|
There's a tangential anti-money laundering tie-in to the issues of asset forfeiture, usually having to do with shady business owners thinking structuring isn't a crime then getting real weepy when their safe full of cash at home gets seized and then the tax audits start. As someone who does the bank-side reporting of those shady business owners who think they're really bright evading taxes, I would still like to see those assets seized so that they can be included in the inevitable tax evasion investigation and/or (if a landscaping contractor, farmer, or asphalt paver) labor violation suits.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
What's the actual legal basis/structure of domestic asset forfeiture? Do we have a source for discussion that's descriptive and not opposed to it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What's the actual legal basis/structure of domestic asset forfeiture? Do we have a source for discussion that's descriptive and not opposed to it? Probably not, most of the content I've ever seen written on the topic has to do with "lo, this poor captain of industry, laid wretched by the avarice of the state!" with like a half paragraph at the bottom referencing the labor violations, tax cheating, attempts to steal/hide joint assets amidst a divorce, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What's the actual legal basis/structure of domestic asset forfeiture? Do we have a source for discussion that's descriptive and not opposed to it? A descriptive source would be opposed because it's a fundamentally invidious system. My favorite angle is that asset forfeiture in America doesn't rely solely on admiralty and smuggling precedents; the opinions specifically reference the medieval law of "deodand", I.e., your cart rolled over.my chicken so your cart is possessed by an evil spirit and thus forfeit to the Crown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What's the actual legal basis/structure of domestic asset forfeiture? Do we have a source for discussion that's descriptive and not opposed to it? "We've always done it this way." It's not completely insane - after all, an SEC violation can be either civil or criminal, and so on. US v. Ursery posted:Since the earliest years of this Nation, Congress has authorized the Government to seek parallel in rem civil forfeiture actions and criminal prosecutions based upon the same underlying events. See, e.g., Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, §12, 1 Stat. 39 (goods unloaded at night or without a permit subject to forfeiture and persons unloading subject to criminal prosecution); §25, id., at 43 (persons convicted of buying or concealing illegally imported goods subject to both monetary fine and in rem forfeiture of the goods); §34, id., at 46 (imposing criminal penalty and in rem forfeiture where person convicted of relanding goods entitled to drawback); see also The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 14-15 (1827) ("Many cases exist, where there is both a forfeiture in rem and a personal penalty"); cf. Calero Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 683 (1974) (discussing adoption of forfeiture statutes by early Congresses). Of course, the court does admit that this is essentially a punishment for the owner being at least negligent in letting their property be used for ill. Austin v. US posted:The same understanding of forfeiture as punishment runs through our cases rejecting the "innocence" of the owner as a common law defense to forfeiture. See, e. g., Calero Toledo, 416 U. S., at 683; Goldsmith Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505 (1921); Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395 (1878); United States v. Brig Malek Adhel, 2 How. 210 (1844); The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1 (1827). In these cases, forfeiture has been justified on two theories--that the property itself is "guilty" of the offense, and that the owner may be held accountable for the wrongs of others to whom he entrusts his property. Both theories rest, at bottom, on the notion that the owner has been negligent in allowing his property to be misused and that he is properly punished for that negligence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:A descriptive source would be opposed because it's a fundamentally invidious system. Read Austin v. US more closely. quote:Three kinds of forfeiture were established in England at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified in the United States: deodand, forfeiture upon conviction for a felony or treason, and statutory forfeiture. See Calero Toledo, 416 U. S., at 680-683. Each was understood, at least in part, as imposing punishment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Read Austin v. US more closely. _but see_ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/254/505,"in such a case there is some analogy to the law of deodand . . . But whether the reason [ ] be artificial or real, it is too firmly fixed . . . to be now displaced." (Apologies for informal cite; on my phone) Historically speaking, deodand is at the root of U.S. forfeiture law. Austin's dicta there is just an attempt to paper over that unsound foundation. If it were otherwise, why would such a denial be necessary? Edit: to argue more explicitly, Austin is correct that deodand specifically was never part of U.S. law. But admiralty forfeiture was, and historically speaking, it was the doctrine of deodand that provided (part of) the justification for admiralty seizures. The doctrine of deodand was never explicitly US law, but deodand provided the legal foundation, in British law, for admiralty forfeiture, which was adopted into US law. So it all traces back causally to deodand. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Historically speaking, deodand is at the root of U.S. forfeiture law. Austin's dicta there is just an attempt to paper over that unsound foundation. If it were otherwise, why would such a denial be necessary? Austin is specifically quoting a flat statement from Calero-Toledo that cites to Parker-Harris (admittedly a state supreme court), which predates Goldsmith. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. posted:Deodands did not become part of the common-law tradition of this country. See Parker-Harris Co. v. Tate, 135 Tenn. 509, 188 S.W. 54 (1916). Parker-Harris Co. v. Tate posted:The doctrine [of deodand], after being subtly refined and pared down, was discarded in England by Stat. 9 and 10, Victoria, Chapter 62. To the credit of American jurisprudence, from the outset the doctrine was deemed to be so repugnant to our ideas of justice as not to be included as a part of the common law of this country. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Edit: to argue more explicitly, Austin is correct that deodand specifically was never part of U.S. law. But admiralty forfeiture was, and historically speaking, it was the doctrine of deodand that provided (part of) the justification for admiralty seizures. The doctrine of deodand was never explicitly US law, but deodand provided the legal foundation, in British law, for admiralty forfeiture, which was adopted into US law. So it all traces back causally to deodand. But you're right on this point, so I will take my "technically correct" sticker and concede.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
