U.S.A. Government Will Kill You For Money America The Great Police State Thousands Dead

Yes It's True U.S.A. Government Will Kill You For Money The America Great Police State Thousands Dead Civil Asset Forfeiture. U.S.A. Drug Enforcement Administration & Department of Justice With Help From FBI & CIA & Local Police And Sheriff Dept. All Over U.S.A. Our Killing Thousands America Citizens Right Now Today. No One Is A Missing Person At All. If You Get Pulled Over By Police States In A Car Or Truck With Money You Have A 20% Change You Will Be Killed For The Money Or Sold As A Sex Slave. This Statement Is No Joke At All... You Will Be Killed By U.S.A. Government And Yes This Is Real Information From New World Order Today. U.S.A. I Kill You ? DEA, FBI, CIA, DOJ Or A COP Will Kill You With Bullet To Your Head and Drive Off With Your Money !

Show more

Let us accept that we are no longer a republic governed by laws only by armed men and force. This is just like the days of Billy the Kid. You have an armed man going down a dusty street, and that is authority. And it has come to this for us.

Thousand's Dead In U.S.A. Now & Shot In Head By Police & Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse - https://rumble.com/v2fjx2g-thousands-dead-in-u.s.a.-now-and-shot-in-head-by-police-and-civil-asset-for.html

New Proof That Police Use Civil Forfeiture To Take From Those Who Can’t Fight Back Nassir Geiger spoke with the wrong person at the wrong time and it cost him hundreds of dollars and his car. Nassir was a victim of Philadelphia’s predatory civil forfeiture scheme that operated from a shady “courtroom” at City Hall. For years, police and prosecutors seized cash, cars and even homes and then took the property for themselves. Worse still, new data show that the police preyed on people in minority and low-income areas—in other words, people who could least afford to fight back.

Drug Enforcement Administration - Will Kill You - This Man Is Lucky - Most Time Dead - https://rumble.com/v2ffnam-drug-enforcement-administration-will-kill-you-this-man-is-lucky-most-time-d.html

Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as you know well, most of the time DEA or FBI or CIA or DOJ or A COP Will Kill You With Bullet To Your Head and Drive Off With Your Money. Yes even innocent people aren’t safe from U.S. Civil Forfeiture.

Asset forfeiture laws is a tool in our country’s a tyrannical u.s.a. government battle against its own people and u.s.a. citizens to steal all your money and kill you, drug abuse and drug crimes, helping to shut down “pill mills” and stop rogue doctors, pharmacists, and dealers.

DOJ DISSEND DECREES POLICE REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACCOMPLISHMENTS - https://rumble.com/v307wei-doj-dissend-decrees-police-reform-and-accountability-accomplishments.html

Since the start of the administration, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has opened 23 investigations into police departments. In the first five fiscal years of the administration, the department has opened more than twice as many investigations than were opened in the previous five fiscal years. The department is enforcing 17 agreements with law enforcement agencies, including 13 consent decrees, and one post-judgment order.

U.S.A. Government & Police States Are Seizing Money Civil Forfeiture Armored Car - https://rumble.com/v3sd71u-u.s.a.-government-and-police-states-are-seizing-money-civil-forfeiture-armo.html

U.S.A. Drug Enforcement Administration & Department of Justice With Help From FBI & CIA & Local Police And Sheriff Dept. All Over U.S.A. Our Killing Thousands America Citizens Right Now Today. No One Is A Missing Person At All. If You Get Pulled Over By Police States In A Car Or Truck With Money You Have A 20% Change You Will Be Killed For The Money Or Sold As A Sex Slave. This Statement Is No Joke At All... You Will Be Killed By U.S.A. Government And Yes This Is Real Information From New World Order Today.

Notices of administrative, civil and criminal forfeiture actions have traditionally been published in newspapers. Publication of forfeiture notices are now permitted on a government internet site under 28 CFR Part 8.9, Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), and/or Rule 32.2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

This website is managed by the Department of In-Justice, Asset Forfeiture Management Staff and contains a comprehensive list of pending forfeiture notices for all of the federal agencies shown below. No matter how strict you make gun laws sick people and drug out persons or normal people and others etc. (all races and all colours of people) a criminal is a criminal and will always be a criminal and a criminal with a gun or without a gun, will always break the law. I don’t believe the lies they are trying to feed you they don’t work.

This website also features information on how to file a claim and/or a petition for the purpose of recovering property. This information, along with links to the online claim and petition forms, can be found by clicking "Claims" or "Petitions" above. Please note that Title 18, United States Code, Section 983(h)(1), permits a court to impose a civil fine on anyone asserting an interest in property which the court determines was frivolous. The Asset Forfeiture Management Staff (AFMS) is responsible for management of the Assets Forfeiture Fund, the suite of tools used by law enforcement agencies to manage assets as they traverse the asset forfeiture process, program-wide contracts, oversight of program internal controls and property management, interpretation of the Assets Forfeiture Fund statute, approval of Fund uses, and legislative liaison on matters affecting the financial integrity of the Program. The Department of In-Justice Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP) encompasses the seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate federal crimes. The primary mission of the Program is to employ asset forfeiture powers in a manner that enhances public safety and security. This is accomplished by removing the proceeds of crime and other assets relied upon by criminals and their associates to perpetuate their criminal activity against our society. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals.

Highway Robbery in Reno: Nevada Cops Use Civil Forfeiture To Steal a Veteran’s Life Savings. Stephen is a 39-year-old retired Marine from Lubbock, Texas. He is a devoted father of two teenage daughters and, once a month, he drives from Texas to see them in California, where they live with their mother. Eager to be closer after spending the pandemic in Texas caring for his elderly parents, he has been shopping for a home near the California-Nevada border.

In February 2021, Stephen was making his usual trip west through Reno when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol for supposedly following a tractor-trailer too closely.

The officer complimented Stephen’s driving, thanked him for observing the speed limit, and explained that NHP was “conducting a public information campaign” to help drivers avoid danger. Confident that the officer was only there to help, Stephen cooperated with his escalating investigation, even volunteering that he was carrying a large amount of cash.

Ninety minutes later, Stephen had been robbed of his life savings—$86,900—which he carried with him after a spate of robberies in his parents’ neighborhood. The officer who pulled Stephen over wanted to let him go; he was overruled by NHP Sergeant Glenn Rigdon, who ordered the money seized specifically so that it could be “adopted” by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

“Adoption” is a process by which federal law enforcement agencies can take over a seizure by state and local law enforcement. If the federal government is successful in forfeiting the property, its “equitable sharing” program guarantees the state or local agency that seized the property up to 80% of the proceeds for use in the agency’s budget.

In Stephen’s case, the DEA sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines requiring it to charge Stephen with a crime, begin a civil forfeiture case against his property, or return the money within six months of seizure. The DEA did none of those things. So, on August 30, IJ sued it in federal court on Stephen’s behalf.

Early the morning of September 1, the agency announced it would return all of Stephen’s money. In less than 24 hours, it had learned of our lawsuit, answered hard questions from The Washington Post, and committed to reviewing its policies for federal adoptions.

When we learned he would be getting his money back (filled with joy), he told us, “This isn’t over.”

And it isn’t. At the same time we filed in federal court, we also filed a major constitutional challenge in state court. Our state case aims to make federal adoptions impossible in Nevada as violations of the state constitution’s guarantees of reasonable seizures supported by probable cause and due process of law—not based on mere suspicion or for the financial benefit of the seizing agency. If we are successful, it will be the first time a state court has struck down federal adoptions. And a victory will take the profit motive out of roadside seizures.

Stephen Lara did everything right. He served his country in the Marines for over 16 years, including tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is devoted to his two daughters and has been saving to buy a house where they can live with him. But his plans came crashing down in the winter of 2021, when the Nevada Highway Patrol seized his life savings. The officers knew they had no evidence of any crime, but they took Stephen’s money anyway to hand over to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in the anticipation that the federal agency could take Stephen’s money and kick back a portion of the proceeds to the Highway Patrol through a program called “equitable sharing.”

The DEA has never accused Stephen of a crime and sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines that require them to return the money.

Until shortly before the seizure, Stephen lived near his ex-wife and two daughters in a small California town outside Reno, Nevada. At the beginning of the pandemic, he was laid off from his job at a local hospital and moved into his parents’ home in Lubbock, Texas. Stephen returned to California for a weekend each month to spend time with them, sometimes taking his life savings in cash with him. It was on one of these trips in February 2021 that Stephen’s life was turned upside down.

On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings.

The officers did not arrest Stephen or charge him with any crime. They just took his life savings and left him on the side of the road without enough money to even afford gas to drive home.

After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong.

So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.

But Stephen’s case is not over. He also sued the Nevada Highway Patrol in Nevada state court to hold the government to account and to stop the NHP from violating Nevada law in exchange for lucrative kickbacks from the federal government.

Seizure Summary Report for FY20-FY22
As of
10/17/2022 SSF Seized Count Value at Seizure Asset Value
FY2022 10,635
$453,614,471.20 - $443,001,136.08

FY2021 13,100 $803,017,981.73 $807,007,592.33
FY2020 11,669 $607,974,884.82 $595,886,329.36

DOJ Equitable Share Distribution Report for FY20-FY22
As of
10/17/2022 Cash Proceeds Item Transfer
Value Totals
FY2022 $395,109,862.14 $128,725,106.71 $1,246,903.40 $525,081,872.25
FY2021 $81,932,742.44 $32,809,651.75 $296,104.21 $115,038,498.40
FY2020 $136,836,690.25 $69,501,811.24 $440,463.70 $206,778,965.19

Seized Assets Greater than $10 Million for FY20-FY22

As of
09/10/2021 Seizure Date Asset Type Asset Value
FY2021 07/27/2021 270.15001401 Bitcoin $10,544,220.35
FY2021 02/10/2021 287.904256 Bitcoin $137,734,661.41
FY2021 03/15/2021 $29,216,198.08 U.S. Currency $29,216,198.08
FY2020 08/29/2020 $27,806,815.00 U.S. Currency $27,806,815.00
FY2020 07/23/2020 $44,650,000.00 U.S. Currency $44,650,000.00

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) uses forfeiture to attack the financial structure of drug trafficking and money laundering groups worldwide, from the lowly courier carrying cash or drugs to the top levels of drug cartels. Forfeiture, particularly civil forfeiture (see below), is very effective against drug crimes committed for profit.

DEA's Responsibility and Authority

DEA agents swear to uphold the Constitution, and their actions are subject to federal court review. Congress has granted DEA authority to investigate drug crimes and forfeit assets.

To seize property, DEA agents must have probable cause (the same legal standard needed to arrest someone) and obtain a warrant from a judge (with some exceptions). The US Department of Justice oversees the Asset Forfeiture Program. Forfeiture is the government taking of property, because it was used or obtained in violation of the law.

Assets subject to seizure include cars, cash, real estate, or anything of value used to commit a drug crime or bought with drug proceeds. Forfeiting assets earned from or used in criminal activities helps law enforcement agencies because the forfeiture:

Takes the profit of crime away;
Removes instrumentalities of crime;
Deters crime;
Aids in dismantling drug trafficking and money laundering groups;
Weakens criminal enterprises;
Punishes criminals
There are two types of forfeiture: judicial and non-judicial (also known as administrative forfeiture).

DEA starts the administrative forfeiture process by mailing notice letters to interested parties and advertising the seized property on the Internet.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office begins the judicial forfeiture process by filing either a civil complaint against the property (e.g., United States v. $150,000 U.S. Currency) or bringing criminal charges against a party (e.g., United States v. John Smith).

Administrative Forfeiture is the process by which DEA processes the forfeiture without going to court. Administrative Forfeiture will be used to forfeit property unless (1) by law the property has to be forfeited judicially or (2) a party files a valid claim, which changes the administrative forfeiture into a judicial forfeiture.

A federal judge must forfeit real estate and most property valued over $500,000, with some exceptions.

Criminal forfeiture is included as part of a defendant’s criminal prosecution. If the defendant is convicted or has a plea agreement, the court may forfeit the property.

Civil forfeiture is a proceeding brought against the property itself. The government must prove that the property is connected to a crime, but a criminal conviction is not required. It is very similar to all other lawsuits involving property in the U.S., and allows the government to forfeit property when the property owner is unknown or unavailable. The Constitution requires due process before the government can forfeit property. This means owners have the right to be notified about the forfeiture proceedings and the right to be heard in the proceeding.

No Cost Bond. Owners do not have to file a cost bond with a claim;
Right to Notice. DEA must mail a letter to all known interested parties informing them of the forfeiture proceedings no more than 60 days after a seizure (with some exceptions); Publication. DEA must advertise the seizure online for 30 days;

P.S. MOST OF THE TIME YOU WILL BE KILL AND ROBE ALL YOUR MONEY AND COPS DRIVE OFF AND NO ONE WILL KNOW WHO KILLED YOU... Proof. In all judicial forfeiture cases, the government must prove its case against the seized asset by a preponderance of the evidence (the same legal standard in any civil trial); To Seek the Property’s Return

(1) Petition DEA for the return of the property and/or;
(2) File a valid claim with DEA, which means the person intends to challenge the forfeiture in federal court.

When is it legal for a cop to kill you? ha ha ha Really ? If you have money or money and drugs you will be dead very fast and know one will know who did it.

Charging a police officer with a crime after the death of a civilian is incredibly rare — even when there's video evidence. And a big part of that is because of the legal standards for when a cop is allowed to use deadly force: what the public sees as crossing the line may not actually break the law, and even the most reliable video evidence might not show an officer actually committing a crime.

There are plenty of guidelines for use of force by police, but it often boils down to what the officer believed when the force was used (something that is notoriously difficult to standardize), regardless of how much of a threat actually existed. Here's how prosecutors draw the line between a justifiable use of force by a police officer, and a crime. When a police officer kills someone on the job, there's a two-track investigation. That's because there are actually two different sets of standards that govern when a police officer can use deadly force. One set of standards is state law, informed by a couple of Supreme Court precedents that lay out the circumstances under which law enforcement officers are justified in using lethal force on suspects.

The other set of standards is the policy of the officer's police department, which tells its employees when it is and isn't appropriate for them to use force.

If a police officer were to murder someone in cold blood while on the job, he wouldn't just be breaking the law — he'd be violating his equivalent of an employee handbook. But something can be against a police department's policy without being against the law. When New York police officer Daniel Pantaleo put Eric Garner in a chokehold (ultimately killing him) in July 2014, for example, he violated the NYPD's policy on use of force — but there isn't a law on the books saying a police officer can't use a chokehold.

So when a cop uses deadly force in an officer-involved death, there's a standard criminal investigation: detectives collect evidence and present it to the local prosecutor. The prosecutor then determines whether the killing fits the standards in state law for permissible homicide. If it doesn't, then a crime has been committed, and the prosecutor's job becomes figuring out which crime it was and whether there's enough evidence to charge the officer with it.

But there's also an internal investigation within the cop's department to evaluate whether the incident violated its use-of-force policy. Many departments' policies are stricter than state law — but an officer can't be charged with a crime just for violating the policy. He or she can, however, be fired for it. In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable. Those decisions have governed how state laws are applied. Furthermore, many agencies simply use identical standards to the Supreme Court's for their own use-of-force policies — though some departments don't let officers use deadly force even when the Court decisions say they'd be allowed to.

Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri St. Louis. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

The logic behind the second circumstance, says Klinger, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The Court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But as Klinger says, "They basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."

Some police departments' policies only allow deadly force in the first circumstance: defense of life. Others have policies that also allow deadly force to prevent escape in certain cases, within the limits of the Supreme Court decision. The key to both of the legal standards — defense of life and fleeing a violent felony — is that it doesn’t matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer’s “objectively reasonable” belief that there is a threat.

That standard comes from the other Supreme Court case that guides use-of-force decisions: Graham v. Connor. This was a civil lawsuit brought by a man who'd survived his encounter with police officers, but who'd been treated roughly, had his face shoved into the hood of a car, and broken his foot — all while he was suffering a diabetic attack. The Court didn't rule on whether the officers' treatment of him had been justified, but it did say that the officers couldn't justify their conduct just based on whether their intentions were good. They had to demonstrate that their actions were "objectively reasonable," given the circumstances and compared to what other police officers might do.

There are plenty of cases in which an officer might be legally justified in using deadly force because he feels threatened, even though there’s no actual threat there. Klinger gives the example of a suspect who is carrying a realistic-looking toy gun. That example bears a resemblance to the shooting death of John Crawford, an Ohio man who was killed by police in August 2014 while carrying a toy rifle in Walmart.

Hypothetically, if the gun looked real, Klinger says, "the officer's life was not in fact in jeopardy, but that would be an appropriate use of force. Because a reasonable officer could have believed that that was a real gun." In fact, toy gun manufacturers — including the maker of the air rifle Crawford had — have started using this standard to limit their liability, putting on a warning label that tells consumers police could mistake their products for real guns. Walter Katz, a California attorney who specializes in oversight of law enforcement agencies — particularly during use-of-force investigations — points out that it's hard to determine whether an officer's fear is reasonable because the decision to shoot is so fast.

"Officer-involved shootings happen extremely quickly," Katz says. "Usually, the point from where the officer believes he has to use deadly force to the point where he uses deadly force — where he pulls the trigger — is about two seconds." That can make it much harder for investigators to decide whether or not the officer was reasonable in thinking he had to shoot.

That puts a lot of weight on an officer's immediate instincts in judging who's dangerous. And those immediate instincts are where implicit bias could creep in — believing that a young black man is a threat, for example, even if he is unarmed.

