Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture

Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 11:01:51 AM)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_c0n2.pdf In Horne, SCOTUS ruled that the Department of Agriculture had to reimburse when it took raisans (SCOTUS I believe ruled it as both personal and real property) from the local farmers. This has implications throughout the entire government. My thoughts are that under the civil forfeiture laws that the government must return whatever was taken if there is no conviction of a crime. They may only hold it as long as there is an ongoing investigation. What are your thoughts

eulero83 -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 11:55:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_c0n2.pdf In Horne, SCOTUS ruled that the Department of Agriculture had to reimburse when it took raisans (SCOTUS I believe ruled it as both personal and real property) from the local farmers. This has implications throughout the entire government. My thoughts are that under the civil forfeiture laws that the government must return whatever was taken if there is no conviction of a crime. They may only hold it as long as there is an ongoing investigation. What are your thoughts I think you are right but there still is the problem civil forfeiture laws are designed to avoid this costitutional obstacles so first you should limit that practise only to the cases there is an ongoing investigation.

tj444 -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 2:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_c0n2.pdf In Horne, SCOTUS ruled that the Department of Agriculture had to reimburse when it took raisans (SCOTUS I believe ruled it as both personal and real property) from the local farmers. This has implications throughout the entire government. My thoughts are that under the civil forfeiture laws that the government must return whatever was taken if there is no conviction of a crime. They may only hold it as long as there is an ongoing investigation. What are your thoughts "In 2002–2003, raisin growers were required to set aside 47 percent* of their raisin crop under the reserve requirement. In 2003–2004, 30 percent"* Omg.. 47% of your crop taken away from you? And then you have to pay your farm expenses and living expenses & taxes out of whats left? isnt this just another form of slavery?

sloguy02246 -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 2:47:55 PM)
There is no crime or forfeiture involved. This is about an agreement between the growers and the government that has been in force since 1949 where the government agreed to take the raisin surplus (in years when there was a surplus) to artificially prop up raisin prices. However, raisin producers have, in certain years and depending on the amount of the surplus, not been fully compensated for their cost of producing the surplus. Hence the suit being filed, asking that the agreement be amended or discontinued. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/04/22/264055/at-supreme-court-raisin-rules.html

mnottertail -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 2:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_c0n2.pdf In Horne, SCOTUS ruled that the Department of Agriculture had to reimburse when it took raisans (SCOTUS I believe ruled it as both personal and real property) from the local farmers. This has implications throughout the entire government. My thoughts are that under the civil forfeiture laws that the government must return whatever was taken if there is no conviction of a crime. They may only hold it as long as there is an ongoing investigation. What are your thoughts "In 2002–2003, raisin growers were required to set aside 47 percent* of their raisin crop under the reserve requirement. In 2003–2004, 30 percent"* Omg.. 47% of your crop taken away from you? And then you have to pay your farm expenses and living expenses & taxes out of whats left? isnt this just another form of slavery? Yeah, not quite, they can get loans against that, and if you store it on your own farm, you can charge the government rent for that. There is no real detriment to the farmers.

Real0ne -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 4:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_c0n2.pdf In Horne, SCOTUS ruled that the Department of Agriculture had to reimburse when it took raisans (SCOTUS I believe ruled it as both personal and real property) from the local farmers. This has implications throughout the entire government. My thoughts are that under the civil forfeiture laws that the government must return whatever was taken if there is no conviction of a crime. They may only hold it as long as there is an ongoing investigation. What are your thoughts Geeeeeezus Ken thats a long read. Especially scrotumus-maximus-bag-o-wind-o-mus. Its none the less nice to see that the court has done something in the right direction for a change, but then even a broken clock is right 2wice per day. This was a long needed correction to the earlier judicial abominations of the constructive fraud 'per se' total destruction requirement that was used as a linchpin impasse to rights reservations set forth in the US/State constitutions. I read several road nazi cases this morning with the same style of fraudulent rico style construction. There are virtually mountains of these types of abominations pounded up our asses by our judiciary overlords over the last 100 years require review. This will be fr reaching and the court deserves a gold star. Anyone for kelo next?

KenDckey -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 7:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 There is no crime or forfeiture involved. This is about an agreement between the growers and the government that has been in force since 1949 where the government agreed to take the raisin surplus (in years when there was a surplus) to artificially prop up raisin prices. However, raisin producers have, in certain years and depending on the amount of the surplus, not been fully compensated for their cost of producing the surplus. Hence the suit being filed, asking that the agreement be amended or discontinued. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/04/22/264055/at-supreme-court-raisin-rules.html I was looking at future implications. Not the immediate.

HunterCA -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 8:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 There is no crime or forfeiture involved. This is about an agreement between the growers and the government that has been in force since 1949 where the government agreed to take the raisin surplus (in years when there was a surplus) to artificially prop up raisin prices. However, raisin producers have, in certain years and depending on the amount of the surplus, not been fully compensated for their cost of producing the surplus. Hence the suit being filed, asking that the agreement be amended or discontinued. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/04/22/264055/at-supreme-court-raisin-rules.html I was looking at future implications. Not the immediate. I wonder why I have to pay for inflated Ag supported prices in a supposed free market. Milk, sugar, wool, corn, whatever.

Aylee -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 10:41:20 PM)
Why do we need a raisin reserve? How are they some sort of important commodity? They are gross and look like dead flies.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/23/2015 11:25:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Why do we need a raisin reserve? In case Kellogg's has trouble filling two scoops?

