I first heard that as part of a looooong list of product warnings for an imaginary product called Happy Fun Ball. It dates at least back to the late seventies or early eighties, before Al Gore invented the internet, and was shared by Xeroxing it and passing out copies to friends and coworkers.
Here is the full disclaimer I found Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoidprolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball. Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds. Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture,should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs: itching vertigo dizziness tingling in extremities loss of balance or coordination slurred speech temporary blindness profuse sweating or heart palpitations. If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelterand cover head. Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin. When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special containerand kept under refrigeration. Failure to do so relieves the makers of HappyFun Ball, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company, GlobalChemical Unlimited, of any and all liability. Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an unknown glowing green substancewhich fell to Earth, presumably from outer space. Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is beingdropped by our warplanes on Iraq. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Happy Fun Ball comes with a lifetime warranty.
@@thystaff742 Hold on now. If a thief steals something, then get caught, that something should be seized from them and given to the rightful owners. Or if a drug dealer gets caught, his drugs and drug equipment should be taken.
It still boggles my mind how any court deemed civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, and other such nonsense as constitutional in the first place.
In Jury room Juror: I think the cops should pay a fine of ♾️ for abusing there authority to steal fom the victim & waisting everyone's time. Other Jurors: The fine should be big but not THAT big. That would qualify as an obsessive fine. 😆
And when they lose in front of the jury, the plaintiff should be allowed to sue for damages, and/or press charges against the officer for outright theft!!
@douglastaylor43 I am sick and tired of the police breaking the law without consequences. Especially when they make their living enforcing consequences on others. There should be a picture of this in the dictionary next to the word "hypocrisy."
I bet prosecutors will be asking potential jurors if they are familiar with CAF. I'd probably get in trouble answering that I know what illegal possession of a firearm is and previously served on a jury for that.
What would be better is if we got the opportunity to make all of these jury trials Even the ones that have already happened. People have had their stuff stolen for multiple decades by the cops. It would be awesome if people could try and sue the stations that did it so they couldn’t keep all of the profit they made from that.
Sadly, we're happy that the court says you have a right to a jury of your peers when in reality any officer that just steals a citizens money or property should be standing trial and sent to jail. This is so backwards and this only made it slightly less so in 1 state.
The other issue not talked about is that people have to SUE to even PROVE that they OWN the money. Meaning, when the Cops have it, it is NOT your property. So this verdict means NOTHING, cause it will go in front of a Judge, who will say "You can't prove ownership. Therefore it isn't your Property." And since it's not your Property, you can not take the case to Jury. As a Jury only sees cases when the government takes YOUR Property. It's not your money tho, through Civil Asset Forfeiture. So no Jury Case.
@Jirodyne which is why this is significant, that all just changed in one state that allows CAF. They're now saying it is your money, and they have to prove you got it illegally before a jury if they want to keep it.
@@tarrantwolf No no no. You are MISSING the point, it will NEVER get to a Jury, cause it will go before a JUDGE first, who will go "This isn't your property. Prove this isn't going to be used for a crime." Which is IMPOSSIBLE to prove. At which point, they will STILL DENY you access to a Jury, cause as I pointed out, the LAW says if the state steals your PROPERTY you get a Jury case. But with Civil Asset Forfieture, YOU DO NOT OWN THE MONEY the POINT of Suing the Government for it back, is for YOU to prove you OWN the money. NOT that the government STOLE YOUR PROPERTY. So these cases will NEVER see a Jury Trial. It will ALWAYS go in front of a Judge who will claim you didn't prove ownership, you don't get a Jury Trial. You get a Judgement from the Judge instead.
@Jirodyne no, no, no, you are missing the point, that's what this changes. It's now your property that they have to prove you got through nefarious means. So it will make it to trial any time someone challenges it.
"That could have been me last week when I bought my son a better car than the junk he was driving. I paid cash to avoid the Facebook scammers." Damn right I would vote to kick that case out. This "For Profit" policing has to stop and this is a step in the right direction.
Since the State Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional not to provide a jury trial in civil asset forfeiture cases this indicates it has always been unconstitutional. Wouldn’t this ruling require the state to go back and retry all civil asset forfeiture cases?
Plausible, but they won't unless there's enough claims filed to reopen the cases, and they make you pay to file and for every step of the process. You'll lose money which most people can't afford to go through.
Now wouldn’t that be fun especially if money or property had been handed over to the feds so hopefully the agency that took the money would have to pay the money back or compensate for the property and the agency has to sue the feds for the property / cash
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way although it should. Though it was once held that any unconstitutional law was void from the point of it's enactment, this was later ruled to limit it's application effectively eliminating it based largely on the grounds that the courts couldn't handle the multitude of cases it would bring.
This is the one thing I always thing people get wrong when they say federal forfeiture law cannot be settled by the states. Sure it can. Arrest the federal agents and try them for armed robbery. The feds might try to claim supremacy, but supremacy over armed robbery law? Plus that case going to scotus would be a PR disaster. Pity no governor has the balls.
No. Their crime is committed under color of law, with malicious intent, in costume on the highways by two and more, conspiratorially absent of crime and probable cause, then proceed to fabricate any and every scenario and narrative possible to intentionally justify the theft when there is a long-documented, codified protection from that seizure and theft, while possibly also pushing an attached fabricated criminal charge to further try to justify malicious prosecution, to finish with bringing in another dept or agency to claim final custody of the property. That is not worthy of being adjudicated by peers of the people being robbed. NO, they are not entitled to a trial.
The CAF case is in it self also the case against the cops and everyone else that went along with the CAF. So I'd say there could be a jury wanting to at minimum fire all involved and blacklisted and at most thrown in jail for a period of time. But I do also hope a jury can judge the people involved to pay out of pocket rather than have the city, and possibly an insurer, pay it out
@@fyrbyrd71everyone is entitled to a jury trial. Especially the victims. Eliminate this nonsense of letting prosecutors decide if there should be a trial.
Fantastic ! Let’s hope this spreads like wildfire throughout the country. Mad respect to the Institute for justice for their outstanding work, and to you Steve for raising these stories on your channel and making more people aware of the government civil asset forfeiture scam to steal people’s money and property without due process.
@@tonymouannes you miss the point before this cops could steal people’s money with no actual evidence of criminality and say who cares SUE US . If they do that in future attorneys will jump on the cases because they know they can win !
