What it says right on the tin, man. To bypass local laws that prevent local cops from using civil forfeiture to seize cash and property. Confused by your question.
I will restate it. The agenda here is not complicated.
A federal LE agency wants to pad their budget. That's it. That's the agenda.
A state or municipality forbids their own LEOs from employing civil forfeiture. The Feds see an opportunity and collude with the local LEOs to convert local civil forfeiture seizures to Federal seizures thus bypassing the wishes of the locals.
This is an example of the Federal government using law enforcement for their own agenda. I don't know if that's the kind of thing that GP meant, but that was an example that came to my mind.
Ok so you’re asserting that federal law enforcement agencies have an agenda (probably either a formal or informal process) to co-opt local law enforcement agencies to leverage the power of civil forfeiture to pad their own budgets.
What percentage of a federal law enforcement agency’s budget is padded using this practice? Does this apply to all federal law enforcement agencies or only some? How can we tell the difference between matters of coincidence and matters of an agenda? Any suggestions?
