Rand Paul testifies on asset forfeiture reform before Senate Judiciary Committee 4/15/15

[tsai3904]

Video (at 35:45):
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-need-to-reform-asset-forfeiture

 

[anaconda]

If Mr. Paul were not in the Senate this shit would proceed under the radar.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

But...bu...he's a flip flopping sell out. A stealth neocon! He just wants to invade Iran and worship Israel! The internet told me so.

 

[jct74]

Rand Paul, Institute for Justice Push Senate for Forfeiture Reform
Committee hearing focuses on FAIR Act proposal.

Scott Shackford | Apr. 15, 2015 3:50 pm

Sen. Rand Paul took some time from campaigning (though really it can be argued this is part of his campaigning) to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and promote reform of federal civil asset forfeiture laws.

He was the first witness in a hearing bluntly titled "The Need to Reform Asset Forfeiture." Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called on him to speak on his proposed Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act to curtail the abuse of the federal civil asset forfeiture process (Grassley also put out a statement calling for reform, saying, "Rather than prosecute or even arrest, civil asset forfeiture enables law enforcement to seize property without any proof of wrongdoing. And the process creates perverse incentives.")

Paul's statement highlighted those victims who get caught up in law enforcement agencies' zeal to find money:

...

read more:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/15/rand-paul-institute-for-justice-push-sen

 

[jct74]

Rand Paul Attacks Loretta Lynch on Civil Asset Forfeiture
At a hearing Wednesday, the senator tested a new argument in his case against Lynch’s confirmation.

BY EMMA ROLLER
April 15, 2015

Congress is taking notice of a murky law that allows police officers to seize money and property from citizens with near impunity—and Sen. Rand Paul is using it as an argument against Loretta Lynch's attorney general nomination.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is traditionally hawkish on criminal justice reform, convened a Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday to talk about civil asset forfeiture.

...

Paul has been one of the staunchest opponents of Lynch's confirmation, and one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of civil forfeiture. At Wednesday's hearing, he brought up the Hirsch brothers' case, accusing Lynch's jurisdiction of accruing a "Herculean" level of civil forfeiture and saying Lynch seems "unconcerned with the need for reform."

At the hearing, Paul—who was there as a witness, not a senator on the panel—argued that civil forfeiture disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities. A Washington Post exposé from September found that minorities made up the majority of federal cases where people challenged the government's seizures and ended up recouping some of their money.

...

read more:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rand-paul-loretta-lynch-civil-asset-forfeiture-20150415

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand Paul unloads on Loretta Lynch over civil asset forfeiture


Rand Paul unloads on Loretta Lynch over civil asset forfeiture
By Nick Morpus - April 16, 2015

As more attention is drawn to the use of civil asset forfeiture by law enforcement, a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was convened on Wednesday to address concerns over the issue.

Civil asset forfeiture is a police tactic that allows officers to seize property (money, homes, cars, boats, etc.) without the victim being charged with a crime.

At the hearing, one of the tactic’s most vocal critics, Senator Rand Paul, critiqued attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch’s unabashed support for civil asset forfeiture:

“Loretta Lynch became famous for her herculean confiscation of private property,” Paul, who last week announced his 2016 presidential campaign, said during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “She seized over a $100 million in forfeited funds during her time as U.S. Attorney and then skirted the reforms that were put in place 15 years ago to protect the innocent by not filing the paperwork that would have allowed those reforms to kick in.”

“When questioned about civil forfeiture, Loretta Lynch seemed to be unconcerned with the need for reform,” he added. “I think no one who listens to these horrendous abuses of our civil liberties should be not moved to think that we really do need reform in our country.”

Paul’s concerns are not without warrant, especially in the case of Loretta Lynch. A few months ago a case involving Lynch’s office as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York was finally cleared up after two long years when Lynch “quietly returned” the seized funds of a candy distributor.
...
Paul’s testimony actually understated the total valued amount of property and assets that was acquired by Lynch through civil asset forfeiture, according to reports by the Wall Street Journal:

"As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle."
...
More: http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-unloads-on-loretta-lynch-over-civil-asset-forfeiture/

 

[presence]

But...bu...he's a flip flopping sell out. A stealth neocon! He just wants to invade Iran and worship Israel! The internet told me so.

In my heart of hearts I suspect he's a more of a trojan horse libertarian.

If we're not going to outright mass dornerfrein, then at the very least I see no shame in political black magic


Repackage them ideas and sell em Randy!


/revolutionary

 

[hells_unicorn]

It's valiant efforts like this out of Rand Paul that make me want to chew out all of his opponents in the so-called "purist" camp. These victories would not happen with the obstinate position that most of them have taken.

