No Difference Between Civil Forfeiture And Involuntary Servitude

[Flanders]

Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg cited the Eighth Amendment's clear language: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This language, the justices agreed, is binding on not only the federal but also state governments, and it is also applicable to cases like this one.

Despite the seemingly plain dictates of the Bill of Rights, police take property through the practice of civil forfeiture, even from people who have not been convicted and often not even accused of a crime. Those thus expropriated are often forced to fight in court for their own money or goods, often at great expense in time and money. It's unfair, and it flies in the face of this nation's tradition of property rights.
​

All nine Supreme Court justice’s understand the VIII Amendment and civil forfeiture, while all nine are as blind as bats to involuntary servitude:

NOTE: No plaintiff’s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:
​

VIII Amendment
​

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


​

XIII Amendment​

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...2s-Brand-Of-Intolerance&p=2782041#post2782041

Aside from the damage involuntary servitude does to individual liberties in a free society the monetary pain caused by seizing mountains when NO MOLEHILLS ARE DUE borders on cruel and unusual punishment:

Although Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas offered slightly different rationales for reaching the same conclusion, all nine justices agreed that the state cannot simply take seize mountains where molehills are due.


​

A critical Supreme Court victory for property rights
by Washington Examiner
February 24, 2019 12:00 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...cal-supreme-court-victory-for-property-rights
​

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE
​

Stuff like this is no different than governors, mayors, and bureaucrats issuing mandates then ordering the police to enforce them as though they are laws. I am only surprised that many Americans are turning against the police while they give corrupt government officials a pass.

https://www.wnd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Bags-of-money.jpg
​

The Institute for Justice is asking South Carolina's Supreme Court to address "policing for profit," in which law enforcement agencies are incentivized to confiscate property, even without charges.

IJ cited a recent series of articles by the Greenville News showing that in just three years, South Carolina law enforcement agencies seized and kept more than $17 million from citizens.

"As the reporting by the News’ Nathaniel Cary indicates, this isn’t the result of pulling over a few kingpins: Over half of cash seizures are for less than $1,000, and one-third involve less than $500," IJ said. "To pull in that cash, South Carolina law enforcement agencies have organized large-scale events like 'Operation Rolling Thunder,' where they give trophies to the officers who seize the most property. And those agencies have spent forfeiture proceeds in questionable ways: One sheriff spent over $11,000 to send himself, his chief deputies and their wives on an all-expenses paid trip to Reno, Nevada.

"Another officer decided he wanted to keep the Ford Raptor he seized as his official car, so he spent an additional $20,000 in forfeiture funds to pay off its loan."

It is civil forfeiture laws that are at issue, IJ explained.

The state law allows police to take "cash, cars, homes and other property from South Carolinians without so much as charging — let alone convicting — the owner with a crime and then profit from the proceeds."

IJ is representing a property owner in an ongoing forfeiture case that is heading to the state Supreme Court.

Last year, IJ said, prosecutors seized and then tried to permanently take Travis Green’s money. The judge asked both parties to address whether or not South Carolina’s forfeiture statutes pass muster under the federal and state constitutions.

The judge found the existing procedures violate people's rights to due process and to be free from excessive fines. As a result, the judge concluded that officials couldn’t try to forfeit Green’s or anyone else’s money in his judicial circuit, IJ said.

IJ stepped into the case when prosecutors appealed to the state's highest court.

Under the challenged laws, prosecutors don’t have to prove owners did anything wrong. Instead, once they show probable cause that the owner’s property is somehow connected to a crime, the owner must prove his or her own innocence, IJ said.

The process can take years, so it's not surprising that many owners give up or reach settlements to get part of their property back, IJ said.

"It’s bad enough that under South Carolina’s civil forfeiture laws, owners must prove their own innocence or lose their property forever,” said Dan Alban, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice and counsel for respondents in Jimmy Richardson v. $20,771. “But it’s even worse when the government doesn’t even have to give those owners their day in court.”

IJ said the most offensive part of the system is that when police prevail, they can sell the owner’s property and keep at least 95% of the proceeds for their agencies.

"Recent reporting has exposed the terrible, real-world consequences of South Carolina’s forfeiture laws,” said Robert Frommer, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. “The ‘eat what you kill’ financial incentive these laws create causes officials to violate people’s constitutional rights by treating them like ATMs.”

There also are no requirements for transparency about the "policing for profit," IJ explained.
​

State Supreme court urged to address 'policing for profit'
By WND Staff
Published July 18, 2020 at 5:50pm

https://www.wnd.com/2020/07/state-supreme-court-urged-address-policing-profit/
​