UnCivil Asset Forfeiture

A Prominent Progressive Media Outlet Supports State Abuse So Long As The Target is the Correct One

“It’s not Hypocrisy, You’re Just Powerless”

-

N.S. Lyons

The year was 1987, Cold War raging strong, the Iron Lady was reelected by the Brits and across the pond Iran-Contra scandal-ridden Ronald Reagan gave one of the ballsiest and most significant speeches in history. (It was also a year of great music) Raging during this period too was the War on Drugs, largely supported and expanded greatly thanks to a certain Delaware Senator.

Thomas Lopes, the 28 year old son of Frances and Joseph Lopes, was busted for growing marijuana in the backyard of his parents Maui home, where he also lived. Since it was his first offense, he was given somewhat of a slap on the wrist; probation, a fine, and mandatory visits to a shrink. That was all enough to keep him from growing marijuana again.

But it wasn’t enough to keep the State off the backs of his parents.

A few years later, in 1991, law enforcement knocked on the door of the Lopes home. After requesting to enter the home on the condition they explain why they were there in the first place, they indicated to the Lopes family that they were seizing the house. The State were claiming they had the legal right to seize properties involved in the growing, production, or distribution of drugs and they recalled via a records search that the Lopes home had been previously the site of a “marijuana grow house.” Hawaii at the time had a statute of limitations of five years, and this had been year number four.

This is one of the many egregious examples of what is called civil asset forfeiture law. Civil asset forfeiture originated with English Common Law, and specifically the Navigation Acts that were the law of the land in 17th Century British-controlled Colonial America. These acts, many of which were intended to combat piracy or tax/customs evasion and allowed the State to seize the ships and all the property contained inside the ships if the operators were simply suspected of piracy or smuggling. Civil asset forfeiture continued to be used and abused all across the history of the United States with significant expansions on size, scope, and absurdity during the Progressive-driven Prohibition on alcohol.

With Prohibition long in the rear window, civil asset forfeiture was supersized in the 1980s and 1990s during the War on Drugs. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 allowed the State to retain and use the proceeds from seized assets creating a perverted financial incentive and way for many jurisdictions to add an additional “revenue” source. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 went even more off a cliff by allowing the State to seize assets when the owner was not even charged, in a court of law, with a crime, instead only the suspicion of such a crime was needed. The US Department of Justice describes the practice as “designed to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes, to break the financial backbone of organized criminal syndicates and drug cartels, and to recover property that may be used to compensate victims and deter crime.”

Ultimately, in many jurisdictions *cough, Kamala Harris’ California, cough*, civil asset forfeiture laws creates a “guilty until proven innocent” and “f**k due process” environment. The State can seize one’s property simply on the suspicion, always from their view of course, and regardless of evidence, of a crime. And it’s up to the person not-charged to prove in the court of law, often with the need of an attorney of their innocence in order to get their property back.

Egregious cases of civil asset forfeiture are a dime, but not a dozen. It’s not hard to find these stores in sites such as Reason, the ACLU, and from excellent (ahem,

Jeff Charles

) Substackers¹. Even the Editorial Board of The Los Angeles Times aren’t fans. Civil libertarians have long called for abolishment on the argument the practice is an abuse of government authority and is unconstitutional. Progressives/leftists (spoiler alert: terms and conditions apply), often with an eye for the underrepresented and marginalized too are fierce critics of civil asset forfeiture but so are the people who are often their ideological foes, the “law and order” conservatives.

One outlet with a keen eye for the abuses of civil asset forfeiture and who is not afraid to wield their bat in any direction so long as it’s guided by principles is was The New Republic. Being one of the most well known left-leaning/progressive magazines in the US, this outlet naturally picked a bone with Trump’s original pick for Attorney General Jeff Sessions who which they remind readers was even deplored by fellow Conservatives over his atrocious civil asset forfeiture record. The New Republic, rightfully gave hell to the Nobles of their own side including the current President and Vice President. This same publication even called on the US Supreme Court to “rein in” civil asset forfeiture back in 2018.

Well, times have changed over at The New Republic, who have in recent years become completely captured by the secular cult of Climate Catastrophism. Much like any cult, there are the “good” people of the flock who is in this case current believers of ClimateCatastrophismNPC.exe as well as members of anointed groups they label as Noble Victims. But contrasting these bundles of goodness are the evil oppressors. The believers often entrench themselves in the Drama Triangle claiming the role as saviors saving victims against oppressors (often Big Oil, Capitalism, old white men, “drivers” etc). Paradoxically, these saviors often end up taking the role as persecutors with both those they perceive as victims and the bona fide victims (not in the drama triangle) be damned.

And this is precisely what The New Republic is doing here with (seriously) endorsing civil asset forfeiture so long as its done to the (in)correct person/collective.

The article opens with the usual question and subtle entry into the common critiques of civil asset forfeiture such as asking, “how easy should it be for cops to steal things from you?” They describe the concept, to their credit, in a highly condensed, yet information-dense first paragraph, writing of the absurdity and inherent injustice of the concept, “the state doesn’t need a criminal conviction, criminal charges, or even an arrest. If the police have reasonable grounds to believe that your car is linked to alleged criminal activity, they can seize it. That’s even true if the suspected crime had nothing to do with you…”

And in that paragraph they mention this month’s Supreme Court ruling in Culley v. Marshall which let’s just say was a setback for advocates of civil asset forfeiture reformation and/or abolishment. In other words, it would have been something, in another era at The New Republic (TRP), something their writers would have proudly criticized.

But that’s not what happened.

“This is clearly an inequitable system,” they admit yet they immediately add the caveat, “but what if it were directed at worthy targets?”

Said worthy targets, in their Cluster-B fueled minds, include “dangerous fossil fuel infrastructure” owned by “Big Oil companies.” The authors accuse these utter degenerates of “generating the majority of all greenhouse gas emissions,” and for “defrauding the public to block climate action,” and to add insult to injury, they allegedly knew about these negative effects all along. The list of crimes is long, from “vast property destruction and countless deaths” to “children burned alive in Maui” and “heatstroke victims in the Pacific Northwest Heat Dome.”

The TRP authors even back off from their initial criticism both at the beginning of article and in their past articles on the practice essentially whitewashing the entire history of the practice with a heavy dose of revisionist history insisting it “was introduced to help law enforcement officials thwart large-scale criminal enterprises—the FBI describes it as a tool that targets “criminal organizations” and “terrorists” in order to “disrupt, dismantle, and deter those who prey on the vulnerable for financial gain.” But then they switch back to a long laundry list of instances when the practice was abused insisting that when applied “in these ways” civil asset forfeiture “is profoundly unjust.”

So, they demand, with another season of wildfires approaching along with other bugaboos associated by the deranged as part of their cult such as heat waves and hurricanes that The State seize all the property of those they don’t like. “After all” they vomit, “the ostensible purpose of the criminal law, and of tools like civil forfeiture, is to keep us safe.”

Does this seem like a blatant act of hypocrisy? Oh well dear reader, you’re perhaps assuming Team Progressive, well known for this behavior are playing by the same rules as us normal people are.

"It's Not Hypocrisy, You're Just Powerless" by N.S. Lyons explores the idea that what appears to be hypocrisy by (supposedly) powerful groups (or poseurs) such as these New Republic snobs is actually a demonstration of their power and control. Lyons argues that the perceived double standards in behavior between different groups are not simply hypocrisy but a reflection of a deeper power dynamic where those such as the New Republic snobs can set and enforce rules as they see fit without consequence. This disparity leaves those unable to hold Class A accountable which reinforces that power structure. The notion of a neutral arbiter maintaining fairness is a fallacy, Lyons argues. Historically, what seemed like fairness was merely a result of a more balanced power dynamic. In contemporary times, this group’s dominance allows them to dictate acceptable behavior and avoid repercussions, while those viewed outside this group remains subject to strict scrutiny and punishment.

1. Innocent Until Proven Broke: How Cops Can Legally Steal Your Property