View Full Version : Supreme Court case on property rights

Oct 26, 2009, 05:59 AM

What it comes down to is stopping governments seizing your property and putting you into the guilty until proven otherwise position. Remove the incentive from this abusive behavior. I would be all for having legitimately seized property go to charities outside of the district they are seized in.

Oct 26, 2009, 10:52 AM
Cui bono?
Under Illinois law, the state has 187 days after property is seized to file forfeiture proceedings. Meanwhile, of forfeited funds seized, 25% lands in the lap of the prosecutor's office. Another 65% goes to the department that seized the property, giving police added incentive to take the property to pad their budgets. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted this police incentive with concern.

IMO, property such as this should not be seizable until after a conviction.

Oct 26, 2009, 01:37 PM
Cui bono?

IMO, property such as this should not be seizable until after a conviction.

How do you propose ensuring that the property is still there after the conviction? Obviously there needs to be some sort of means to prevent the sale or transfer or disposal of the property. Cars, jewelry, cash are all easily hid.

It looks as though Illinois needs a quicker and more transparent process. However, in Madoff's case, not seizing it immediately meant less money was recoverable later on. The guilty should pay.

Oct 26, 2009, 02:44 PM
A man's property may be his only means of assembling a proper defense in the first place. The government state and federal, have no right to seize property if purely by natural law. If the property itself is illegal (by local laws ONLY! The Feds do NOT have this right.) or was obtained illegally that's different of course.