Asset Forfeiture Helps the FBI's Gambling, Jewel-Studded Masturbators

Jacob Sullum | January 15, 2009

The U.S. Justice Department's 2008 report on what happened to assets it seized includes an intriguing list of items that were placed into use by various federal agencies instead of being sold off. Among them are the following assets received by the FBI: a "gambling device" valued at $2 (a deck of cards?), $120,000 in jewelry (for undercover work?), and $134 in pornography (for official jack-offs, I guess).  

[Thanks to Bruce Mirken at the Marijuana Policy Project for the tip.]

Comments

Alan Vanneman|1.15.09 @ 2:35PM|#

No, no, the clean-minded Feds needed the porno so they could find out what it looked like. You can't stop something if you can't identify it, right? Get your mind out of the gutter!

|1.15.09 @ 2:37PM|#

the usps got $1 worth of pornography, they got shafted.

BlueBook|1.15.09 @ 2:39PM|#

I shudder to think what kind of porn you get for a dollar, or what the postman does with it...

|1.15.09 @ 2:45PM|#

Gambling, Jewel-Studded Masturbators

Finally, a story written just for me.

BlueBook|1.15.09 @ 2:54PM|#

From another section of the same report -- Items of interest valued over one million dollars:

McDonnell Douglas F-4
5,540 iPods
Bracelet
Diamond
Bigleaf Mahogany

TofuSushi|1.15.09 @ 2:56PM|#

When the new administration is running the FBI this will stop happening.

sage|1.15.09 @ 3:05PM|#

Yeah, we just need the right people in charge.

|1.15.09 @ 3:11PM|#

A bracelet? A single diamond? A single mahogany tree? Each valued over $1mm?

Jeebus, that's some top-shelf stuff.

|1.15.09 @ 3:13PM|#

Finally, a story written just for me.

It didn't say "Rambling, stool-studded intellectual masturbators", did it?

|1.15.09 @ 3:20PM|#

Where's the list that shows what crimes, if any, that the property owners were convicted of? That would likely be much more interesting/infuriating.

|1.15.09 @ 3:21PM|#

It didn't say "Rambling, stool-studded intellectual masturbators", did it?

That's why I said it was written for me, not you.

|1.15.09 @ 3:23PM|#

MPP boy has a bummer of a name. (snicker)

Warty|1.15.09 @ 3:25PM|#

I want to meet the drug dealer who has an F-4. That man's got class.

Paul|1.15.09 @ 3:26PM|#

Let the FBI know they can get porn for free on this medium.

Where's the list that shows what crimes, if any, that the property owners were convicted of?

J sub,

It's 'forfeiture'. Therefore, no crime need be committed, nor any charge be leveled on those forfeitting.

Ride Fast|1.15.09 @ 3:26PM|#

I really like to know what's up with the MD F-4 Phantom fighter-bomber? Who had one of those?

|1.15.09 @ 3:31PM|#

That's why I said it was written for me, not you.

It doesn't say Asshole Forfeiture, dude. Come on, put your reading glasses on.

I want to meet the drug dealer who has an F-4. That man's got class.

What are you talking about? Phantoms don't even have cannons. You have to have a Vulcan cannon, dude.

"Now I have a machine gun. HO HO HO"

|1.15.09 @ 3:33PM|#

I thought the $2 "gambling device" may have been a powerball ticket.

TofuSushi|1.15.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Where's the list that shows what crimes, if any, that the property owners were convicted of?

If they were the war crimes that capitalists should be convicted of then I would support this. I see a war machine in there. I bet these were not grass roots drug people who are holistic with the herb.

|1.15.09 @ 3:35PM|#

It's 'forfeiture'. Therefore, no crime need be committed, nor any charge be leveled on those forfeitting.

I'm well aware of the evisceration of the 5th amendment, thank you.

|1.15.09 @ 3:41PM|#

I want to meet the drug dealer who has an F-4. That man's got class.

Just think about how long those rims will keep spinning.

