Say I sue you for the tort of conversion (use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights). Even if that property is most of your net worth, I still just have to prove my case by a preponderance of the evidence.
I think civil forfeiture is a bad idea because it is ripe for abuse. But its underpinnings are not "legal sophistry" nor are they unconstitutional. I stress the distinction because its useful to understand that not every bad idea is unjustifiable or unconstitutional.
I think that the state attacking a citizen should have a higher bar, not necessarily that all civil suits should (though I do think that as the penalties get steeper as a percentage of someone's net worth, the bar for proving wrongdoing should rise, or the judge should scale the damage award by the level of certainty provided by the evidence).
Agreed that many bad ideas have some plausible justifications.
we aren't talking about damages awards or punishment. We're talking about suits to contest the ownership of property. if I claim in a civil suit that you obtain your house by fraud from me what should be my standard of proof?
