Mississippi Finally Brings Some Transparency to Asset Forfeiture

Facing growing bipartisan scrutiny over its unchecked civil asset forfeiture program, Mississippi will now require police to report how much property they seize from citizens under a bill signed into law by Gov. Phil Bryant Monday.

Under the new law, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics will maintain a website showing descriptions and values of seized property, which police department seized it, and any court petitions challenging the seizures. The law will also require police to obtain a seizure warrant within 72 hours.

Using asset forfeiture, police can seize cash, cars, and even houses if they suspect the property is connected to a crime. The owner does not have to be convicted, or in some cases even charged, with a crime to have his or her property forfeited by the state. For example, a Washington Post investigation found that since 9/11, Mississippi police conducted nearly 400 cash seizures “without search warrants or indictments.”

Stories like that have led to growing momentum in statehouses across the U.S. to curtail police power to seize property through civil asset forfeiture, and Mississippi is now the 18th state, along with the District of Columbia, to pass some type of reform. New Mexico, North Carolina and Nebraska have barred police entirely from forfeiting property without a criminal conviction.

While police say asset forfeiture is a vital tool to disrupt drug traffickers and other organized crime, civil liberties groups from across the political spectrum say the practice lacks due process protections for innocent property owners and creates perverse profit incentives that lead police to target everyday people just as often, if not more, than cartel members.

As Reason reported in January, the Magnolia State was one of the worst in the country when it came to asset forfeiture transparency. It neither reported nor even tracked how much state and local law enforcement seized from people, or how police spent those funds. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, gave the state an “F” grade in a report on forfeiture transparency earlier this year.

Documents and court orders obtained by Reason showed that, while the state raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars from large seizures, there were numerous cases of petty and bizarre seizures, such as one case where police seized a woman’s furniture.

From January’s investigation:

In total, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, working with local police departments, seized nearly $4 million in cash in 2015. Out of 154 seizures in 2015, the average cash value amounted to $66,733, and the median was $12,914. They seized cash amounts as low as $75 and as a high as $460,000. They seized trucks, cars, ATVs, riding lawnmowers, utility trailers, and 18-wheelers; an arsenal of assorted handguns, shotguns, and rifles; cell phones, cameras, laptops, tablets, turntables, and flatscreen TVs; boat motors, weed eaters, and power drills; and one comic book collection […]

“We’re completely in the dark on how pervasive the practice really is,” says Blake Feldman, an advocacy coordinator at the Mississippi ACLU. “Pretty much the default mindset is nobody should be overseeing any law enforcement. A big concern will be if the required tracking and reporting is going to be enforced, or if it will be a shallow gesture.”

The new law will withhold grant funding from police departments that fail to comply with the reporting requirements. While this is undoubtedly an improvement over the previous asset forfeiture regime, it won’t require police departments to report how they spend asset forfeiture funds—a development Institute for Justice research analyst Jennifer McDonald called “particularly troubling.”

“With forfeiture, law enforcement agencies can keep some or all of the proceeds from the property they take,” McDonald said in a statement. “This enables them to generate and spend funds outside the normal appropriations process, which undermines the legislature’s power of the purse. At a bare minimum, agencies should have to publicly report how they spend forfeiture proceeds.”

What does that lack of spending transparency look like in action? An investigation by Chicago Reader last year found the Chicago Police Department raked in $72 million since 2009 in civil forfeiture revenues, using it as an off-the-books revenue stream to fund surveillance activities for its narcotics unit.

And down in Mississippi, the tiny town of Richland paid for a $4.1 million police station and a new fleet of Dodge Charger police cruisers using asset forfeiture funds. A sign outside the station says the building was “tearfully donated by drug dealers.”

We may not know what else the Richland Police Department spends its forfeiture revenue on, but we’ll soon find out who’s paying for its new stuff.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mohcym
via IFTTT

Wikileaks’ Assange Claims Hillary, Intel Officials “Quietly Pushing A Pence Takeover”

Over the weekend we noted chatter that some saw Mike Pence as "the Deep State's insurance policy," and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks' Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence Officials plan…

Adding that…

As The Daily Caller notes, Assange’s claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening…

As we concluded previously, if Trump doesn’t adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.

No matter what one makes of Trump – or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far – the fact remains that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia –  a nuclear power –  could possibly endanger American lives.

Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us. The first path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more ground troops to Syria alongside Saudi troops, who will intentionally oppose the Syrian regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

via http://ift.tt/2mo46Bk Tyler Durden

A Crash is Coming (Either in Oil or In Stocks)

Oil may have just stopped the Bank of Japan.

The fact is that in late September 2016, the Bank of Japan embarked on a new monetary policy of targeting a yield of 0% on 10-Year Japanese Government bonds.

