Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 11:01:51 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 11:55:16 AM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 2:12:48 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 2:47:55 PM   
sloguy02246


Posts: 534
Joined: 11/5/2011
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 2:54:01 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 4:25:27 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 7:08:47 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to sloguy02246)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 8:03:37 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 10:41:20 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline 		Why do we need a raisin reserve? How are they some sort of important commodity? They are gross and look like dead flies.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/23/2015 11:25:18 PM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Why do we need a raisin reserve?

In case Kellogg's has trouble filling two scoops?

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/24/2015 6:06:24 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to RottenJohnny)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/24/2015 8:40:59 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/24/2015 8:56:40 AM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/24/2015 10:28:26 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/24/2015 11:57:51 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/24/2015 1:04:29 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/24/2015 5:14:53 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/24/2015 5:20:09 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/25/2015 1:14:21 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture - 6/25/2015 3:02:37 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		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 ?

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 6/25/2015 3:03:41 PM >

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Civil Forfeiture and Horne V Department of Agriculture Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109