"According to the sworn testimony of a DEA agent operating
out of Boston, it was his job to comb through news stories
for properties that might be subject to forfeiture. When he
finds a likely candidate, he goes to the Registry of Deeds,
determines the value of the property in question, and refers
it to the U.S. attorney for seizure."
Seriously? We, as taxpayers, indirectly support a job like that? That's disgusting. I'm shocked we have someone actively combing to discover assets the government might be able to seize in court. I'm further shocked that the accused is under the obligation to prove innocence instead of the other way around. That's not due process.
Yup. And it's been that way since the '80s. Welcome to the drug war.
Today's quiz in remedial civics: what happens when law enforcement gains the power to control their own funding depending on the way they enforce the law.
> Today's quiz in remedial civics: what happens when law enforcement gains the power to control their own funding depending on the way they enforce the law.
USA v. $124,700 shows that the coruption extends all the way up the ranks. The 8th circuit is corrupt. (and the supreme court has upheld this as well, I'm sure, making it corrupt.)
For the record, nowhere in the constitution is the government given the power to seize property, without a warrant describing its evidentiary nature in advance.
Asset Forfeiture is nothing more than theft.
And every prosecutor, cop, or judge who engages in it or allows it is a criminal.
This is one of the think that makes my blood boil, when I imagine taxpayer-paid functionary whose whole job is to look for citizens that can be legally robbed by the government. Overzealously prosecuting is one thing, that at least can be considered as wanting to do the right thing and going too far. But this is evil, plain and simple.
They use the same process to seize websites. MAFIAA, RIAA, MPAA or any powerful lobbying group can use this tool to sieze any website without any due process.
Because both major parties are all in favor of this. Biden was the architect of the drug war that was the excuse for giving the police the power to steal property, and Reagan was the president who signed it into law.
In the past 30 years, thru administrations of both parties, nobody has repealed this law.
The abuse of that law started immediately, and has gone from highway robbery (cops simply pulling over people who look rich and taking their money, never charging them) to a massive $6M heist perpetrated by the FBI where they stole massive amounts of platinum and gold in a "daring" morning raid.
Did you vote for this? IF you really are just now finding out about it, then bully for you and please, consider voting for liberty next time around.
Vote any third party. No third party, including libertarian, can win in the current environment. But it's still worth it as a "none of the above" vote. None of the above is probably the most important messages we can send, even better than not voting.
Even if you don't like the 3rd party on offer, vote for it. It won't win, and you've still taken a vote from the demreps.
>No third party, including libertarian, can win in the current environment.
It has nothing to do with the "current environment" unless by current environment you mean the first past the post voting system.
People who talk about "vote for X party" are just deluding themselves. Parties aren't based on ideologies, they're based on coalitions. To win you need to get a controlling majority of the seats in the legislature, not "be a small government conservative" or "advance the cause of criminal justice reform" or whatever thing you think would fix everything if people would just make decisions based on that. The only reason any party does anything is that they think it will keep them in power.
So that's how you fix problems. You make it so that the candidate who doesn't advance your cause doesn't get reelected -- and you make sure they all understand that before it happens, so that they do advance your cause.
Which is why the drug war has never been fixed. Because we haven't cared enough about it to move the needle. When things like this happen, do you all go out and write your Congressmen a letter that says "fix this or I'm voting against you"? Do media organizations whose lazy government-sources-only coverage favors prosecutors and law enforcement in cases like this get an explosion of phone calls from regular people complaining about biased reporting? No. Which is why it hasn't been fixed.
The petition asking for Heymann firing still lacks 15.000 votes. From what I read he was more instrumental than Ortiz in the aggressiveness the prosecution.
The way US prosecutors operate - piling on large numbers of felony charges with decades in maximum sentencing and offering a shorter sentence in exchange for a guilty plea - is a clear violation of the 8th Amendment.
It's functionally equivalent to using the threat of torture to extract a confession.
