http://lawfuel.com/show-release.asp?ID=19970

The Colorado National Guard, for the first time ever, received an asset forfeiture sharing check this afternoon at a ceremony that took place inside the State Capitol. The check was a result of a Western Slope marijuana investigation, involving the Guard as well as a number of federal agencies. Agencies participating in the ceremony included the United States Attorney, and representatives from the Bureau of Land Management Enforcement Division, the IRS-Criminal Investigation, and the Colorado National Guard.

Major General H. Michael Edwards, the Adjutant General of Colorado, was presented a $93,701 check for the National Guard’s role in the “Topliss” marijuana investigation, which included asset forfeiture. Beth and Alfred Topliss were arrested for growing marijuana on their property in rural Mesa County. A search warrant executed on the property resulted in a bizarre stand-off, where Mr. Topliss put a gun to his head and said, “I’ll kill the hostage if you don’t back-off.” The hostage was Mr. Topliss himself. The subject was disarmed, and ultimately he and his wife were convicted on state felony charges of possession of marijuana.

Under federal law, property involved in various crimes, including drug cultivation, may be seized and forfeited. In this case, the IRS was the seizing agency, at the request of the Mesa County Drug Task Force. The United States Attorney’s Office filed a forfeiture action against the Topliss’ property in U.S. District Court in Denver. As a result of the case, a court order was issued, forfeiting $375,000, which was the property’s value. Under federal law, the funds go to agencies involved in the investigation, for programs that aid law enforcement in apprehending criminals as well as to youth drug prevention programs. The Mesa County Drug Task Force also received a check during the event for $112,441.

A new Colorado law, Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 16-13-601 and 28-3-1303 (2) designate the Colorado National Guard as a law enforcement agency for the limited purpose of participating in the Federal Asset Forfeiture Program. This new law allows the Guard to receive forfeiture sharing monies from cases in which they play a direct role in investigating. The statutes do not expand the law enforcement authority in relation to other types of operations.

“No one should profit from crime,” said United States Attorney Troy Eid. “Besides facing prison and fines, drug-traffickers risk forfeiting their ill-gotten gains.”

No one should profit from crime… except those in government apparently. Asset forfeiture is bad enough already… this is only going to make it worse.

And really… “ill-gotten gains?” Providing customers with products and services you don’t like are ill-gotten? Well I guess when you have the guns and the aura of legitimacy with regard to violence… I suppose it’s whatever Troy says.

http://money.cnn.com/…

• “NO NO NO. Not just no, but HELL NO,” writes Richard, a reader from Anchorage, Alaska.
• “This is robbery pure and simple,” Anna from Denver posted on CNNMoney.com’s TalkBack blog this weekend.
• “I’m tired of rewarding institutions and people for the bad decisions they have made,” said Dean from Madison, Wis. “Sure, it will hurt tax payers if/when some of these institutions fail, but perhaps we need to let that happen. We do not need more big government involved in our lives. Enough is enough.”
• “Companies, like individuals, should be held responsible for their decisions,” wrote Jorge from El Paso, Texas. “This buyout does not address the other problems in the pipeline such as personal credit default and market slowdowns in most industries. No new jobs will be created.”
• “It is time for the financial institutions of this country to be called to the mat. We should be expecting and demanding responsible and ethical business practice, not rewarding it at the expense of taxpayers.” Paul from Portsmouth, N.H.
• “The government does not have $700 billion dollars. WE have $700 billion, and it is being taken from us. If this is passed then the next administration and the next will be extracting this one from the people who are supposedly being protected by this bailout.” John from Springfield, Va.
• “Why not take the billions and … make funds available to home owners stuck in the loans these idiots created, marketed and sold,” asked Don from Coarsegold, Calif. “It will put the money where it should be with the little guy who made a mistake, instead of the big guy who created the problem.”
• “Once I invested in something and lost money. Maybe I could just change the rules of investing so that my loss turns into a gain? Oh, I forgot only banks can do that!” Jordan from Charlestown, Ind.
• “I will be watching to see which of our representatives vote for this bailout,” said R. Kidd in Troy, N.C. “Let the American people see how many we can fire come election time.”
• “Call your Congressman. Stop blogging, posting comments, and call your congressman. This is the patriotic thing to do. Let them hear your opinion, show them this is still America and that you will not stand for this!!” Danny from Texas