I strongly endorse this statement. And see, now we're citing something other than ACLU websites! I have something to read! It's great!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
ulmont posted:But you're right on this point, so I will take my "technically correct" sticker and concede. It works for CPG Grey why not you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I strongly endorse this statement. And see, now we're citing something other than ACLU websites! I have something to read! It's great! The history of asset forfeiture is a fascinating subarea of the law. You get everything from bizarre medieval cases with clouds getting prosecuted for raining and blocking the sun and poo poo, up to and including the Kennedy assassination (U.S. Vs mannlicher-carcano rifle; they used asset forfeiture to prevent Oswald's widow from inheriting the rifle).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Of course, the ancient Greeks had the correct approach: quote:Classics scholar Walter Woodburn Hyde has gathered together the few references to the Prytaneion in the extant Greek literature. He concludes that, though ceremonial in character, the trials observed ordinary procedural requirements. Even jurisdiction was sometimes at issue. In one instance, a boy was killed by a javelin while watching a man practice in the gymnasium. The court was forced to determine whether the boy, the man, or the javelin was to blame. Only if it were deemed to be a trial of the javelin could the case be heard at the Prytaneion. Although such questions sound fanciful, they were apparently taken very seriously. According to Plutarch, the great statesman Pericles once spent an entire day arguing with the famous sophist Protagoras about the issue. the article also is opposite the idea the deodands never were a part of American common law, though I guess it depends on where you view American common law beginning, and British common law in America ending quote:The law of deodands migrated to the American colonies and entered the legal annals of this country as well. Thus, an inquest before a jury was held on January 31, 1637, regarding the body of a planter who had been felled by a falling tree. According to the trial record, "the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, say that the said tree moved to the death of the said John Bryant; and therefore find the said tree forfeited to the Lord Proprietor." Likewise, under a Massachusetts statute of 1648, a dog that killed sheep could be hanged. One commentator reports that, at least through the eighteenth century, deodand forfeitures appear to have been accepted in this country as "routine procedure." In early colonial vice admiralty courts, ships were treated as if they were alive, and prosecutions were initiated against vessels by name. As Holmes observed: "It is only by supposing the ship to have been treated as if endowed with personality, that the arbitrary seeming peculiarities of the maritime law can be made intelligible." ARTICLE:An Anthropological Approach to Modern Forfeiture Law: The Symbolic Function of Legal Actions Against Objects, 11 Yale J.L. & Human. 1 (1999) we should go back to the old roman laws quote:BY the Roman law, parricide, or the murder of one’s parents or children, was punished in a much severer manner than any other kind of homicide. After being scourged, the delinquents were sewed up in a leather sack, with a live dog, a cock, a viper, and an ape, and so cast into the sea EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
That Roman law could be acceptable only if the dog, cock, viper and ape had been found equally guilty surely? I'm confident that's what Founders intended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Did they like, keep supplies of dogs, cocks, vipers and apes on hand in case they had a patricide case? I'm...not sure how accurate or reliable this source is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Did they like, keep supplies of dogs, cocks, vipers and apes on hand in case they had a patricide case? I'm...not sure how accurate or reliable this source is. The roman part is from Blackstone. If you read it, he makes sure to point out how the English didn't have a separate punishment for when a child killed his parents. Unless the child was also a servant quote:Solon, it is true, in his laws, made none against parricide; apprehending it impossible that any one should be guilty of so unnatural a barbarity. And the Persians, according to Herodotus, entertained the same notion, when they adjudged all persons who killed their reputed parents to be bastards. And, upon some such reason as this, must we account for the omission of an exemplary punishment for this crime in our English laws; which treat it no otherwise than as simple murder, unless the child was also the servant of his parent. EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Did they like, keep supplies of dogs, cocks, vipers and apes on hand in case they had a patricide case? I'm...not sure how accurate or reliable this source is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
twodot posted:I thought about this, but then I figured that maybe murder between parents and children was infrequent enough that they just had on demand dog/cock/viper/ape hunting parties. SCOTUS Thread 2016: US. v. one bag of assorted animals
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:I thought about this, but then I figured that maybe murder between parents and children was infrequent enough that they just had on demand dog/cock/viper/ape hunting parties. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS Thread 2017: on demand dog/cock/viper/ape hunting parties
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS Thread 2017: dog/cock/viper/ape hybrid confirmation hearings begin
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS Thread 2017: dog/cock/viper/ape hybrid confirmation hearings begin would be better than what we're actually going to get i suspect
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The thing is, it makes sense from an admiralty perspective. You have to seize poo poo when there's a problem and no one to pay for it. Arrest the ship and the cargo and let people sue to recover it so that harmed persons can actually recover damages. If they don't sell the poo poo at auction to cover the damages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > a SCOTUS Thread for every year
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:So what I'm hearing is that civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional unless the court has a flag bearing gold fringes 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
I like how this thread is sincerely talking about ADMIRALTY LAW!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
I'm learning so much! I think...
