from Asset Forfeiture
Policy Manual 2021


I. Guidelines for Planning for Seizure and Restraint
A. Background
The Department of Justice (Department) Asset Forfeiture Program (Program) encompasses the
seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal
crimes. The Program has four primary goals:
(1) Punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used in or acquired
through illegal activities.
(2) Promote and enhance cooperation among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law
enforcement agencies.
(3) Recover assets that may be used to compensate victims when authorized under federal law.
(4) Ensure that the Program is administered professionally, lawfully, and in a manner consistent
with sound public policy

II. Payment of Attorneys’ Fees in Criminal Forfeiture Cases
A. Defendant’s attorneys’ fees
The defendant in a criminal forfeiture action may file for an award of attorneys’ fees only under
the Hyde Amendment.4 A motion for fees and costs filed in a civil forfeiture case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2465(b) cannot include fees and costs incurred in even a directly related criminal proceeding.5
To prevail on a Hyde Amendment claim, the defendant must prove that: (1) the defendant was the
prevailing party in the underlying action; (2) the government’s position was vexatious, frivolous, or in
bad faith; and (3) there are no special circumstances that would make the award unjust.6
This burden
is heavier than the one the government must meet under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA

this is one of the primary reasons i don't care for sports in general.


Ever see anyone get penalized for being in the freethrow lane in basketball?


Section VI—Offensive Three-Second Rule

An offensive player shall not remain for more than three seconds in that part of his free throw lane between the endline and extended 4’ (imaginary) off the court and the farther edge of the free throw line while the ball is in control of his team.
https://official.nba.com/rule-no-10-violations-and-penalties/


me neither.


but back to this, the trouble is it's really just whatever the fuck the ref feels like, not what really happened

Um, no. Leaving if you're unhappy you lost a political fight or election is absolutely not how democracies work. If it was, why aren't Republicans all moving right now?

No, they didn't. Being Christian doesn't equate to wanting to outlaw abortion. Most Americans are Christian, and a vast majority say they want abortion to be legal when asked. You're logic fails to recognize that some Christians don't believe in forcing their beliefs on others, and many only kind of believe, only when it's convenient, and limiting their options could feasibly hurt them.

No contraception is perfect, lack of sex ed in Texas means many don't even know how pregnancy works before being sexually active. Also I haven't heard of exceptions for rape or incest. These people have no option to use contraception, which fails far too often.
Also, I believe no person should be forced to be an unwilling biological life support system for another, certainly not for just a potential human, absolutely not children under any circumstances.


No, Shit Sherlock, it is not how it works in most of the world, certainly not in the developed world, are you under the impression that abortions only happen in America? Do you think people will accept sex only to procreate?
Access to multiple methods of terminating unwanted pregnancy are how it works across the world, because abstinence is insanely unrealistic and there's no even near perfect birth control without terminations when the main methods fail, which happens between .1% for the implant (the best, but with restrictions, and side effects and problems with having it implanted for 3 years) and >27% for the contraceptive sponge in women who've had a child ...typical methods like the pill fails 7%, condoms 13%, diaphragms 17%, many others in the >20% range. None of those numbers are acceptable when you're talking about an unwanted child without a secondary method with a 100% success rate.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm

If women around the world didn't rely on secondary methods when primary ones fail, which they often do, they would only have sex for procreation and everyone would be exponentially more frustrated and angry. Not a reasonable or feasible solution.

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

in space? I think gravity is the primary instigator here, so in space you'd need to do this under intense acceleration or in a centrifuge to get similar results. it's just taking a really long awkward way to fall:)

probably because the Paoli pneumatic wheel guns cost ~$7,000. (pit crew has 8 of them, primary and backup per wheel)
Couldn't find a modern price for the wheel nuts, but they're 1-time use and were a few hundred dollars each 10-years ago.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

So weird seeing people disagree with you and offering various examples of marriages that contradict your blanket statements and then you go off spouting shit about subjective pitfalls some minority still experience after being married as if those outcomes are the only possible outcomes or even the norm.
What you two mean to say is DIVORCE is win win for the woman and lose lose for the man, still dead wrong but at least it's the point you two are trying to make.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's neither in no fault states.