TofuSushi|1.15.09 @ 3:42PM|#

joe, every vioctim of the Bush secret police force is not Black.

Paul|1.15.09 @ 3:47PM|#

I'm well aware of the evisceration of the 5th amendment, thank you.

Well, Mr. Snappy-pants, I'm just trying to help.

|1.15.09 @ 3:58PM|#

I said thank you.

Ask around, I'm rarely never that polite when angry or upset.

BlueBook|1.15.09 @ 4:04PM|#

I think I found the case involving the jet, but I don't speak legalese. Why is the aircraft listed as the defendant?

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nmdce/case_no-1:2008cv00294/case_id-158245/

TofuSushi|1.15.09 @ 4:08PM|#

BlueBook for its contribution to global climate change and war crimes I hope.

EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|1.15.09 @ 4:21PM|#

I think I found the case involving the jet, but I don't speak legalese. Why is the aircraft listed as the defendant?

Because property doesn't have constitutionally guaranteed rights. It's how they pretend to be playing by the rules while using the bill of rights as toilet paper.

sage|1.15.09 @ 4:28PM|#

It doesn't say Asshole Forfeiture, dude. Come on, put your reading glasses on.

Geez, why don't you two just do it and get it over with? I'm starving.

Warty|1.15.09 @ 4:35PM|#

What are you talking about? Phantoms don't even have cannons. You have to have a Vulcan cannon, dude.

After the F-4E variant, they did. How do you live with the shame of being wrong so much?

Paul|1.15.09 @ 4:39PM|#

Why is the aircraft listed as the defendant?

I believe this is a common legal maneuver in forfeiture cases.

See: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:mvQ5wSDoKjAJ:www.websupp.org/data/NDGA/1:06-cv-01014-10-NDGA.pdf+united+states+v+10,000&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us (United States v. $10000)

|1.15.09 @ 4:45PM|#

After the F-4E variant, they did. How do you live with the shame of being wrong so much?

1. I don't feel shame (or pity, or remorse).
2. I just forget I was ever wrong.
3. I drink and take drugs.

Guy Montag|1.15.09 @ 5:06PM|#

Paul,

I think that maneuver is pretty old. It was even used in an episode of Police Story (the episode with Gabe Kaplan) where the detective got the NY prosecutors to charge the car of some "criminal" and ask for a high bail.

Warty|1.15.09 @ 5:12PM|#

1. I don't feel shame (or pity, or remorse).

Are you a robot? If so, are you a maiming robot or a party robot?

|1.15.09 @ 5:17PM|#

this is a common legal maneuver in forfeiture cases.

I seem to remember a case in law school that was captioned "United States vs. One 1957 Chevrolet."

But I really want to know what kind of "animal" the Fish & Wildlife guys got worth $3,995. Obviously not some junk yard Pit Bull. (Sounds like a retail price, too!)

Guy Montag|1.15.09 @ 5:31PM|#

CR,

They got the unicorn. That's why we can't have any.

cuernimus|1.15.09 @ 7:02PM|#

I thought someone really blinged out a penis sleave; the title misleads.
[MTV Cribs]
"Yo MTV, this righ har is mah blanged (bleep)-toy thah I use when flippin' through tha' JC'zPenny'z catalog. Dem hoes got junk 'n da trunk!"

The article did make me wonder how the government gains possession of an F-4. Does some fed just fly it somewhere or would they hire a repo man to do it?

BakedPenguin|1.15.09 @ 7:41PM|#

Hey, Rodriguez brothers! That F-4 is mine!

Guy Montag|1.15.09 @ 8:01PM|#

Does some fed just fly it somewhere or would they hire a repo man to do it?

I don't think some fed* is in that scene.

*some fed who posts here.

z|1.16.09 @ 4:19PM|#

Yes, a deck of cards is a gambling device. In fact, at my local 7/11 in California they won't sell you a deck of cards unless you provide proof of age and identity. I'm not bullshiting.