But each use of deadly force does have to be evaluated separately to determine if it was justified. "The moment that you no longer present a threat, I need to stop shooting," says Klinger. However, he continues, "There's a difference between the moment you cease to be a threat and the moment I perceive you ceased to be a threat." And Katz points out that if an officer has been assaulted and the suspect runs away, the officer's threat assessment is probably going to be shaped by having just been assaulted. But, Katz says, "One can't just say, 'Because I could use deadly force 10 seconds ago, that means I can use deadly force again now.'"

Your Right to Remain Silent A New Answer to an Old Question - Do Not Talk ? O.K. - https://rumble.com/v297voe-your-right-to-remain-silent-a-new-answer-to-an-old-question-do-not-talk-o.k.html

Don't Talk to the Police Ever! Fifth Amendment "Right To Remain Silent," When a witness is summoned to testify before a grand jury or at a judicial or legislative proceeding, the lawyer for the witness frequently concludes that it may be in the client's best interest to assert the Fifth Amendment "right to remain silent," at least with respect to certain topics. The lawyer will often give the witness a card to read aloud when asserting that privilege. But precisely what words should the lawyer advise the client to read when invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege?

For more than 100 years, lawyers have shown surprisingly little imagination or ingenuity, advising their clients to state in almost exactly these words: "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me."

This One Also Is Most Important Video You’ll Ever Watch Today In 2025.
America's Shocking True Secret Political History & Great American Real Sovereign Citizens - https://rumble.com/v5iytz9-americas-shocking-true-secret-political-history-and-great-american-real-sov.html

Yes We The People's Republic Of United State Of America Act of 1871-1917-1933 Fully Exposed America's Shocking True Secret Political History And As A Great American You Are The Real Sovereign Citizens Of U.S.A. Right Now America's Shocking Secret Political History.

America the Great … Police State ... Bang Bang You Are Dead By U.S.A. Government. Let us accept that we are no longer a republic governed by laws only by armed men and force. This is just like the days of Billy the Kid. You have an armed man going down a dusty street, and that is authority. And it has come to this for us.

For those of us who had hoped that the Obama administration would present us with a rebirth of the old republic that was so rudely erased a few years ago by that team of judicial wreckers, Bush and Gonzales, which led, in turn, to a recent incident in Cambridge, Mass. that inspired a degree of alarm in many Americans. But what was most alarming was the plain fact that neither the president nor a “stupid” local policeman seemed to understand the rules of behavior in a new America, where we find ourselves marooned as well as guarded (is that the verb?) by armed police who have been instructed that they are indeed, once armed, the law and may not be criticized verbally or in any other way and are certainly not subject to any restrictions as to whom they arrest or otherwise torment.

This is rather worse than anyone might have predicted, even though the signs have been clear for some years that ours is now a proto-fascist nation and there appears to be no turning back; nor, indeed, much awareness on the part of our ever-alert media. Forgive me if you find my irony heavy, but I too get tired of carrying it about in “the greatest nation in the country,” as Spiro Agnew liked to say.

I was first made aware of this development in 1946 when I was limping around in army uniform in New York City and noticed that the local police (admired by none) were beginning to run wild, possibly because so many of the able-bodied young had, like myself, been serving for some years overseas. I recall that some sort of parade was being held and what looked to be a thousand or two citizens were trying unsuccessfully to cross Fifth Avenue. I waited on a street corner for an hour in my uniform, limping from my disability earned by my service in the war. But after nearly an hour of waiting, I stopped a policeman who was wandering idly around and asked him politely when I’d be able to cross Fifth Avenue. He shrieked at me, “Go call da mayor!” And I said, “Oh I will, I will.” Actually, I did know the mayor at that time, but he was not available on that sacred day. I did make a protest as a veteran who had mustered out with a disability for life, but this seemed to be a cause of great merriment. In any case, that was my first experience of a Nazi-like police force in New York City, a city pretty much home to me from childhood on.

I was also aware as the years passed how often friends would be beaten up in front of what were called “faggot bars.” Meanwhile, the police never seemed to stop an incessant whining about the enormous dangers to which their work subjected them as they gallantly served our great city, even though they were insufficiently paid and admired. I thought then that the whole damn lot of them should be sent to Camp Lejeune to be put through a strong course of basic training by the Marine Corps.

I also propose this as a solution to the problem that they currently pose us, not only on Fifth Avenue but in Harvard Yard, where a young policeman recently distinguished himself by being rude to the president, complaining with the irresistible policeman’s whine that he and the president were just alike in their problems, only he was being particularly bugged by the press, in effect, said, “join the club.” Now that they were becoming buddies in embarrassment, the little corporal said, characteristically allowing his envy to show, “You’ve got a bigger lawn than mine” — thus, proving how serious daydreaming can place yourself into a position of parity.

But the true meaning of the mess in Cambridge has been carefully avoided by a media incapable of getting the point to anything if they can excitingly change the subject to something else. So here we now have a cast of characters that includes the president himself, a distinguished scholar and a feckless young policeman who on the radio said, when asked why he had behaved so rudely to the “old” scholar, he said because the old guy had been rude about his mother. I haven’t heard this excuse since the playground of St. Alban’s in 1935. One interesting fallout from the tragic business in Cambridge – and it is tragic, let me tell you – was that the president was forced to speak suddenly in his own voice, and at his very best, and not swathed in the authority of his great rank, but simply as a citizen making a sensible comment about a nobody policeman. Yes, I mean “nobody” literally – I know all human beings, if they are Americans, are highly valued and worshiped, indeed, for their wonderfulness and their helpfulness to fellow citizens. I state this ironically, as you might suspect. After all, why would the young man be armed unless he was a superior citizen, elected, as it were, by his fellows to ride herd on an unruly mob unless he was demonstrably special by virtue of being legally armed, which is how we are supposed to tell them from us?

