View Full Version : Confiscating 'criminals' property is a police racket
mojaveman
04-18-2015, 11:06
I guess this is kind of a gray issue depending on a persons viewpoint. I've always had the idea that if they are convicted then the criminals should pay their debt to society in more ways than one. It takes some of the burden off of the taxpayer for their illegal activity.
http://www.newsweek.com/confiscating-criminals-property-cop-racket-323041
The entire idea of asset seizure without due process offends me. Basically, you have to prove you didn't do the crime and most people don't have the kind of money needed to get their stuff back. Thus, the state is incentivized to seize as much as they can get away with.
You either believe in "innocent until proven guilty" or you don't.
Let's say you loan your teenage son your car. He and his friends buy a couple of ounces of marijuana and get stoned in your car. Police pull them over, search and find marijuana. In many states with these laws, they can seize your vehicle based on the above.
Bet you wouldn't be all too happy with asset seizure laws then, would you?
mojaveman
04-18-2015, 12:19
I think there are many variables involved here.
What if a convicted felon with multiple priors gets paroled from prison and eight months later he's back in his hood slinging crack and making tons of money? The narcotics officers are doing surveillance on him, have proof he's been dealing, grab him when he's driving a brand new Cadillac, wearing ten ounces of gold and has 20K worth of cash & rock cocaine in a leather bag under his seat. They then seize his property, auction it off and buy some new equipment for the department.
I don't have a problem with that. ;)
Peregrino
04-18-2015, 12:39
--- I don't have a problem with that. ;)
Neither do I - So long as it's done AFTER their investigation has reached the point where they can obtain a warrant and he's been arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced (again!). Otherwise - I have serious problems with it.
Remington Raidr
04-18-2015, 12:43
I think there are many variables involved here.
What if a convicted felon with multiple priors gets paroled from prison and eight months later he's back in his hood slinging crack and making tons of money. The narcotics officers are doing surveillance on him and grab him when he's driving a brand new Cadillac, wearing ten ounces of gold and has 20K worth of rock cocaine & cash in a leather bag under his seat. They then seize his property, auction it off and buy some new equipment for the department.
I don't have a problem with that. ;)
But what's your efffing hurry? Your fact pattern puts him in for some sort of possession with intent to deliver. Inventory the cash, bling and vehicle until conviction. I agree that post-conviction, there would be no provision for a stay of action pending appeal, but letting anyone but the Great Karnak determine through his/her "training and experience" that any given asset is fruits of a crime for which no one has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt is giving the gubmint way too much power with no check. I don't think it's a gray area at all. For every recently released Roscoe rolling through the hood slinging rock just hours after release from incarceration there are many more who simply possessed cash and didn't want to tell gubmint agents why, who have then had said cash taken. SO, eff that "right to remain silent", right? Invoking a constitutional right is gonna cost you, huh? Well, it's OK because you are a bad guy. The cops say so.:rolleyes:
mojaveman
04-18-2015, 14:07
There's an enormous difference between normal law abiding tax paying citizens and career criminals.
Peregrino
04-18-2015, 14:55
There's an enormous difference between normal law abiding tax paying citizens and career criminals.
What part of the 4th Amendment and "due process" do you not understand? Even criminals have rights.
I think there are many variables involved here.
What if a convicted felon with multiple priors gets paroled from prison and eight months later he's back in his hood slinging crack and making tons of money. The narcotics officers are doing surveillance on him, have proof he's been dealing, grab him when he's driving a brand new Cadillac, wearing ten ounces of gold and has 20K worth of rock cocaine & cash in a leather bag under his seat. They then seize his property, auction it off and buy some new equipment for the department.
I don't have a problem with that. ;)
The entire episode you described would only be known because the police tell us it occurred that way. Police charges do not equal due process. That is a lot of faith to be put into humans who may be under pressure to seize stuff.
Me personally? I don't believe everything I am told by the police.
mojaveman
04-18-2015, 16:45
What about known criminal organizations like the Mafia who finance their legal defenses with their illegally gotten income? A little difficult to stop isn't it?
Peregrino
04-18-2015, 17:14
Depriving someone of freedom and property isn't supposed to be easy. That's why we fought a Revolution and wrote a Constitution - with a Bill of Rights - to make sure that it never became easy. That way lies tyranny.
blacksmoke
04-18-2015, 17:45
My best friend from the Army now owns two brick and mortar surplus stores. He started out selling surplus on Ebay, offering soldiers clearing post more for their old stuff that the stores in town,and within a few moths was making enough money to live off of. Ebay has it's own strict policies on what can and cannot be sold over the internet, what can be exported etc. He turned down soldiers trying to sell their old SAPI plates, IOTVs, NVGs, etc because he knew that it was illegal. After a time he notices other Ebay stores selling certain goods and decides to sell a non-issued ACOG he comes across. FBI shows up thinking he's part of a supply theiving ring getting rid of their stuff online. A few thousand dollars worth of goods is confiscated from his home business with no charges filed until an "investigation" can be completed. 2 years later, a couple thousand in lawyer fees and no charges filed, the FBI has yet to return any of the "illegal" ACU tops, knee pads, ACH covers confiscated.
The only explanation he recieved was that anything issued by the gov't was property of the gov't forever and could not be legally resold. He asked why then do so many surplus stores operate around town unhindered? No answer to that, and still no return of the goods he lost.
The Reaper
04-18-2015, 18:50
I think the policy almost guarantees unlawful seizure of private property without due process.
Many LE agencies derive a large part of their operating revenue from seizing private property and cash.
