I'm one of those people you're calling a "Criminal", and the property stolen from me by the FBI was not "ill gotten". This kind of prejudicial rationalization to justify this law is exactly the evil that the constitution was written to avoid. I was never charged with a crime, no crime was ever even alleged, and the warrant was fraudulent on the face of it, and the judge who rubber stamped it had been presented with evidence in the months before the warrant proving that no crime had been committed, so unlike any random judge he had been well versed in the facts of the matter. He still signed it. The warrant contained obvious falsehoods and would have been a slam dunk perjury case... if prosecutors ever charged federal agents, that is.

A friend of mine who I went to high school with was also a victim of this kind of theft. He is an oncologist and most of his patients were terminal. He naturally prescribed pain killers and reported to the DEA what he prescribed (as he's required to as part of the war on drugs.) One day they show up, seize everything of value in his house and practice and all of his bank accounts. Their claim? He was prescribing more pain killers than an average doctor. Not average oncologist, but average doctor. Apparently this makes him a "Drug dealer". Because he had no assets to defend himself, and his wife worked in the practice as a receptionist, they threatened him with arresting his wife and him, putting them in jail for many months until trial, taking the kids away and putting them in foster care, if he didn't admit guilt and do time (in which case his wife would stay out of jail and take care of the kids.)

They effectively stole his kids from him and held them ransom until he signed a deal that give them what they wanted--- just another notch on the belt for fighting the war on drugs.

And another doctor taken out of practice, his life ruined, and more patients pushed onto tother oncologists who, if they are smart, simply won't accept them because eventually they will get the same treatment.

These people are not just stealing money, they are destroying lives, and they couldn't give a flying fork the consequences-- they want convictions so that they can advance their own careers.

So don't give me any of this "criminals benefiting form their ill gotten gains" BS.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Good%20German

Your characterization of what Eric Holder did is way too broad. He just limited one program that facilitated such thefts, that doesn't change the law that allows them or stop them from happening.

He is the AG. If he was going to start defending what's right, would put out the word that they had to stop completely, and then start filing charges against those who continued the practice.

It doesn't matter what the money is used for, stealing money is stealing. It's a violation of the rights of the victim and that makes it a crime. In fact, under USC 18-242 its a felony if you do it while armed (violate of 4th amendment, and almost all cops are armed when they steal assets.)

Claiming it's for a good cause doesn't make it any less a violation of people's rights-- and the way states manage their money, often "Earmarks" are redirected... that's pretty easy.

> the point of the program was to deny the criminals ... proceeds from ill gotten gains

No, that's not the point of the program, that's the rationalization used to justify it.

Here's the deal, though, under our legal system these innocent victims which you label "criminals" have a fundamental constitutional right to their "ill gotten" gains.... as they have a right to hire defense attorneys to represent them.... and UNLESS they are convicted they are to be considered innocent.

You calling them criminal is part of the post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalization to try and justify this.