Main Index   Search   Register   Login   Who's Online   FAQ   Links
  1 Online, 0 Active   You are not logged in  
Main Index     The HIVE light edition (TM)
This is a historical archive
The forum is read-only. Private information has been removed. It is not possible to login.

Law and Order Thread:   Previous  Forum index

All 4 posts   Subject: Executive Summary: Model State Drug Laws   Please login to post   Down

(Hive Bee)
11-01-04 13:16
No 539074
User Picture 
      Executive Summary: Model State Drug Laws     

Here is a link to the Executive Summary on how state laws governing you and I should be imposed. The documents contained herein are the Presidents plan for state uniformity.  All documents in the website are PDF.

I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference.
(Hive Bee)
11-03-04 20:56
No 539493
      This is VERY interesting reading...     

This is VERY interesting reading...
The "Economic Remedies" section alone is full of "recommended" atrocities for the states to commit against their citizens... well most states are already engaging in such revenue-streams.

Volume 1: Economic Remedies - Money and property are the economic lifeblood of the illegal drug industry. This volume presents an array of economic remedies designed to unravel the financial underpinnings of illegal drug enterprises.
  Section A: Commission Forfeiture Reform Act (CFRA) 
  Section B: Model Demand Reduction Assessment Act 
  Section C: Model Money Laundering Act 
  Section D: Model Financial Transaction Reporting Act 
  Section E: Model Money Transmitter Act 
  Section F: Model Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act 

From the recommendations on [URL=]ASSET FORFEITURE[/URL] (My comments in brackets [ ], emphasis added by me)

Commission Recommendation: Exclusion of the criminal law doctrine of proportionality in civil remedial forfeiture actions.
Critics of civil forfeiture law urge the Commission to include a proportionality requirement in its model act. Proportionality is embodied in the Eighth Amendment guarantee against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Most people recognize the theory as the adage "let the punishment fit the crime." The Eighth Amendment was originally enacted to prohibit the type of barbaric punishments inflicted on the colonists by English officials. Courts have historically applied the Eighth Amendment to criminal prosecutions to ensure a rational relationship exists between the term of imprisonment and/or fine and the underlying offense. Concomitantly, the Eighth Amendment has been consistently held inapplicable to remedial actions.13 As noted earlier, civil forfeiture statutes serve remedial goals. They provide disincentives to engage in criminal activity[This is a direct contradiction of the previous sentence! "remedial" does NOT mean punishment]; restore market integrity; and compensate the public for economic damages attributable to illegal property use by returning the property to public uses. CFRA's provisions effectively implement these remedial goals. The forfeiture of property authorized under CFRA creates an economic loss for the wrongdoer which discourages further criminal activity. Removal of the property prevents future harmful use and thereby helps restore market integrity. The proceeds from the sale of forfeited property can used to pay for drug enforcement efforts [Higher salaries for the DEA administrators], and in some instances, drug treatment and education services. The gravity of an offense as determined by sentencing schemes bears no rational relationship to CFRA's remedial purposes.[That is the most fucked up thing I've ever read] It is therefore an inappropriate measure against which to judge the reasonableness of a civil forfeiture action.[Circular logic!] With civil forfeitures in drug cases, the analysis is whether the value of the property forfeited is rationally related to the amount of the economic harm resulting from the unlawful conduct [Then why do they seize cars for posession of marijuana?  Why do personal-use growers lose their homes?]. As discussed previously, the seriousness of the offense is an unreliable indicator of the financial damages caused by the offense.

The exact amount of damage attributable to a specific drug offense is difficult to calculate. For example, a drug dealer sells crack to a pregnant woman.[Nice fucking example] She also buys from other dealers. The baby is born addicted. Which crack dealer is financially responsible for which portion of the baby's hospital and long-term care costs? To resolve this issue, CFRA applies a version of the well-established contractual doctrine of liquidated damages. Liquidated damages is a sum certain which is to be paid upon the breach of a contractual promise. The sum is agreed to upfront and cannot be unilaterally changed. Contracts include a liquidated amount when damages will be difficult to quantify. The amount must be reasonable in light of the anticipated or actual harm [Only when dealing with contracts, NOT ASSET FORFEITURE]; difficulties of proof; and the inconvenience or nonfeasiblity of otherwise obtaining an adequate remedy.