What this means is that the Bank of Japan will intervene in the market to maintain a 0% yield, and this involves aggressively devaluing the Yen against the $USD. You can see this in the chart below.

This is the famed “yen carry trade” through which devaluing the Yen boosts risk assets. The reason it works as market manipulation is that 80% of market activity is now dominated by computer trading algorithms that operate based on correlations.

As soon as the Bank of Japan began this campaign, the algorithms synched up with the Yen/ $USD pair. Since that time, the correlational buying activity between this currency pair and US stocks has been extreme.

On a weekly basis the correlation was above .75 from mid-December until late January. It has since fallen somewhat but remains above 62%.

Let me repeat this… the correlation between the weekly moves of the $USD/YEN pair and the S&P 500 was over 0.75 for more than a month. This is statistically impossible unless you are dealing with outright manipulation via compute algorithms.

However, Oil appears to have finally ended this.

When the Bank of Japan engages in rampant devaluation of the Yen against the $USD is exports deflation into the west. The last time the BoJ did this in 2014, commodities experienced their worst collapse in 40+ years. Oil was what stopped this as it plunged 75%…forcing Oil producing nations to “call the Bank of Japan.”

The same scheme is playing out now. Thus far Oil has been immune to the Bank of Japan’s insanity… but no longer. And if the Yen/$USD pair does not stop dropping, OIL WILL CRASH.

Currently the Yen/ $USD pair suggests Oil is going BELOW $40 per barrel.

If you think last week’s carnage in Oil was bad… wait until you see what is coming. The rampers now have a choice… let stocks “go” or watch as Oil falls in HALF (the ultimate downside could be sub-30s).

Either way, a crash is coming… either in stocks or Oil.

On that note, we are already preparing our clients for this with a 21-page investment report titled the Stock Market Crash Survival Guide.

In it, we outline the coming collapse will unfold…which investments will perform best… and how to take out “crash” insurance trades that will pay out huge returns during a market collapse.

We are giving away just 99 copies of this report for FREE to the public.

To pick up yours, swing by:

http://ift.tt/1HW1LSz

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

 

via http://ift.tt/2nBdQZP Phoenix Capital Research

Crashing “Post-Obama Era” Gun Sales Lead To Remington Mass Layoffs

As we noted last summer, the Obama administration’s constant gun control threats did little more than flood American homes with more guns as people looked to stockpile weapons ahead of anticipated new regulations.  In fact, both of Obama’s elections resulted in massive and unprecedented spikes in gun sales.

 

Meanwhile, Obama’s presidency was a boon for the gun manufacturers whose revenue, profitability and stocks all soared during his presidency.

 

But while the constant threat of new regulations under Obama resulted in a massive full forward of gun demand and pushed gun stocks to all-time highs, the election of Trump, and thus the removal of those threats for at least the next 4-8 years, is having exactly the opposite effect. 

If fact, Remington Outdoor just announced layoffs of 120 people at their upstate New York manufacturing facility due to sinking gun demand in the Trump era.  Per the Wall Street Journal:

Remington Outdoor Co. has laid off more than 120 workers at an upstate New York factory in response to falling demand for firearms, dealing a blow to an upstate village of 8,000.

 

Since Donald Trump’s presidential victory eased concerns about stiffer gun laws, the small-arms industry has seen a drop in sales. As a result, orders for Remington handguns have slowed, a company spokeswoman said Monday. That is “a dynamic from which Remington is not immune,” she said of the industry challenges.

 

The March 8 layoffs are a hit for Ilion, N.Y., where Remington has operated a plant since the 19th century, said Terry Leonard, mayor of the village located about 60 miles east of Syracuse.

 

“Should they ever just close down totally, it would be a total catastrophe for the entire area here,” the mayor said.

Meanwhile, other firearms makers, including American Outdoor Brands, formerly known as Smith & Wesson, say demand for weapons, particularly handguns, has been ebbing since Trump’s election.  Earlier this month the company posted disappointing sales and higher inventories and admitted to investors on their quarterly earnings call that business had slowed…all of which sent the stock into a downward spiral.

SAW

 

Meanwhile, Wedbush equity analyst James Hardiman expects FBI background checks, a good indicator of gun sales, to be down 10-15% in 2017.

Financial analysts said the possibility of new gun laws under the Obama administration almost certainly contributed to strong growth in gun sales last year.

 

“We do believe that having a Republican in the White House…negatively impacts gun sales in that it effectively eliminates any threat of new gun regulation for the foreseeable future,” said James Hardiman, managing director of equities research for Wedbush Securities Inc.

 

Mr. Hardiman forecasts a 10% to 15% decline in FBI background checks for 2017.