Thanks Steve. Civil Asset Forfeiture is an abomination in our free society. The concept was previously thought by many Americans to be a factor only in 3rd world or dictator governed nations, now we have it here. Thanks also to the Institute for Justice &, if you will, please educate your followers on the court & political decisions that led to CAF.
@@thystaff742 I am no fan of Trump, but this law was on the books and enforced before and after Trump. He made zero changes to the law or how it is enforced or litigated.
Do you think a 55 year old, white, middle-class, male will get a fair verdict from a group of 20-30 year old blue haired activists? I hope you realize what reality is going to be.
Idk juries are so bad sometimes I'd probably trust a judge more to rule against the government, the jury convicts ppl on such shotty evidence sometimes
Will this be applied retroactively? In other words, if someone was a victim of civil asset forfeiture say 8 years ago will they now be able to sue for the return of their asset that was illegally confiscated? If this is the case there are going to be many sheriffs departments, police departments and even up to the federal FBI level that are going to have to cough up money that they have already spent (or in some cases, pocketed). Should be fun...
Can you imagine the political fallout from a State Attorney who takes these cases to trial. The news is surely to cover it . Next time the attorney runs for office they have to explain why they are taking someone's money who committed no crime. What am I saying? Why isn't that already happening.
Oh man I'd love to hear some of the defenses on why they took the money. "It's appeared to have been related to a crime" "Oh yeah. What evidence do you have that shows that?" "Uhm......"
@kinjunranger140 that would be criminal asset forfeiture. I am 100% ok with that. Were you to have $1000 in 10's and 5's and varoius change, a bank recipt for the money and you were on your way to a business and the cops took it because "proceeds of crime".. that is the scenario i have an issue with
I'm 42. I've received dozens of jury summons for various courts. I have never made it far enough to have to even show up. Got a summons last month for a city municipal court. I don't even know what they would need a jury for. They only handle misdemeanor and civil infractions. Everything else is at a different court. Sure enough, over a week before my assigned date I got a message that my service was completed. I'd really like to be on a jury, preferably for a complicated civil case that requires learning random technical details and critical thinking to resolve. Sadly I'm not chosen to decide on even a speeding ticket.
I agree that this is poison for civil forfeiture. Not only does the prosecutor have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but at the end of the trial, there's now 12 jurors talking to their buddies at the bar "You aren't going to believe the case I just sat for". This level of a court murdering a law reminds me of your videos talking about what happened to Michigan's Consumer Protection Act. At least this time it has a Good result.
If jurors had the power to rule on both the prosecutor and the judge in the case and assign punishment then the courts would get real efficient real fast.
I'll reserve my glee until I start seeing how this pans out... After hearing how so many criminal lawsuits give the prosecutor and judge limits how the defendant can argue his case, I still don't trust the system
It is shocking how few people know about Civil Forfeiture. Hopefully having jury trials will raise the viability and get a nation wide ban. I mean we do have the 5th Amendment but somehow our corrupt legal system has allowed governments to ignore it. The 5th says clearly "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" yet the courts decided cash is not property? This still angers me every time I it comes up. And I don't even use cash!
A lot of people straight up don't care, because it's not effecting them. You also have stubborn idiots who confuse it with criminal asset forfeiture and will argue this is all justified to take away proceeds from crime. Trying to get them to understand the difference between civil and criminal forfeiture where in civil is just the police taking things without a crime can be difficult to get through when someone is a moron and thinks it's the same thing.
Ikr? I was trying to explain caf was a thing to my cousin & uncle (both are attorneys). Granted , they are attorneys in a state that ranks high for caf laws protecting citizens, but still. I was unsuccessfull even after my uncle pointed out a case to my cousin where local police stole property from a suspected "meth dealer"
It's not just cash though; civil asset forfeiture has been used on all sorts of property including things like houses and cars, again without any criminal prosecutions being pressed and with the same bass ackwards standard of evidence where you need to prove your own innocence.
@@Vincent_Beers there is generally somehow still a lot of people who believe that arrested = alleged criminal = actual criminal. Like in the comments under the video on bails, some people were stating that "those criminals should stay locked up, they are criminals!" when talking about the victims, failing to comprehend that somebody in jail may be innocent, just awaiting trial for way too long. Somehow there is still this trust that law enforcement is good and who they are dealing with is bad, when people turn off their brain enough.
@@nodrogj1 Yes. There was a famous case a few years ago where police raided a woman's house (with a warrant) because her boyfriend was allegedly selling drugs. They found no drugs. Yet they took $8,000 in cash that she had in her house AND HER CAR. She wasn't even accused of selling drugs, her boyfriend was. And he was never convicted because there were no drugs found. I think she got the car back somehow, but the cash went into the CAF black hole.
I served on a jury only once. I didn't try to get out of serving, I believe it's our civic duty. I can't say I "enjoyed" it, but I did find it fascinating. It's important to note that it was an important case, I was getting paid my full salary by my job, and it was a 3 week break from work.
It's probably too personal, but I'm super curious who the company was because that is the only reason I have ever been apprehensive to serve because of the huge pay cut.
The good old Mooresville Shuffle. Sue to get your money back, the state gives it to the Feds before the trial, the Feds rule that once they got the money, only a Federal court can try the case, so your state jury verdict means nothing.
This is true, but the jury could say the judgement is on the state no matter who has the money. Then the state will have to try and get back what they forked over to the feds.
That would make it a game of chicken for the powers abusing CAF. They don't want this to go to the federal level because if the SCotUS rules the same, then CAF effectively ends nationwide. For the same reason, they will almost certainly not appeal this ruling by the SC of Indiana to the district courts or the SCotUS. They will want to compartmentalize the "damage" to just Indiana. Only when they start losing in most states will it become worth it for CAF abusers to appeal to the higher courts.
It's always amazed me that "money" could be considered animate rather than inanimate. Guilt and/or innocence implies animation. Even odder that in the case of seized assets, the presumption is guilty until proven innocent, completely opposite of our law's standards.
Every case I have seen brought in to a court, has been Guilty till proven Innocent. The Accused is held against their will, unless they can bail out. then your defense has to prove you are innocent by casting doubt on the prosecutions case.
Imagine the people involved initially taking the property, or the people involved in trying to justify it. How do they live with themselves? They should all be named and shamed!
@@davidm8371 Try again next year; Indiana has a ten-year waiting period. Meaning, if you served on a jury, you cannot be called again, for jury duty, for ten years.
