Eric Holder: no more civil forfeiture without warrant/charges

Originally published at:


Theeere it is.


Holy fuck. The feds are actually moving away from massive governmental overreach (that should be considered a blatant 4th Amendment violation)?

Welcome to Bizarro-USA.


A sudden gust of sanity, and a nice parting gift from AG Holder.


Where’s my option to support some radical who supports the poor lost 4th? The most damaged and in need of repair of the bill of rights. I know what idiots to vote for or give money to if I feel the 2nd is in jeopardy, everyone claims to love the 1st, though nearly all of them only mean one half or the other, or are outright lying about it. But the most important one of all, in terms of actually protecting me from the Government, you know those guys with guns cops, predator drones and courts? That one is without champions.

Bush decided he could keep a citizen indefinitely without charging him, so we voted for Obama, who decided he can kill you if his secret court[1] says its OK by them. Ron Paul? The support of 4th amendment rights and keeping us out of endless foreign wars is limited to the lunatic fringe? HELP!
Perhaps if we choose our representation through a free election? That might make a difference, I hear they can in some places, even in this country.
Don’t have that choice here, just go pull the protest lever every so often. (The blue one, thanks to redistricting money and lack of qualified, or even actual candidates the blue lever is just to remind those people you don’t agree, but the outcome was decided in the red primary, mostly by back room deals and autocrats.)


Why is Holder plural?

Because you’ve had one too many!


Part of me wants to believe AG Holder is doing this to head off a possible civil rights conflict between police and the public, but the cynical side wants to know who bought him and why.

US Politics: If it seems too good to be true, it’s a cover for something even worse.


But how will police departments afford their margarita machines now? /sarcasm
Christ, finally. Any kind of movement in a positive direction on this issue has been long overdue. Hopefully this is but a first step in fully reforming the unconstitutional cluster fuck that is civil asset forfeiture.


A layer or two of collective blindness about inequality and rights violations on a grand scale was beginning to lift across the nation. Perhaps the doj sees that coming and wants to be a little preemptive; plus, it probably doesn’t hurt that it’s Obama’s last 2 years and he feels it’s safe to throw us some trinkets of justice.

1 Like

Until I saw that states could still legally steal stuff from people they didn’t like I though this was an early April fools story.

I live in Philadelphia which ranks number one in at civil forfeiture. They often try to take peoples houses… My only thought is that the Feds want to crack down just because someone is getting more out of it then them.


I never want to discourage cynicism, but I can’t see who would be able to buy the Attorney General, and also want to. Civil Forfeiture is generally used against people who have money but no political clout. Imagine if the cops seized the Koch brothers’ cars and boats - I think it would not go well for them.


The US - where the police/state can kill you and rob your stuff without repercussion. Must be this freedom stuff americans can’t keep their mouths shut about.


We need more than a gust. How about a full-force gale to clear things out?

1 Like

I agree, I can’t imagine who or what is driving this change. Politicians always act in their own self-interest, full stop. This is just completely contrary to how I’ve expected the DOJ to operate.

What gives, Holder? Amnesia? Gypsy curse? Invasion of the Body Snatchers?!


Not true. It is true only when there’s no way to enforce that they do what you elect them to do, which is in practice not a difficult problem to solve. Not unlike with other jobs, you shouldn’t need to do something blatantly illegal to get fired if you aren’t fulfilling your job description as it was agreed upon.

In nearly every representative and parliamentary democracy their only obligation currently is to “hold the office”, and do it however they (and their associates) like to.

1 Like

OK, with the possible exception of my state representative, every politician I’ve dealt with from 3rd Dog Catcher on up the chain has been completely incompetent at best, with a mean average of “On the Make.” How would you suggest enforcing an elected official serve the public instead of Big Business? Bonus points if you can mention specific state statutes.

Is that a joke?

You’ve got to make it part of the charter of your organization - state, town, whatever. In the US, being a government has traditionally meant that the offices are representational in some abstract way, but only answer to a hierarchical authority structure. This allows them to say that they are operating under the authority of the citizens, when they have no intention of doing so. The fix is to charter governmental bodies which based upon delegation instead of representation. Delegates are beholden to do exactly what you elected them for - or they’re fired.

For example, check out the Zapatista-style government of Chiapas. The whole idea of direct-democracy like this is that people are not so gullible as to automatically assume that officials will do what they promise. Also, note that this government of Chiapas is not a state-sanctioned thing, they are autonomous and do this despite the Mexican government’s interference.


Spot on.