Aylee -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/24/2015 6:06:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Why do we need a raisin reserve? In case Kellogg's has trouble filling two scoops? Wait a minute. . . raisins have a HIGH number on the glycemic index. That kind of stuff makes people fat. I think I have found the cause of the obesity epidemic. BTW, have you ever noticed that Kellogg's never says how BIG their scoops are? They could be eighth of a cup scoops. So. . . a quarter cup of raisins in every box. Not so impressive NOW, is it?

HunterCA -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/24/2015 8:40:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Why do we need a raisin reserve? In case Kellogg's has trouble filling two scoops? Wait a minute. . . raisins have a HIGH number on the glycemic index. That kind of stuff makes people fat. I think I have found the cause of the obesity epidemic. BTW, have you ever noticed that Kellogg's never says how BIG their scoops are? They could be eighth of a cup scoops. So. . . a quarter cup of raisins in every box. Not so impressive NOW, is it? Lol

RottenJohnny -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/24/2015 8:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Why do we need a raisin reserve? In case Kellogg's has trouble filling two scoops? Wait a minute. . . raisins have a HIGH number on the glycemic index. That kind of stuff makes people fat. I think I have found the cause of the obesity epidemic. BTW, have you ever noticed that Kellogg's never says how BIG their scoops are? They could be eighth of a cup scoops. So. . . a quarter cup of raisins in every box. Not so impressive NOW, is it? That's okay. To be honest, I actually prefer Post Raisin Bran anyway. [:D]

Real0ne -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/24/2015 10:28:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I was looking at future implications. Not the immediate. The abbr version; the positive implications are that the gubmint can no longer injure people in both real and personal property by executing a 'partial taking' to avoid paying compensation. Now I did not anal lyse it but it also appears this would include extended compensation for devaluation. Of course most of these types of decisions surface until they no longer have a 'real' need for it anymore.

KenDckey -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/24/2015 11:57:51 AM)
RealOne I don't see compensation for devaluation. That is unless there is a law out there someplace. That would be up to the industry to decide whilest trying to avoid RICO laws to hold back on production for the benefit of all. However, in the case of taking and making one prove their innocence when it comes to money, which could fall under this decision, would theorectially have to cease.

tj444 -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/24/2015 1:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_c0n2.pdf In Horne, SCOTUS ruled that the Department of Agriculture had to reimburse when it took raisans (SCOTUS I believe ruled it as both personal and real property) from the local farmers. This has implications throughout the entire government. My thoughts are that under the civil forfeiture laws that the government must return whatever was taken if there is no conviction of a crime. They may only hold it as long as there is an ongoing investigation. What are your thoughts "In 2002–2003, raisin growers were required to set aside 47 percent* of their raisin crop under the reserve requirement. In 2003–2004, 30 percent"* Omg.. 47% of your crop taken away from you? And then you have to pay your farm expenses and living expenses & taxes out of whats left? isnt this just another form of slavery? Yeah, not quite, they can get loans against that, and if you store it on your own farm, you can charge the government rent for that. There is no real detriment to the farmers. I grew up on a farm, we grew all sorts of things but most income came from milk cows.. My father decided a certain mixed breed of cow produced the most milk (so was more profitable) but unless he had the "quota" he either couldnt sell any milk over his quota or he would have to buy a cow at the auction that had quota allotment he needed.. so he had to pay for a cow and its quota to get the quota he needed and then turn around and sell the cow for cheap.. the thing about the govt control is it penalizes those that are smarter and able to produce more than their competitors.. now how would y'all feel if they applied the same controls for US manufactured vehicles? or to other US made goods and services? Why is it that these kinda controls seem to be just on farmers? Isnt this kinda govt control anti-capitalism?

Real0ne -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/24/2015 5:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I grew up on a farm, we grew all sorts of things but most income came from milk cows.. My father decided a certain mixed breed of cow produced the most milk (so was more profitable) but unless he had the "quota" he either couldnt sell any milk over his quota or he would have to buy a cow at the auction that had quota allotment he needed.. so he had to pay for a cow and its quota to get the quota he needed and then turn around and sell the cow for cheap.. the thing about the govt control is it penalizes those that are smarter and able to produce more than their competitors.. now how would y'all feel if they applied the same controls for US manufactured vehicles? or to other US made goods and services? Why is it that these kinda controls seem to be just on farmers? Isnt this kinda govt control anti-capitalism? its a farce, not too much more than another spun label. anyone who honestly believes we have anything approaching true capitalism in the US is drinking far too much koolaid.

Real0ne -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/24/2015 5:20:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey RealOne I don't see compensation for devaluation. That is unless there is a law out there someplace. That would be up to the industry to decide whilest trying to avoid RICO laws to hold back on production for the benefit of all. However, in the case of taking and making one prove their innocence when it comes to money, which could fall under this decision, would theorectially have to cease. Ken, the problem is that they could execute a partial taking and pay you nothing, which is what they all to often did. For lack of a better term the 'per se' rule. Unless i missed something since my eyes were quite crossed by the time I got done reading that, that is what I concluded from that case, caveat; without actually studying it.

MercTech -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/25/2015 1:14:21 PM)
I just realized I may know where all those nasty #10 cans of raisins with stems and leaves in them came from. Some military rations "gub'mint cheese" to shame.

MrRodgers -> RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture (6/25/2015 3:02:37 PM)
Read this and weep kinkroids. The whole matter is a direct bi-product of the agric. welfare program (raisin stamps anyone ?) in that great plutocratic re-distribution of wealth from the consumer to the investor class. Isn't free market/capitalism [sic]...great ?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625