The gun industry is sure going to miss this guy:

Obama

via http://ift.tt/2nAXMrd Tyler Durden

Drudge: “Republicans Lied About Tax Cuts”, Wants His Vote Back

In what may be his most vocal complaint aimed at the Republican party since the Trump presidential victory, prominent conservative voice Matt Drudge on Tuesday accused the GOP of “lying” about wanting tax cuts, and asked to “get his vote back.”

Delays surrounding the repeal of Obamacare, which as Goldman earlier said will likely be postponed by several months if not longer following the controversial CBO report, will asure significant delays with the implementation of Trump tax cuts. Furthermore, the Republican healthcare plan would repeal most of ObamaCare’s taxes: a prospect that looks increasingly distant. Earlier this month, the Joint Committee on Taxation released estimates showing the repeal and delay of many of ObamaCare’s taxes in the GOP healthcare plan would result in more than $500 billion in lost federal revenue.

The Trump team’s reform plan “will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone,” the president said during an address to a joint session of Congress. He also said the plan “will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.”

In a separate tweet, Drudge also questioned the National Weather Service in light of Tuesday’s snowstorm.

“Lots of misses piling up. Overreaction by govts, bad forecasting very troubling trend!” he tweeted adding that “Trump should clear out climate hysterics from NWS. All storms grossly exaggerated. National Guard called for 3 inches? JFK closed? Laughable.”

via http://ift.tt/2lX7k3u Tyler Durden

Oil Jumps After Saudis “Explain” Production Surge

Having sent crude oil pries tumbling overnight by admitting they cheated on OPEC production cuts, Saudi officials are desperately trying to unwind that faux pas by claiming the over-production was purely for domestic storage. The problem with this "explanation" is that Saudi deliveries to China soared in January…

Bloomberg reports that Saudi Arabia didn’t raise supply to the international oil market in February, according to a person familiar with the kingdom’s oil policy.

The OPEC member increased the volume of oil in storage at domestic refineries and terminals last month, says the person, asking not to be identified because the information isn’t public.

If that's the case then perhaps explain the surge in deliveries to China…

Additionally the unnamed officiasl claimed that OPEC cuts will continue to reduce oil stocks in Q2. Which is odd given that they are building their own storage (according to them) and US crude inventories are at record highs once again.

Of course the machines did not care and just auto-bid WTI…

 

We wonder how long the half-life on this jawbone effort will last?

via http://ift.tt/2n5YPmr Tyler Durden

The White House Analyzed the House GOP Health Care Bill—and Found an Even Bigger Coverage Reduction Than CBO

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected yesterday that 24 million fewer people will have coverage a decade from now than would under current law. The Trump administration has objected to the CBO’s score as implausible—but an internal analysis found that an even larger coverage decline, according to a report in Politico.

It’s hard to square either estimate with Republican rhetoric about the replacement plan. In January of this year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized Obamacare for leaving tens of millions of Americans without health coverage. “What you need to understand is that there are 25 million Americans who aren’t covered now,” he said. “If the idea behind Obamacare was to get everyone covered, that’s one of the many failures.”

According to President Trump and his team, the idea behind the GOP’s Obamacare replacement plan was to cover everyone affordably. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump told The Washington Post in January. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” Around the same time, one of Trump’s senior advisers, Kellyanne Conway, also said no one would lose coverage. “We don’t want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance,” she said.

Yesterday, however, the CBO released an estimate projecting that the House GOP’s plan to partially repeal Obamacare and replace it with a new system of tax subsidies would result in 24 million people losing coverage over the next decade. The CBO pinned much of the coverage decline on the repeal of the individual mandate penalties, and an associated rise in health insurance premiums in the initial years of the bill.

The Trump administration, which had spent the weekend criticizing the CBO, objected rather strongly to the report.

“We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out,” Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said. “It’s just not believable is what we would suggest.”

“We believe that the plan that we’re putting in place is gonna insure more individuals than currently are insured. So we think that CBO simply has it wrong,” he said, adding that it is “virtually impossible” to come up with a coverage decline that high.

Virtually, perhaps, but not totally. An administration projection based on a version of the House bill projected 26 million fewer would have coverage as a result of the law, according to Politico, which viewed a draft of the estimate.

Now when it comes to health policy, coverage is an important factor, but it isn’t the only one that matters. Yet in the lead up to the release of the GOP health care bill, the White House and other top Republicans have often focused on coverage, and promised to maintain Obamacare’s coverage levels, or even expand further, despite their own analysts finding that the bill would result in a large decline. The disconnect is revealing.