@@SHSPVRyeah, but if you’re registered as Republican, you’ll NEVER be called… I’ve never been summoned since I got my citizenship and registered to vote as Republican. Yet my friend who was here from Brazil temporarily for a work project and had a Driver’s license but wasn’t a citizen got a summons to appear at court for trial duty. She had already been transferred to France, so I let her know and she reached out to the court to correct the problem. I’m in TN of all places!!! The Bureaucratic machine is broken in ALL levels! If we don’t get to work PRONTO, we’ll pass the point of no return!!!
when it comes to law enforcement i used to be on the fence but after seeing them routinely steal people's hard earned money with absolutely no evidence was the last straw. they can't blame a " few bad apples " anymore. the system itself is..... i can't even explain it because i just don't understand
I've been on juries several times now in my life, and I have to say two things about it. One, I take it very seriously. I feel it is my duty. I would just hope that if I were in some kind of jury trial that they would take it seriously as well. Two, I actually enjoyed it it is quite fascinating to see the legal system at work. For full transparency, I must admit I'm pretty lucky with my job. If I'm called for jury duty, I get paid. So it's not much of a loss for me.
I want to sit on a jury. I have been called up twice and both time was not needed. I have also had my first federal questionnaire just several weeks back. We live in a more rural areas that we did when I got called up twice. This area is likely to have very few cases go to trial in criminal court yet civil court it could very well happen.
Fortuitous timing! My employer just passed an across-the-board raise retroactive to July, I get a lump sum on Friday. I can't give too much, but some of that will go to IJ. I live in IN until family doesn't need us, so I have double reason for supporting IJ in this.
This is great for Indiana. It's a shame that the likelihood is now that the Indiana State Legislature will quickly push through measures to nullify the courts opinion.
I really feel that in cases that went to trial and the prosecution lost if property was seized anyway that the prosecutor needs to be held in contempt until the property is returned. The prosecutor is not a superior court judge, he cannot overturn a finding of the court.
Now (for places that don't have it already), let's get fee-shifting rules in place for these cases, and treble damages by statute, plus additional punitive damages in egregious cases. After the first three-minute verdict that includes punitive damages, the word will get out not to use civil asset forfeiture. Every state, plus DC and every US territory needs rules like this.
One thing I've learned by being on a jury is that the laws are written so as to "corral" you into making a decision favorable to the state. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
For victims of past civil asset forfeiture in Indiana does this open up the option of suing for violation of their state constitutional rights? If so I see a whole bunch of lawsuits coming.
In 1994, my father went through his in Texas. He had his money and his pistol taken all at once under Civil Forfeiture. The case was heard by a Jury where the money and pistol was returned. It only cost him about $20,000 to get his money back. They made the claim that his $100 bills had drug residue on it and that the money was ill gotten. Attorneys argued and had witnesses testify that all money has drug residue on it and that the testing methodology was so sensitive that all money would test positive. Although there was documentation of where the money came from, the district attorney insisted that there was a penalty paid in the form of attorney fees.
Not sure how they got around this. I was looking up the hows and whens of a demand for jury trial last month for personal reasons. I came up with you have 10 days from time of plea for criminal cases or time of summons in civil cases to file a demand for jury trial. Glad this is properly settled. I am sure their calculus will come out a little differently when they have 12 rando citizens seeing their shenanigans.
It goes back to how CAF started. Drug smugglers were using high-speed boats to simply outrun the USCG chasing them. So they made a law saying that law enforcement could simply seize any assets involved in the commission of a crime, bypassing a lot of the 4A protections. That way the USCG could just seize the boats, and repurpose them to chasing down the smugglers. And any cash seized could immediately be put to use furthering drug enforcement activities. Since the original victims were international drug smugglers, nobody really cared. And the SCotUS approved it. But it's since experienced mission creep, and has been abused to seize assets of domestic citizens carrying cash, because the cash "might be" from drug activity. It's a good lesson on why protections like the Bill of Rights need to apply to even the most despicable members of society. "Those people don't deserve protection" is not a good enough reason to rescind those protections. Because once you give the government that power, eventually "those people" will be redefined to include you and me.
First off, love the shirt. Second off, I live ten minutes from Indiana and I personally refuse to step foot in that state because of the illegal actions of their police forces as a matter of common practice. I truly believe there are good and bad forces everywhere, and good and bad officers within said good and bad forces. Indiana, it is tough to find a good officer. They’re out there, they are tough to find.
Hooray! Along with Plummer, this is another great ruling toward accountability for government. Glad to know we still have some clear thinking judges sitting on the bench.
I am onboard with you being the jury foreman and returning the verdict in 3 minutes. It is time for the citizens to be heard about the unjust forfeiture laws
I served on a federal jury a while back. I volunteered to be jury foreman. Quick look around the room, I was sure we were ready for a vote. Boom, boom, done. Took longer to fill out the paperwork than it did to reach our decision.
I wish that that they would broadcast some of these trials because I also would love to see the faces of the reaction to the evidence they will try to introduce to cover for their actions!! it would be something that a lot of the public would probably be interested in. 👍👍👍🖕
If I were on a jury for civil asset forfeiture, not only would I push for quickly finding in favor of the victim, I'd also see if we could get additional damages. It would be great if the jury came back and was able to award the victim 10x damages, plus all court costs.
I am one of those that love being on a jury. It is a wonderful duty for one to be selected to perform for your community! One case, we extended our deliberations so we could get lunch brought in.
Was on a criminal trial a while back. Walked into the jury room and set down with the other folk. The bailiff said he was going to get us an urn of coffee and left the room. When he stepped out I asked the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty. Everyone raised their hand. I asked if they would put it in writing, and they all said yes. By the time the bailiff came back I was somehow the foreman, and we were finished with everything. The bailiff said it was the quickest deliberation he had ever seen, and he had just wasted a big pot of coffee for us. We had to sit around for another 30 minutes because the judge and lawyers had all gone for lunch. 🤣🤣
The money was tried by a jury of it's peers and deliberations have been going on for 3 years straight, for some reason the jurors don't respond when asked if they have a verdict!
Hundreds of us were denied jury trial and attorneys during Occupy Portland. State Supreme ruled in our favor.. 2 years later! And these were criminal cases.
I want to see alot more of these jury trials when people's homes get seized for back taxes especially elderly citizens on a fixed income and their homes are paid off. I would be more than happy to sit on the jury of every trial.
