Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I would like to see Kamala Harris run in 2020. [View all]lapucelle
(18,250 posts)40. Here's the text of the bill.
Existing law subjects property acquired through or as proceeds of criminal profiteering activity to forfeiture. Existing law defines criminal profiteering activity as any specified acts or threats made for financial gain or advantage. Existing law requires a prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture in conjunction with the criminal proceeding for the underlying offense.
This bill would allow the prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture prior to the commencement of the underlying criminal proceeding
IF
1. the value of the assets seized exceeds $100,000,
2. there is a substantial probability that the prosecuting agency will file a criminal complaint,
3. there is a substantial probability the prosecuting agency will prevail on the issue of forfeiture
AND
failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed or otherwise removed from the jurisdiction of the court,
4. the need to preserve the property outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is entered,
AND
5. there is a substantial probability that the assets subject to forfeiture represent direct or indirect proceeds of criminal activity committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a transnational criminal organization, as defined.
The bill would allow a person claiming an interest in the property or proceeds to move for return of the property on the grounds there is not probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture, and if the prosecuting agency does not establish substantial probability that the property is subject to forfeiture the court shall would be required to order the seized property returned.
The bill would require the Attorney General, on or before January 1, 2018, to report to the Governor and specified committees on the use of these proceedings. The bill would provide for the repeal of these changes on January 1, 2019.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB443
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
122 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I hear she also runs that child slave colony on Mars that Alex Jones exposed. I hate that.
Squinch
Aug 2017
#12
It's freeze before trial- not seize. Why spread lies against Dems? If it was a banks assets you'd
bettyellen
Aug 2017
#36
You didnt ask why lie, did you? How kind you are, the agenda is alive and well
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2017
#51
Jeeze we totally ignore what Harris has done for mortgage holders and stress this?
bettyellen
Aug 2017
#58
Get used to it, lots of folks here will be doing it non stop and there is nothing
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2017
#59
Also it's assets worth a minimum of $100K. But our friend is worried about its effect on the poor.
Squinch
Aug 2017
#95
The fearful Unitarians are even worse! And don't get me started on the Quakers. Damn, skippy!
Squinch
Aug 2017
#72
Charges alone are frequently enough to freeze certain assets until after trial.
lapucelle
Aug 2017
#10
To be fair, I don't think I'd be for that bill. Though, I could see people who could argue
musicblind
Aug 2017
#119
There seems to be a coordinated disinformation campaign online targeting Harris
DesertRat
Aug 2017
#44
Because a rule that specifies strict procedures for freezing of assets worth a minimum of $100K
Squinch
Aug 2017
#70
Nope it was adding a temp freeze of assets provision so they'd not have to wait till
bettyellen
Aug 2017
#35
Gun Control is certainly an issue where there's a disconnect with big chunks of the country.
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2017
#76
"just like Obama was for 8 years" - Obama got elected. In fact he received more popular votes than..
PoliticAverse
Aug 2017
#33
She was about to be elected before Comey intervened with 11 days to go to rig the election. (eom)
StevieM
Aug 2017
#49
I love Hillary, and I think she was robbed by Comey, but it is not entirely clear that
StevieM
Aug 2017
#50
I want a broad bench, a wide field, and a vigorous, issues-based discussion.
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2017
#14
I wouldnt want to be accused of ageism, but we definitely need to move beyond
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2017
#31
Not so much that she's a woman, just not the right one. She's not ready nor nationally electable.
LBM20
Aug 2017
#46
I like that watchdog groups have listed her as one of the most progressive Senators
DesertRat
Aug 2017
#42
She's not ready, isn't very electable nationally, and can we please focus on 2018.
LBM20
Aug 2017
#45
"not ready" and "not very electable nationally" are exactly what they said about Obama.
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2017
#47
Please no Kaine, Biden, Sanders or any man that makes you think "retired"....
bettyellen
Aug 2017
#65
Hillary, for better or worse, does not have the best political chops. She's admitted as much.
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2017
#83
And in the interim we had a wildly successful and popular 2 term president
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2017
#99
No, the lesson is to nominate candidates who are so damned good at connecting with people
BeyondGeography
Aug 2017
#101
If you haven't learned by now that Democratic candidates need to be better than Republicans
BeyondGeography
Aug 2017
#105
It's not a matter of grasping anything difficult, as it's very obvious to me what the choices are.
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#108
"frumpled socialist" -- that's what I was talking about. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#111
You mean like "I want a broad bench, a wide field, and a vigorous, issues-based discussion"?
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2017
#57
Kamala Harris's support of a well-reasoned statute aimed at high level drug operations
Expecting Rain
Aug 2017
#78
IKR !?!!? There's something creepy about these "why not this pol for prez" OPs, they come about
uponit7771
Aug 2017
#93
She will continue the transformation of the country that Obama imagined and initiated
Fluke a Snooker
Aug 2017
#121