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

I'm part way there. In government buildings, city parks, etc., sure -- take 'em down. State flags incorporating the confederate flag? Yeah. Probably time to change.

Civil war battlefields / memorials? Leave 'em up. Stone Mountain? Leave it. Placards noting that these people fought for the wrong side, for wrong reasons (90% of which boils down to slavery) can / should be included. Make it clear that the efforts of these people to try to keep slavery around were evil and wrong.

I've seen it noted that there are no monuments to Hitler in Germany. True, but reminders of the terrible Nazi legacy remain, in Germany and elsewhere. Concentration camps remain, still standing as a reminder of the human capacity for evil. Nazi flags, logos, and equipment remain in museums.

In China, images and monuments to Mao are everywhere. In spite of the fact that even the Communist Party there admits that his policies and actions were terrible -- the devastating Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc. Some Chinese can remember and celebrate the good that Mao did (perhaps a small list) while simultaneously acknowledging his extremely tarnished legacy.


I think that being very quick to say that ALL people on the Confederate side of the Civil War were evil and wrong while their counterparts in the Union were clearly the "real Americans" is entirely too easy. The CSA was founded almost entirely in support of a very evil primary goal -- to keep slavery around. But the people in it, even the people running it, were different from the people on the other side mainly due to accidents of birth location. They fought for what they thought was necessary / right. They were wrong. But, they were real Americans -- and acknowledging that they could have been wrong in that way reminds us that the potential to end up on the wrong side of history also exists for us.

The primary goal of the NSC is to prevent the reactor complex from leaking radioactive material into the environment and the secondary goal is to allow a future partial demolition of the old structure.

I hope you don't feel like that I'm pushing anything onto you. I'd like to just present the facts. I wasn't vegan until I turned 33, so I'm certainly not judging or trying to give out this information in order to put anyone down or elevate myself. I'm not trying to troll, I'm not trying to out-do you. I'm also typing this with limited time, so apologies if some of it sounds frank. (The videos below do a better job than me anyway).

1) A proper plant based diet makes it 8 times less likely for cancer cells to grow. There is a reason why 3rd world countries (that have largely plant based diets due to poverty) don't get cancers us westerners have. Also the #1 killer in the western world is cardiovascular disease, in the US alone one person dies every 8 seconds from it. Which is around 400, 000 people a year.

I know you're sceptical. I was too. So here's some actual science from actual doctors, who have come these conclusions on proper peer reviewed and non biased / industry funded research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZtPGyLaiHE1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw4


2)Vegans aren't anti-choice, they are pro life, pro planet. The actions of people eating animal products goes way further than a person choosing to eat something(sure they are typically ignorant of the consequences, as most of pre-vegans were too). When a large portion of the planet chooses to eat animal products it effects everyone, because it's destroying the planet through global warming, deforestation, dumping of animal agriculture waste and so on. It kills more animals than just ones being brutalised in cages. It will eventually kill us too. To me it seems like a bad idea to destroy the only place in the universe that we can currently live.
So by eating animal products you're really making a choice for you, for me, for my hypothetical grandchildren, and of course for the animal that almost certainly wants to keep being alive. So as a vegan I'd like you refrain for making choices that impact my life, and I'm standing up for the voiceless animals who would certainly object to your choice too.

3) As you (hopefully) saw in at least one of the videos above, there is nothing in meat which cannot be obtained from a plant source (and without all of the bad stuff that comes with meat).



Your idea of a farm with humanely raised animals is a good start, but it's just not practical, the earth isn't big enough to meet demand. It's also still highly unethical as you still kill the animals at an early age in order to harvest their flesh.

You have a picture of two dogs in your avatar. I'm sure if someone decided to schedule their lives to end early for any reason, let alone to eat them, you'd find that pretty immoral right? You no doubt treat your dogs very well, but that doesn't make it OK to kill when they reach adolescence. If I said I wanted to eat your dogs (I don't of course) then any reason you came up with applies still to any farm animals that you currently feel fine with eating.

The animals also aren't stupid and they're aware of what's going on. My grandparents owned a massive farm with cows/pigs/rabbits/chickens and crops as well. They were living very comfortable lives as far as farm animals go, but they did not like it when you approached them, they knew what was waiting for them.
When you see typical farm animals that are truly free this is what they look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIF3BYBXZWA
They behave like pets, even cows kick a ball around.

Also cows milk is only created for when the cow is pregnant. Even if the cow is living in cow utopia, if it is getting milked then that's milk that should have gone to a calf. It was most likely artificially impregnated, and also most likely bought from someone that breeds female cows, and kills the male cows (since you only need one bull to harvest the semen).
When you really think about it, even the best treated animals are being breed and used to make someone money as the primary goal. That is immoral.



So what it really comes down to is taste. The ethics, the environmentalism, the health don't play a role in the debate at all, and hopefully one of those things is important to you, perhaps all 3.

Being animal product free isn't as hard as you think, it's as simple as swapping out a few ingredients here and there. It's not all about eating broccoli and kale. You'll still be eating burritos, burgers, pizzas, pastas, curries etc. Just slightly different and before you know it, you'll barely know the difference, and eventually prefer them that way.

And this is probably the part I found the hardest to believe myself, but once I knew about it, veganism became the easiest thing in the world. Taste is completely influenced by the foods you eat, because of brain chemistry. I thought I could never stop eating two things: cheese and chocolate. After about a month of not eating them (and yes it takes a little bit of effort towards the 3 week mark) you will break the dopamine effect in your brain and you'll never want to eat them again. I can eat vegan cheese and dairy free chocolate, but it does absolutely nothing for me these days. This is coming from someone that wouldn't eat regular chocolate, I had to have the good stuff, everyday. The cravings get pretty intense at the 3 week mark, I won't lie, but then one day you realise you've not had the cravings for several days.
When it comes to meats, even if they are well done, all I can smell is oil and blood. Eggs all I smell is sulphur. I find all of that quite repugnant and I see them for what they really are, rather than what my dopamine recepters tell me.

Now of course you can be unhealthy vegan, and eat all of the oreos, chips, and dairy free chocolate you want. That's up to you, either way the planet and animals don't care which way you go about it

I think the bigger issue is not with difference in the facility that's housing inmates, it's the inmates themselves. That and the difference in the number of inmates being housed.

Prisons in America are filled with the closest that human beings can be to wild animals where their primal instincts guide most of their actions at all times. It's a cultural problem, in that such people are also like that before going to prison, so if they were placed into a luxurious retreat as shown in this video, it wouldn't work except with a small subset of prisoners.

Wild animals don't care much about being civil or civilized because that would mean demonstrating weakness, and a man in that position cannot afford to be made to look weak (as Mr. Woltz kind of said in The Godfather).

The primary goal of most prisoners in America with relation to everyone around them is to ensure they are perceived as tough. That means 10 prisoners sharing a living area will only be peaceful as long as it takes for someone to feel someone else is looking at them in a manner they dislike or until one guy bumps into another or one guy simply wants to assert his dominance as an alpha male by beating or shanking or raping another guy.

I don't think American prisoners need to be caged and punished like animals, just that when violent American criminals are being imprisoned, what you're doing in most cases is caging animals, regardless of how well or poorly the cage is designed.

@chingalera

Your delusion as to what the fuck police are baffles me. Here, we have a video clearly showing not only the cops are NOT using excessive force, be it physical or tazer, doing everything in their power to actually resolve this situation in a manor that is civil up to and including explaining why they did what they did ALL THE WHILE not releasing the information of what the girl did to keep it private (likely, there was a warrent issued for her arrest for something she did OFF camera), and yet you're still claiming to the "gun totin' bullies" schtick.

I could cite thousands of examples of police officers doing their jobs correctly, and I take PERSONAL offense to the notion that A) "All cops are cocksuckers" and B) "All cops are felons". Why? Mostly because, unlike you, I actually know quite a few personally. Including my Father, and step mother.

Lets go ahead and actually skip a shitload of the easy shit, like the fact my step mother is (and for the past almost 9 years has been) the President of an optimist group, whose primary goal is to raise funding for underprivileged children and give them access to things like sports, and in some cases educational scholorships.