Can confirm if I was on the jury for an unjustified civil asset forfeiture case I’d be asking if we can apply damages. The government needs to be taken to task over this issue.
I love serving on a jury 😊 The last time I was called to serve, I was sadly sent home 😢 I do use a wheelchair and a service dog. I think this was the reason I was sent home 🤔
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 you were just too quick at this I think you have it down to a science. No I am waiting for the time. Steve puts up something the size of a beach towel on the screen so I even stand a remote chance of possibly viewing the hundred dollar bill. Keep doing what you’re doing. I look forward to seeing it or reading about it and I’m sure others do. The only problem would be if you ever won the hundred dollars somebody would probably confiscate it from you and you would have to get a jury to get it back :-)
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 OK what I’m thinking is that people were so engrossed with the topic that they didn’t bother to come up with a clever answer until they saw the entire video. They were all engrossed in watching what Steve had to say usually people pop in a comment before they could’ve possibly seen the whole video which always usually cross grinds my oats :-)
So ! It seems we are beset by " Soverign Swine " in Uniform or " Soverign Servants " elected or hired officals . We need an Institute for Justice here in Canada also ; to deal with these Pirates or Weasels . Thank you Mr. Lehto for the heads up . Keep up the Good Fight .
Just so long as you understand that while the jury is getting picked the police are handing the cash to the feds where the jury trial means nothing. Once the jury is dismissed after notice that the cash is in federal hands, the local department is given most of that cash back.
Steve if the judicial system in the US finally gets its head out of its posterior and abolishes the absurdity of CAF I will sorely miss the entertainment of watching your posts on the subject, they are hilarious.
It's amazing that congress has not done their due diligence to extremely limit civil assets forfeiture. It appears the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled correctly as every law scholar would agree. Thank you Institute for Justice for standing for people's rights. The Institue for Justice will go down in history books as well as the Indiana Supreme Court
Yes! Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Ball!
Hilarious! 🟠
get away if it starts to smoke.,
I first heard that as part of a looooong list of product warnings for an imaginary product called Happy Fun Ball. It dates at least back to the late seventies or early eighties, before Al Gore invented the internet, and was shared by Xeroxing it and passing out copies to friends and coworkers.
@@JDB2552 1991 Saturday Night Live
Here is the full disclaimer I found
Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoidprolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture,should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:
itching
vertigo
dizziness
tingling in extremities
loss of balance or coordination
slurred speech
temporary blindness
profuse sweating
or heart palpitations.
If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelterand cover head.
Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin.
When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special containerand kept under refrigeration. Failure to do so relieves the makers of HappyFun Ball, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company, GlobalChemical Unlimited, of any and all liability.
Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an unknown glowing green substancewhich fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is beingdropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Happy Fun Ball comes with a lifetime warranty.
Why does the 4th amendment not prevent this . This is literally highway robbery!
Excellent question!
You're correct but way back in the day the SCOTUS got it wrong along time ago and good luck getting that group to admit they're wrong.
Courts said so and we can't stop the courts. Why does qualified immunity exists...because of the courts
Asset forfeiture shouldn't exist at all.
@@thystaff742 Hold on now. If a thief steals something, then get caught, that something should be seized from them and given to the rightful owners. Or if a drug dealer gets caught, his drugs and drug equipment should be taken.
It still boggles my mind how any court deemed civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, and other such nonsense as constitutional in the first place.
The Constitution specifically says they can't do it in the 4th Amendment. 5th Circuit is like, "What 4th Amendment?"
It is the result of to many lawyers in the same room. Common sense is lost with to many laws.
Freedom
Honestly, it boggles my mind that it still boggles your mind.
@@lorehammer40k4 many judges believe common law precedent override the Constitution.
One might read Canon 3228. It gives a huge insight into how the courts operate... criminally.
"Sorry your honor for taking 10 minutes to reach a verdict, we got into an argument about how much in damages the victim should get."
In Jury room
Juror: I think the cops should pay a fine of ♾️ for abusing there authority to steal fom the victim & waisting everyone's time.
Other Jurors: The fine should be big but not THAT big. That would qualify as an obsessive fine. 😆
CAUTION! That's poking the hornet's nest of SCOTUS' total USA's domination.
The fine for abuse should be equal to the amount being held in CAF
@@johncherish7610 plus treble damages
@@johncherish7610treble
And when they lose in front of the jury, the plaintiff should be allowed to sue for damages, and/or press charges against the officer for outright theft!!
The cops that stole the money need to be jailed.
legal crooks
@@Michael-nf1ej Undercover criminals...
IF they were jailed, would they have to give back the commendations that they had received?
Killed. The word you’re looking for is killed.
@douglastaylor43 I am sick and tired of the police breaking the law without consequences. Especially when they make their living enforcing consequences on others. There should be a picture of this in the dictionary next to the word "hypocrisy."
Finally, a jury case that I’d want to be on. PLEASE give the jury permission to award legal fees and punitive damages
At least!!
Juries will NOT want to take money from citizens. This is huge.
And if they do it will only be the obviously corrupt politicians/ACTUAL drug dealers lol
I only hope they reward compensation for the waste of time and theft
@glencuda exactly! The jury trial means nothing if damages are not awarded too.
Depends how the prosecution paints them.
I bet prosecutors will be asking potential jurors if they are familiar with CAF. I'd probably get in trouble answering that I know what illegal possession of a firearm is and previously served on a jury for that.
Yes, this needs to go nationwide and include compensatory, and optionally, punitive damages!
Or at least lawyer fees.
What would be better is if we got the opportunity to make all of these jury trials Even the ones that have already happened. People have had their stuff stolen for multiple decades by the cops. It would be awesome if people could try and sue the stations that did it so they couldn’t keep all of the profit they made from that.
Add compound interest for the duration of sequestration.
Sadly, we're happy that the court says you have a right to a jury of your peers when in reality any officer that just steals a citizens money or property should be standing trial and sent to jail. This is so backwards and this only made it slightly less so in 1 state.
The other issue not talked about is that people have to SUE to even PROVE that they OWN the money. Meaning, when the Cops have it, it is NOT your property. So this verdict means NOTHING, cause it will go in front of a Judge, who will say "You can't prove ownership. Therefore it isn't your Property." And since it's not your Property, you can not take the case to Jury. As a Jury only sees cases when the government takes YOUR Property. It's not your money tho, through Civil Asset Forfeiture. So no Jury Case.
@Jirodyne which is why this is significant, that all just changed in one state that allows CAF. They're now saying it is your money, and they have to prove you got it illegally before a jury if they want to keep it.
@@Jirodyne 100% BWCs Foia-ed and 100% CITIZEN CAMERAS might coerce Justice for all
@@tarrantwolf No no no. You are MISSING the point, it will NEVER get to a Jury, cause it will go before a JUDGE first, who will go "This isn't your property. Prove this isn't going to be used for a crime." Which is IMPOSSIBLE to prove. At which point, they will STILL DENY you access to a Jury, cause as I pointed out, the LAW says if the state steals your PROPERTY you get a Jury case. But with Civil Asset Forfieture, YOU DO NOT OWN THE MONEY the POINT of Suing the Government for it back, is for YOU to prove you OWN the money. NOT that the government STOLE YOUR PROPERTY.
So these cases will NEVER see a Jury Trial. It will ALWAYS go in front of a Judge who will claim you didn't prove ownership, you don't get a Jury Trial. You get a Judgement from the Judge instead.
@Jirodyne no, no, no, you are missing the point, that's what this changes. It's now your property that they have to prove you got through nefarious means. So it will make it to trial any time someone challenges it.
This is HUGE. Civil asset forfeiture needs to end, period.
"That could have been me last week when I bought my son a better car than the junk he was driving. I paid cash to avoid the Facebook scammers."
Damn right I would vote to kick that case out. This "For Profit" policing has to stop and this is a step in the right direction.
As soon as policing is monetarily incentivised, it's no longer policing, it's just another crime syndicate protection racket.
Yup, I am also not a fan of running government like a business i.e. for profit.
Since the State Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional not to provide a jury trial in civil asset forfeiture cases this indicates it has always been unconstitutional. Wouldn’t this ruling require the state to go back and retry all civil asset forfeiture cases?
Plausible, but they won't unless there's enough claims filed to reopen the cases, and they make you pay to file and for every step of the process.
You'll lose money which most people can't afford to go through.
I agree it would be up to the people who lost their money to file to re-open the case. And demand it be heard by a jury
Now wouldn’t that be fun especially if money or property had been handed over to the feds so hopefully the agency that took the money would have to pay the money back or compensate for the property and the agency has to sue the feds for the property / cash
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way although it should. Though it was once held that any unconstitutional law was void from the point of it's enactment, this was later ruled to limit it's application effectively eliminating it based largely on the grounds that the courts couldn't handle the multitude of cases it would bring.
No....
We need this ruling in every state in the nation.
Who Allowed this to happen? Couldn't ( WE THE PEOPLE ) Have "VOTED" this into NON Law because of who's GREED? Who are the ANTI REFERENDUM POLITICIANS?
@@georgedunkelberg5004 Joe Biden has been instrumental every step of the way supporting and encouraging the expansion of Civil Asset Forfeiture.
The police officers/sheriffs that stole this property should also be entitled to a fair trial prior to them being thrown in prison for theft.
This is the one thing I always thing people get wrong when they say federal forfeiture law cannot be settled by the states. Sure it can. Arrest the federal agents and try them for armed robbery. The feds might try to claim supremacy, but supremacy over armed robbery law? Plus that case going to scotus would be a PR disaster.
Pity no governor has the balls.
No. Their crime is committed under color of law, with malicious intent, in costume on the highways by two and more, conspiratorially absent of crime and probable cause, then proceed to fabricate any and every scenario and narrative possible to intentionally justify the theft when there is a long-documented, codified protection from that seizure and theft, while possibly also pushing an attached fabricated criminal charge to further try to justify malicious prosecution, to finish with bringing in another dept or agency to claim final custody of the property. That is not worthy of being adjudicated by peers of the people being robbed. NO, they are not entitled to a trial.
The CAF case is in it self also the case against the cops and everyone else that went along with the CAF. So I'd say there could be a jury wanting to at minimum fire all involved and blacklisted and at most thrown in jail for a period of time.
But I do also hope a jury can judge the people involved to pay out of pocket rather than have the city, and possibly an insurer, pay it out
Not just theft, but armed robbery under the color of law. It's a total abuse of power.
@@fyrbyrd71everyone is entitled to a jury trial. Especially the victims. Eliminate this nonsense of letting prosecutors decide if there should be a trial.
Fantastic ! Let’s hope this spreads like wildfire throughout the country. Mad respect to the Institute for justice for their outstanding work, and to you Steve for raising these stories on your channel and making more people aware of the government civil asset forfeiture scam to steal people’s money and property without due process.
As good as this sounds, but aren't jury trials way more expensive and a bigger barrier for most people?
@@tonymouannes you miss the point before this cops could steal people’s money with no actual evidence of criminality and say who cares SUE US . If they do that in future attorneys will jump on the cases because they know they can win !
@tonymouannes I believe they are but this is still a big victory.
Thanks Steve. Civil Asset Forfeiture is an abomination in our free society. The concept was previously thought by many Americans to be a factor only in 3rd world or dictator governed nations, now we have it here. Thanks also to the Institute for Justice &, if you will, please educate your followers on the court & political decisions that led to CAF.
Trump resurrected that law in 2017.
@@thystaff742 I am no fan of Trump, but this law was on the books and enforced before and after Trump. He made zero changes to the law or how it is enforced or litigated.
@@thystaff742 Trump was also responsible for deciding to nuke Japan at the end of WWII.
This is huge and hopefully juries will put a stop to this crap
They will in Indiana
Perhaps if some of those involved were to be jailed it would stop. This is armed robbery!!!!
Do you think a 55 year old, white, middle-class, male will get a fair verdict from a group of 20-30 year old blue haired activists? I hope you realize what reality is going to be.
Idk juries are so bad sometimes I'd probably trust a judge more to rule against the government, the jury convicts ppl on such shotty evidence sometimes
hopefully they make it possible to retroactively recover property taken in the past...
Will this be applied retroactively?
In other words, if someone was a victim of civil asset forfeiture say 8 years ago will they now be able to sue for the return of their asset that was illegally confiscated?
If this is the case there are going to be many sheriffs departments, police departments and even up to the federal FBI level that are going to have to cough up money that they have already spent (or in some cases, pocketed).
Should be fun...
I was a patrolman in the late 70s and early 80s. The reason I left law enforcement was because of Civil Asset Forfeiture abuse. Never regretted it.