Not everyone is upset about this though:

• “I was opposed to the bailout at first, but realized that the scope of this thing is global and so massive that the entire global economy could collapse if nothing was done. …The priority has to be resolving the present crisis of confidence in our economy. Remember, if Wall Street collapses, Main Street will go with it.” Bill from St. Louis
• “This money is not a handout to companies. It’s simply giving banks and mortgage companies loans, since the banking system itself is too unstable to raise this kind of capital. And no, the government cannot just use the $700 billion to pay back all the citizens that will be hurt by this. If the companies like AIG fail, the cost will be far far greater than $700 billion. Wake up!!” Andy from Chicago
• “It’s NOT a bailout. The government is not handing out cash, they actually stand to make a great deal of money out of this, which will trickle down to YOU. First priority should be to try to control and fix the problem, then regulate sufficiently to make sure this NEVER happens again.” Surfta from Brooklyn, N.Y

From Answers.com:

bailout: n. A rescue from financial difficulties: corporate bailouts.

Any profit the government would make on this is going to be completely negated by price inflation and interest on the debt accumulated. There is no money to perform this bailout. The money will be borrowed or printed. If the market was allowed to unwind this those issues would not occur and recovery would be far faster. Malinvestment needs to be liquidated and prices recalculated… not arbitrarily inflated.

Sick. Just sick.

And in other news:

http://abcnews.go.com/…

Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

A cigar-smoking Denver police sergeant, accompanied by a team of five other officers, first put his hands on Eslocker’s neck, then twisted the producers arm behind him to put on handcuffs.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

http://www.usatoday.com/…

The Transportation Security Administration is planning a massive expansion of aviation security that for the first time will regulate thousands of private planes now flying with no security rules.

The new regulations, expected to be proposed in coming months, stop short of passenger screening, but would aim to prevent someone from flying a small plane, possibly packed with explosives, into a building. Authorities also worry about terrorists transporting hazardous materials or themselves on private aircraft, said Michal Morgan, TSA head of general aviation security.

Corporations and aviation groups are watching closely as the TSA prepares to regulate roughly 15,000 private planes that are seen as a convenient alternative to commercial flights. The planes fly in a network of 4,700 small airports — 10 times the number of commercial airports — that rarely have delays and often sit closer to city centers, said Robert Olislagers, executive director of Centennial Airport near Denver, one of the busiest small airports.

The new regulations, which would apply to planes that weigh more than 12,500 pounds, would most likely require measures such as checking flight crew backgrounds, parking planes in secure areas and inspecting planes, Morgan said. “We’ve worked very closely with industry to garner as much input with respect to what is operationally feasible,” Morgan said. It is not clear whether passengers would get background checks.

Many but not all private operators already safeguard their planes. The new rules will “provide a standard of security for a community that doesn’t have one right now,” Morgan said.

The regulations come as Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has voiced concerns about terrorists using private jets. The department has proposed doing background checks of people flying on private planes into the USA and is looking at tightening security for small airports and for businesses such as fuel dealers that operate on them.

Eric Byer, head of government affairs for the National Air Transportation Association, which represents companies that service business jets, said new security rules “will be a little bit of an inconvenience” but might draw some passengers who now are worried about private planes. “Having a program like this will make (private planes) even more secure,” he said.

More efficient? Can’t have that! Many, as a result of customer demand, already safeguard their planes? Not good enough! If potential customers want the private planes to be more secure they can demand it. Obviously there are some who don’t care and so that nitch has been filed. If they are comfortable with that setup why do people need to force extra security on them? They are making the system less efficient, infringing on people’s right to voluntary associate, violating contract law and not making anyone more secure. If someone wished to use a private plane as a weapon they could. It’s not hard to get a hold of one. You could buy one and take off from a rural road. A small jet would obviously be more difficult to get but I doubt it’d be impossible even now or after such regulation.

This, as is all other TSA action, is security theater. They waste resources, harass passengers, and fail miserably at providing any sort of practical security. I think the reason for this move is DHS wanting more control and/or airline pressure on increased competition. As small as the competitive threat likely is if the government is taking up the cost of inhibiting the competition why not ask?