But there the president was, saying, this is stupid. But he did not say, “How dare you go after a 58-year-old man who is one of the great scholars of the country and think you can get away with it?” Unfortunately, it never seemed to have crossed the president’s mind in this crisis that he is expected to do something about it. I know there is a great deal, as they say, on his plate, but after displays of this sort, he should call together a commission involving every section of the country. Every municipality is complaining about local police forces run wild. And no one does anything about it. And our masters are armed to the teeth and would seem more likely to fire at us instead of at the troublemakers. I can’t think of any civilized country that would allow this, from the look of these bulky guardians of the peace, to whom no right-minded person would allow even a slingshot to be given.

So, we are a weirdly militarized citizenry governed by the worst elements in the United States, and something is bound to blow up, as I have felt for some time now. In my wanderings around the U.S., I talk to people without money, without power, ordinary voters, as well as nowadays, people maimed by war, or time, or life or whatever, and I am convinced more and more that this is a vicious country in which the police are allowed to run amok, absolutely independent of anyone, and that is why from time to time they are allowed to get away with murder. One surprisingly knew that a wrinkle has been discovered in the seamless surface of our troubled state. Policemen are seldom tried for their crimes, or indeed, held responsible for what they do, which disturbs the peace and causes distress among the orderly.

I would suggest that the president, if he wants to be useful — and not many presidents do in my experience — he might as well call together a commission in response to citizens of every major municipality in the United States who are complaining to central authority about police forces out of control. And no one dares do anything because the police will say, “Well, you know they are acting like this because they are bad people who hate us because we are good people, rescuing cats from trees and otherwise loved by every decent person in the land.”

What the police in their ignorance have not figured out is that they have lost all credibility since World War II. They are sort of parasites on the fringe of society and do no particular good for anyone except possibly themselves. Certainly to hear them complain — you’ve never heard such whines as from a policeman who feels he’s been wronged! Apparently, all Earth owes him a living, and he’s the bravest man on any block.

One aspect of the events in Cambridge was that the president could have been characteristically brilliant on this subject, as he has been on so many subjects having to do with our general welfare as citizens (and he is also one of the useful, hands-on presidents), but the media, conditioned always to miss the point, went out of their way to miss the point here by many a mile. They blamed it all on – you guessed it – RACE! Well, you can blame anything on race, including Scripture, or the tides and the moon, and this and that, but that president and that professor are by coincidence both black, which to the plain horror of the media, had nothing to do with the brave little corporal who was feeling his oats and wanted to have some fun with an older man who couldn’t fight back. They get very bored in those jobs, and, of course, he was armed with a gun, and able to kill anybody he wanted and probably get away with it — what a temptation!

Anyway, the president has not done what he should have done, which is to have reminded us that the United Kingdom — a more livable nation than the United States, let me say with first-hand experience of both — has disarmed its police. There are no angry men wandering around carrying guns over there. This is a lesson to us, but we’ve armed practically every grange house in the United States because our regular guys just want to swagger around.

Incidentally, it was quite funny to hear one of the favorite adjectives that our new masters use to describe vicious civilians who deliberately mock them, like the professor and myself on Fifth Avenue, and I think they would include the president, too, if the Secret Service was not lurking nearby. Their term for any civilian who criticizes them is “arrogant,” but they are themselves far gone in arrogance and spite. Let us accept the facts staring us in the face — that demonstrably we are no longer a republic. We are no longer governed by laws, only by armed men and force. This is just like the days of Billy the Kid. You have an armed man going down a dusty street and that is authority. And it has come to this for us.

If the media will ever become alert to real news, they will put paid to their universal cry that no matter what happens of a disagreeable nature in the streets or elsewhere in public, it is due to racial hatred. Both corporal and president made no attempt to clear this matter up. Arguably, you can say that everything is subject to it or tarred by it, but it was not true in this case. The young man with the gun seems to have been correct on these issues; he was training others like himself to put up with the lesser breeds, and to say that this was race-inspired because both the president and the professor were black — am I making too subtle a point? — is a serious, murderous mistake in a country like ours.

As I listened to the fallout from these stirring events, I wondered if this might be a moment when the media would reform themselves and only print actual news; for one thing, not all explosions of temper and so on are attributable to race. It would be nice if the media realized how dangerous they when they begin to falsify motives which, to be blunt, they have no authority to do. If a black person is in any way in a jam of any kind, it is because he is responding to racism or if a white person goes berserk over anything with anybody, racism drove him to it. This is a great, great red herring like some giant whale gliding across the pages of police dockets.

So let me mention the real issue. The real issue is class. We have the greatest divide between the very rich and the very poor of any country on Earth, surpassing even France. And this division gets wider and wider as financial disasters overwhelm us. We were already in pretty bad shape before things began to fall apart a year or two ago. We must acknowledge that our character, never much good in these matters, is now reprehensible, and the police seem to have taken it upon themselves to exact revenge for a full professor and his — plainly, in their view — insulting income, which they figure must be considerable. The days of greed through which we all lived now have not done us much good, nor have they taught us any lessons, but you cannot live long with such divisions, which in my view as an outsider overlooking the scene seems to be a nation of total liars. Everybody is lying. Television lies, candidates lie. And everyone says, “Oh they always have.” I love that excuse. Well they haven’t always done that. Sometimes lying to the people is a great mistake. And it is well-known that the rich will tell almost any lie to avoid paying taxes. My last view of what looked to me to be parade’s end occurred during a walk in the woods that I took below a Duke University campus building, where I saw a broken bridge over a stream. I turned to what looked to be a local farmer, who realized that I was looking with “suspicious” interest at a vast pile of repair work: bags of cement, etc., and he anticipated my question: “They’re going to rebuild this bridge — it’s something very, very big,” he said. “Why in the middle of the woods?” I asked. “There are no roads here.” He said, “No, there’s a trail, true, it’s not much of a trail.” “So why are they building such a huge bridge,” I wondered, “when they’ve been happy apparently for many years with a very small bridge?” And he said, “Well, we’ve been told by the feds that they fear that there may be civilian insurrections. And they want to be prepared for them, and they need this bridge, no matter how small, to cross the stream in case of an emergency.”

