Civil Asset Forfeiture

Behold: The 'Simple' Rules for Fighting Federal Asset Forfeiture

Get out your magnifying glass for this flowchart.


"Dear Reason: I never thought this would ever happen to me …"
Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation, as part of a multipartisan effort to help educate Americans about our abuse-prone police civil asset forfeiture system, has produced a lovely pamphlet explaining how the whole racket works, complete with an illustrated story.

Reason, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Institute for Justice, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others, have offered up some of the information used within the pamphlet to explain how civil asset forfeiture works and how police can seize your property without ever actually charging you with a crime.

Take a look at the pamphlet here. "Arresting Your Property" is designed to inform those who haven't been following asset forfeiture stories, which is a way of saying that regular Reason readers might not see much within the pamphlet about which they're not already familiar. The illustrated asset forfeiture story within is remarkably similar to the case Jacob Sullum just blogged about this morning.

Consider the pamphlet mostly as a resource to shove at friends and buddies who don't understand what this whole scandal is about. There is, however, one component worth highlighting to Reason readers. We have written frequently about how complicated it is to fight asset forfeiture. "Arresting Your Property" puts together a massive flowchart to show just how challenging it is. (Click for a larger image):

Worst board game ever.
Heritage Foundation (Click for larger image)

Keep in mind: This is just the federal asset forfeiture process. States have their own procedures (assuming they're not using the Department of Justice's program to federalize it) and their own complicated flow charts that can be just as bad, or even worse.

Reason has a massive archive of stories related to asset forfeiture here

NEXT: Anthony L. Fisher Interviews the Creators of Deutschland 83

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If it couldn’t do the time, your money shouldn’t have been somewhere near a location where authorities think might have possibly been or was going to be a crime.

    1. +1 Eye on the Sparrow.

    2. Gold (I mean coins and bars stored in your Aunt Nelly’s attic) has been stuck at around $1200/oz for going on 3 years. It is not a good investment for your 401K but it’s still a hedge against collapse and seizure. You do have an Aunt Nelly? You have been sending her birthday cards and have visited her twice a year?

    3. this sums it up all too well.

  2. I’m very curious at how the victims of asset forfeiture manage not to go on a killing spree targeting members of our criminal justice system. How this policy can exist and being a police officer, prosecutor, or dare I say it, judge can remain some of the safest jobs in the country is truly baffling.

    1. I know. These government crooks are the worst of all criminals. These aforementioned jobs are all very safe, because they have all the power. We need to reign in their powers substantially. They make too much money as it is without steeling even more from the people. We also need to get the people to stand up to these jerks.

    2. Damn I forgot to add a disclaimer. I only meant all that strictly theoretically.

      1. better hide your valubles

        1. A friend of mine has been buying precious metals and placing them in a bank safety deposit box. With a slow motion collapse he may be fine. Otherwise I’d think a bank would be the last place a person would want to store their valuable metals. What’s to stop the banks from simply keeping their doors locks should a serious catastrophe occur?

          But, what do I know. I don’t have any valuables.

      2. If you are ever pulled and the pig asks you if you have a large sum of money, just refuse to answer the question by asserting your fifth amendment right to remain silent. Never do more than hand over the license and registration. Even field sobriety tests that don’t involve the testing of the breath or blood, are optional. There is nothing in implied consent that involves standing on one leg or repeating the alphabet. You can refuse these roadside tests, and no action will be taken against your license. They use these tests as a way to establish probable cause, to force you to take the roadside breath test. As only a finding of probable cause can force you to take the breath test. Never answer any of their questions period, and never agree to let them search your car. If you do let them search your car, you are waiving your fourth amendment right. The fourth amendment requires a showing of probable cause on their part, that you have done something illegal. So why would anyone ever waive that right?

      3. I liked your first comment. We need more people like you, who are not afraid to speak their minds.

      4. Read my comment on what to do if you are pulled over.

  3. Bastiat said it best:

    It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce into society a greater
    change and a greater evil than this–the conversion of the law into an
    instrument of plunder.