Lets graze over the fact that my dad and a good deal of my own local police officers actually put on not one, but two musicals (Caught in the Act / Caught in the act II) to raise money for Charity (the womens Y, and unfortunately I can't remember the other one).

Hell, we'll even skip the time I was in DETROIT, and while on the highway blew a tire and needed to pull over to the side of the road to change it, only to have a police officer see this going the opposite direction, get off the highway, and then back ON the highway, so he could park behind us and keep his lights on so that we remained safe while doing so.

Lets focus on the fact that you're citing one example of you. Where a friend apparently was in too deep a sleep, or drugged up to answer a phone call from the people she's now paying to call the police when the alarm system goes off and they can't reach her.

They then show up, and either you, or somehow she, answers the door and lets them in, only to seemingly be a rude prick about it, and one of you winds up getting yourself arrested. Your entire post on the subject is incredibly vague (yes, I'm sure the fact that you said the cops sunglasses make you nervous was the exact reason you had whatever happen to you happen.) And yet, you still have the gall to maintain that the entire problem is with the people who did their jobs right in the first place. (You know, showing up to a distress call about a home that may be broken in to)

Also, if you're referring to those of us who actually maintain that the police aren't all the devil in bullet proof vests with badges as "cunts who are afraid to show their asses", you're once again wrong. I've stopped voicing my opinion on the matter, it typically goes nowhere. I'll cite law, you'll cite something crazily in some form of gibberish, and at the end of the day, neither person has made progress.

You want to voice your opinion, fine. I'll stay in the shadows and save both of us a lot of time arguing back and forth. DO NOT drag my family's honour through the mud by insinuating that part of it is somehow the bane of the earth because my Dad and Stepmom signed onto a group of people "To serve and protect" the damned community.

We be humans, baby. Not equations. We are a messy set of conflicting urges and needs, lizard brain versus frontal cortex (or whatever, I don't know my brain anatomy and don't care to do the research to get this statement exactly correct.)

Men and women both.


>> ^Murgy:

>> ^bareboards2:
Good lord, as women we can't get away from what guys want. It should ONLY be what the women want to do.
I live in a town where "dressing up" everyday is frowned upon.

Here in-lies the flaw in attempting to promote the concept of personal choice by actively supporting the opposite of the current status quo in a given situation, whatever that may be.
If achieving an alternative to a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.
If promoting the concept of personal choice in a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.
If maintaining the current status quo in a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.
One can not have multiple primary goals, and to combine them creates an argument that is not only contradictory, but is less than the sum of it's parts.

>> ^bareboards2:

Good lord, as women we can't get away from what guys want. It should ONLY be what the women want to do.

I live in a town where "dressing up" everyday is frowned upon.


Here in-lies the flaw in attempting to promote the concept of personal choice by actively supporting the opposite of the current status quo in a given situation, whatever that may be.

If achieving an alternative to a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

If promoting the concept of personal choice in a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

If maintaining the current status quo in a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

One can not have multiple primary goals, and to combine them creates an argument that is not only contradictory, but is less than the sum of it's parts.

My claim is that there is insufficient data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (within reason, say BMI < 40) and negative health consequences when controlling for other known detrimental behaviors and health risk factors. That said, there is certainly an interaction effect whereas a higher BMI can tend to exacerbate underlying health issues/comorbidities. That is, it is erroneous to look at a fat person and tell them that they are necessarily unhealthy without having a more nuanced understanding of their overall health, other risk factors and activity levels.

Further, I believe it is erroneous to claim that long term weight loss is an achievable goal in all individuals, and that instead encouragement should be directed towards improvement in the overall health of the individual rather than emphasizing the primary goal of weight loss. Even if it were clear beyond all doubt that obesity directly caused the negative health effects it is psychologically pragmatic to avoid conflating body-image issues and health concerns. Finally, from an etiquette standpoint, it is inappropriate and counterproductive to comment on the health consequences of the behavior of an individual unless you are employed by that individual as a health professional or are otherwise a close, concerned acquaintance of that individual.

In other words saying, "you fatties shouldn't be on TV, think of the children," isn't exactly productive nor appropriate.

Clear enough?

Cheers. At least you are attempting some objectivity.

>> ^scannex:

Direct question then.
Is it your stance that claiming there are negative health consequences from being obese is erroneous?
Is it your stance that there is insufficent data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (obese) and health problems?
>> ^bmacs27:
@scannex The claim is that many of the negative health consequences associated with obesity, e.g. cardiac arrest, are in fact dependent on other factors with which obesity is commonly comorbid. I showed you a case in which less hypertensive adult women showed no effect of BMI on mortality across the board. Your studies failed to address that so far. Even in the latest, it shows that many of the complications involve comorbidity, not obesity in its own right. Even when it talks about diabetes it talks about the protective effect of vitamin E. Now, if you want to start talking about joint replacements or whatever, fine, but then we should probably tell people to be careful about their morning run too.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker: The only change with student loans since Obama has become president is that they've removed the middleman. The government was already requiring that certain people be able to get loans of certain values. The government was already guaranteeing these loans to the banks (they were NO RISK to the banks. The government would pay if the student defaulted, and the banks still got to collect the interest, from the government when subsidized and from the student with not). The only change is that the government gets the interest now instead of a bank that puts up no risk--this saves a lot of money.

So, the government simplifying the student loan business has not contributed to the tuition inflation, because there's not any extra loan money available--it's actually harder to get money (beyond the basic loans) now, from friends' experiences.

Tuition inflation is a huge problem, though, and it's definitely due to the fact that with loans now "anyone" can afford to go to college, and even with jacking up the prices there are record enrollment rates. This does need to be addressed. It's not because of Obama, though.

It is because a lot of people think a college degree is supposed to be job training--I'm sorry, it's not, unless you're getting an engineering degree. A liberal arts or humanities degree is not worthless, though. It's an education. In the US, a college degree is supposed to give you an expanded knowledge, context, and understanding for the world (this is why college graduates come out as liberals). This may help you in a job, but that's not its primary goal unless you're looking for a job specifically in that field.

So part of the problem is that everyone wants to get a four year degree now, because they think it's the only way they'll ever get a job, even when they have no intention or desire to work in a cubicle like most 'requires any 4 year degree' jobs. There ARE other forms of higher education, though. There are community colleges and trade/vocational/technical schools. In fact, Obama has explicitly said that he thinks some (many? most?) people should be going to those instead of four year schools.

That said, the way forward in the world for the US is an educated population. There is just not that much more call for unskilled labor (that Americans will do) here. Even in manufacturing, while we still produce an immense amount of goods, so much of it is made by machines in the US that those numbers aren't reflected in manufacturing employment. Building/selling/maintaining those machines is where manufacturing jobs go when it cranks up here, and that requires skill.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.
"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).
However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...
"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."
That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.
And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.
Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.
I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/
100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-ri
se-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462
It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.
The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.


annnnnd ignore

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.

"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).

However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...

"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."

That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.

And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.

Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.

I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462

It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.

The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.

[redacted]

@Mcboinkens "Do you have any evidence of this in the animal world?"

In the time it took you to type that sentence you could have searched the topic yourself and found tons of material on the subject. Requests for evidence or references should be restricted to weird, obscure facts or statistics that can't easily be verified.

"Just looking at the facts, it is pretty obvious that it is a huge disadvantage in nature to be gay."

Do you have any evidence of that? There are many examples in nature of organisms where the primary goals of living are not individual reproduction or even survival. Worker bees are females that do not reproduce their own genetic code and often sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony. These traits are not genetic defects. There may well be some evolutionary reason for some humans to have a genetic predisposition to being homosexual. Even if, as you say, you're not homophobic, to suggest that it's a genetic defect is an example of muddied thinking and accomplishes nothing but to feed the homophobic trolls.

It's worth noting that US oil and gas companies already have drilling rights to far more than they can currently produce.

This has never been an issue of needing more land for active production. The bottom line is that grabbing and holding more oil and gas rights increases the value of these companies. Opening up more land for petro leasing does nothing more than increase the net worth of the companies that hold the rights.

The politicians who talk about energy independance and the need for more domestic production are acting as corporatist shills for the oil industry whose primary goal is to increase the value of their companies on paper.