I didn't think such blatant small-town-cop shakedowns still exist. They used to be infamous, mostly in the "Deep South." Mostly it was centered around high fines for traffic violations, many of which never occurred. They were called "speed traps." If a driver went even 1 mile an hour over the "posted" limit, they'd be fined a heavy fine. Often, the speed-limits signs were deliberately obscured so that a driver wouldn't know he or she had entered a stretch of road with a lower speed limit. It was all one of the reasons many people thought, and the older among us still think, that decentralized power simply turns small-time locals into little dictatorships with more impunity.
I knew about forfeiture. I remember when Reagan rolled it out. I thought it was going to apply to those who were proven guilty only. What they are doing to the innocent could land some cops and judges behind their own bars.
The following are some highlights from: "Sarah Stillman: Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture : The New Yorker":
...corruption and violations of civil liberties....
We're following the law."
Whether this should be the law—whether, in the absence of a judicial finding of guilt, the state should be able to take possession of your property—has been debated since before American independence. In the Colonial period, the English Crown issued "writs of assistance" that permitted customs officials to enter homes or vessels and seize whatever they deemed contraband. As the legal scholars Eric Blumenson and Eva Nilsen have noted, these writs were "among the key grievances that triggered the American Revolution." The new nation's Bill of Rights would expressly forbid "unreasonable searches and seizures" and promise that no one would be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process." Nonetheless, Congress soon authorized the use of civil-forfeiture actions against pirates and smugglers.
Guillory eventually found the deal threatening to take Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson's children unless the couple signed away their money to Shelby County. "It's like they were memorializing the fact that they were abdicating their responsibility to fight crime," Guillory said. "If you believe children are in sufficient danger that they should be removed from their parents—don't trade that for money!" Usually, police and prosecutors are careful about how they broker such exchanges. But Shelby County officials were so brazen about their swap-meet approach to law enforcement, he says, "they put it in the damn document!"
Patterns began to emerge. Nearly all the targets had been pulled over for routine traffic stops. Many drove rental cars and came from out of state. None appeared to have been issued tickets. And the targets were disproportionately black or Latino. A finding of discrimination could bring judicial scrutiny. "It was a highway-piracy operation,"....
The suit accused the mayor of Tenaha and other town and Shelby County officials of operating "an illegal practice of stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from citizens," and doing so "not for any legitimate law enforcement purpose but to enrich their offices and perhaps themselves." The practice was discriminatory, the suit alleged, and in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, "at least."
the discussion turned to specific traffic stops. Garrigan asked about Dale Agostini, the Guyanese restaurateur who wanted to kiss his infant son goodbye before being taken to jail for money laundering. Why did Washington think he was entitled to seize the Agostini family's cash?
"It's no more theirs than a man on the moon," Washington said. "It belongs to an organization of people that are narcotics traffickers."
"Do you have any evidence, any rational basis to tell us that this money belonged to an organization of narcotics traffickers?" Garrigan asked. "Or is that more speculation?"
"I don't have any evidence today," Washington said.
Garrigan asked about an iPod that was also taken from Agostini's car. "What was your basis for taking that away from them?"
"Well, it's in the car, and all those things can be looked at," Washington explained. "Because if they're using any of those items in the process of travelling to do something that's illegal, then you can take all of those things. Even if it's a pillow that they lay their head on."
"Is there any limit?"
"No. President Reagan says there's no limit. It's time to get serious about this thing. And I think that's how some of our laws are the way they are, is because it's time to fight the war on drugs and say, 'Let's fight them,' instead of just saying we're going to do it."
Garrigan was relieved. Washington, rather than hiding behind legalistic justifications, proudly outlined his vision of forfeiture: that its scope was boundless, that mere "indicators" were enough to trigger it, and that warfare was an apt analogy for the pursuit of cash, cars, and even iPods from drivers whom he deemed suspicious. If that were a fair characterization of Texas policy, a judge's sympathy for the plaintiffs seemed likely. So did a public outcry for reform.
"Did you find any drugs?" Garrigan asked.
"Is there any evidence that they were buying drugs, instead of looking at restaurants in Houston?"
"No, not yet."
"Do you, for some reason, think people driving up and down 59 owe you an explanation for why they might have money?"
"Sure they do."
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)