Re: Standing up an intel op with seized funds

[Nick Selby <nick.selby () gmail com>]

Hi, everyone,

I wouldn't have thought this the forum for a debate on the possible abuses
of the forfeiture system, but when I hear that I am in support of corruption
I must answer. I'll set forth my understanding about how asset forfeiture
works, give links to scholarly or government publications showing how I got
there, then state my opinion. Then I'll respond to Roland's comment. Lest
this devolve into more of a food fight, I'll say that we should probably
find another channel for this discussion, but if others want to do it here,
giddyup.

Robert, a reason you'd find it "odd that [I] would praise ... corruption" is
because I would hope you know though we've never personally met (which
should change!), I don't support corruption or crime of any kind.

I'll start where Robert started: there are concerns about a lack of
oversight of asset forfeiture in general, and the article he referred to
worried that seizures were up, and that the standard of proof in civil asset
forfeiture proceedings is too low - a preponderance of the evidence, not the
"beyond a reasonable doubt" of a criminal proceeding. I'm no expert on this
(and I am not a lawyer). It is my understanding that this standard is true,
as the proceedings are civil. My article and podcast were discussing a the
funding of a crime intelligence center with siezed assets, and I agree that
the ends do not justify the means if the means are corrupt or wrong.

For context, there are three types of forfeiture in the US: Administrative,
civil and criminal. Civil forfeiture is a growing avenue, but the majority
of forfeiture cases are administrative - cases in which the forfeiture is
legally uncontested.

For specifics about abuses of the current system, and a read far more
substantive and compelling than the Economist article, I encourage everyone
to read Eric Moores' piece, "Reforming the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
Act" in the Arizona Law Review, which will curl the toes of any Libertarian:

http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/51-3/51arizlrev777.pdf

To see the total amounts involved and a description of the program, the
Department of Justice's annual report (2010) is available here:

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/afp/01programaudit/fy2010-afs-rpt.pdf

On abuses of the asset forfeiture system: I am not so naive that I believe
that there are not abuses of the system. I am absolutely naive enough to
believe that in the United States, there are sufficient due process
safeguards in place which ultimately provide protection to citizens for
capricious and unfair actions on the part of government.

There are abuses of every system known to man. This does not mean that
systems should be dismantled, but that the system should be made to work
generally as well as it possibly can through public participation in the
process of government. Also, it is incumbent upon public servants to use the
system in every way that it can legally do so to carry out their duty. I
believe that law enforcement has the responsibility to do what it can
legally do to fight crime and criminals.

For the Nassau County Police to appropriate in a corrupt or otherwise
illegal manner the property of innocent people would require that it was
itself corrupt, and it would further require conspiracy and collusion
amongst several branches of local, county, state and federal government, and
agencies in each of those branches. This is of course possible. I firmly
believe that this is not the case.

I believe that the assets being targeted in the operations described in my
article and podcast with Pat Ryder refer to those of criminals who would do
society great harm, and that the motivation of the NCPD seeking "profit" is
to better serve the community. Further, the "profit" he describes is being
legally seized with state and federal oversight, and spent (with similar
oversight and accountability) on the tools of societal defense against crime
and violence: an intelligence center's equipment, technology, training and
overtime; bike patrol equipment (for neighborhood policing, an important
national program) and tactical vehicles and equipment to protect first
responders.

I trust - truly trust - that the system in the US is sufficient to
ultimately protect all of us against abuses by government, and strongly urge
everyone to become involved in public service to challenge the un-just when
they see it. I live this philosophy personally, and I support financially
organizations that seek to remedy injustice.

In its guidelines for asset forfeiture, available at

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5506.pdf

the Department of Justice sets forth its goals for criminal asset
forfeiture:

• Seize and forfeit the guns, airplanes, and cars with concealed
compartments, that are used for drug smuggling.

• Take the computers, printers, and other electronic devices used in child
pornography, counterfeiting, and identification fraud cases.

• Shut down the "crack house" where drugs are distributed to children on
their way to school.

• Confiscate the farm used to grow marijuana.

• Close down the business used to commit insurance fraud, telemarketing
fraud, or to run a Ponzi scheme

With the possible exception of the marijuana farm confiscation*, I support
all those goals.

Finally, to Roland's well-stated comment about asset forfeiture in general,
I'll say that I'm not sure how much better off we are if the federal
government's general fund gets all the illegal proceeds and assets: the
argument about what to do with seized assets is, I think, more complex than
whether local, county, state or the federal government get the stuff.
Federal government spending priorities have been much in the news recently,
and I think that moving the money to the general fund simply punts the
political football into different arenas. I appreciated your comment very
much.

Nick

__________________
* I personally support federal legalization of medical marijuana, and
decriminalization of marijuana for personal use. However it is still illegal
and therefore a legitimate target under the current system.



On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Robert Graham <
robert_david_graham () yahoo com> wrote:

> The Economist had a good article on this subject last year:
> http://econ.st/g9QNJm
>
> "Total federal seizures have exploded from $400m in 2001 to $1.3 billion in
> 2008. State data are patchier, but the trend appears to be sharply upward."
>
> I, too, find it odd that Selby would praise this corruption rather than
> criticize it.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins () arbor net>
> To: dailydave <dailydave () lists immunitysec com>
> Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 11:24:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dailydave] Standing up an intel op with seized funds
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2011, at 8:19 PM, Nick Selby wrote:
>
> > I just posted an article/podcast with Pat Ryder, who stood up and runs
> the
> > asset forfeiture and intelligence division of the Nassau County (NY)
> police
> > department.
>
> Doing anything with seized funds other than handing them over to the
> general
> treasury completely subverts the key principle of subsidiarity, violates
> the due
> process rights of suspects, and encourages law enforcement to 'find'
> offenses/violations in order to fund whatever they decide they want to
> do/buy,
> any given week.
>
> It completely subverts the legislative and judicial processes and is an
> inducement to corruption.
>
>
> This is a perfect example of iatrogenic 'security' - i.e., how some
> particular
> action at one level appears to be a win, but at the macro level, actually
> has
> negative, extremely undesirable effects on the system as a whole.  Only in
> this
> case, the 'system as a whole' = Nassau County.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
>        The basis of optimism is sheer terror.
>
>              -- Oscar Wilde
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave