the swamp, as is 50% of the repubs. Apparently no one has told the southern gentleman(sarcasm) that half the teenagers smoke pot. lol
He is only as much a part of the swamp as the rare eagle who occasionally hunts there for food as a resource. I know quite a bit about his career but I can also appreciate why his critics view him as a greater part. Sessions is what some historians would call a plain old Federalist with some Democratic leanings. He’s a rare ideologue in a sea of mindless toadies controlled by their special interests and lobbies–and this is the real swamp. His present troubles are precisely because he is an ideologue. My misgivings have always been his Federalist tendencies–and this right here is one of those positions that make ME furious with him. Then again, I am far more Jeffersonian in my approach and that makes my take on things as a means of entertainment for many.
Sessions has said that pot is a drug, and that good people do not use it. Therefore, Sessions is either a complete idiot, or a completely unprincipled hor.
Today, a lot of southerners would tend to agree with your position on this, Phil. The opinion was the prevailing one at the time Sessions started practicing law. His opinion of pot was framed by the criminal justice position of his age. I still believe the best way to evaluate a person is to look at their whole body of work. So, for the record, I would say:
“Sessions is not idiot, but his position on pot may be totally idiotic. He may be grossly misinformed.”
However, I also know from family experience there is a link between prescription drugs for ADD and hard core narcotics. Statistics is a very uncertain guide when stretched too far.
The second sentence should read: “His current opinion was the prevailing one at the time Sessions started practicing law.” Words were lost during editing before the cut and paste.
Recognizing the fact that cannabis is a plant, not a drug, and acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that it cures cancer, is different from having an opinion or “taking a position.” Mr. Sessions has taken the same position on pot as that held by either a complete idiot, or a completely unprincipled hor. But please, continue to defend him. We are entertained.
Does it offend to separate the position from the character of the man because of one bad decision regarding a plant? Does one defend another by separating the two, deciding against the one but reserving a decision for the second?
You and I both KNOW this plant, and hemp, are both deliberately repressed for very similar reasons. I know people whose cancers could have been treated if this plant was classified differently. His position on pot is NOT helping us there either. Did you not see in my main comment the inference that this action about asset forfeiture is potentially a tool for monsters–and by inference, he may well turn out to be one? Now if you are saying that asset forfeiture will be used against people for medical marijuana use then you and I are in FULL agreement!
Of all the people who could occupy the position Sessions seemed to me to be the best choice to pursue the Clinton Foundation and other areas. The man took on the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama at a time when the movement still have strong, silent influence within the legal community there. The Clintonistas are very much aware of this and are watching him closely. IF he is actively pursuing this it would not be common knowledge. If he is pursuing this, Sessions will not discuss any of it until it is time regardless of how Trump feels about it. IF Sessions thinks the assassination attempt against Steve Scalia was a warning for a shared interest in legislation against human trafficking he would be smart enough to understand the message and proceed more carefully. I know this is a string of a lot of “ifs” but Sessions is no dummy. A strike against the Clintonistas is a strike against the intelligence community. They have to be willing to sacrifice the Clintaistas and deliver them to him before he can proceed. One wonders whether these negotiations are happening and whether the arrangements are being made–or whether this whole chain of reason is only the hope of an optimistic fool.
Basta, I want them in prison on death row for high crimes and treason as bad as the next person who has observed the serious harm these people have inflicted on humanity. The Clintonistas are now the international version of the Southern mafia–and that for Sessions a huge, huge problem. I am willing to be patient and pray someone delivers the goods. If there is ONE silver lining to this asset forfeiture thing, it would be the seizure of all Clinton assets once the indictment was issued!
Regarding Mr. Sessions’ character–it is evidenced by the position he has taken on pot. Telling the world that no good person smokes pot is a remark which arises from Mr. Sessions’ character. Therefore, Mr. Sessions has the character of either a complete idiot, or a completely unprincipled hor, and since one doesn’t become a member of the British Accreditation Regency, or Registry, or whatever it is, by being a complete idiot, he therefore must be the latter.
(I usually don’t put on my Captain Obvious epaulets and jodhpurs before the after-dinner cocktails are served, but duty called.)
Then, by extension, for having said something like this in the past, was I once an idiot, too? When provided a richer, more scientific data set, and having changed my mind, does this make me remain an idiot? If, having changed my mind, what am I now? If I remain an idiot, the judgment says more about the person making the decision rather than the person who made the one single statement.
Telling the world “no good person smokes pot” was stupid. I get it. Does one stupid statement an idiot make? I am in very much agreement that statements are a reflection of character–but I also know humans say stupid things that are often OUT of character too. Though I have enumerated some of my reasons for hope I do agree his collective positions do not bode well for us–and, in the sense that everyone who participates here is reasonable and friendly and polite, he is looking more like an idiot every day!
I did not say Mr. Sessions was stupid for making his utterly idiotic remark. I said he is either stupid, or compromised. And lawyers are not stupid.
The Bible is a guide book for dummies, explaining in baby steps how to escape the Babylon banksters, that hide under the bed, with hidden finance and a calculator. Some ancient preppers wrote the Bible with holy water filter.
Third most important sentence in the scripture is “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed”, and that is the “stone” in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Sword drawn from “stone” is a sprouting seed – opposing empires on clay feet.
Contract law applies in all dimension. Nullification of social contract is return to natural origin. That is what “children of Yahweh” means. Daniel came to no harm the lion’s den, because an angel appeared out of nowhere.
why are there two creation stories in gen 1 and gen 2? 🙂
I’ve recently been having a new look at late 18th century revolutions and agitations, the Illuminati (I mean the Weishaupt variety) and banking shennanigans. A terrible period, but without modern communications. Which are a 2-edged blade for power-seeking entities…