In CFRA the "liquidated damages" is the value of the property derived from or used, or intended to be used, to commit or facilitate an offense. This defined sum may be an underassessment of the actual damages caused by an offense. For example, proceeds of the sale of drugs may be seized from a drug dealer today, but the social and medical costs associated with the drug affected infant may not be ascertained for years after that dealer sold the mother crack. However, the sum represents a reasonable measure of damages which can be immediately established. It also contains an automatic limitation on the amount of property which may be forfeited, an amount controlled by
the offender through the choice of property used to perpetuate or profit from drug activity.

CFRA's built-in rational relationship between the statute's remedial goals and the value of property subject to forfeiture renders a proportionality requirement unnecessary.

Commission recommendation: Exclusion of real property from forfeiture. [REAL property means LAND, FARMS, HOUSES, WAREHOUSES]
Commission recommendation: Forfeiture of personal property in facilitation cases only through
in personam actions.

Some individuals criticize the forfeiture of property for personal use amounts of drugs. Forfeiture appears to these critics as an unduly harsh and economically ineffective remedy for what they perceive are trivial offenses. Their recommendation is the preclusion of forfeiture in all simple possession cases.
In the 1960s and 1970s drug use often was viewed merely as a means of unleashing creative juices and broadening horizons. Now we realize use is the heart of the entire drug problem. Americans spend millions of dollars on education and treatment services to reduce the demand for illicit substances.
Can possession forfeitures play an effective role in a demand reduction strategy? The Commission received testimony which indicates the answer is yes. Dr. Michael Block of the University of Arizona stated that:
as a demand side strategy, asset forfeiture, in the form of vehicle forfeiture, is potentially a very powerful deterrent...the sanction is much larger than the benefit of the crime and the individual is much worse off having committed the crime (possession) and gotten caught than he/she would have been if he/she had not committed the crime.[14] [The same could have been said about shooting on sight]

Forfeiture can create a powerful financial disincentive to continued drug use. The reduction in use can have an impact far beyond the individual purchaser. Inner city open air drug markets thrive on the business of suburban users. For example, in a 1990 economic study of drug dealing in Washington, D.C, the Rand Corporation noted that 42% of the persons charged with drug possession were non-residents.[15] Forfeiture of users' transportation to and from distribution points can disrupt these markets. [Forfeiture of users' transportation also disrupts the users FROM DRIVING TO WORK... This does not benefit society in ANY WAY... everybody LOSES except the greedy bastards who TAKE the cars... this is an example of the flawed logic "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT"... Law Enforcement has more weaponry and equipment than we do, thus they TAKE our cars]

Mayor Elihu Mason Harris of Oakland, California discovered the beneficial role of possession forfeiture as part of a comprehensive plan to clean up an inner city neighborhood. "Operation Toehold" began on August 5, 1992 with the goal of eliminating the demand for drugs in a 20 square block area in East Oakland which was the number one marketplace for the sale of marijuana in the Bay Area. At the commencement of the project, the targeted area experienced two to three hundred drug transactions per day. In the preceding 18 months, 7 deaths were directly related to the drug activity [Now how many deaths occur to this population due to being in prison, losing their jobs and cars and being homeless?]. Police estimated that 50% - 60% of the buyers resided outside the city, particularly in affluent communities.[16]

"Operation Toehold" pooled the resources of federal, state, and local officials who implemented a drug nuisance abatement project, community policing, and a "Bust-the-Buyer" program. For 120 days, weekend drug buyers were cited and the FBI forfeited 82 buyers' cars, 50% of which were from outside of Oakland. Buyers were warned by hand-outs and newspaper articles [unless they were part of the HALF from out of town] about the hazards of buying drugs in the area, including the seizure of cars.[17]