    1. Bastiat is PROOF that time travel is not only possible but in regular use!

      1. Not necessarily. Rome had similar issues.

        1. Are you familiar with the term “pedantry”?

          1. I am.

            The English language word “pedant” comes from the French p?dant (used in 1566 in Darme & Hatzfeldster’s Dictionnaire g?n?ral de la langue fran?aise) or its older mid-15th century Italian source pedante, “teacher, schoolmaster”. (Compare the Spanish pedante.) The origin of the Italian pedante is uncertain, but several dictionaries suggest that it was contracted from the medieval Latin p?dagogans, present participle of p?dagogare, “to act as pedagogue, to teach” (Du Cange). The Latin word is derived from Greek ??????????, paidag?g?s, ????- “child” + ????? “to lead”, which originally referred to a slave who escorted children to and from school but later meant “a source of instruction or guidance.

            Is that good enough? Huh?

            1. Well, I was thinking less of its etymology and more of its use, but that’s not bad, CJ.

    2. But the law is an instrument of plunder, and has been from the start. Because its entire purpose is to fool people into thinking that there is such thing as rule of law, when there is really only rule of man.

      When the “law” says that some feudal lord owns everything and that the peasants cannot own any land, is that not an instrument of plunder? Just as much as asset forfeiture?

  4. This can’t be going on. The police can’t take your stuff unless you’re a criminal. And charging the stuff ? If that were happening I’m sure it would have been reported.

    And if it is going on, I trust the police to only use it against the bad guys. You know, like Mark Harmon on CSI.

    Now, back to Americas Got Talent.

  5. The first section of the pamphlet:

    How Good Intentions Made Bad Policy.

    Isn’t there some old saying about good intentions and roadz ?

    1. I think it’s something like “Roads are paved by good-intentioned people working selflessly for the government, not by evil greedy libertarian Stalinists.”

      1. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

        (Reviewing The Divine Comedy to see which circle these twats should be sent. Don’t believe the one for regular thieves is good enough)

      2. By the way, I heard the Libertarian paradise of Somalia is celebrating their Independence Day on June 26th. Or as my old man would aay, their 4th of July is held on June 26th.

    2. ” A Libertarian society would have no roads because they don’t share our good intentions”


  6. “abuse-prone police civil asset forfeiture system” = stealing. Thats just fucking 14th century brigands fucking stealing at will (well, I will admit nowadays it is dancing for doughnuts instead of double rape). But a judge incants (AKA Legal Reasoning) the magical words and invokes of magic of res judicata and stari decices, dresses it up with some due process and tells me that it is not stealing and not only that, it is a both a legitimate means and end of the State. Dear judges, that is why some in the peanut gallery want to….ahem….want to get kinectic on your ass. Don’t tell me to bend a knee to the king’s men while he is taking my shit.

    Disclaimer: This is asshat hyperbole not meant to be taken seriously or literally. Getting kinetic karma on different judges would be hard to manage as some are larger than others. And kinetic is ambiguous. Though being a Member of the Church of Warty, some penetration must be assumed.

    1. The Church of Warty is an allopath’s sanctuary.

    2. A thief is a thief.

      Someone who aids and abets theft is a thief.

      Someone who aids and abets theft by dressing it up in “law” is also a thief.

      You can polish this turd all you like, it’s still a turd.

  7. Additional Disclaimer: I failed to mention that my kinetic interests are limited to the ass area.

    1. I suspect that will be their primary concern during holding cell selection.

  8. Why didn’t Reason beat the Heritage Foundation in creating a chart of the process?

    1. Too busy ferretting out wood chippers from its midst.

    2. Reason was blindsided by those right-wingers. Heritage is supposed to be complaining about violent video games and ensuring the chastity of college co-eds.

      1. I would like to go on record by saying that I am vehemently against the chastity of college co-eds. I will do everything in my power to make sure that each and every college girl turns a blind eye to chastity. I will institute a mandatory ladies night in pubs across the country. We will pass out pamphlets on how to properly formulate a jello shot. And most importantly, men across America will begin taking classes on how to correctly pay attention when a college co-ed is talking about her major (eye contact, nodding..etc).