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:So what I'm hearing is that civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional unless the court has a flag bearing gold fringes Maritime liens are a weird and mysterious thing because the court is creating a property right out of thin air which might seem like a simple thing but is so contrary to fundamental principles of what common law courts do that it is very important nobody points out the elephant in the room.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Maritime liens are a weird and mysterious thing because the court is creating a property right out of thin air which might seem like a simple thing but is so contrary to fundamental principles of what common law courts do that it is very important nobody points out the elephant in the room. But its also fundamentally necessary just due to the nature of maritime matters. Especially in a modern context where owners are actually buried under mountains of shell companies, it is important for people to have a way to recover damages. In light of all the circumstances surrounding any maritime tort, it makes sense to seize the ship/cargo and if it matters enough to someone they'll step up and make a claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:SCOTUS Thread 2016: US. v. one bag of assorted animals
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Seeing as there isn't a Federal Justice System thread, can we ask in here if anyone can think of a good reason that purging close to fifty prosecutors isn't the last straw in the US being a banana republic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:But its also fundamentally necessary just due to the nature of maritime matters. Especially in a modern context where owners are actually buried under mountains of shell companies, it is important for people to have a way to recover damages. In light of all the circumstances surrounding any maritime tort, it makes sense to seize the ship/cargo and if it matters enough to someone they'll step up and make a claim. How does this apply to the situation where your car and cash are stolen by police under the color of law simply for being a minority driving through their town?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Seeing as there isn't a Federal Justice System thread, can we ask in here if anyone can think of a good reason that purging close to fifty prosecutors isn't the last straw in the US being a banana republic? Asking for resignations isn't uncommon, telling someone you won't ask them, asking them, they refuse and you fire them is very uncommon though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Seeing as there isn't a Federal Justice System thread, can we ask in here if anyone can think of a good reason that purging close to fifty prosecutors isn't the last straw in the US being a banana republic? All USAs are generally replaced on day 1. A competent administration would have replacements all ready to go. This administration is not competent, so they waited 2 months to replace half of them after asking them to stick around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Seeing as there isn't a Federal Justice System thread, can we ask in here if anyone can think of a good reason that purging close to fifty prosecutors isn't the last straw in the US being a banana republic? Every administration appoints their own US attorneys. It's common practice for them to stay on until you get a replacement confirmed but very rare for them to keep the role permanently. Obama only kept one (out of 93) Bush-era US attorney for his entire term, and incidentally that was the same guy who's now up for Deputy Attorney General.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Nothing like a good old ship arrest to get the juices flowing. edit: Actually I was taught in law school that the notice of arrest gets placed on the funnel or spout or whatever it's called on a ship. But casual research in Australia apparently the common and best practice is affixing it to the Bridge Window. Which, now i'm imaging an a4 piece of paper with THIS SHIP IS UNDER ARREST written on it stuck on the window. algebra testes fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Seeing as there isn't a Federal Justice System thread, can we ask in here if anyone can think of a good reason that purging close to fifty prosecutors isn't the last straw in the US being a banana republic? The U.S. economy does not revolve around the export of one specific resource, therefore it cannot be a banana republic. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:All USAs are generally replaced on day 1. A competent administration would have replacements all ready to go. Except they aren't being replaced, the position is just being left empty because the White House doesn't have people lined up for all the positions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Maritime liens are a weird and mysterious thing because the court is creating a property right out of thin air which might seem like a simple thing but is so contrary to fundamental principles of what common law courts do that it is very important nobody points out the elephant in the room. Aren't there property doctrines that pretty much do exactly that though? The one where you relied on being allowed to use some property and no one stopped you and now you get a small property interest in being able to use the property that way in the future. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Aren't there property doctrines that pretty much do exactly that though? The one where you relied on being allowed to use some property and no one stopped you and now you get a small property interest in being able to use the property that way in the future. That requires “open and notorious“ use for decades, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Asking for resignations isn't uncommon, telling someone you won't ask them, asking them, they refuse and you fire them is very uncommon though. Firing a bunch of people when you haven't even started to look for their replacements isn't normal. When Clinton cleaned house he kept the USDAs on until their replacements were confirmed. When it comes to Trump the answer to a question of "is this normal" is always going to default to no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 18:31
|
|
