Will you get the vaccine?

[fides' Jack]

19 hours ago, Winchester said:

Do you know how civil asset forfeiture works?

I don't.  I'm not answering for Peace, just myself.

52 minutes ago, Didacus said:

OK i ended up getting the second shot on Monday, been feelong like croutons ever since, especially this morning.

Sorry you're not feeling well.  I hope you feel better.

[Winchester]

23 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I don't.  I'm not answering for Peace, just myself.

Using civil asset forfeiture, the government can seize property from anyone without charging them with a crime. They merely need to assert that it was involved in a criminal enterprise. They are not required to show proof. The person from whom the property is taken must prove the property innocent. They have to go through the system of the people who took the property. They have to spend money to do this.

The government can take anything it  wants on a whim. Legally. That means you don't have private property in the US, as far as the government is concerned. 

As for modern taxation, it isn't limited by anything but legislators. Older versions of states, restrained by custom, by justice, or other concepts considered above the state, aren't comparable to the modern state and positive law. The Church has failed to reckon with this properly. Although those in power have always been tempted to corruption there was an appeal to higher authority. There was a notion that all were under God's law. That's dead. There's no limit to taxing power, now. Modern states are no different to marauding bandits. They claim total power over law. Their legislators, executives, and judges are considered the source of law, and the best the people have is to petition (beg, in reality) for a redress of grievances. Of course, the modern state claims sovereign immunity, meaning it can decline to even hear you complaint.

 

Catholics shouldn't be defending modern states. The issue of older versions of the state can be more prickly (weird that if you successfully kill enough people, you go from being a marauder to a ruler, but perhaps that's a moral burden rather than a privilege, and the Catholic approach is to find a way to work with these evils to minimize their predation), but the modern state has clearly designed itself to replace God. 

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

The government can take anything it  wants on a whim. Legally. That means you don't have private property in the US, as far as the government is concerned. 

Right, and that goes back to rights vs privileges.  The state now believes that our "rights" come from the state, which was never intended to be the case.  And the Church condemns that attitude, too.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Winchester said:

Using civil asset forfeiture, the government can seize property from anyone without charging them with a crime. They merely need to assert that it was involved in a criminal enterprise. They are not required to show proof. The person from whom the property is taken must prove the property innocent. They have to go through the system of the people who took the property. They have to spend money to do this.

The government can take anything it  wants on a whim. Legally. That means you don't have private property in the US, as far as the government is concerned. 

Well lets see about this.

1) It is not "on a whim". It must be based upon a belief that the property in question was involved with crime or illegal activity.

2) Two years ago the Supreme Court held that the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment is applicable to civil forfeitures.

So it is simply not true that the "government can take anything that it wants on a whim, legally."

Certainly police officers can lie or otherwise abuse the procedure to confiscate property where there is no purported belief in criminal activity, but that would be an illegal action, and if you google you will find that there are lawsuits pending against officers who have abused the procedures.

3) As you note above, the person from whom the property was seized can prove that his home was not used as a crack-house, the government has to give the property back to it's rightful owner. So it is simply not true that "That means you don't have private property in the US, as far as the government is concerned." What we have is private property ownership that is subject to a condition - the condition being that the private property is proven not to be involved in illegal activity.

Now for the record I do find the procedure troubling and I will be glad to see success in the lawsuits and other actions that have been challenge its constitutionality and practical abuses of it, although your argument that the presence of this procedure and the abuses of it means that the government does not recognize private property utterly fails as noted above.

3 hours ago, Winchester said:

As for modern taxation, it isn't limited by anything but legislators. Older versions of states, restrained by custom, by justice, or other concepts considered above the state, aren't comparable to the modern state and positive law. The Church has failed to reckon with this properly. Although those in power have always been tempted to corruption there was an appeal to higher authority. There was a notion that all were under God's law. That's dead. There's no limit to taxing power, now. Modern states are no different to marauding bandits. They claim total power over law. Their legislators, executives, and judges are considered the source of law, and the best the people have is to petition (beg, in reality) for a redress of grievances. Of course, the modern state claims sovereign immunity, meaning it can decline to even hear you complaint.

You seem to be living in a fantasy-land totalitarian state of some sort. Maybe you do. Are you writing from North Korea by any chance?

You seem to think of  "states" and "governments" as though they are sentient beings that have a mind, will, and capacity to act on their own. Exactly who are the "they" when you write "Modern states are no different to marauding bandits. They claim total power over law"?

The "government" and the "state" that you rail against is composed of actual flesh-and-blood human beings just like me and you. And those flesh-and-blood human beings who comprise the "government" and the "state" serve at the pleasure of the public (you and me). If you don't like them, find other like-minded people like yourself, convince others that they are unworthy of office, and vote them out of office.

It's not like we live in a totalitarian state whereby political officers rule by physical force. You, me, and every other person in a democratic society is the "limiting power" - not the legislators that WE elect. If you want your taxes reduced, vote for someone who pledges to reduce taxes. That is exactly what happened during the Reagan years.