Was a Detroit Cop, for for a few months, in the sixties. A gang of corrupt psychos.
They didn't have The Constitution back then either huh?
@@BlackJesus8463never have, never will.
Same story with me. CAF and seeing people searched and arrested for having a plant. I couldn’t be part of it.
Good for you! The sad thing is we need good cops but good men hate watching evil happen.
The police in California watch who wins at the casinos then pull them over on the freeway and do forfeiture. I've met people who had this happen.
Can you imagine the political fallout from a State Attorney who takes these cases to trial. The news is surely to cover it . Next time the attorney runs for office they have to explain why they are taking someone's money who committed no crime. What am I saying? Why isn't that already happening.
because those same prosecutors are also able to brag about how many people they railroaded I mean convicted.
Oh man I'd love to hear some of the defenses on why they took the money.
"It's appeared to have been related to a crime"
"Oh yeah. What evidence do you have that shows that?"
"Uhm......"
And why did you not arrest them for the crime you witnessed? Because there was no crime
Cop walks into Subway, "I suspect that Chicken Bacon Ranch Foot Long is being used to facilitate crime! I'LL TAKE THAT!".
"It's all in $20 bills and you were caught with 1000 $20 bags of meth."
@kinjunranger140 that would be criminal asset forfeiture. I am 100% ok with that. Were you to have $1000 in 10's and 5's and varoius change, a bank recipt for the money and you were on your way to a business and the cops took it because "proceeds of crime".. that is the scenario i have an issue with
@@quaruke9489 That is the scenario everyone has an issue with.....except the cops.
I'm 42. I've received dozens of jury summons for various courts. I have never made it far enough to have to even show up. Got a summons last month for a city municipal court. I don't even know what they would need a jury for. They only handle misdemeanor and civil infractions. Everything else is at a different court. Sure enough, over a week before my assigned date I got a message that my service was completed.
I'd really like to be on a jury, preferably for a complicated civil case that requires learning random technical details and critical thinking to resolve. Sadly I'm not chosen to decide on even a speeding ticket.
I agree that this is poison for civil forfeiture. Not only does the prosecutor have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but at the end of the trial, there's now 12 jurors talking to their buddies at the bar "You aren't going to believe the case I just sat for". This level of a court murdering a law reminds me of your videos talking about what happened to Michigan's Consumer Protection Act. At least this time it has a Good result.
Now let's see how many forfeitures happen going forward.
This wont be the end of it, but hopefully now used for what the law was intended mob or drug money/property
Were law enforcement abusing it then as badly as they are now? I heard about drug dealers losing their cars, but not flat out theft of cash.
@@javaskull88we'll never know because bodycaming police officers really hasn't been around that long.
If jurors had the power to rule on both the prosecutor and the judge in the case and assign punishment then the courts would get real efficient real fast.
I'll reserve my glee until I start seeing how this pans out... After hearing how so many criminal lawsuits give the prosecutor and judge limits how the defendant can argue his case, I still don't trust the system
It is shocking how few people know about Civil Forfeiture. Hopefully having jury trials will raise the viability and get a nation wide ban. I mean we do have the 5th Amendment but somehow our corrupt legal system has allowed governments to ignore it. The 5th says clearly "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" yet the courts decided cash is not property? This still angers me every time I it comes up. And I don't even use cash!
A lot of people straight up don't care, because it's not effecting them. You also have stubborn idiots who confuse it with criminal asset forfeiture and will argue this is all justified to take away proceeds from crime. Trying to get them to understand the difference between civil and criminal forfeiture where in civil is just the police taking things without a crime can be difficult to get through when someone is a moron and thinks it's the same thing.
Ikr?
I was trying to explain caf was a thing to my cousin & uncle (both are attorneys).
Granted , they are attorneys in a state that ranks high for caf laws protecting citizens, but still.
I was unsuccessfull even after my uncle pointed out a case to my cousin where local police stole property from a suspected "meth dealer"
It's not just cash though; civil asset forfeiture has been used on all sorts of property including things like houses and cars, again without any criminal prosecutions being pressed and with the same bass ackwards standard of evidence where you need to prove your own innocence.
@@Vincent_Beers there is generally somehow still a lot of people who believe that arrested = alleged criminal = actual criminal. Like in the comments under the video on bails, some people were stating that "those criminals should stay locked up, they are criminals!" when talking about the victims, failing to comprehend that somebody in jail may be innocent, just awaiting trial for way too long. Somehow there is still this trust that law enforcement is good and who they are dealing with is bad, when people turn off their brain enough.
@@nodrogj1 Yes. There was a famous case a few years ago where police raided a woman's house (with a warrant) because her boyfriend was allegedly selling drugs. They found no drugs. Yet they took $8,000 in cash that she had in her house AND HER CAR. She wasn't even accused of selling drugs, her boyfriend was. And he was never convicted because there were no drugs found. I think she got the car back somehow, but the cash went into the CAF black hole.
I served on a jury only once. I didn't try to get out of serving, I believe it's our civic duty. I can't say I "enjoyed" it, but I did find it fascinating. It's important to note that it was an important case, I was getting paid my full salary by my job, and it was a 3 week break from work.
Husband did something similar. He was salaried, so he was paid by company. He had to give his compensation from the county to his employer.
Like GM with the UAW's bargaining results before GM's bankruptcy exit to the new NOW! You were paid to take a "look under the rug of just us."
It's probably too personal, but I'm super curious who the company was because that is the only reason I have ever been apprehensive to serve because of the huge pay cut.
@@ellencox8415 -- I worked for a large health system. I'm retired.
Now it becomes a game of hot potato to make sure it's not state seizure, but federal, and thus goes around this ruling.
The good old Mooresville Shuffle. Sue to get your money back, the state gives it to the Feds before the trial, the Feds rule that once they got the money, only a Federal court can try the case, so your state jury verdict means nothing.
This is true, but the jury could say the judgement is on the state no matter who has the money. Then the state will have to try and get back what they forked over to the feds.
That would make it a game of chicken for the powers abusing CAF. They don't want this to go to the federal level because if the SCotUS rules the same, then CAF effectively ends nationwide. For the same reason, they will almost certainly not appeal this ruling by the SC of Indiana to the district courts or the SCotUS. They will want to compartmentalize the "damage" to just Indiana. Only when they start losing in most states will it become worth it for CAF abusers to appeal to the higher courts.
