Yeah, I didn’t believe it, either, when I read the news on Friday.
Eric Holder — that Eric Holder — delivering a major kneecapping to America’s government-approved highway robbers?
But Radley Balko believes it. So I believe it.
Well, more or less.
No question about it, federal “ownership” of local asset forfeiture cases has enabled forfeiture abuse like nothing else and has done more for police corruption since anything but … well, the drug war itself. (You’ve got to wonder; was there every anyone associated with this scam who truly believed it wouldn’t lead to corruption and injustice?)
Having the feds standing by with open arms to “adopt” local seizures (thus allowing local cop-ops to keep most of their stolen goods for whatever purpose they wished) made state asset forfeiture reforms virtually moot. States would try to divert seized funds to schools or some other purpose, and cops would just make their cases federal and say “&^%$# you!” to their state governments. Then they’d go on grabbing whatever cash or assets they could without ever charging anybody with a crime.
Nice racket if you can pull it off! And for years, cops have.
So if Holder really means it and if it sticks, Friday’s announcement is a very big deal. But sadly not the end of non-criminal asset forfeiture.
In addition to the concerns Balko raises, I can think of a bunch more.
If one AG, on his own say-so, can end such a colossally abusive policy, there’s nothing to stop a future ‘crat from instituting another just like it — or worse. (Ah, the joys of “democracy”!)
It’s possible that those freedom-loving (and property-rights respecting) R’s newly in control of Congress will — in a fit of support-your-local-policeism — re-institute the worst aspects of asset forfeiture, and make it law, not just bureaucratic policy.
Even if the way is now open for meaningful state-level reform, it’s a good bet that not a lot of states will institute real reform (like banning asset forfeiture outside of limited criminal cases). Too often, “reform” has just meant states want to put the stolen cash into state coffers, rather than cop coffers. And while that would take away a lot of the incentive for stealing it in the first place, it’s not enough.
So yeah. There’s a lot that could go wrong here. And where government’s involved, you can bet that what can go wrong will go wrong.
Still … what happened on Friday might be the only good thing Eric Holder has ever done for freedom. So for the moment let’s be of good cheer.
Look closer and you’ll find he only “stopped” it for SOME local “Law Enforcement” operations.
It still is “fully acceptable” for joint local/FedPig operations, and for solely FedPig activity. He’s just trying to keep the corruption bucks where he wants them.
Yes, I noticed that. And Balko brought up a lot of concerns around that very issue (particularly about what constitutes a local/fed operation).
But the ability of local cops simply to stop motorists at will or grab cash and other goods found during searches of people’s homes and businesses is nevertheless severely hampered by Holder’s decision.
In short, don’t want to be too rosy-eyed, but this remains a good thing.
Limiting state and local foefeiture doesn’t limit federal forfeiture; who knows what regulation will be coming down the pike in the next two years?
Every law or executive order that’s been “passed” has been designed to put, or resulted in, more money in the fed coffers and more control from the top down. We have exceeded fascism and are heading pell-mell into socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism.
A leopard can’t change his spots, and there’s no reason to believe that Holder is going out with this good-will gesture, without leaving some wiggle room for Obama to make use of it.
It seems like a good thing but I am skeptical this is a sincere effort to limit official asset theft.
Scott Greenfield has some good thoughts:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/01/17/adoption-will-be-just-a-little-bit-harder/
He concludes:
“All in all, Holder’s announcement is one of those rarest of the rare things that happens in the scheme of law: a good day. Maybe not a perfect day, but enjoy it because nobody knows when we will get another good one.”
Amen!
Thank you, S! (And Scott Greenfield.)
Everybody else: OF COURSE there are drawbacks and pitfalls to this! Of course there are important things it doesn’t accomplish. It’s coming from the fedgov, so that goes without saying. My blog wasn’t all daisies and butterflies, was it?
There are many things Holder’s announcement doesn’t do. But what everybody seems determined to overlook is that it stops — RIGHT NOW — the notorious process of cops randomly stopping motorists (usually people with out-of-state plates, people of the “wrong” race, etc.) and finding excuses to loot their vehicles.
Yes, it’s possible that states and municipalities will find/have found ways to continue to allow this travesty. But overwhelmingly, this theft has been encouraged by the feds “adopting” the seizures. Ding-dong, THAT practice is dead.
For now.
ANYTHING Holder does as AG is irrelevant to me. He is deserving of only one thing….a personal suite in the stockade at Fort Leavenworth. Why is this guy still walking around free and drawing a BIG fedgov paycheck, after being found guilty of criminal contempt of the US Congress ?
“Why is this guy still walking around free and drawing a BIG fedgov paycheck, after being found guilty of criminal contempt of the US Congress ?”
Professional courtesy? Honor among thieves? Congress is in criminal comtempt of everyone and everything else, unfortunately. It’s a wonder they noticed Holder at all.
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2015/01/19/wash-times-no-halo-holder-forfeiture-reform/
Jim Bovard on Holder and forfeiture reform.
