|
KenDckey -> RE: Police Take & Sell Assets Even If Owner Broke No Law (7/10/2015 5:48:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I think Horne will be used to overthrow this practice.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_feah.pdf
quote:
Held
: The Fifth Amendment requires
that the Government pay just
compensation when it takes personal
property, just as when it takes
real property.
I like that case.
Maybe.
My gut tells me that it wont have a huge impact, especially on real property.
Look that speronis off grid case. The city gave her an evistion noticefor trumped up violations.
That and they do not wait till someones property taxes are over the point of no return, one people get a couple years behind even if its only 10% the value of the home these people have to forfeit. Its hiway robbery and people do not realize that if the government can do that they do not own their home, but merely rent it.
This confiscation practice has gone unchecked since the inception of this county. Pirates in blu with high priests in black robes.
I love the case. I have been told in the civil foreiture and horne thread
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
sloguy's reference predates the ruling
quote:
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG
, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
I can see taking property relevant to an investigation, and that once the investigation is over appropriate disposition be made. If there isn't probable cause or the investigation doesn't pan out, then the property should be returned immediately and without a bunch of paperwork other than signing for the property taken as proof it was returned.
There was a case where (and I can't remember the names or where) that a guy was locked up for a crime. After his release they refused to return his $1,000 bill. The Mayor or some other official changed it for other cash after it was in property. "Criminal" sued for his bill and got it back. The guy that had it claimed he got his $1,000 back. That was all that mattered. The "criminal" won and they were forced to return his property.
|
|
|
|
