Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The docket on this case was posted downthread by 'thinkcomp.



Alright, as I had guessed, the case is against the real estate itself - not "the owners of the property".

"United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts"


What, they sued a building?!?

Cross examination could be interesting.


That's why it's called civil forfeiture: the government seizes your property, without charging you with a crime. They don't charge you because you haven't committed a crime. They just don't like you (literally) and retaliate by stealing your stuff. Sometimes, they just want your stuff: when the police seize your property, they get to sell it and keep the proceeds.

The requirements to "win" a civil forfeiture case is incredibly low - much lower than, for instance, proving a crime was committed. Innocent victims (i.e. the rare cases where a forfeiture is overturned) always have their things seized immediately to begin with, because the standard of "proof" is so unbelievably low. It's just as easy to seize from the innocent as it is from the guilty.

When people first learn about civil forfeiture, the disbelief, the cognitive dissonance that such a thing even exists is amazing. In any other context, we'd call it what it is: theft, without due process. The whole legal basis is evil, wrong, and a direct result of the War on Drugs. It has thoroughly corrupted our police and judicial systems.

Once enough people become aware of it, it'll be overturned, but not before ruining countless lives. The legal basis for civil forfeiture cannot survive even the tiniest amount of light.


In practice, it's a lawsuit with the owners on one side and the US Attorney on the other.


Where the owners have the burden of proof of proving that the building didn't do anything wrong.

It's mindblowingly stupid.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: