When Should it Be OK for Authorities to Seize Your Property

Law enforcement officials in Oklahoma are distraught about a bill to reform civil asset forfeiture.

I’m sure nobody is going to like it when they get their house, car, money, or other things seized by the authorities because they think, or are investigating, you because they think that you are doing something illegal.  To me this seems to be “guilty until proven innocent”.  I have always been under the assumption that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

Now, interestingly enough the U.N. has it in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights under article 11:  “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”  But the Constitution of the United States “does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. [Wikipedia]

Now the 5th Amendment is the one that deals with the Grand Juries, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, and Takings.  This is where we get the “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.  So right here we have the Constitution telling us that we cannot take a persons property with out first the due process.  I really don’t care if you are suspected of engaging in illegal affairs, or flat out know to be.  If you are not convicted of a crime, then the government should not be able to take your possessions.  Now remember we are just talking about the government seizing and KEEPING your property.  It is still certainly OK for them to issue a warrant for it if there is probably cause.  And then if you are found innocent you get it back.

Now Wikipedia was also citing the 6th Amendment, but I really don’t see what they are talking about.  This one is just the right to a speedy trial (yea, right), right to witnesses and counsel.  So we will skip this one.

With the 14th Amendment we are now extending the rights of the 5th to naturalized citizens of the United States.  Now the Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” so we basically have the Constitution saying TWICE what the 5th Amendment said earlier.  Can’t get any more clear than that, can you?

The bill that was presented to the Oklahoma legislature was brought by State Sen. Kyle Loveless (R).  This is one of the few things that I would agree with a Republican on.  One of the things that the article says is that the state doesn’t have to have a definitive proof of a crime before seizing the assets.  Wait, what?  So because they think that that you might be involved in some sort of illegal activity, without proof of it, they can seize your property?  So I think I’ll stop unloading all those legally purchased televisions from the back of a U-Haul at 2am into my rightfully owned run down building on the docks.  Just Kidding btw.

A report from The Institute for Justice said that nearly $100 million from seizures from 2000 to 2014 was taken in.  And the authorities are saying that if they get less money from the seizures that they will have less to work with in order to catch the criminals.  Well, shit yea you will, but you’re taking the money it what appears to be an illegal fashion anyhow.  Cut down on some other excess spending, get your budget under control, and maybe you can make up the difference.

As a tax payer, and one who likes the idea of the police keeping the bad guys off the streets, I don’t mind them using my money for legit things.  But if you are using my money to illegally seize property, even if it is from criminals, that’s when I have an issue with it.  There is always that “fruit of the poisoned tree” thing that the cop shows are always talking about.  That is where if you illegally search property, or seize it, then any proof of guilt that was discovered because of the illegal activity can’t be used in court.

One thing that the article talks about and is part of the focus of the legislation is that when the assets are seized that either they are being sold, or money seized is being used prior to the conviction of the criminal.  But keep in mind that you cannot be labeled a criminal until after a conviction.  Up until then  you are just an innocent person accused of a crime.  Selling the property and then using the funds prior to a conviction is just flat out plain wrong!!  What if it turns out that the person is innocent?  What if it turns out that the person is acquitted, and wants their stuff back?  You have just opened yourself up to a whole bunch of lawsuits.

Believe me, I get that the police and the investigators need more money to do their job and that they are looking for anyway to get it.  But this way is not only wrong, but it is unconstitutional, and the Constitution says it in two places as we talked about above. I agree with Senator Loveless and if I was in his district I would vote for this, even if I am a Democrat.  Let’s take a good look at all the ways that the state, not only Oklahoma, but all all of them, are wasting money, rearrange the budget so we are spending on things that need to be funded, and not spending money on “bridges to nowhere”.  Even then I think the police are not going to have enough to do what they want, but hey, every little bit helps right?  And now we are doing it legally.

And let me just finish this Rant with a Big Big Thank You to all of you out there that have served as police officers, or have friends and family that are part of the police organizations.  You do a hard job, and one that I do not envy.  Keep up the good work!

Love to you all!

~Ryan

The GOP Debates….and Debates in General

So as of this writing I have not yet watched the 3rd GOP debate that was on 10/28/15, but I have it queued up to watch as soon as I get this Rant done. But there has been so much writing about it in the news I figured that I could pull off this Rant without actually watching it yet.

Let me first ask you: Do the debates in general even make sense to have? Period?  Think about this:  The candidates on the GOP side want to limit the time of the debate to two hours.  TWO F***ING HOURS!!  Two hours to debate critically the issues of the nation and the world between 14 candidates. Let’s do that math on that one.  Two hours = 60 minutes.  Divide that by 14 candidates and you get a whopping 8.57 minutes for each of them to tell us how they are going to lead the country, and the world.  That is just nowhere near enough time for that!!!  Let’s not kid around.  And if each one of them gets one minute for opening and closing remarks (because they never stay within their guidelines) and leaves just 6.57 minutes to get to saving the country and the world.  Now I think that they are planning like 10 GOP debates so that is 65 minutes total debate time.  Fuck me, why watch?!  I’d rather listen to them on their stump speeches where they get more time to talk about what they are going to do, and then just compare that to the other candidate and then make up my mind on who to vote for.

Don’t get me wrong though.  I am not in the least bit going to vote for any of those monkeys on the GOP side.  But you know what?  They do have legit concerns that even I agree about after just READING about the mess of the CNBC one that I’m about to watch.

I think that a candidate should have as much time as he or she needs to answer the question that was asked, or to rebut a comment from another that was specifically addressed or mentioned them.  Not just a 30 second bit.  Is that going to draw out the time that the debate takes?  You betcha!!  But it would give move validity to their answers and really let the voters know what they are thinking.

But here is something that I think should happen with the debates.  You can’t give the candidates questions that they are prepared to answer.  You might have just as well have them write a speech for that.  So I think that the GOP debates should be moderated by the liberals, and the Democrats moderated by the conservatives.  Just imagine what kind of questions and answers you would get!  I also think that there should be no rules in the debates.  No questions or topics that would be off limits.  And by having the other party moderate the debate you wouldn’t get that sense that the candidates own the debate and they are dictating to the moderators what questions get to be asked.  Just imagine a Democrat asking what their opinion on marriage equality, or a woman’s right to choose?  Or a Republican asking the Democrats about cutting back on defense spending limiting the size of government?  Don’t those seem like they would be better debate questions?

I would love to put all 14 of them in a room together at 9am, and then have them debate the issues all freaking day.  No holds barred style.  Let them answer the questions being asked.  Let them yell at there opponents.  We are talking about the fate of our country, and the leader of the free world.  And if the GOP gets their way it’s either going to be Trump and his casino empire, an ex-neurosurgeon, or an HP executive.  Do you really want to let these guys have their finger on the nuclear trigger, setting foreign policy, rolling back progressive reforms, without really knowing who they are and what they are really about?

This 2016 election is all about a change in leadership style.  Nobody right now is leaning toward anyone that has been a life long politician with the exception of Hillary Clinton. She is the only top tier establishment candidate that right now has a viable chance at winning.  We have gotten to know her through being First Lady, New York state Senator, and then Secretary of State.  But everyone else is like “who are these guys”?

I certainly don’t want to vote for a republican.  But I would like them to have a fair debate to get to know them, what they are like, what their policies would be, because then, Hell, you never know.  The place just might freeze!!  But all I see right now is just mess, a bunch of complainers who are acting more like school children than Presidential candidates, and I wouldn’t vote for any of them.  I don’t know how the networks are going to solve this issue.  At least on the Democrat side there is only four of them.  That is a ton more manageable.  In the mean time I just recommend taking the debates with a grain of salt and listening to them on their stump speeches and then comparing what you hear to make the best decision.

All I know is that we’re screwed if one of the GOP gets elected.  And I can’t run for another 15 years.  Gives me great time to built up my base!  Team Striker 2032!! Your first out as gay, ex-hustler, GED earning, President!  Imagine that!?

Love to you all!

~Ryan