At the termination of "Operation Toehold" on January 3, 1993, open street drug dealing had virtually stopped. Drug arrests dropped dramatically. Drug Hotline and Radio Calls reporting drug activity dropped from 40 to 50 per month to 8 to 10 per month. There were no shootings assaults or serious crimes against persons in the area since the project began. The neighborhood once ravaged by drugs has become stabilized and ready for positive growth.[18] [Again, if the police just started killing everybody walking around in that neighborhood on sight, and it would have led to the same effect]

Forfeiture in simple possession cases can be a meaningful option for jurisdictions struggling to control a burgeoning drug problem. Concern about the fairness of possession forfeiture sometimes arises from media stories describing two types of situations. The first situation is forfeiture of significant amounts of real property, such as a home or a farm [Despite the "good intentions" of this model legislation, nothing is done to prevent abuses of this law such as farmers with desirable land to be framed by an overzealous law enforcement agency for growing marijuana on some tiny, rarely visited, corner of his land, as happened in the case referred to here.  Even if the farmer were to be found NOT GUILTY the government would still posess his REAL property]. The second is forfeiture of a parent's car which a son or daughter has driven to obtain drugs.

Both areas of concern can be easily addressed without the drastic elimination of a potentially effective demand reduction tool. First, CFRA excludes real property from forfeiture in all simple possession cases. Second, under CFRA, use of a car to facilitate a mere possession offense constitutes conduct giving rise to forfeiture. CFRA forfeits the interest of the individual involved in the wrongful conduct. In the second situation described above, the son or daughter who drove the parent's car is the wrongdoer. In several instances the parent would have had no knowledge or notice of the son or daughter's illegal activity. Therefore, only the interest of the son or daughter, not the interest of the parent, in the car is forfeitable.

CFRA requires that personal property used to facilitate a possession case be forfeited in an in personam proceeding. A forfeiture judgment is issued in an amount equal to the value of the illegally used property. When the forfeitable asset is unavailable due to an exempt ownership interest, the judgment can be executed against a substitute asset of the wrongdoer pursuant to Section 18 and Section 7(f). The car is returned to the parent and the son or daughter remains economically liable for the illegal use of the asset [Your disobedient 16 year old kid now OWES the DEA $34,000 for "Hotboxing" your Accura].

The real reason why everything in this PDF is fallacious is because THERE IS NO REMEDY NEEDED FOR DRUG USE AND DISTRIBUTION.  The cost to society is greatly exaggerated by greedy federal agencies... they seem to think that ruining innocent lives is OK in the name of POLITICS.

(Of Counsel)
11-03-04 21:08
No 539497
      excessive fines and punishments     

Some states have held that forfeiture of vehicles, etc. for possession of controlled substances is in effect an excessive fine or penalty for a criminal offense, since the punishment through forfeiture is often more severe than the fine or punishment for the possessory offense.

Sounds like law enforcement is feeling a budget crunch and wants to rev up the collection process. Start taking away the property of the middle class for minor offenses, and you will have a middle class with a different view of law enforcement in very short order.

Maybe we have to go this far overboard to make them realize what they are doing voting for idiots and pathological liars.

mostly harmless
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 00:15
No 539533
User Picture 

I suppose now that this post is no longer hypothetical, considering the re-elect.  This has made for a 'watershed' in my life that remarkably resembles a turning point.  This  country, under supervision of Dubya will eventually go to shit.  A civilazitation in decline would be the proper words for the situation.


I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference.

All 4 posts   End of thread   Top
Powered by Risks Release 5.10 gold ed., 2017-2018

Links     Erowid     Rhodium

PIHKAL     TIHKAL     Total Synthesis II

Date: 12-06-23, Release: 1.6 (10-04-15), Links: static, unique