        A vote for the Juggler is a vote for lust.

        1. My roommate did a semi-scientific study our first six weeks of college. It turns out that a reasonably attractive man has about a 30% chance of getting a second conversation (back in those days it was a phone number that worked) with a coed simply by asking her major and making encouraging noises.

          1. See! The numbers don’t lie! Even when it is a 5,000 year old dead language like Sanskrit, you must nod and mumble “wow that’s interesting.”

  9. Also, another great alt text.

    1. How many readers are too young to know that the first one is a reference to the Penthouse letters column?

    2. Yes indeed.

      Why you got to go and ruin it Papaya?

      1. Come on, it’s not a spoiler to catch a reference.

  10. reminds me of the old story of why politicians steal money from widows and orphans with deaths taxes

    ’cause they’re f’ing widows and orphans and can’t fight back

  11. The green boxes to the right seem to form a circle. Is that just a misprint or… what actually happens?

    1. Wait. No, the procedures are just confusing as fuck.

      1. Which is the whole point of the graph…

  12. East German cat video.

  13. The Rachel Dolezal love song

    Click on it; you know you want to.

    1. That was terrifying. Never put the pussy on a pedestal.

    2. If a man sang like that for me I would pretend to be black, too.

      If only I had a heavenly not-so-black-but-black vag.

  14. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

  15. I am so tired of conceding “good intentions” to robbers.

    As not a few commenters have said, foreseeable consequences are not “unintended.”

    Would the cops and the courts give a break to someone who agreed to transport a suitcase from Miama to Chicago, but swears he had no idea there was heroin in the suitcase? No, they’d laugh at his protestations of good intentions.

    So why do people still concede good intentions to uniformed robbers who steal people’s property for their own use, or the use of their bosses?

    1. Miami

  16. But being against asset forfeiture gets you closer to Stalin ?Alan Wolfe said it.

  17. We need civil forfeiture reform at the federal level applicable to the states and municipalities with teeth:

    Any confiscated property that does not include a criminal conviction will be returned to the owners, plus a 50% penalty, plus 12% interest, plus reimbursement of legal expenses not only for the forfeiture but for the criminal defence.

    Only problem I see is that it will give the JBTs even more incentive to plant drugs.

    1. I like the idea of a penalty being levied against these government crooks. And they are indeed thugs!

  18. Why is it so complicated? I thought it was “take money + FYTW + profit!”

    1. It is a long fucking. What? You thought the fucking was just some judge giving you the finger?

      All of those bubbles on the chart mean more money sucked out of you to feed the beast.

      1. Yes. Even if you get your money back, how much did it cost you? How much went into the pockets of the remora of the legal system, the lawyers? It’s a mill for extracting money from people, in a whole variety of ways. Once you get sucked in, it’s going to cost you.

  19. Read my comments several lines above to protect yourself if you are pulled over by the fuzz. I hope it helps people to protect themselves.

  20. “Arresting Your Property” puts together a massive flowchart to show just how challenging it is.

    Oh stop complaining. It looks a lot easier than firing a NYC teacher. (Trigger warning: PDF)

  21. The majority of Americans think that if the cops took your stuff it was because you did something to deserve it. Other wise why would you have contact with the police. They don’t bother innocent people So even if you are never charged it’s your fault so that’s just too bad for you. Even if they admit that yeah sometimes injustices are done, they think it’s so extremely rare so oh well. It’s very sad. I don’t want to be a misanthrope, I really don’t, but God Damn.

    1. Not long ago, during voir dire (I was not chosen for this jury), one prospective juror stated she believed that if you are arrested, then you probably did something wrong. It was a stunning statement of profound ignorance.

      I am proudly a full blown misanthrope. How could anyone with half a brain not be?

      1. I’ve heard of folks saying exactly that as an attempt to get out of jury duty.

        Not that I’d ever do that, of course, since that’s perjury and a felony, but I’m sure it has happened.

