Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    The ***hat Solicitor General Thomas Fisher was appointed in 2005, by then-governor Mitch Daniels.

    But I agree that we should give Holcomb an earful, since I assume the ***hat serves at his pleasure.

    EDIT: Apparently, "***hat" doesn't get filtered. So, I self-filtered.
    You can say ass on the internet, which includes INGO. You just can’t put it together with certain words, like “hole”. If you self-filtered that (***hole) people could at least know what you’re saying.
    I have spoken.
    If you’re woke you dig it.

  2. #22
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I will withhold stating my direct opinion of the current (and only one Indiana has ever had) Solicitor General. I will say that I'm not surprised he's making the argument that he is making.

    Generally, that position was created in 2005 for no apparent reason other than to hire a Solicitor General. I'm not sure anyone else was even considered, even people with more experience arguing in front of the state and federal appellate courts.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  3. #23
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Well if the state had not had a Solicitor General until 2005 when a position was created maybe the position needs to be eliminated entirely and the forfeitures can be handled on a local level by the county sheriff such as the tax collection system is currently.
    Eating beavers just to help save trees.

  4. #24
    Grandmaster HoughMade's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ingomike View Post
    The states better tread lightly on this as the SCOTUS has already indicated they have no love for civil forfeiture...
    Nope. They simply stated that the 8th Amendment applied. There now has to be a proportionality analysis. Assuming proportionality, they did not disapprove of civil forfeiture.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    I'm not sure anyone else was even considered, even people with more experience arguing in front of the state and federal appellate courts.


    I have a ton​ of experience arguing in front of the state and federal courts. There was this one homeless dude in Hammond who hung out in front of both courthouses and he'd always start up with the "y'know, the civil war really wasn't about slavery"...and you KNOW I couldn't let that go.
    ​Bullies suck. They also make you stronger.

  5. #25
    Sharpshooter Mikey1911's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by HoughMade View Post
    Nope. They simply stated that the 8th Amendment applied. There now has to be a proportionality analysis. Assuming proportionality, they did not disapprove of civil forfeiture.



    I have a ton​ of experience arguing in front of the state and federal courts. There was this one homeless dude in Hammond who hung out in front of both courthouses and he'd always start up with the "y'know, the civil war really wasn't about slavery"...and you KNOW I couldn't let that go.
    You can argue in front of the court, or you can argue before the Court, right?
    Brother, you asked for it!—Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia

  6. #26
    Grandmaster Denny347's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyDave1776 View Post
    I recall the original argument for asset forfeiture being the supposed problems caused by drug kingpins having so much money they could run most any jurisdiction actually enforcing the laws broke in court before getting to trial and conviction. This was also the argument behing setting the bar so low on proof that for all practical purposes there is no bar. Of course we were assured that this would only be used in extreme cases on top tier drug dealers with incomes exceeding INGO's combined income by an order of magnitude--not too different from the **** we were fed about a SWAT team being needed by every department with enough ogficers to assemble one.

    As for the lottery fraudster, as I recall he knew someone on the inside who told him where the roll went with a high-dollar scratch off winner, so he went to the little burg where this relatively big winner went and bought tickets till he got to the winner.
    Who set the bar? It's a Civil Forfeiture case, heard in Civil Court. Civil trial law sets the bar.
    On the other side of fear lies freedom.

  7. #27
    Mickey Mantle Trigger Time's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by HoughMade View Post
    Nope. They simply stated that the 8th Amendment applied. There now has to be a proportionality analysis. Assuming proportionality, they did not disapprove of civil forfeiture.



    I have a ton​ of experience arguing in front of the state and federal courts. There was this one homeless dude in Hammond who hung out in front of both courthouses and he'd always start up with the "y'know, the civil war really wasn't about slavery"...and you KNOW I couldn't let that go.
    So you always play devils advocate on issues?
    Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country. - President John F. Kennedy

  8. #28
    Just one happy gunner happygunner's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    They need to update the speed limit anyways to a minimum of 40mph and get rid of any 30mph road. And any wide, multilane roads that stretches for 10mi needs to be 60mph not 50mph.

  9. #29
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny347 View Post
    Who set the bar? It's a Civil Forfeiture case, heard in Civil Court. Civil trial law sets the bar.
    I'm of the school of thought that the following represents the bar for any seizure of personal property (whether it is renamed "civil forfeiture" or otherwise):

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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."

  10. #30
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Heya chip,

    I'm not sure that actually helps. In civil court, the standard is (generally) proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. That is, it must be proven - but only barely more likely - that the forfeited item is linked to criminal activity. (These are broad brushstrokes.)

    The 4A that you quote dictates only probable cause. That is a standard easier to meet (but a bit higher than reasonable articulable suspicion). "Probably" is easier to prove than "more than likely."

    Maybe something more like, "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge