Are any of you still wondering why outfits like the Michigan Militia, Montana Militia, etc, are doing so well? No one? Didn’t think so… We definitely need some kind of court oversight where the burden of proof is on the DEA/EPA. And if a ruling is made in favor of the confiscatee, then the DEA/EPA/whoever should have to pay all of the person’s court costs as a penalty for spurious confiscation.
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
there’s a fairly comprehensive review of the forfiefture issue on a website maintained by Cornell Law School:
On Thursday, June 24, the Hyde Civil Asset Forfeiture Bill was passed by the House of Representatives. This legislation attempts to reform some of the worst aspects of current federal civil asset forfeiture law. You can read the text of the bill here (it’s not that long):
http://www.fear.org/hr1658.html
It still has to make it through the Senate without being watered down to meaninglessness.
[[Are any of you still wondering why outfits like the Michigan Militia, Montana Militia, etc, are doing so well? No one? Didn’t think so… We definitely need some kind of court oversight where the burden of proof is on the DEA/EPA. And if a ruling is made in favor of the confiscatee, then the DEA/EPA/whoever should have to pay all of the person’s court costs as a penalty for spurious confiscation.]] Diceman
Why stop there? Why not apply this to all government action/regulation and criminal prosecution or civil action?
Gee, and I’ll bet you think taxes are too high NOW …
Oh, and there is court oversight via the Administrative Procedures Act.
Big Iron
Could you expand on that thought? I’m not really sure that I understand what you mean. Are you saying that the cost of government would rise should government agencies be held liable for financial discomfiture wrongly visited upon citizens? IF I understand the relationship I think you’re stating, then wouldn’t one expect some learning via experience to exhibit itself resulting in the government agencies in question ultimately revising their intimdations down to a level where a citizen cannot demonstrate a recoverable loss attributable to that agency?
{{[[Gee, and I’ll bet you think taxes are too high NOW]]
Could you expand on that thought? I’m not really sure that I understand what you mean. Are you saying that the cost of government would rise should government agencies be held liable for financial discomfiture wrongly visited upon citizens? }} Beatle
Of course it would.
{{ IF I understand the relationship I think you’re stating, then wouldn’t one expect some learning via experience to exhibit itself resulting in the government agencies in question ultimately revising their intimdations down to a level where a citizen cannot demonstrate a recoverable loss attributable to that agency?}}
Intimidations? Sometimes, and sometimes (usually) not. Indeed, as you hint, the government would be the one intimidated under a scenario where it has to pay for every financial hardship visited “wrongly” on citizens. Of course, such a paralysis of effective environmental regulation is precisely what some people would like to see.
I hate a lot about these civil forfeiture laws, don’t get me wrong, but it seems either silly or sinister to single out EPA (or DEA, or BATF) for their goofs.
I believe under scottish law, a criminal case can still result in a ‘not proven’ verdict.