Home   Links   Editorials

End of Empire: Part Two

W K Darcy
Posted Jan 10, 2019

End of Empire: Part 1 followed up on the logistical and financial limitations of the Washington Wall Street (W^2) Empire citing news and developments of this past year which clearly indicate that W^2 is and has been in decline.

A recent 3,700 word article regarding “civil asset forfeiture” brings to light several aspects of the internal decline of the former united states (FUSA).

If you are unfamiliar with “civil asset forfeiture” it is a law passed in the 80’s “legalizing” immediate “seizure” of any assets of “alleged” DRUG LORDS (politicians of that time “promised” that this law would only be used against the big drug cartel “bosses” and that Americans need not worry about it being used in any other criminal investigations).

This was to prevent the “alleged” DRUG LORDS from using their “ill-gotten gains” to PAY for ANY legal defense. Their only choice was to either cop a plea bargain or use a government-appointed defense attorney.

Fast Forward to 2019 you can search for and read cases of civil asset forfeiture atrocities ad nauseum. The 3,700 word article quotes that one atrocity (a seized vehicle) was perfectly legal 1 .

The article also points out that when assets are stolen seized by armed servants of the state, that the owner must prove the asset’s innocence 2 .

One Texas politician correctly comprehends and pointed out that the current system puts the burden on people to “prove a negative” — that the property is innocent and the owner was unaware of criminal activity.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative and therefore, such demands by bureaucrats should have been struck down (so much for Supreme Injustices).

If you are accused of murder and you have a witness testifying that you were in another location at the time of the murder, you are proving a positive fact of your physical location, making it impossible for you to have committed the murder. Only positives can be proven.

THIS one principle is why you are supposed to be innocent UNTIL proven guilty and the burden of proof MUST be on the accuser!

The one Orwellian New Speak injustice which seems to have been lost on everyone is the insanity of charging an inanimate object with violating a law, but that is for another discussion.

Then there is this quote from a former attorney general:

“With care — we’ve gotta be careful — and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures,” Sessions said in July 2017.

Hmmmmm…they are PLANNING to increase forfeitures???? 3

So will this be accomplished by expanding the excuses legal reasoning for stopping anyone who is suspected of having…… MONEY?

By criminalizing currently legal activities?

In light of such proclamations and ensuing injustices, along with Trump making threats like this 4, it could not be clearer that W^2 (regardless of the denizen renting the white house) and its state and local brigands are bankrupt (financially and morally) and becoming very desperate.

Although four states have banned civil asset forfeiture, with ignorant politicians trying to “reform the system” 5 and many not even able to debate the reform 6 it is obvious that the atrocities against the peasants will only accelerate.

This “policing for profits” expanded greatly some 20 to 25 years ago when state and local governments had their federal handouts slashed by W^2.

Whether Red-Light Robbers or Conspirators Targeting Successful Denizens 7 or Uniformed Zombies Feeding the System for personal gain, the result is squeezing more fat out of the hides of innocent peasants, to benefit the parasitic aristocracy and ensuring the END OF EMPIRE.

Unless and until there is a Renaissance of moral men and women of this caliber who understand that there is a difference between right and wrong and how to live within a budget, the question will not be “How to Reform the System”, but:

“Where do YOU want to live?” 8


1) What happened to Rodriguez was perfectly legal. Under a process known as civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement can take cash and property they believe to be related to criminal activity, even if the person involved is never charged with a crime. Prosecutors then file suit against the property, and if successful, police may keep much of it for their own purposes.

2) When police seize a person’s property, the onus falls on the owner to prove the property was “innocent,” or not linked to a crime.

3) "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

4) Trump even telling a Texas sheriff last year he could “destroy” the career of an unspecified state senator who wanted to end the practice (of civil asset forfeiture)

5) Republican state Sen. Konni Burton (center) was a key figure in 2017 efforts to reform civil asset forfeiture law in Texas. Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune

6) At least 15 asset forfeiture reform bills were filed in the House or Senate last year. But not a single bill made it onto the floor for debate.

7) The suit contends that a multi-agency drug task force raided Scott's ranch--which the Yagmans said is worth tens of millions of dollars--so that it could be seized under federal forfeiture laws.

8) To receive a copy of “Where Do YOU Want to Live?” (March) directly to your inbox, please send an email with the topic: “Subscribe: Where to Live”


Jan 7, 2019
W K Darcy
email: w.k.darcy@protonmail.ch

321gold Ltd