In this case I think I’m ok with the presumption of a 50% likelihood that assets are a result of criminal activity.

This is what the courts and lawyers are for, if they can prove under that threshold where those assets came from, they should be released. The issue I think for many is that they can’t prove that and not indict themselves.

The NIMBY people want this housing built out by Worcester and those people are no different.

Who who currently controls the House?

You left out most of Gen X. A higher percentage of them are Trumpers than the boomers.

And it sadly won’t stop unless there’s a massive overhaul of zoning laws which I highly doubt because of money and influence

IANAL, but I've had a lot of interactions with them dealing with patents.

As an engineer, I just don't get the way they think. It seems like a major foundation of the law is cognitive dissonance and/or willful ignorance.

Presidents have drafted and submitted legislation via friendly reps / senators. More importantly, if Biden weren't to sign off on the notional legislation, it would take a supermajority to enact without his signature / over his veto. POTUS has a role.

I heard recently they’re fighting to try to preserve a closed down golf course instead of building new housing on it. Another NIMBY town.

The POTUS doesn’t write laws, do they?

From what I’ve been reading, there are still plenty of towns who have been fighting development and trying to preserve vacant lots and golf courses that have long since close down. So there’s still are places to build especially in the 495 towns but they keep fighting it tooth and nail. They even keep electing town officials who promise to fight back against further development if elected.

It does. But I was mid sentence not wanting to screw the grammar up trying to word it better. Point is we are presumptively innocent unless proven otherwise.

In the law you’re not proven innocent, you’re proven not guilty. There is a difference and that difference matters.

And far too many “freedom-loving” conservatives are some of the biggest cop boot lickers around, and will gladly turn a blind eye to their abuse as long as cops are violating the rights of others.

Don’t tread on me, but feel free to tread on others, especially people I don’t like.

Biden is a republican??

This sounds right in theory but is certainly not true in practice in Framingham. they keep building and rent keeps rising. I have been living in these carved up apartments for over a decade. We were evicted from our fist one so landlord could essentially carve our apartment into two. All our attic storage space became another room and bathroom. More apartments with less storage is bad. In our current place, we have no thermostat control. The upstairs neighbors keep it too hot and do nothing to curb the mouse problem.

Tell me about it been looking for a studio on south shore and there isn’t anything for less than like 2.5 grand a month

In the eyes of the law then those assets are not criminal. No innocent person should have his property stolen, period. That’s basic constitutional rights. Even if actually guilty, if courts fail to conclude that he is presumed innocent.

Way too many here pretending that they were all merely just victims of justice failing.

I’m a freedom-loving independent conservative and I fully support any efforts to combat asset forfeiture nonsense. The state has no right to a person’s property.

We could of course go back and forth about why this isnt ever addressed by Democrats. I dont want to give them an "out" but I think most wont touch it because even Massachusetts dems are frightened of being painted "anti-cop" and "pro-crime". I think they should say the assertion is ridiculous and explain how they want common sense legislation that protects people, but they prefer the tactic of shying away from these issues and trying out cop love the republicans.

I don't understand how this isn't a violation of the 5th amendment, but it's not the first time the MA supreme judicial court hasn't cared about the US Constitution.

Speaking from direct experience.

My family member got off from this with no repercussions outside of the asset forfeiture.

That member was guilty as all heck, and deserved to spend time for dealing.

Instead they were given a clear second chance with no history.

There is no best answer here, as many of these individuals are guilty. In my opinion they should take the win they got and move on.

If some were wrongly convicted/ assets stolen, by all means return their stuff, but if they can prove being the 50% likelihood it was criminal activity, it should not be returned.

It’s because of the nonsense of jurisdiction “in rem”; the government isn’t taking from you, it’s accusing the item itself

Which is nonsense, but common law says that if you do nonsense long enough it’s fine

The 5th amendment's takings clause should already cover this, but it seems to be ignored with civil asset forfeiture.

Depending on the housing market and time period--equity. Your estate or heirs can sell the house and keep the difference between the sale price and the mortgage (assuming there is any) versus with an apartment you don't own any of that value.