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Peace

[Winchester]

12 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well lets see about this.

1) It is not "on a whim". It must be based upon a belief that the property in question was involved with crime or illegal activity.

 

 

They don't have to prove anything. It's a whim.

[Credo in Deum]

1.) It is a whim.  He's correct. 

2.) Supreme Court also says killing the unborn is a legal so their judgment is questionable in regards to the Constitution.

3.) People can contest but good luck getting your stuff back.  You're the one living in a fantasy if you think people have had any luck getting their stuff back.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

1.) It is a whim.  He's correct. 

2.) Supreme Court also says killing the unborn is a legal so their judgment is questionable in regards to the Constitution.

3.) People can contest but good luck getting your stuff back.  You're the one living in a fantasy if you think people have had any luck getting their stuff back.

Well it ain't exactly to prove that your home ain't a crack-house when you got crack-pipes laying all over the place.

[Credo in Deum]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well it ain't exactly to prove that your home ain't a crack-house when you got crack-pipes laying all over the place.

Do some research, you'd be suprised. 

Here's a fun article about a grandmother's experience with this process.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4633965001

Edited September 9, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, Winchester said:

They don't have to prove anything.

I don't think that's correct. This is right from the Timbs Supreme Court opinion mentioned above:

The State engaged a private law firm to bring a civil suit for forfeiture of Timbs’s Land Rover, charging that the vehicle had been used to transport heroin. After Timbs’s guilty plea in the criminal case, the trial court held a hearing on the forfeiture demand. Although finding that Timbs’s vehicle had been used to facilitate violation of a criminal statute, the court denied the requested forfeiture, observing that Timbs had recently purchased the vehicle for $42,000, more than four times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction.

Also, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Civil forfeiture begins when government suspects that a property is connected with illegal drug activity, and files a civil action:[23]

The government simply files a civil action in rem against the property itself, and then generally must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is forfeitable under the applicable forfeiture statute. Civil forfeiture is independent of any criminal case, and because of this, the forfeiture action may be filed before indictment, after indictment, or even if there is no indictment. Likewise, civil forfeiture may be sought in cases in which the owner is criminally acquitted of the underlying crimes .

. . .

Legislatures played a role as well. Since the 1990s, the number of federal statutes permitting government forfeiture doubled from 200 to 400.[16] In 2000, lawmakers passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, or CAFRA, which stipulated protections for individuals and increased the level of proof required.[16] Critics said that the new guidelines did not require poor persons to have free access to legal services.[16] CAFRA guidelines suggest that if a claimant wins a civil-forfeiture case, that some of the legal fees paid to recover the property are partially payable by the government.[16] CAFRA was supposed to raise government's burden of proof before seizing property.[18] CAFRA meant if government loses a forfeiture challenge, government must pay the victim's attorney costs, but often victims are unaware of this fact, so they fail to hire lawyers thinking the cost will be prohibitive.[18]

And then if you look at the state-by-state table here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#States

You see that almost all of the states require the state to meet an initial standard of proof such as "Prosecutors need to prove by “reasonable satisfaction,” considered to be akin to preponderance of the evidence.[44]" for Alabama.

So I think you are blowing smoke.

13 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Do some research, you'd be suprised. 

I just did. See my post above.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Peace

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

 

So I think you are blowing smoke.

 

Then regard me as a liar and jog on with your ignorant ass.

[Winchester]

2 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Do some research, you'd be suprised. 

Here's a fun article about a grandmother's experience with this process.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4633965001

I should follow your example, but my patience has been ground down by social media.

[Peace]

57 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Then regard me as a liar and jog on with your ignorant ass.

I don't think you are a liar, just severely uninformed and incorrect in what you wrote. You wrote that no proof is required but that is patently wrong.

Have a nice day.

[chrysostom]

In a certain Canadian diocese you will now have to show your vax card to get into all Masses. They will keep lists of attendees and it may be requested by the government, per the bishop's statement. No vax, no Mass.

I certainly hope this won't be happening in my town.

[Winchester]

9 hours ago, chrysostom said:

In a certain Canadian diocese you will now have to show your vax card to get into all Masses. They will keep lists of attendees and it may be requested by the government, per the bishop's statement. No vax, no Mass.

I certainly hope this won't be happening in my town.

It's a shame there's no pyre happy government to turn the bishop over to after trying him in an inquisition.

What a scumbag.

[Didacus]

13 hours ago, chrysostom said:

In a certain Canadian diocese you will now have to show your vax card to get into all Masses. They will keep lists of attendees and it may be requested by the government, per the bishop's statement. No vax, no Mass.

I certainly hope this won't be happening in my town.

Now that the happy canadiens re-elected Trudeau-Traitor, you can expect far worse in Canada.

Canada no longer belomgs to Canadiens.  The nation is already dead.