Posts: 11,076
Threads: 820
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
0
Our jackbooted thugs are above the law...
In a sweeping reform, New Mexico enacted legislation to require a criminal conviction as a prerequisite to forfeiture, and direct any forfeiture revenue to the general fund last year. But law enforcement agencies have been refusing to abide by the new Forfeiture Reform Law.
Lisa Torraco and Daniel Ivey-Soto, two state senators, have partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonpartisan, public interest law firm, and filed a lawsuit to enjoin Albuquerque’s forfeiture ordinance.
Under the ordinance, people do not have to be convicted or even charged to lose their property. In the words of Stanley Harada, Albuquerque’s Chief Hearing Officer, innocent owners are “considered ‘alleged’” until they make their case at a hearing. But under New Mexico’s new reforms, the government must bear the burden of proof for forfeiture proceedings—just as it does for criminal cases.
Meanwhile, to forfeit property, Albuquerque need only show probable cause—the same low standard used to obtain a warrant. In DWI cases, car owners must file a request within ten days after receiving notice. Requesting hearings costs $50, while seized property can accrue $10 storage fees per day.
Records show that between 2010 and 2014, Albuquerque seized over 8,300 cars and generated $8.7 million in forfeiture revenue. Funds collected through forfeiture can even pay the salaries for the very attorneys overseeing the forfeiture. Albuquerque has taken so many cars, police are now eyeing a new complex to store seized vehicles.
Officials in both Albuquerque and Santa Fe claim that the Forfeiture Reform Law only applies to criminal cases, not civil forfeiture, and not to municipal programs.
Ivey-Soto begs to differ. “Civil forfeiture is abolished,” he said. “We know what we intended when we passed the reforms. And we didn’t include an exception for Albuquerque—or any other city.” IJ also points to the law itself, which includes, as one of its purposes, to “ensure that only criminal forfeiture is allowed in this state.”.....
Impetus for reform began in part after the Institute for Justice and The New York Times publicized comments made by Pete Connelly, formerly the city attorney for Las Cruces, N.M. Speaking at a vehicle forfeiture conference in 2014, Connelly advised attendees on how to maximize revenue (one tip: seize flashy cars). He even told other government officials that, through forfeiture, “We could be czars. We could own the city.”
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
Posts: 50,838
Threads: 670
Joined: Mar 2024
Good luck trying to get liberals and Democrats to give up their regressive tax and control over the lower classes nor the means for enslaving them on the liberal plantation.
Posts: 5,392
Threads: 221
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Things seemed a lot easier when politicians could just raise taxes a bit...
Posts: 11,076
Threads: 820
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
0
The Police State needs to be funded, and even though nobody gave as much money to CIA and NSA as Obama did, it is never enough,
http://www.vocativ.com/news/271814/heres...e-funding/
the jackbooted thugs are insatiable....
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
max wrote:
Our jackbooted thugs are above the law...
...Lisa Torraco and Daniel Ivey-Soto, two state senators, have partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonpartisan, public interest law firm
Ahh, the "Institute for Justice", so non-partisan, so public interest.
Wikipedia wrote:
[Two libertarians] co-founded the organization in 1991 with seed money from libertarian philanthropist Charles Koch.
IJ opposes many kinds of business licensing...
...but likes public (tax) money going to private school vouchers. But not public money going to campaign financing. And thinks people should be able to sell their bone marrow for cash.
Among other things. So, so very much in favor of the "public interest".
Posts: 11,076
Threads: 820
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
0
pdq wrote:
Ahh, the "Institute for Justice", so non-partisan, so public interest.
[quote=Wikipedia]
[Two libertarians] co-founded the organization in 1991 with seed money from libertarian philanthropist Charles Koch.
IJ opposes many kinds of business licensing...
...but likes public (tax) money going to private school vouchers. But not public money going to campaign financing. And thinks people should be able to sell their bone marrow for cash.
Among other things. So, so very much in favor of the "public interest".
Nice strawman, pdq, I do understand your effort to sideline the discussion, but your school vouchers have nothing to do with New Mexico enacting legislation to eliminate lawless behavior by the jackbooted thugs with a badge, and the municipal police departments totally ignoring the legislation, its limits. The subject under discussion in this thread, pdq.
What is your point, pdq, are these facts incorrect?
If so show us how.
Or is it the subject of the discussion an uncomfortable one to you and that is the reason for attempt to change the subject?
Or is Obama's full support for NSA limitless Police State spying the inconvenient aspect of this thread?
Are these numbers incorrect?
If so, please show us how....
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
I don't think I was addressing your argument, nor claiming to. I just pointed out that the proffered "non-partisan, public interest" law firm in the OP is in fact a Koch-funded and initiated organization that happens to pursue a lot of right-wing interests, which I think is an important detail that was inexplicably left out.
I don't think that represents a "straw man".
Posts: 12,349
Threads: 1,831
Joined: Nov 2023
Reputation:
0
"New Mexico enacted legislation"
Thanks, Obama!
Posts: 11,076
Threads: 820
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
0
pdq wrote:
I don't think I was addressing your argument, nor claiming to. I just pointed out that the proffered "non-partisan, public interest" law firm in the OP is in fact a Koch-funded and initiated organization that happens to pursue a lot of right-wing interests, which I think is an important detail that was inexplicably left out.
I don't think that represents a "straw man".
Of course it was the strawman, your "non-partisan, public interest" law firm status did not change any thing as to the point of the OP. You hanging your hat on it, trying to change the subject of the discussion was a perfect example a strawman, having an argument on a subject that was never brought up in the first place, an argument that you staged and argued against.
Lets put it another way, pdq, doe the existence of your law firm change in any way the subject of New Mexico enacting legislation to eliminate lawless behavior by the jackbooted thugs with a badge, and the municipal police departments totally ignoring the legislation, its limits?
is the article wrong about these facts?
A) legislation
B) municipal departments ignoring the law?
If they are, please, show us that...
Why are you trying to dance around this subject.
Is it so inconvenient that you feel an overriding need to deflect any discussion on our out of control militarized police forces ?
Once again, the telling part is that you have not tried to argue the facts, the passage of new laws by New Mexico legislature, nor could you try to dispute the municipal police departments mentioned in the article actively ignoring the law, the limits imposed upon them. You could not even argue against the existence of our Police State, pdq.
Instead you tried to change the subject, set up a strawman, discussed arguments for school vouchers.
Pathetic hypocrisy.
Everything but the Police State running amok....
|