 

[presence]

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/04-15-15 Paul Testimony.pdf

Rand's Testimony

Written Statement of
Senator Rand Paul
before the
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
concerning
The Need to Reform Asset Forfeiture
April 15, 2015
10:00 AM
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 226
T
hank you Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, and
members of the Committee for inviting me to testify today on
reforming civil forfeiture.
This Committee has an opportunity to end an injustice, an
injustice that disproportionately affects minorities
and the poor,
by reforming civil asset forfeiture laws. According to the
Washington Post’s review of seizures done under federal
forfeiture laws, the majority of those who had their property
taken were black, Hispanic, or another minority.
These laws were
originally intended to disrupt criminal networks.
But they have increasingly been used against innocent citizens to
strip them of their property without a lawyer to defend their
rights, without a day in court to hear the charges against them,
and without
the due process of law.
Civil forfeiture turns justice on its head
–
our current laws
presume you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.
Last year in Philadelphia, Christos Sourvelis watched his son get
arrested by the police for selling $40 wo
rth of drugs outside of his
home. One month later, the police were back at the Sourvelis’
home, not for his son, but for his house. The Philadelphia District
Attorney dropped the case months later, only after their actions
had been the subject of intense
media and legal scrutiny.
But not all the victims are so lucky.
There have been over 60,000
cash seizures made on highways since 2001 without search
warrants or indictments, totaling more than 2.5 billion. These
seizures were done through the equitable s
haring program. This
program provides a perverse incentive that encourages
government to confiscate property because government officials
get to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds.
Mandrel Stuart is just one of the people who had his money
seized as a
result of this program.
Mandrel Stuart owned a barbeque restaurant called Smoking
Roosters in Staunton, Virginia. When he was stopped for a minor
traffic offense in 2012, the police seized seventeen thousand
dollars in cash he was going to use for suppl
ies and equipment for
his restaurant. They found no evidence of wrongdoing and never
charged him with a crime
–
but they still took his money. The
prosecutor told him half his money would be returned if he
accepted a settlement. Mr. Stuart refused and eve
ntually got his
money back, but the year it took was too long for his business to
survive.
Loretta Lynch became infamous for her herculean confiscation of
private property. She seized over $900 million dollars in forfeited
funds during her time as a Unit
ed States Attorney and skirted
reforms intended to protect the innocent by not filing the
paperwork that would have allowed those reforms to kick in.
Lynch confiscated nearly half a million dollars from the Hirsch
brothers, who owned a family
-
owned busines
s in New York, and
held the money for nearly two years. The Hirsch brothers were
never charged with a crime, much less convicted. Yet it took years
to get their money back. When questioned about civil forfeiture,
Lynch seemed to be unconcerned with the nee
d for reform.
No one could listen to stories like these and believe that the
current procedural protections are satisfactory.
Last year I introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration
Act, the FAIR Act, with Senators Lee and King and Representat
ives
Walberg, Garrett, Ellison and Cardenas to ensure that situations
like these will never happen again.
Our bill will end equitable sharing and ensure that state laws are
being respected and not circumvented.
It will raise the burden of proof in civil forfeiture cases.
It will ensure that the government will provide you representation
if they want to take your property.
It will place the burden of proof where it belongs
-
on the
government, not the accused.
It would require a conviction before property is forfeited.
Most importantly, it will end the profit incentive by requiring all
forfeiture assets to be deposited in the treasury instead of a fund
to be used by the agencies that seize property.
The FA
IR Act is bipartisan and bicameral, with support from the
Institute for Justice, the ACLU and the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers. As the Committee moves forward with
reforms, I would be honored to have some of our ideas included. I
think
Americans from all walks of life are ready for criminal justice
reform. I hope this is the year we get it done.

 

[mit26chell]

Jeff Sessions is such a f*** wad - sitting their defending the practice. Can't he die off already? I mean seriously . . . douchebag. Makes my blood boil.

 

[twomp]

But...bu...he's a flip flopping sell out. A stealth neocon! He just wants to invade Iran and worship Israel! The internet told me so.

Oh please, Ted Cruz is with Rand on Civil asset forfeiture and he is a stealth neocon who wants to invade Iran and worship Israel! Just because you support certain civil rights, it doesn't mean you aren't a neo-con. Learn your labels.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Oh please, Ted Cruz is with Rand on Civil asset forfeiture and he is a stealth neocon who wants to invade Iran and worship Israel! Just because you support certain civil rights, it doesn't mean you aren't a neo-con. Learn your labels.

Are you...calling Rand Paul a neocon??? Rand PAUL???

 

[LatinsforPaul]

Oh please, Ted Cruz is with Rand on Civil asset forfeiture and he is a stealth neocon who wants to invade Iran and worship Israel! Just because you support certain civil rights, it doesn't mean you aren't a neo-con. Learn your labels.

So you are telling me that Ron Paul, Napolitano, Massie and Amash are endorsing a "Neocon" for President. You don't say.

 

[mad cow]

Are you...calling Rand Paul a neocon??? Rand PAUL???

At least he isn't calling him the antichrist as one member of RPF's called him a couple of days ago.

 

[twomp]

Are you...calling Rand Paul a neocon??? Rand PAUL???

So you are telling me that Ron Paul, Napolitano, Massie and Amash are endorsing a "Neocon" for President. You don't say.

No. But saying Rand Paul isn't a neo-con and using this as proof is stupid. "Oh look at what he said about civil asset forfeiture", he isn't a neo-con. It's like saying, "hey, rand paul isn't a neo-con, look at what he said about church..."