Well, the real funny asset-forfeiture case names are United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins.

But the likes of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency is obviously more dangerous than either of those:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...

And the list of cases here is hilarious as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

like United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, or United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton, or Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, R.M.S. Titanic ...

These sound like McSweeneys article titles

Strictly speaking, they are accusing the asset of being a nuisance (sometimes, though not always, as a result of being an instrumentality in a crime -- but civil asset forfeiture doesn't require a crime to have been involved at all; they are also providing both public notice and private notice to the person (if any) from whom the property was seized of the action, and anyone who has an interest in the asset (whether the person, if any, from whom it was seized, or any other person) has the right to assert that interest, at which case they have all the rights normally attendant to civil process [not criminal process, because its not a criminal action, and criminal penalties can not be imposed.])

> Seriously. If you look at the court cases for asset forfeitures, it is titled "The State of Oklahoma vs $1,534.32 in cash" or "Iowa vs 2014 Mercedes".

That type of thing is ok in Admiralty Law, but should have no place in criminal law. How we got to a point where things can be taken from someone who is not convicted of a crime is beyond belief.

> That type of thing is ok in Admiralty Law, but should have no place in criminal law.

It doesn't take place within criminal law.

(There is also "criminal asset forfeiture", which is a different beast, and takes place within normal criminal process against a particular criminal defendant: that is a part of criminal law, and its a lot less controversial than civil asset forfeiture.)

ok, fine, but I think civil asset forfeiture in this context is misnamed and bs.

There's a whole stack of gold bricks in Ft. Knox that's done me wrong. Where can I file?

> Property doesn't have due process rights,

Apparently, property doesn't really belong to us.

try not paying your property tax and see what happens. Deeds mean nothing. Receipts mean nothing. Registration means nothing. The State owns everything.

Well if property is people, then of course not silly!

Corporations are also people, so you can't really have one of those either.

How can an inanimate object be charged with a crime? It's inanimate, so by definition cannot make a decision...

Also, if they're confiscating assets, why not confiscate the car? Why just the cash/cards?

How do we get this absurd law overturned? What's the minimum required? Supreme court decision?

They've long confiscated cars and cash. They're just upping their game.

Yeah... Now, the logic is:

"You have a bunch of money on your ATM card. You can potentially go to an ATM take out cash, then get drugs. Now, I need to seize all your money to ensure you can't buy those illegal drugs that may or may not exist."

They are civil cases- the objects aren't being charged with crimes.