And there are, of course, reasons to critique the CBO’s estimates. It is frequently wrong, and in particular, it has been wrong on estimates related to the Affordable Care Act, which the GOP bill is intended to partially repeal and replace. It relies assumptions that are not always universally shared—for example, that the particular penalties associated with the individual mandate have a powerful effect on insurance coverage. (In a 2016 report for The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, a group of health policy professors “assessed the mandate’s detailed provisions” including “income-based penalties for lacking coverage and various specific exemptions from those penalties” and found “that overall coverage rates responded to these aspects of the law,” though the paper suggested that the mandate might have some effect irrespective of the particular penalties.)

But forecasting the effects of complex legislation is difficult for any institution. That CBO sometimes misses the mark isn’t a reason to simply not try at all, and to rely on the rhetoric of self-interested politicians instead. CBO is a worthy institution that provides directionally useful estimates that aren’t intended to help one party or another. And the existence of those estimates forces those who have issues with its scores to respond with evidence backing up their claims.

In pushing back against CBO’s numbers, the White House has provided no evidence. Indeed, the internal analysis viewed by Politico suggests that the administration’s own experts expect a similar decline in coverage. The White House’s shabby efforts to discredit the CBO have only discredited itself.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mnWvU2
via IFTTT

High Yield Bond ETF Breaks Below Key Technical Level

We warned overnight of the canary in the coalmine that high-yield credit markets were becoming and today that stress is getting worse.

 

 

For the first time since prior to the election, HYG (the high yield corporate bond ETF) has broken below its 200-day moving average…

 

And as a reminder, this bearish sentiment has caused investors to shift toward a net underweight stance on high yield (net 12% underweight), the first time a majority of respondents have been underweight since 2008.

via http://ift.tt/2n5VjIJ Tyler Durden

WTF Chart Of The Day: Consumers ‘Love’ Trump’s Economic Policies

While the CBO poured cold water on the RyanCare plan – and implicitly delayed the bill and thus tax reform – Bloomberg's Michael McDonough discovered that deep inside the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey, there is reason for President Trump to be optimistic on passing his fiscal agenda.

In February, 28% of respondents voluntarily mentioned news they heard about the government's economic policy in a favorable light, a record high. The previous, pre-2016 election peak for positive mentions was just 9%. This is especially notable as the survey doesn't specifically ask participants to respond about government or political news.

By comparison, McDonough writes that 26% of respondents made an unfavorable reference to government policy-related news, well below the 37% record high set during the 2013 government shutdown. The net effect is that favorable responses beat unfavorable ones by 2 percentage points, a new post-election trend.

Digging a little further, Bloomberg's Director of Economic Reasearch noted the difference between positive and negative responses in February was highest among respondents with some college (12.0 percentage points) or a high school degree or less (16.0 percentage points). The rate of negative responses for those with college degrees or more outpaced positive ones by 9 percentage points. Positive responses from this cohort rose immediately following the election, but the group’s euphoria has already begun to recede.
 

Sentiment toward government policy, as tracked by this index, has surged since November’s election. However, as McDonough concludes, while this trend may be positive news for the Trump’s administration, it’s important to note that the historic lows of this index all coincided with the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis, credit-rating downgrade and government shutdown.

The debt ceiling is set to be reinstated on March 16, as the administration attempts to lobby Congress to push through an aggressive fiscal agenda.

Another rancorous debate could quickly erode the positive perception of government economic policy news. It could also harm the administration’s chances to get its plan passed, which could cause increased volatility in markets that continue to price in tax reform, spending increases and deregulation.

via http://ift.tt/2mnNLxr Tyler Durden

If Gary Johnson Voters Can Tolerate Clinton and Trump Supporters, The Two Groups Can Live With Each Other: New at Reason

Supporters of good candidates accept election outcomes, so backers of evil candidates should do the same

J.D. Tuccille writes:

A visiting member of my extended family had to brace himself for the next stop on his trip: Calling on his adult children. He intended to try to rebuild his relationships with them after they’d cut ties over his unpardonable sin: He voted for Trump.

That’s right. Supporters of one major political party’s losing presidential candidate cut off their father because he cast his vote for the other major political party’s winning presidential candidate in last year’s election. This familial cold war is bizarre for at least two reasons:

One, that’s just unbelievably stupid in a democratic political system which necessarily features opposing candidates competing for office all the frigging time. Disagreement is the basis for the system. There’s no way to live a normal life if you cut off contact with even close family members who hold opposing political views.

And two, if a Gary Johnson voter such as myself can overcome the vast divide between my preferred non-evil candidate and the stock villains put forward by the Republicans and Democrats, surely Clinton and Trump supporters can find a way to bridge the moral sidewalk crack that separates them.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2nB1L6O
via IFTTT