Case history can't be dismissed without consideration but … ever think about how long it took before we reached the modern consensus that non-property owners or women could vote, that slavery should not be allowed, the government should not be allowed to prevent inconvenient news from being published, etc? In each case, you could point to a mountain of argument which was commonly accepted, cited by high courts, and yet we now agree that those arguments were wrong.
Politicians, judges and lawyers aren't saints – they follow the beliefs of their times: we currently have policies (torture, detention, eavesdropping, assassination) which are currently politically expedient for many people to accept despite very clearly being unconstitutional.
> ever think about how long it took before we reached the modern consensus that non-property owners or women could vote, that slavery should not be allowed, the government should not be allowed to prevent inconvenient news from being published, etc?
Have you? Because it didn't happen by magic. They didn't blithely upend things; they argued from first principles and when the founding, axiomatic document listing those principles lacked the needed bases, they changed it through processes that were listed in that document.
If it's such a "clear violation", then you can dig through the case law that explores the many edge cases we've already encountered and cite them as part of a robust, not-easily-dismissed argument that this is a violation. Baldly asserting that it's a "clear violation" says nothing except that you consider your own, personal authority to be a sufficient claim.
Ortiz, and prosecutors like her, may be doing some really shitty things, but they do have this: when they walk into a courtroom, they actually deliver an argument that seems to leave a solid trail between the Constitution and the conviction of guilt. (And it's the defense's job to deliver an argument that the trail is not sufficiently solid.)
Yes. Overturn it. And do it in such a way that it stays overturned.
This isn't a game. This is someone's life we're talking about, and about the freedom of citizens not to be tortured and punished before even being found guilty.
Even if it is "legal", it's not right. You wouldn't want that done to your son or mother. No, because it's cruel, unfair and can produce devastating results.
Are you sure you're even on the right website? Gamespot is here: http://gamespot.com
"Between 1989 and 2010, an estimated $12.6 billion was seized by US Attorneys in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. For just 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% over 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989." http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/forfeiture
With asset forfeiture, in effect your property is arrested, and property does not have civil rights.
One well known case in the early 90's was an old black gentlemen who owned a plant nursery, and was detained at an airport for the crime of being black and in possession of $30,000. I think the story was featured on 60 Minutes and the NY Times.
The guy was the son of a sharecropper, was illiterate, did not use checks or credit cards. He had flown from his home to Texas every year with a bag of money to buy plants to ship north to sell after becoming too old to drive. He wasn't committing a crime, so he wasn't arrested -- but his money was kept as it was considered suspicious by the Federal authorities. It was a catch-22 situation, as litigating against the Feds will cost alot more than $30k.
They intentionally target the weak pretty often. Migrant workers were a favorite for years. These guys work in bad conditions in the US for 5-10 years or more, saving their money in a big wad of cash, then they'll go back to Guatemala, buy some land, pay for their kids to go to school, and so forth. Police know that they got the money working in chicken factories, construction and field work, and that they don't fight back, so when they find one of them driving south, they stop them and keep looking until they find their wad of cash, then steal it. Usually by the time the wad of cash gets back to be checked in, it is smaller, assuming it is checked in at all.
These sort of shakedowns are common in the third world by corrupt police. Make no mistake, this is the same sort of police here. Didn't used to be like this. There has always been some corruption of course, but it wasn't the normal way that things are done.
"your property is arrested, and property does not have civil rights."
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It is worse than the "your body is a container of alcohol" line used when prosecuting underage drinkers. How can US politicians back something which is so obviously at odds with the rule of law?
The burden of proof is different for civil law than it is for criminal law http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor222222 "Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt", is a criminal law thing. The situation in the article doesn't fall under criminal law since they aren't accusing the hotel owners of a crime.