  22. OT: Laser tag warrior mammals round up productive creatures who do not display the correct thin slivers of wood containing magic ink in an approved arrangement.…..ed/2234075

    1. There are waaaayyyy too many cops.

      1. Why aren’t they out rounding up zombie cannibals or something.

    2. Licenses are all about government revenues, mr lizard.

  23. Blow Up the Tax Code and Start Over

    So on Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code?more than 70,000 pages?and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.”

    1. SF’d

      1. Old news, man

    2. Well, that certainly separates him from the rest of the field.

    3. My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.

      I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies?down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.

      This would be a step in the right direction.

      1. It would be a big fucking leap in the right direction.

        1. Dunno if you read the comments, but it was near the top where some lefty was whining about how ‘the rich will benefit’. Nothing about how it might benefit everybody, just lefty envy that ‘the rich’ might get a benefit.

          1. The lefty must have missed the part where the top tax rate for small businesses is 40% and for corporations it’s 35%. How is lowering the tax rate for small businesses by 25.5% helping the rich?

            1. Irish, I doubt it would matter one bit. If X benefited by 50% and ‘the rich’ got a 5% benefit, the constantly-envious would scream.

            2. Ha, are you actually applying logic to their envy? Remember that they would gladly see everyone suffer–including themselves–if it just hurts someone they hate. That’s how intense and destructive their envy is. You can list the myriad of ways that it will help people, and if it still isn’t actively hurting the rich (as far as their limited minds can tell), they will oppose it. Even things that change nothing for the rich they’ll probably opposed simply because it’s not an attempt to fuck the rich.

              They are, actually, that ridiculous. And it’s why you see comments like this on an article where Rand specifically points out the rich people can use loopholes and pay even less (which he obviously threw in as a sop to people like this guy, except it never works), and this will prevent that.

              If it doesn’t say “this is theoretically supposed to fuck the rich, even if they will find ways around it”, they don’t want it.

          2. I did not read the comments, but I didn’t need to. It’s a tax break for the rich. Doesn’t matter if it’s also a tax break for the poor.

            But I’m not even sure it would really be a big benefit for the rich. Some, probably, but others, that currently take advantage of tons of tax breaks? I’d guess not.

            This would almost certainly help the middle class the most. People towards the bottom already aren’t paying much in taxes (if they pay any), and that $50,000 exemption will keep it that way (and frankly, I’m OK with that idea). People at the very top know how to game the system. It’s the people in the middle that stuck.

            Seriously, this is an awesome proposal. It will never make it through as is, but even if it got chipped away at a bit, it would still be huge.

            1. “[…]but even if it got chipped away at a bit, it would still be huge.”

              Not sure.
              Once the ‘chipping’ begins, we end up in the same damn mess; I pitch for my exemption, and horse-trade with you for yours, and now we’re arguing whether tax preparation is deductible (the CPAs are big donors for me) compared to Manhattans at a business lunch, since you represent KY.
              Pretty sure is has to go clean to be worthwhile.

              1. Eh, I’m more of an incrementalist (by necessity). Even if it only got rid of 10% of the various carve outs for the specially connected, it would be a net benefit.

      1. But he hates women and black people!

    4. What would progressives do if a Republican came out and just said ‘fuck it – 0% taxes on small businesses.’ Would they somehow claim that eliminating taxes on small businesses ‘helps the rich,’ even though virtually all small business owners are middle class?


      1. No, then they’d start to talk about how we’re all in this together, how we should be happy to all pay some taxes, they would suddenly get real concerned about budget deficits, they would claim that it’s a back handed attempt to weaken the welfare state, they’d claim it’s a cynical Koch brother’s ploy, they would probably whip out some statistics about how most small business owners are white men….

        1. they would probably whip out some statistics about how most small business owners are white men….

          And here you are

      2. We already know what they would do, as we have seen it before, and it indicates their true motivations as opposed to their stated ones.

        They would fight it tooth and nail. As far as the usual envy-mongers are concerned, small business owners have more than them, which is their actual definition of “rich”. Never forget that. To the super-envious, having anything more than them makes them hate you. Unless of course you buy them off with the right words, like so many celebrities do.


    Why was Die Antwoord on David Letterman? His audience must have been confused as fuck. This seems like the strangest booking I’ve ever seen.