Needless to say, I had no quick rejoinder. But he seemed to want to talk, and so I said, “What was here before?” And he said, “A small bridge which a small pickup truck could go back and forth over.” So I asked, “And who told you that it was in case of civilian problems?” And he said, “Well, everybody told us that and explained the size of it and most people here thought it was better to have a big bridge than no bridge at all, and here we are.”

I went back to the lecture hall at Duke where I’d been speaking, and I chatted about the woods, about the bridge. Nobody seemed to have noticed it. I asked a politically minded professor, and he said, “Well, it’s a problem.” He said, “The government’s getting ready for something; we don’t know what it is, but something’s obviously on their minds that’s disturbing them.” And I said, “Revolution?” “Oh,” he laughed, “this is North Carolina, don’t bother about that, but whatever it is, they’re putting a lot of money into this bridge.”

A year or two later, I took the same walk again. There was a very large bridge of solid cement, and it looked entirely finished. I found another gentleman of the forest, and I said, “Well, can you find much use for this huge and expensive bridge?” He said, “It certainly was expensive, I can tell you that.” He had the happy look of someone who had benefited from the expense. We chatted about the government and what they were up to, and a certain wariness could be heard in our dialogue. We were puzzled; something unexpected had happened, something really unimaginable — a vast work had been constructed for imminent horrors, it would have seemed. I did ask here and there about it, but I was given no answer.

U.S.A. Government & Police States Are Seizing Tens Of Billions U.S. Money And Killing Of Thousands People Our Killed Or Missing Or Dead And All The Money Is Gone Now. Highway robbery with badges. That is what Empyreal Logistics, a national armored car company, has been the victim of multiple times within the last year. Five times, drivers with the company have been pulled over for flimsy reasons with officers seizing the cash they were transporting on behalf of customers a total of three times.

Per DOA-DOJ-FBI-CIA-Etc. Every U.S.A. Person Or America Citizens Right Now Today As of Oct 2023 Need To Be In Jail Or Pay $$$ Fines Now. Per federal and local agencies. All The America People Break The Law Ave. 3 Times Everyday with A Ave. Fine of $512 dollars a day. it add up to 512 x 365 days a year add up to $186,880 Dollars per year in fines per person right now. also federal and local agencies issue an average of 27 rules for every law over the past decade.

However, the rules issued in a given year are typically not substantively related to the current year’s laws, as agency output represents ongoing implementation of earlier legislation. According to a 2020 article, the more than 300,000+ laws and regulatory crimes on the federal law books serve little purpose other than inviting arbitrary enforcement by providing prosecutors the tools to charge nearly anyone with violating some long-forgotten regulation and pay the fines now or go to jail for everyone in the U.S.A..

No one has been arrested or charged with a crime, but if law enforcement is successful in using civil forfeiture to take the money, they will be able to spend it on themselves. The fact that the seizures defy state and federal laws is why “highway robbery” is the correct way to characterize what is going on.

It started this summer in Kansas. Empyreal Logistics provides secure cash transit for state-legal cannabis businesses. A driver was on their way to Kansas City, Missouri to pick up money from medical cannabis dispensaries when they were pulled over by a Kansas sheriff’s deputy. The driver was not cited for anything and truthfully told the deputy about their business in Kansas City.

On the return trip the next day, a deputy pulled over the car and seized $165,000. The driver wasn’t ticketed or arrested. The funds were handed over to the federal government, with the U.S. Attorney for Kansas filing a civil forfeiture action to take all of it. Under the federal “equitable sharing” program, the sheriff’s office could get up to 80% of the proceeds if the government wins.

While Empyreal’s was contesting the Kansas seizure, the San Bernardino County Sheriff started targeting vehicles transporting proceeds from state-legal businesses in California. Again, the drivers were pulled over on flimsy reasons and never arrested or given a citation. And again, the funds were handed over to the federal government for federal prosecutors to take through civil forfeiture.

While Empyreal provided the San Bernardino County Sheriff with detailed information showing that it was moving money from legal businesses to financial institutions, just a few weeks later the same truck was pulled over again.

While deputies covered up the vehicle’s security cameras, the audio feed captured the true motivation for the seizures. Deputies counting the money expressed disappointment when it turned out the vehicle was carrying half the amount of cash compared to the first seizure. Still, between the two seizures, deputies had taken more than $1.1 million. Again, the funds were sent to federal law enforcement since state-legal cannabis proceeds clearly could not be forfeited under California law.

But can the federal government use civil forfeiture to take money from medical cannabis businesses that are legal within their state? The answer is a clear “no.”

While Congress has not acted to legalize cannabis on the federal level, it has instituted a “hands-off” policy when it comes to interfering with state-legal medical cannabis operations. According to federal law, the Department of Justice and its agencies cannot spend any money to prevent states from implementing their own laws that authorize medical cannabis.

And in regard to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s stops, California law explicitly protects Empyreal and others who transport money for commercial cannabis operations. Lawmakers passed this statute to enhance public safety. It is patently obvious that forcing cannabis businesses to figure out how to safely store or transfer significant amounts of cash themselves could increase opportunities for criminals.

What’s going on in Kansas and Southern California isn’t about public safety. It’s about exploiting federal law in order to enrich law enforcement. No one is acting to shut down Empyreal’s customers since that would be an obvious violation of state and federal law. No one at Empyreal has been charged with any crime or even given a moving violation.

The targeting of Empyreal’s vehicles reinforces that civil forfeiture is less about fighting crime and more about generating revenue for law enforcement. When Seattle University economics professor Dr. Brian Kelly examined the federal equitable sharing program, he found that forfeiture had no meaningful effect on crimes solved and did not decrease drug use. He did find that forfeiture increased when local economies suffered and government revenues dried up.

Empyreal is now working with the Institute for Justice to end these illegal seizures. The company filed a federal lawsuit in California against the San Bernardino County Sheriff, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI. The company’s and its drivers’ constitutional rights have been violated over and over again.

These cases demonstrate once again how civil forfeiture has distorted law enforcement priorities and why it needs to be abolished. A criminal trial is the correct venue for figuring out whether law enforcement should be able to take millions of dollars. People should have the right to legal representation and the government should have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less is unjust and un-American.