This needs to be Nationwide this should be a federal law with more power than state law
In theory, it's already there in the Bill of Rights.
This is some good news today. Civil asset forfeiture law as it stands today should be ruled unconstitutional
It's always amazed me that "money" could be considered animate rather than inanimate. Guilt and/or innocence implies animation. Even odder that in the case of seized assets, the presumption is guilty until proven innocent, completely opposite of our law's standards.
Every case I have seen brought in to a court, has been Guilty till proven Innocent.
The Accused is held against their will, unless they can bail out.
then your defense has to prove you are innocent by casting doubt on the prosecutions case.
About time they get a jury to hear and make their vote for the guilt or innocence of the persons property back to them !...
Imagine the people involved initially taking the property, or the people involved in trying to justify it. How do they live with themselves? They should all be named and shamed!
Where do I sign up for jury duty?
I do believe you have to registered to vote sooner or later you get a jury summons.
I haven't been summoned in 9 years.
I was summoned but by the time I got the letter the date was already passed. lol
@@davidm8371 Try again next year; Indiana has a ten-year waiting period. Meaning, if you served on a jury, you cannot be called again, for jury duty, for ten years.
@@SHSPVRyeah, but if you’re registered as Republican, you’ll NEVER be called… I’ve never been summoned since I got my citizenship and registered to vote as Republican. Yet my friend who was here from Brazil temporarily for a work project and had a Driver’s license but wasn’t a citizen got a summons to appear at court for trial duty. She had already been transferred to France, so I let her know and she reached out to the court to correct the problem. I’m in TN of all places!!! The Bureaucratic machine is broken in ALL levels! If we don’t get to work PRONTO, we’ll pass the point of no return!!!
Huge win for the people
when it comes to law enforcement i used to be on the fence but after seeing them routinely steal people's hard earned money with absolutely no evidence was the last straw. they can't blame a " few bad apples " anymore. the system itself is..... i can't even explain it because i just don't understand
That any of these cases have to go this far shows how far the country itself has fallen from our founding principles. Kudos IJ. Kudos Steve Lehto.
I've been on juries several times now in my life, and I have to say two things about it. One, I take it very seriously. I feel it is my duty. I would just hope that if I were in some kind of jury trial that they would take it seriously as well. Two, I actually enjoyed it it is quite fascinating to see the legal system at work. For full transparency, I must admit I'm pretty lucky with my job. If I'm called for jury duty, I get paid. So it's not much of a loss for me.
I want to sit on a jury. I have been called up twice and both time was not needed. I have also had my first federal questionnaire just several weeks back. We live in a more rural areas that we did when I got called up twice. This area is likely to have very few cases go to trial in criminal court yet civil court it could very well happen.
The Institute for Justice rocks. Steve, you are awesome for bringing them to our attention. 😇
I don't often get to be happy about my state, but today I do... until we start wilding out in another embarrassing way.
Fortuitous timing! My employer just passed an across-the-board raise retroactive to July, I get a lump sum on Friday. I can't give too much, but some of that will go to IJ. I live in IN until family doesn't need us, so I have double reason for supporting IJ in this.
Damages, all Legal fees, and loss of interest on the amount held should be awarded as well.
This is great for Indiana. It's a shame that the likelihood is now that the Indiana State Legislature will quickly push through measures to nullify the courts opinion.
Let's hope this is a step in the right direction
I really feel that in cases that went to trial and the prosecution lost if property was seized anyway that the prosecutor needs to be held in contempt until the property is returned. The prosecutor is not a superior court judge, he cannot overturn a finding of the court.
Now (for places that don't have it already), let's get fee-shifting rules in place for these cases, and treble damages by statute, plus additional punitive damages in egregious cases. After the first three-minute verdict that includes punitive damages, the word will get out not to use civil asset forfeiture. Every state, plus DC and every US territory needs rules like this.
I wish I was in this jury... classic reason for jury nullification
One thing I've learned by being on a jury is that the laws are written so as to "corral" you into making a decision favorable to the state. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
The question is: Can the jury decide on treble damages? Because that could be HUUUUGE !!!
For victims of past civil asset forfeiture in Indiana does this open up the option of suing for violation of their state constitutional rights? If so I see a whole bunch of lawsuits coming.
I sure hope so
In 1994, my father went through his in Texas. He had his money and his pistol taken all at once under Civil Forfeiture. The case was heard by a Jury where the money and pistol was returned. It only cost him about $20,000 to get his money back. They made the claim that his $100 bills had drug residue on it and that the money was ill gotten. Attorneys argued and had witnesses testify that all money has drug residue on it and that the testing methodology was so sensitive that all money would test positive. Although there was documentation of where the money came from, the district attorney insisted that there was a penalty paid in the form of attorney fees.
The next step is allowing attorneys fees
Not sure how they got around this. I was looking up the hows and whens of a demand for jury trial last month for personal reasons. I came up with you have 10 days from time of plea for criminal cases or time of summons in civil cases to file a demand for jury trial. Glad this is properly settled. I am sure their calculus will come out a little differently when they have 12 rando citizens seeing their shenanigans.
It goes back to how CAF started. Drug smugglers were using high-speed boats to simply outrun the USCG chasing them. So they made a law saying that law enforcement could simply seize any assets involved in the commission of a crime, bypassing a lot of the 4A protections. That way the USCG could just seize the boats, and repurpose them to chasing down the smugglers. And any cash seized could immediately be put to use furthering drug enforcement activities. Since the original victims were international drug smugglers, nobody really cared. And the SCotUS approved it. But it's since experienced mission creep, and has been abused to seize assets of domestic citizens carrying cash, because the cash "might be" from drug activity.
It's a good lesson on why protections like the Bill of Rights need to apply to even the most despicable members of society. "Those people don't deserve protection" is not a good enough reason to rescind those protections. Because once you give the government that power, eventually "those people" will be redefined to include you and me.
❤ I’ve been on jury duty, grand jury duty and an election poll chairperson. Loved every moment.
I'm dumbfounded. NEVER DID I THINK OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING.
I suspect that even as arrogant as many prosecutors are, they lack the hubris to risk taking this theft in front of a jury.
First off, love the shirt. Second off, I live ten minutes from Indiana and I personally refuse to step foot in that state because of the illegal actions of their police forces as a matter of common practice. I truly believe there are good and bad forces everywhere, and good and bad officers within said good and bad forces. Indiana, it is tough to find a good officer. They’re out there, they are tough to find.