It's worse than that, because in regular civil case, the burden of proof is lower, but still the plaintiff has to initiate the proceedings and bring proof. With civil forfeiture, pretty much all police needs is a suspicion, and it can be as much as "he has too much cash, it's suspicious" or "you lent a car to a person we suspected in a crime" - and the cash or the car is forfeited. And then you need to initiate proceedings and pay the lawyers - and if you fail to jump through all the hoops, they keep the property by default. It is nothing short of legal robbery.
I believe the phrasing is different in the States, but it's the same general principle.
But there are ways to get that kind of low standard in criminal trials, as well.
What's REALLY fun is when a case gives prosecutors the ability to throw in accusations they don't intend to prove to the usual standard just to inflate sentencing guidelines.
Though, it looks like the Supreme Court is currently taking up a related issue (instance where someone was given additional time due to the judge's application of a 'accomplice brandished a weapon' allegation by the prosecution to raise the minimum sentence. So maybe this practice is on its last legs. (a man can dream).
I share your concern about Carmen Ortiz' fitness for being at a position where she holds any power whatsoever over people.
But your meme distracts from the real sinister elements of the system that are outlined in the article. It is a strawman argument that is easily dismissed, which is detrimental to the discussions.
The system incentivizes abuse of power and coercion of suspects. No one in the system is honestly interested in absurdly high sentences. hey are only interested in "winning", which is the main problem.
Competitiveness has its place in sport, in the economy and at hackathons.
But a trial should NEVER be a competition. I am aware that the legal system in many countries devolved to this. BUt we should not rest to attack this aspect.
> Thanks to tough-on-crime laws and mandatory-minimum sentencing, prosecutors are able to extort—if they so choose—a quick end to the proceedings and a headline-worthy admission of guilt.
"Tough-on-crime" is the real culprit -- and it's what a strong majority of Americans support.
They want toughness on violent crime, not government agents perpetrating crimes for their own benefit.
These agents profit from destroying people's lives, and they Break the law when they do so.
The problem is, who is going to prosecute the prosecutors? Whose going to collect evidence? The police who enjoy protection by prosecutors? The judges who work for the same employer?
But it's all a balancing act. If you vote for a system where disproportionate penalties are possible, and the incentive to use it as leverage to secure convictions is built into the system, don't be surprised of the consequences: it's perfectly predictable. Remove disproportionate sentences and mandatory minimums, and prosecutes won't be able to exert the same pressure.
They want to feel safe. In the case of the hotel owner, even some here on HN felt that the action was justified. They may not have condoned the methods, but they obviously liked the result - a hotel that seemed to attract crime was shut down. The reality is irrelevant - it made them feel safer to know the authorities would do something if a similar hotel were to be found in their neighborhood. It also makes people believe the authorities are doing something to clean up bad neighborhoods, which also makes them feel safer.
I wish I had an answer to how to make sure this doesn't happen again, but I don't. As long as the majority of Americans have safety as their #1 concern, things are only going to get worse. And if I knew how to change the attitude of an entire nation, I would be making a killing in marketing.
Her behaviour is by no means uncommon which is why the press is having no problem digging up other cases in which she leveraged the resources of the state against those who were defenceless.
Don't think she's particularly evil, she's your everyday average prosecutor.
I don't understand why people keep saying this as if it's an excuse. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it not evil. When slave-owning was legal in this country, it was still evil.
If it was just her, she would have already been assassinated; the cops would have shook their heads and turned a blind eye because hey, she did need killin'.
By getting mad at her personally, you are in effect becoming Timothy McVeigh. He took out an entire building full of feds and nothing happened. I'm not even sure that carpet nuking Washington, D.C. would put a dent in federal overreach. It's a mass social movement, not a breakdown of part of the system.
Good Lord, am I ever glad you are being downvoted to oblivion. Nobody so far has suggested assasination or terrorism to solve these problems. You are the first (and hopefully the last) to suggest this as a solution.
D you even read my comment? No, you did not. You read the word "assassinated", then turned off your logic to indulge in an unregulated emotional response.
At no point did I suggest that anybody be harmed.
So go read my comment.
...
Now, what you read was a conditional statement. The article claims that prosecutor Ortiz is a bad seed, a "lone gunman theory" of a rogue lawyer who conducts legal lynchings on her own accord.
What I replied is that IF that hypothesis were true, she would have been taken out long ago. A lone psychopath simply cannot go around destroying people's lives in broad daylight. If nothing else, the widow of one of her victims will do her in. Since she still breathes, the rogue prosecutor theory is conclusively disproven.
Read the next paragraph of my comment.
Now, Timothy McVeigh had a rogue government theory, just like the article we are discussing. He thought that if you could just prune back the feds a bit, do a little gardening, that they would get the message. He obviously failed. If anything, he made them stronger and more determined. So the theory that government overreach has anything to do with individual government employees is very conclusively disproven.
Logically, then, if you believe that naming and shaming prosecutor Ortiz will help, you are making the same mistake as Timothy McVeigh, and for the same reasons. The correlation of Ortiz's actions with Aaron's outcome does not imply causation.
You are glad I am being downvoted into oblivion. Of course you are. You are part of the system, and the system defends itself against strong statements about how things actually work. You and your downvoting friends are antibodies trying to maintain the status quo. You are part of the vast social movement that has given us asset forfeiture and national bunny rabbit police.
I think the people downvoting you are reacting to your rhetoric more than to the content of what you're saying. Basically, you're right that it's not just her, but I think you're wrong to say that she isn't worth singling out. Regardless of convention, she chose to not defy it. She chose to not change it.
The system definitely needs to change. But we, the people, are part of the system and can exert political pressure on other systems to change. Sometimes you need a person to be an icon of what is wrong, and work change through her. This is far more powerful than any act of violence. (And indeed, gross abuse of power is getting worse, but it is also not widespread. So while there are thousands of Americans who have won the "your life is now ruined whatever you do!" lottery held by the government, it's still only thousands. When more than 1% of the population wins this lottery (4M or so), then I think physical violence should be considered. But not before.
No, he somehow seems to have equated "getting rid" of Oritz with killing her.
Of course, I could be misinterpreting what is being said, and the commenter is free to correct me, but it does look that way given he jumped from removing Ortiz from office to assasination.
You clearly did not read my comment. Go back and try again. I did not say anyone should be assassinated or even hurt, I said that since the assassiation has not occurred, Ortiz logically must not be terribly important in the grand scheme of things.
Honestly, is it too much to expect that people read carefully before censoring things?
She is a type or a personification of craziness and out of control incentives and culture that has been going on at the DOJ. I don't have a problems mentioning her name over and over, firing her, whatever it takes in the hopes that the issue will get a bigger attention.
I actually know someone who works for DOJ and isn't insane.
The problem with prosecutors is that they'd better know where that line between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' is, and if they're looking for magic words in poorly-worded statutes for their Trump Card, they've failed in their duty.
Until the public is willing to call foul on these people, this practice will continue. Until the Congress (and state legislatures, who are somewhat less competent on the whole0 can get THEIR acts together, they need to look at everything they right from the perspective of a rogue prosecutor.
That's tough, but, crap, you take a government job, you get saddled with some hard work from time to time.
I'm not aware of a case against Julian Assange currently in progress, can you please provide a link? I know there was some talk about a grand jury being convened but I am unaware that led to an actual indictment.
Grand juries are secret and so is the indictment. In fact, you won't even know about the indictment until you've been arrested. So unless someone isn't doing their job you shouldn't be aware of an indictment agains Assange.
I'm in MA, and what really drives me crazy is that local TV news sources have basically made it sound like she's going to still try running for MA Governor. Essentially, she's using her public statement to sugar coat and bury the story amongst folks that aren't familiar with Aaron.
The arrogance and basic lack of human decency, on the part of Carmen Ortiz and her lackeys, are really stunning. Aaron Swartz is not the only case her office mishandled: see Carmen Ortiz’s Sordid Rap Sheet, http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sh...