Herr Holder was earlier a Clintonista before his career as an Obamite, and always a compliant tool of the Oligarchs. This reminds me of feudalism where the Baron grants a “reprieve” to the peasants to keep them working and avoid open rebellion.
Our masters do care about us…..remaining servile.
Bovard’s article was pretty good, although it ends on an absurd note: “There is no substitute for congressional action that permanently blocks the federal government from plundering innocent Americans.”
I think Holder’s action is like the alpha hyena in a group of hyenas working on a corpse, whacking the other hyenas and getting them to back off while the alpha continues her meal. From the (federal) ruling class point of view, the institution of policing was getting a pretty unsavory reputation as every little podunk police force stole stuff from the peons. This was turning into a PR disaster for the ruling class, who crucially depend on police for their ends. So Holder did the obvious thing, telling the lower level cops to back off. Holder was not doing good for us; he was doing good for the ruling class. It’s only that fed and peon interests (very) temporarily aligned for a bit.
I wouldn’t get too exercised about it. If a local cop pulls you over and grabs your money anyway, what are you going to do about it? An official policy does not necessarily mean the thefts will stop. Maybe it just means there will be less reporting about it.
If you want to stop a theft, the thing to do is to kill the thief. Admittedly a difficult course of action, but this article may help you see it in a different light:
http://zerogov.com/?p=3773
I am proud of Oregon peons who (via initiative) outlawed asset forfeiture some years back – largely overturned by the Oregon legislature, however. That’s politics for ya.
Nope, they are cutting off the pension stream for the local municipality “kings men” societies. Just think, now every podunk town will need to fund those ridiculous fat pensions that could never work without some stolen swag to fund them! yay!
Oh I wonder what the cops whose pension/income stream will do? How will they react knowing Holder has just tossed them to the curb?
I wonder if this is all just a ploy to insert the feds into more local cases. The incentive to state and local cops becomes: get federal involvement into every traffic stop where there is cash involved. Just make them all joint state-federal ventures. There is a big agenda push toward federalizing the police. I believe that the reason Holder/Obama were fanning the flames with Michael Brown was to get more calls to federalize the police. This asset forfeiture change could be just another effort toward that.
I think Paul Bonneau has it about right. Yes, this is a step in the right direction, but only a small step and one which could easily be reversed. And it’s certainly not enough to burnish Holder’s legacy of lies and corruption (anyone remember Fast and Furious?).
It will take time, but someday a new administration will unearth and release the sordid details of Holder’s DOJ. Hopefully then he and others will get the criminal prosecutions they so richly deserve (although I don’t really expect that; in the end the people who rise to the top in government protect each other, even if they’re from different political parties). But someday the truth will come out. It always does.
A note to Dan III, though: Holder was not found guilty of criminal contempt, merely civil contempt. There will be no jail time for that. He should be disbarred for it, though.
“Oh I wonder what the cops whose pension/income stream will do? How will they react knowing Holder has just tossed them to the curb?” Well, Tom, I’m sure a lot of ’em will ratchet up the MVM (moving violations machine)…of course, some states have actually passed laws limiting how much a municipality can gain from such tactics, but I’m sure there are loopholes!
Wont change a dam thing,they will just steal from us in some other form.
You really think the pigs will ever give up on screwing us mundanes ever?????
Not a snowballs chance in hell will the oppressors ever give up their gaming us.
I’m thinking it’s a diversion. Holder is a lying weasel, and he’s damned sure NOT trying to do anything to help citizens. Leopards don’t change their spots.
Folks are getting upset about a lot of Constitutional violations lately. By making it ‘not supported’ (except for where he sees an advantage to the feds), he may be trying to derail some legal challenges which could result in the entire concept of asset forfeiture declared by the SCOTUS to be a 4th Amendment violation – stopping it all, permanently.
And you did notice he’s not advocating any end to firearms seizures, right? So that aspect will likely grow.
I have to believe any “discretion” they allow themselves will be used as a political weapon. In this situation, the “some” cases likely (I think) where the seizures will be stopped will predominantly be in the inner cities and other “minority” areas, including those that have a high concentration of illegals. It will be business as usual going after the rest of us.
Ms Claire, notice something about the people posting comments here?
Something very very important?
Something upstream of politics and agenda?
Something upstream of tyranny and slavery of the state?
Everyone is coming to the same basic conclusions.
Why do I say that is very important you may ask?
But you probably already know why.
In case you don’t catch my drift, I’ll tell you why.
It is a plurality.
A preference cascade.
A plurality, if you remember, is a force which is so legitimate nothing can deny it.
But people have to understand they are a plurality before they become one.
You want to cram Mr. Holder’s and the rest of his ilk’s tyranny right up their illegitimate arses?
Explain to people what a plurality is and what it has the undeniable legitimacy to do which no amount of arms can ever accomplish.
They will listen to you.
Define it like you defined how and why it is too soon the shoot the bastards.
Kind regards,
Doug
Keep up the great job your doing.
Bravo fair lady, Bravo!