    1. Larry “Bud” Melman passed away about the same time Letterman jumped the shark.

      1. Larry “Bud” Melman died in 1996?

  25. Does this mean Heritage is giving up on Prohibition?

  26. Marginally less painful than the defense acquisition flow chart.

  27. Treasury to boot Alexander Hamilton off the $10 and replace him with a woman

    A woman will replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced Thursday.

    Lew said he would announce which woman before the end of the year, after the administration seeks national input this summer.

    “America’s currency is a way for our nation to make a statement about who we are and what we stand for,” Lew said. “Our paper bills ? and the images of great American leaders and symbols they depict ? have long been a way for us to honor our past and express our values.”

    Martha Washington and Pocahontas were each featured on paper currency more than 100 years ago, Treasury officials said.

    The announcement comes after much speculation in recent weeks that a woman would be on a new paper note.

    Lew said Obama administration officials are seeking advice nationwide ? including people who “aren’t comfortable using a hashtag as well as people who are comfortable using a hashtag.”

    “We are going to be open to many ideas as we go forward consistent with theme of democracy,” Lew said. “Our thinking is to select a woman who has played a major role in our history who represents the theme of democracy.”

    So Indian murderer Jackson stays but Revolutionary War hero and financial genius Hamilton is out?

    1. The father of our banking system and he was from Nevis, a place with minorities.

    2. I didn’t read the first sentence closely enough and just assumed it was Jackson that was getting the boot. That it already hasn’t happened is just bewildering.

    3. “Revolutionary War hero and financial genius Hamilton”

      Don’t forget nationalist and centralizer, central bank advocate, and Sedition Act supporter.

      Replace him with Sister Anthony –‘Connell

      Whoop, there it is*


      1. Sister Anthony link again:

    4. I wouldn’t mind seeing Hamilton booted off, but it seems even crueler now that the founder of the First Bank of the US is booted while the destroyer of the Second Bank stays. The fucking feds can’t even get this right. Why did they switch it to the ten all of a sudden?

      1. They ought to go with a bunch of the absolute worst assholes instead: Wilson on the $1, FDR on the $5, LBJ on the $10, etc. And we wouldn’t even have to dump Jackson in that case.

  28. So Indian murderer Jackson stays

    There are two US Presidents with the first name “Andrew”. Amerinds were exterminated under Andrew Johnson’s watch, for better or worse, after the Civil War.

    1. Pretty sure extermination of ethnic groups is always for the worse.

    2. It’s a messy problem. Immigrants (Germans), we all love immigrants, were settling western Kansas. The Indians were not so pleased about that. So they’d invade a homestead, gang rape the wife, and slow burn the husband over a fire. They’d tomahawk the boys and keep the girls as slaves. This ain’t no “Dances with Wolves” fantasy.

      1. From the POV of the Indians the immigrants were settling on their land. Atrocities occurred, though I’m skeptical that they were all that common, and of course they weren’t justified. But the whole mess could likely have been avoided, or at least greatly mitigated, if the rights of the original inhabitants of the lands had been respected. And even after that, not all of the Indians should have been lumped in with the most aggressive/worst offenders. Collectivization, it’s a bitch.

        1. I’m skeptical that they [atrocities] were all that common

          ‘Keep the last bullet for yourself’ was a common bromide among US soldiers on the western frontier. Custer himself had an arrow shot up his penis.

          1. *plays Rod Stewart song*

        2. LynchPin1477|6.17.15 @ 11:24PM|#
          “From the POV of the Indians the immigrants were settling on their land. Atrocities occurred, though I’m skeptical that they were all that common, and of course they weren’t justified. But the whole mess could likely have been avoided, or at least greatly mitigated, if the rights of the original inhabitants of the lands had been respected.”

