• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Supreme Court Limits Civil Asset Forfeiture, Rules Excessive Fines Apply To States

Where this could get interesting is by interpreting such confiscations as being illegal acts, and defining where a citizen's right to defend against such illegal acts exist under that determination. Would a LEO attempting to enforce an illegal seizure of private property be engaged in a crime? To what extent can a private citizen defend themselves against such an illegal act? Which side would be innocent until proven guilty?

It would make an interesting court case, I would imagine.
 
I wholeheartedly support the ruling. But while the change protects many innocent people who were being plundered unfairly by the state, I suspect that much lobbying and/or donations funding the legal challenges were made indirectly by cartels who will be substantially enriched and increasingly empowered by this ruling.
In addition to their sales of drugs cartels are often implicated in additional criminal activities, and it would take no great stretch of the imagination to see a future where they become the new plunderer of the property of innocents.
 
The combination of this ruling which makes it easier for cartels to amass and keep profits, the falling financial support for drug rehabs, and the relentless attempt to restrict personal gun ownership so citizens are less able to protect themselves in the U.S. almost seems to pave the way for cartel growth.
 
As long as the punishment is equivalent and DIRECTLY related to the crimes committed, I doubt most people would have any issue with it.

If a drug cartel makes billions of dollars from their dealings in drugs, and if everything they purchased with that money got confiscated, then I would say too bad, too sad for them. Probably most reasonable people would agree.

But for some average Joe driving through Louisiana to have his vehicle and all his cash seized because cops found the cash had some miniscule trace of drugs on some of the bills detected by a lab test, no, sorry, I don't agree with that at all. As such, the burden of PROOF really needs to be on law enforcement to prove their case BEFORE any such confiscation, not the other away around with the VICTIM having to prove their innocence and sue to get their property back.

The Fourth Amendment is pretty clear about this.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

Even such things as "fishing" expeditions based on vague suspicion hoping to find some incriminating evidence really needs to stop. Yeah, bad guys might get away with something because "probable cause" and/or firm proof of illegality is lacking. But the violation of innocent parties is really not worth it to us as a country considering the violation of rights and privacy that has to be abused in order for law enforcement to perpetrate such acts.

And certainly under no circumstances should the law enforcement and court agencies at any level act as plundering mercenaries keeping any of the "spoils" gained in the enforcement and conviction of the law. That sort of "incentive" for law enforcement and judicial proceedings cannot help but be abused.
 
Great to see all 9 justices working together for common sense laws. Keep it up!
 
If anyone is interested in a fun read for research, look up the laws concerning carrying a concealed weapon on the plethora of indian reservations in the USA.... :confused:

And yes asset forfeiture could definitely be in your future in such cases.
 
Back
Top