Kansas and California Cops Used Civil Forfeiture to Stage Armored Car Heists, Stealing Money Earned by Licensed Marijuana Businesses The Institute for Justice argues that the seizures violated state law, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution.

Because the continued federal prohibition of marijuana makes banks and payment processors leery of serving state-licensed cannabis suppliers, many of those businesses rely heavily on cash, which exposes them to a heightened risk of robbery. As a new federal lawsuit shows, that danger is not limited to garden-variety criminals. It includes cops who use federal civil forfeiture laws to steal money earned by state-legal marijuana businesses.

Five times since last May, sheriff's deputies in Kansas and California have stopped armored cars operated by Empyreal Logistics, a Pennsylvania-based company that serves marijuana businesses and financial institutions that work with them. The cops made off with cash after three of those stops, seizing a total of $1.2 million, but did not issue any citations or file any criminal charges, which are not necessary to confiscate property through civil forfeiture. That process allows police to pad their budgets by seizing assets they allege are connected to criminal activity, even when the owner is never charged, let alone convicted.

Empyreal, which is represented by the Institute for Justice, argues that the seizure of its clients' money violated state law, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution. In a complaint it filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Empyreal says it is "entitled to protection from highway robberies, regardless of whether they are conducted by criminals or by the Sheriff and federal law-enforcement agencies acting under color of law."

On May 17, Dickinson County Sheriff's Deputy Kalen Robinson pulled over one of Empyreal's vans on Interstate 70 in Kansas, ostensibly because the Colorado tag number was partially obstructed by the license plate frame. Robinson grilled the driver, who explained that she planned to pick up cash from licensed medical marijuana dispensaries in Kansas City, Missouri, the next day, then take it to a credit union in Colorado, which would entail traveling through Kansas again on the same highway. Robinson let the driver proceed on her way without issuing a citation, but the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) kept an eye on the van the following morning as it visited the Missouri dispensaries.

Later that day, Robinson stopped the van again as it traveled west on Interstate 70, seizing more than $165,000 in cash from its vault. In September, the Justice Department filed a civil forfeiture complaint seeking to keep the money. If the government prevails, the Dickinson County Sheriff's Department will get up to 80 percent of the loot under the Justice Department's "equitable sharing" program.

In the affidavit supporting the federal forfeiture complaint, DEA Special Agent Bryson Wheeler noted that "marijuana is a controlled substance and illegal under both federal and Kansas state law." But Empyreal argues that the DEA's participation in this scheme ran afoul of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, a spending rider that bars the Justice Department (which includes the DEA and the FBI) from using any of its funds to interfere with the implementation of state laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. Because the DEA violated that restriction, the company says, it also violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. And because the seizure was motivated by the prospect of financial gain, the lawsuit says, it violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process.

The stops and seizures in California raise additional legal issues, because that state, unlike Kansas, allows the sale of marijuana for medical or recreational use. It also explicitly protects companies like Empyreal from harassment by local or state law enforcement agencies. A 2020 law says a business that "transports cash or financial instruments, or provides other financial services does not commit a crime under any California law…solely by virtue of the fact that the person receiving the benefit of any of those services engages in commercial cannabis activity as a licensee pursuant to this division." Despite that law, San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies stopped Empyreal vans three times in November, December, and January, seizing more than $1 million.

On November 16, Sheriff's Deputy Jonathan Franco pulled over one of the company's vehicles, supposedly because it was following a tractor-trailer truck too closely. Like Robinson, Franco did not issue any citations. But after the driver told him the van was carrying cash, the lawsuit says, Franco "asked many questions about the nature of Empyreal's business." Even though it should have been clear that Empyreal was not violating any state laws, the cops seized about $700,000. The sheriff's office later told the company's lawyer the money "was transferred to the FBI for civil forfeiture."

On December 9, Empyreal says, the same deputies pulled over the same vehicle, driven by the same employee, ostensibly because he "slightly exceeded the speed limit and prematurely activated his turn signal." But once again, no citation was issued. According to the lawsuit, "the driver's operation of the Empyreal vehicle was completely lawful." The company says "the deputies had planned the stop in advance and would have pulled over the driver and the Empyreal vehicle regardless of how carefully or lawfully it was driven."

The deputies claimed a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the van, which Empyreal says also is not true: "Video footage from the vehicle does not show the dog alert on the vehicle. Instead, it shows the dog is barely interested in the vehicle."

This time the cops seized about $350,000. The deputies, who were audibly excited about the $700,000 haul, were somewhat disappointed by the relatively small size of the second seizure. Based on an audio recording by the van's security system, the lawsuit describes this exchange: "One of the deputies said, 'That's it?' and chuckled. He then said: 'You set the bar too high.' When another deputy remarked that he thought they'd get 'a million or two,' the [first] deputy responded, 'At least we got over a million'"—apparently referring to the combined take from the two seizures. The FBI later told Empyreal's lawyer it had also taken possession of the money seized on December 9, pending federal forfeiture proceedings.

From San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus' perspective, involving the feds has clear advantages. Money earned by state-legal marijuana businesses is not subject to forfeiture under California law. Even if it were, law enforcement agencies would be entitled to just 65 percent of the proceeds, compared to as much as 80 percent under federal law. And for cash forfeitures involving $40,000 or more, California requires "clear and convincing evidence," while federal law says "a preponderance of the evidence" is good enough.

Recognizing the allure of those terms, California legislators have prohibited federal "adoption" of seizures initiated by state or local law enforcement agencies. But that restriction does not cover seizures by anti-drug task forces that include federal as well as local agencies. Empyreal suspects the California stops involved such a task force: the Inland Regional Narcotics Enforcement Team.

Federal participation still implicates the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment. Empyreal says three of the four businesses whose money it was transporting on November 16 had medical marijuana licenses, while all of the money seized on December 9 came from businesses with such licenses. The company also argues that Dicus, one of the defendants named in the lawsuit, exceeded his own authority by allowing or instructing his deputies to stop, search, and rob the company's vans without any evidence of state crimes.

The third California stop sheds some light on that strategy. On January 6, the lawsuit says, San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies stopped an Empyreal driver who was "picking up an order of rolled coin boxes from Empyreal's vendor, which happens to be located in San Bernardino County, in order to replenish its rolled coin supply." After the deputies realized that the coins had nothing to do with cannabis, they decided not to seize them. "When the Empyreal driver asked a deputy why Empyreal vehicles were being stopped so frequently," the company says, "the deputy told him it was 'political' but declined to elaborate."

Whether that response alluded to Dicus' own motivation or a federal agenda, it certainly does not sound like a reason that would pass muster under the Fourth Amendment. Empyreal argues that "pretextual traffic stops" aimed at supplementing police budgets rather than enforcing state law cannot qualify as "reasonable."

In addition to the cannabis industry, Empyreal, which operates in 28 states and has more than 200 employees, serves traditional businesses such as restaurants and convenience stores. Empyreal says it and its clients "operate in full compliance with
applicable state cannabis laws and all applicable federal and state money laundering compliance requirements," including the relevant provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act and marijuana-specific guidance from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

"Empyreal is proud to provide a professional and secure solution for our customers to safely transport their deposits into the financial system, which increases transparency and makes communities safer by getting cash off the streets," CEO Deirdra O'Gorman says in a press release. "Because both we and our clients operate completely within the law, we have never had problems until recently. To continue serving our clients, we have no choice but to stand up for our constitutional rights."

Empyreal has reimbursed its clients for the money seized in Kansas and California, so it is already out $1.2 million, along with the legal cost of contesting the forfeitures. The company says it is trying to avoid further trouble by routing money from marijuana businesses around Kansas and San Bernardino County, which leads to needless extra travel. Empyreal has suspended plans for a "vault and currency processing facility" in Dicus' jurisdiction. It says it had already invested $100,000 in that project and continues to pay $21,000 a month in rent and utilities for the building. Empyreal says the threat of continued harassment and seizures has cost it clients and endangered the expansion of its business, especially in California.

"What is happening to Empyreal potently illustrates why we call civil forfeiture 'policing for profit,'" says Institute for Justice attorney Kirby Thomas West. "Law enforcement is trying to take more than a million dollars without charging anyone with a crime. That is absurd and deeply unconstitutional. It is yet another reason why lawmakers need to eliminate civil forfeiture altogether."

How police can take your stuff, sell it, and pay for armored cars with the money.

As the public gets more critical of police aggression and abuse in the US, some programs that have flown under the radar for decades are now garnering more scrutiny. One of those is a program that allows police to keep most of the property they seize from people they suspect used it in a crime — even if the people are never charged with anything. This is called civil asset forfeiture, and it's encouraged by most state governments — and by the federal government as well.

Civil asset forfeiture has been legal for a long time — during Prohibition, it was often used to seize bootleggers' cars. But, like many other aggressive police tactics, it expanded radically during the 1980s with the rise of the war on drugs. And a 1984 federal law guaranteed that a lot of the money police seized would end up going right back to their agency. Now, this practice has turned into a massive "slush fund" for local cops — one that gets used for everything from buying armored cars and military weapons to $600 coffeemakers and party clowns.

Here's what you need to know about how property gets seized from citizens, how it ends up as pocket money for local police agencies, and what the federal government's role in all of this is.

How are police allowed to seize people's property without charging them with a crime?

After someone is convicted of a crime, the government's allowed to seize property related to that crime (such as a car that was used to commit a robbery, or money earned selling drugs). That's called criminal forfeiture, and that's not something most people have a problem with.

But there's also a principle in the law, going all the way back to English common law, that says that when property is involved in a crime, the government can start legal proceedings against the property itself for "participating" in criminal activity. The property doesn't get charged with a crime — instead, it's sued by the government, in a civil lawsuit. (Hence the name "civil asset forfeiture.")

Federal and state laws give certain protections to people who are charged with crimes in criminal court. But those protections don't apply to people who are sued, or people whose property is sued. So in civil forfeiture cases, the government usually doesn't have to work as hard to prove that property was involved in a crime as it would in a criminal case. And that's assuming that the case goes to court at all.

What kinds of property are police allowed to seize?
seized guns asset forfeiture Guns, definitely. But the list is much longer than that.

Different states (and the federal government) have different laws that lay out what police are allowed to claim for particular crimes. Generally, it's harder for police to seize things like houses than it is for them to seize cars or cash.

The New Yorker's Sarah Stillman wrote a comprehensive feature on civil asset forfeiture in 2013, in which she told the stories of several people who'd had their property taken — most of them working-class people of color. Stillman's article included a couple who'd had cash taken from them while driving to buy a new car in rural Texas, under the premise that they were engaging in "money laundering" and endangering their child; Philadelphia parents whose home had been seized after undercover cops bought $40 in marijuana from their son; and a Washington woman whose car was taken when cops pulled over her son for a traffic violation and found out he was carrying an illegal handgun.

If the owner wasn't doing anything illegal, how can she get her property back?
police impound lot and your car can be kept here while you fight the seizure — as long as you've paid a fee to keep police from auctioning it off.

Until the mid-1990s, it didn't matter if the person who owned the property was involved in illegal activity or even knew about it. As long as the property was actually being used to do something illegal, it could be taken. Since then, states and the federal government have allowed owners to defend themselves in court by claiming they were innocent, even when the property was used in a crime.

But it's difficult just to get a court hearing to get property back. Many local police use the threat of criminal charges to coerce people into signing a waiver that says they won't fight to get their property back. (In one of the cases that Stillman covered in the New Yorker article, a couple was told that if they didn't sign the waiver, their child could be taken from them and put in foster care.)

People who refuse to sign the waiver don't necessarily have it much better. It can take over a year for an asset forfeiture case to get resolved. In the meantime, they often have to pay a fee to keep the government from simply auctioning off the property — not to mention the legal fees to get a lawyer to fight the case. Thank You !

Show less