Great news! I also would like to see a case go to a jury and set a precedence for punitive damages.
Hooray! Along with Plummer, this is another great ruling toward accountability for government.
Glad to know we still have some clear thinking judges sitting on the bench.
I am onboard with you being the jury foreman and returning the verdict in 3 minutes. It is time for the citizens to be heard about the unjust forfeiture laws
I served on a federal jury a while back. I volunteered to be jury foreman. Quick look around the room, I was sure we were ready for a vote. Boom, boom, done. Took longer to fill out the paperwork than it did to reach our decision.
This is really going to upset a lot of bad Indiana prosecutors and judges. This state is so corrupt
Prosecutors won't go to trial, because every time they do 12 more people will know about civil asset forfeiture.
Steve, could the jury invoke, jury nullification, in one of these cases? Forcing the criminals to stop the seizures, in the first place.
They shouldn't be able to seize it without a trial in the first place.
I wish that that they would broadcast some of these trials because I also would love to see the faces of the reaction to the evidence they will try to introduce to cover for their actions!!
it would be something that a lot of the public would probably be interested in. 👍👍👍🖕
I had no idea that CAF victims weren't entitled to a semblance of a fair trial.
If I were on a jury for civil asset forfeiture, not only would I push for quickly finding in favor of the victim, I'd also see if we could get additional damages. It would be great if the jury came back and was able to award the victim 10x damages, plus all court costs.
The last time I served on jury duty, the judge and prosecutor wouldn't come out and say it, but tried to imply that jury nullification was illegal.
I am one of those that love being on a jury. It is a wonderful duty for one to be selected to perform for your community! One case, we extended our deliberations so we could get lunch brought in.
Was on a criminal trial a while back. Walked into the jury room and set down with the other folk. The bailiff said he was going to get us an urn of coffee and left the room. When he stepped out I asked the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty. Everyone raised their hand. I asked if they would put it in writing, and they all said yes. By the time the bailiff came back I was somehow the foreman, and we were finished with everything. The bailiff said it was the quickest deliberation he had ever seen, and he had just wasted a big pot of coffee for us. We had to sit around for another 30 minutes because the judge and lawyers had all gone for lunch. 🤣🤣
The money was tried by a jury of it's peers and deliberations have been going on for 3 years straight, for some reason the jurors don't respond when asked if they have a verdict!
Hundreds of us were denied jury trial and attorneys during Occupy Portland. State Supreme ruled in our favor.. 2 years later! And these were criminal cases.
I want to see alot more of these jury trials when people's homes get seized for back taxes especially elderly citizens on a fixed income and their homes are paid off. I would be more than happy to sit on the jury of every trial.
If there was ever an argument taking out ads publicizing jury nullification, this is it.
Can confirm if I was on the jury for an unjustified civil asset forfeiture case I’d be asking if we can apply damages. The government needs to be taken to task over this issue.
As a Hoosier with a friend going through law school rn I’ve never shared a video faster. This is awesome
As a Hoosier, I will let you know if I ever get summoned for one of these cases so you can come watch.
I love serving on a jury 😊
The last time I was called to serve, I was sadly sent home 😢
I do use a wheelchair and a service dog. I think this was the reason I was sent home 🤔
Ben hiding in the dark on top of MCL books next to Sheltie Lawyer dog, Steve's RHS
Good finds you’re getting too good at this
@@keithe2150 I'll have to hamstring myself, How about I take my glasses off😊
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 you were just too quick at this I think you have it down to a science. No I am waiting for the time. Steve puts up something the size of a beach towel on the screen so I even stand a remote chance of possibly viewing the hundred dollar bill. Keep doing what you’re doing. I look forward to seeing it or reading about it and I’m sure others do. The only problem would be if you ever won the hundred dollars somebody would probably confiscate it from you and you would have to get a jury to get it back :-)
@@keithe2150 How right you are, and the comments above confirm it.
Have a good day Keith.
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 OK what I’m thinking is that people were so engrossed with the topic that they didn’t bother to come up with a clever answer until they saw the entire video. They were all engrossed in watching what Steve had to say usually people pop in a comment before they could’ve possibly seen the whole video which always usually cross grinds my oats :-)
They gave him his money back after it got publicized AS WELL as the precinct getting threats and other bad phone calls.
So ! It seems we are beset by " Soverign Swine " in Uniform or " Soverign Servants " elected or hired officals . We need an Institute for Justice here in Canada also ; to deal with these Pirates or Weasels . Thank you Mr. Lehto for the heads up . Keep up the Good Fight .
The juries need to be allowed to vote on past cases as well... and if the judges lose they deserve jail time.
As a native of Indiana I am just flabbergasted to hear that we are at the forefront of the fight for the rights of normal people!
Part of the problem if not the whole problem is that police officers and federal agents do not fear the repercussions of stealing from the citizenry.
Hope this opens the door to put it back into the United States Supreme Court that states that civil forfeiture is legal.
As a Hoosier born, raised, and currently residing, this ruling makes me very happy.
God bless the Institute for justice. I just happen to live in Indianapolis and that’s Fantastic.
Needs to be Voted in to Every State of the United States.
The biggest problem is that I, with good conscious, couldn't accept a position on the jury because of my pre-existing feelings on Civil Forfeiture...
I already wanted to serve on a jury so I could vote to acquit someone accused of breaking an unjust law, but now I want it even more.
Just so long as you understand that while the jury is getting picked the police are handing the cash to the feds where the jury trial means nothing.
Once the jury is dismissed after notice that the cash is in federal hands, the local department is given most of that cash back.
Steve if the judicial system in the US finally gets its head out of its posterior and abolishes the absurdity of CAF I will sorely miss the entertainment of watching your posts on the subject, they are hilarious.
It's amazing that congress has not done their due diligence to extremely limit civil assets forfeiture. It appears the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled correctly as every law scholar would agree. Thank you Institute for Justice for standing for people's rights. The Institue for Justice will go down in history books as well as the Indiana Supreme Court
Steve, thank you for educating us on relivant matters concerning the law in our country. You're a good man!
I’m guessing putting the money on trial will go over like a lead balloon to a jury
Thank you. I've made a donation to the Institute for Justice.
Thank you so much Steve for all of your great help with your content at times you are a godsend
This is the EXACT REASON trial by jury must be protected.