          So, if the first inhabitant stepped off the east end of the land bridge, peered north, east and south and said “This is all mine!”, did it all belong to her? Did the guy behind her have any claim at all?
          And then, who was ‘first’?:
          “Tribe Blasts Kennewick Man DNA Tests”

          I’m pretty sure there’s blame to be distributed in bushels, but I’m also sure it’s not as simple as we’d wish. In fact a commenter here suggested “Comanche Empire” as a good read, and indeed it was. Finding bad guys was easy, but they were not always who you would expect.
          To look at the issue more broadly, if the primary claim of land ownership was always valid, to whom in Africa would we all now owe rent?

          1. So, if the first inhabitant stepped off the east end of the land bridge, peered north, east and south and said “This is all mine!”, did it all belong to her?

            It’s not really a valid comparison. Colonists moved into land that was being actively inhabited by native tribes. I’m under no delusion that those tribes all just lived peacefully with eachother totally getting along in some sort of property-less paradise. But it’s also true that Western notions of property rights and land ownership were foreign. I’m not sure what the best way to reconcile those two different cultures would have been. But European colonists, on average, didn’t respect the claims that the native tribes had, and didn’t look at them as a people to negotiated with on equal terms. Whatever the best way would have been, what we got was definitely not it.

            And I stand by my skepticism of widespread torture and atrocities. That such stories may have been widely believed by U.S. soldiers isn’t proof that they were actually common. I could be wrong, I admit that, but I find it more likely that these stories went “viral”, and that the actual acts were probably less common and being carried out by a smaller number of tribes/groups of fighters.

          2. So, if the first inhabitant stepped off the east end of the land bridge, peered north, east and south and said “This is all mine!”, did it all belong to her? Did the guy behind her have any claim at all?

            Lockean property rights.

        3. If they weren’t, the only reason they weren’t common is because guns were.

          I read a thing about how some tribe would tie a person down and start a fire going in his belly.

          I don’t think Indians were worse than anyone else, but they certainly weren’t any better. That noble savage stuff is BS.

          Not that I blame them for getting pissed that people can in and took their land. But eh, that’s what happens when you have open borders…

          1. JeremyR|6.18.15 @ 12:49AM|#
            “If they weren’t, the only reason they weren’t common is because guns were.”

            “Comanche Empire” will tell you where the guns were; the indians did not lack for them.
            There is real information available about this stuff and I sure don’t know all of it, but there’s also a ton of vintage whine.

  29. OT: Dunno if this has been mentioned or not:

    “Cheech & Chong” star Tommy Chong has revealed he is battling rectal cancer.

    “I’ve had some medical issues lately,” Chong, 77, told Us Weekly on Tuesday. “I got diagnosed with rectal cancer.”

    “I’m in treatment now,” he added. “Either I get healed or I don’t. But either way, I’m going to make sure I get a little edge off or put up.”

    1. Shit, I hope he recovers, it’s a hell of a way to go.

      I’ll offer my prayers.


  30. OT:
    Greece; do the US taxpayers cover the loss, or do the US taxpayers cover the loss?
    IMF says YES!:

    “Out of patience, IMF flexes muscles in Greek debt crisis”…..17670.html
    You see, the IMF will get a haircut if the Euros tell Greece to pound sand and there is one really, really important fact that affects the IMF position:
    “Added to this is another challenge, more political in nature. Christine Lagarde’s term as IMF managing director comes to an end in July 2016, and what happens in Greece will weigh heavy if she seeks to renew the job.”

    Well, in THAT case, why……….

  31. Veep is awesome.

    I’m bingeing.

    1. How much have you seen?

      It’s one of those rare shows that somehow gets better every year.

      1. I’m finishing Season 2, Epsiode 8. I need a beer and more (loaded) nachos.

  32. That’s as complicated as the wiring diagram on a B-1 bomber.

    As it was meant to be.

  33. The simple way to end civil asset forfieture is if you have done nothing wrong then just kill the thieving cop and then the jury can acquit the you and then thank you for getting rid of another scumbag thief. Then put the scumbag cops bosses in jail for life for aiding and abetting in a scheme to steal from the people they swore to protect. Harsh but appropriate

  34. Concerning that flowchart, tl; dr.

    If they attempt to seize your property, get some anfo and blow it up. Then they can’t have it. I’m sure it would be less costly in the long run than dealing with the bureaucracy.

  35. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.