It's asinine of you two to assume the man always has more assets, and more earning power. It's maybe true on average but it's trending away from that, and it's absolutely not in every instance.

My brother won. He got full custody and child support. No alimony for either. In Texas, a non no fault state where the woman is assumed to be the primary child raising parent.

Really, you still think most women don't work? Are you still living in the 1960's? My wife works, has since before we met in 92. I retired in early 2000's. If we divorced, I would get alimony.

I've known plenty of women who lost in marriage, not sure where you come up with that, and for over 1/2 the population, divorce is 50/50 split of marital assets, no winner.

It's only men in fault states who caused the dissolution of the marriage or don't fight for custody that get screwed as you describe. Most of us tossed out the system you describe decades ago. Most of us understand that while women still get paid less for the same work, that's no guarantee she makes less than her husband. As for "marrying up".... plenty of men do that too. Even if your significant other is a homemaker, they contribute enormously to the marriage, at one point they determined the jobs a homemaker does would cost over $80 K per year if you hired people.

With your opinion about women and marriage, I doubt you need to worry about the kind of woman who would marry you. The ones who accept the outdated misogynistic patriarchal mindset you show aren't the ones with much to offer, the desperate and insecure who will take whoever accepts them. They might resemble the women in your descriptions. Treat women better and you'll attract better women.

What makes you think you are some prize that only a near perfect woman would be acceptable to? It sure sounds like you're alone now. How is making the perfect the enemy of the great working for you?

Again, many states have changed the law to no fault, 50/50 splits with no prenup. Hard to be more fair. You complain about issues most Americans evolved out of.

Aaaaahahahaha!!!!!! A clip from the primaries!?! Bwaaaahahahaha!

She's still getting >9 black votes for every one Trump gets.

Seems they didn't forget how Trump says he sees them...as murderers, rapists, muggers, and terroristic thugs that all deserve the death penalty.

Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself? Such a child.

Yeah, I can only say for certain what has happened here. Most doctors that run private practices and are rated well slowly started transitioning to either a service that charges a large amount of money per patient per year, in addition to insurance, or they simply posted on their website they no longer accept insurance. They call it direct primary care, like you pay a fee per month.

https://reason.com/video/doctors-direct-primary-care/

My doctor joined a concierge service called MDVIP. I just checked and he lowered his rates to 1,800 per year per patient. Whether you go or not. He was a great doctor, but I refuse to pay 3600 per year for my wife and me to see a doctor. Not when they will bill our insurance as well for any actual visits/treatments.

Instead we had to switch to Austin Regional Clinic, who has an amazing lab and bloodwork team, but the doctor situation is as I mentioned before. There is no feeling that I have a personal doctor. Usually they schedule me with whichever one is available or a PA. Every time I have to re-list what meds I am on and what existing conditions I have because they don't remember. You would think they could look at a chart, but they are so busy every time. It's like sex in high school, in, out, and thanks for coming.

We've tried some others, even a few private practices, but none have been up to par. All of them seem to be super busy and have trimmed their staff to the bone.

If the ACA isn't changed or doesn't go away, I don't see it getting any better.

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

I hearken back to the ACA, it would never have passed in a split congress. But it did because it was a perfect storm of all dem leadership and I still have issues with some of it. Without going too deep, the ACA has seriously fucked up my life as many family doctors in my area simply gave up and went full concierge (or just started refusing insurance). So now my options are to go to a clinic with no primary doctor or go back to my family doctor and pay 2k per year on top of insurance.

The same thing could happen to guns if the dems take both houses and the presidency. At the very least it ends in a return to the ban of 96 and is likely to be far worse. I support some gun control, but 80% of what they are suggesting is no bueno with me. Are these phantom fears? Possibly, but I trust the dems about as far as I can throw one in regards to gun control.

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

JavaScript has been my primary language for the past few years, mainly using React (front-end) and Node (back-end).

For the decade+ prior to that, my primary language was PHP, with my first big project being the building of VideoSift.

Before that, my main focus in all my personal projects was C++, but I never built anything professionally with it.