Claim Opposing Forfeiture: Fill & Download for Free

It depends on which state you reside in.There has been a flurry of legislation to stop this theft of property by government being used to finance any damned thing they choose.I wish you luck, there have been confiscation of billions of dollars of cash and private property taken not only without convictions but in many cases, without any charges filed.It will not end until we shrink the size of all levels of insatiable government.Stop voting for the thieves of the two major parties.Support the Libertarian Party if you want change or just shut up and pay.Government now consumes a third of our GDP and still manages to overspend!

If my knowledge of UWOs came from the article in the details, I’d be opposed to them.However, the article contains so many errors, it’s hard to describe as anything other than “fake news.”Article claim:In January we alerted you to a new power of British law enforcement: “Unexplained Wealth Orders” allow the United Kingdom to confiscate money and property,Er. No.similar to civil asset forfeiture in the United States.Again, no.UWOs don’t allow freezing of funds, and certainly don’t allow confiscation of funds.They allow an INVESTIGATION in which the person served with the order is required to provide an explanation as to where the funds came from.If the law enforcement authorities want to freeze accounts, they need to apply to a judge to do so. UWOs haven’t changed that process, just allowed them to say “and XXX refused to provide an explanation” or “this is what XXX claims, which we don’t believe.”And they don’t go anywhere near “confiscation.”

You should be crying, because you have elected someone who has no regard for rule of law.In the United States, one of the founding principles of our country, at least when it comes to the exercise of law, is the presumption of innocence. That is, if you are accused of a crime, the state must presume that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. Guilt needs to be proven, but innocence does not need to be proven. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused.However, in law enforcement at all levels in this country, there are situations in which there is no presumption of innocence. Specifically, we are commonly seeing an abuse of civil asset forfeiture powers. In practice, though law enforcement authorities have to prove that you are guilty of a crime in order to put you in prison, they do not have to prove that you are guilty of a crime - or even charge you with a crime - in order to take your property. If they simply suspect that your property has been involved in a crime - even if they do not know specifically what crime that would be - they can take your property from you. If you want to recover your property, in many cases, you actually have to find some way of proving that your property was not involved in the commission of a crime. This practice is actually used as a funding source for law enforcement agencies.Oh, but it must not be such a big issue, right? Powers like this aren’t often abused in the United States, right? Actually, you do not have to look far to find obvious cases of abuse. For example: Parents' house seized after son's drug bust. These people had their son living with them, and he was caught with $40 worth of heroin in their house. As a result, the police seized their entire house. They did not know he was dealing in illicit drugs. The police seem to agree, as they were never charged of any crimes. And yet, they still had to officially prove their innocence in order to get their house back.As abuses increase, there has been a growing bipartisan outcry over this issue. The Obama Administration was not active enough in combating it, though we did see Eric Holder take certain steps to reform federal civil asset forfeiture practices.What is President Trump’s position on civil asset forfeiture abuse?He loves it, just as he loves eminent domain abuse. (But that is another story.) See: Trump Does Not Know What Civil Forfeiture Is, but He Likes ItRegarding arguments against civil asset forfeiture abuse, Trump says: “There's no reason for that.” He has also vowed to “destroy” the careers of those who oppose the practice.This is just one of many examples of how Donald Trump believes that might is right and that he should engage in rule by law rather than recognizing rule of law. After eight years of bellyaching over claims - some valid, others nonsensical - that Obama was disregarding the Constitution, Republicans are now overlooking glaring examples of Trump being far worse on that regard while dismissing all arguments against him by saying that critics are just “crying”.Again, you should be crying. But instead, you defend your Dear Leader with religious zeal, even when he shows himself to be directly opposed to what conservatives supposedly believe in. This is because you look at politics as a team sport rather than as a debate of principles.