It turns into a "prove you are innocent and you might get your stuff back." Eventually.
20 years ago, my Senior 18E had the fire department called to his house after a minor fire while he was TDY. The FD called the cops to report ammo cans in the garage. (If you were in the military and do not own at least one ammo can, you did something wrong.)
The cops came by and asked his wife if they could search. She consented. (Mistake number two.) The answer, whether you are home or not is "Not without a warrant."
During the search, the overenthusiastic and imaginative young LEOs found a black commercial parachute and some cash he kept at home. Both were seized under the presumption that the Golden Knights (who were not missing or looking for any of their parachute rigs) used black (and gold) canopies, and the cash was close enough to the suspect parachute that it might have been acquired from the sale of stolen military property. These charges were eventually dropped, but not until he got yanked back from a TDY, charged, dragged through the mud, hired a lawyer, and waited several months.
Just because you wear a badge does not entitle you to violate the rights of American citizens, and allowing it to occur against certain people or groups of people because of suspicion should not be tolerated in this country. One day, it is drug owners, the next it is gun owners ("hey, this could have been used in a crime!") I do not believe our founding fathers would have allowed this abuse, and as Peregrino noted, specifically forbade it in the Bill of Rights.
This is a very slippery slope.
TR
RCummings
04-18-2015, 19:20
John Yoder and Brad Cates, who headed the Asset Forfeiture Office at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1983 to 1989, slammed civil forfeiture as a “complete corruption” and “fundamentally at odds with our judicial system and notions of fairness,” in an op-ed for The Washington Post. Thanks to civil forfeiture laws, police and prosecutors don’t need to charge someone with a crime to seize and keep their property. Yoder and Cates “were heavily involved in the creation of the asset forfeiture initiative at the Justice Department,” they write, but after seeing civil forfeiture become a “gross perversion of the status of government amid a free citizenry,” the two now believe it should be “abolished.”
Their criticisms come on the heels of an extensive, three-part investigation by The Washington Post into highway interdiction. Since 9/11, without warrants and despite a lack of criminal charges, law enforcement nationwide has taken in $2.5 billion from 61,998 cash seizures under equitable sharing. This federal civil forfeiture program lets local and state law enforcement literally make a federal case out of a seizure, if they collaborate with a federal agency. Not only can they then bypass state forfeiture laws, they can pocket up to 80 percent of the proceeds. So of that $2.5 billion seized through equitable sharing, local and state authorities kept $1.7 billion for their own uses.
The rest of the article,
Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/09/29/highway-cash-seizures-civil-forfeiture/
How much money flows before the "white hat" becomes a "black hat"?
I know there are "LEOs" reading this forum, do you think that a criminal in a uniform is different than a criminal not in uniform? I don't and I will be a juror.
Stealing among other things great and small is wrong and I don't give a rip for LE or non-LE criminals rationalization.
Bob
Constant
04-18-2015, 19:47
What about known criminal organizations like the Mafia who finance their legal defenses with their illegally gotten income? A little difficult to stop isn't it?
Due process. Period. End of effing debate. Why? Because it is supposed to protect a little guy like me. Oh but what about....no, period. Due process. It's allowing little slips and a little chipping away at people's rights that has put us in the situations we are in now. Worry about you, not the "known mafia" or some bull crap. Look at how it can hurt you as a citizen. Because that document we don't uphold anymore was to restrain the Givernment.
Or, just recognize that we aren't a republic anymore or even a democracy, be a sheep and allow the government to do what they want to you.
mojaveman
04-18-2015, 19:51
Ok, so it's a practice that should stop. Anybody want to make an educated guess though and say what's going to happen? Are more states going to follow New Mexico and abolish civil forfeiture?
With the current economic situation the way it is in many parts of the country I only see the situation getting worse. Tax revenues are down in many areas and agencies need the money, plain and simple.
Remington Raidr
04-18-2015, 20:01
There's an enormous difference between normal law abiding tax paying citizens and career criminals.
Us.
and Them.
and after all, we're only ordinary men . . . :rolleyes:
I recall several years ago Bob Cohen, one of the "B"s in B&B Guns (the shop that "loaned" the LAPD SWAT officers the ARs to take out the N. Hollywood bank robbers), said that it took them years to get those guns back. He blamed the litigation on their bankruptcy. (I'm not, in fact, sure that they did get them back.)
They didn't commit a crime. I assume that the weapons were held for evidence in the pending lawsuits, but LAPD could have at least paid for them.
On the other hand, B&B may have not wanted to sell them as they had gained historical significance.
Either way, helpful citizens were harmed by those sworn to "Serve and Protect".
Pat
This is from last year, so a bit dated, but interesting. A lot of small businesses are having their cash confiscated for not doing anything illegal other than making deposits the IRS/FBI thought looked suspicious.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html
ETA: If you're a marijuana shop in Colorado dealing in a $1 million a day in untraceable cash, that's totally OK with the FBI and IRS. If you're a small fast food place in Iowa, a dairy in Maryland, or a candy store in NY that deals in cash, they confiscate your accounts. It's shameful.
BlueYing
04-19-2015, 09:38
Last I knew those marijuana shops in Colorado couldn't use the banks. My cousin is one of those businessmen (okay, he was a dealer who started to sell medical marijuana, who then hit it big when it was legalized), and last I talked to him, he couldn't use any banks.
a police racket
...much more dangerous than a tennis racket
At least a tennis racket has to meet certain specifications before it can be used in an official capacity and if you question the legality of a tennis racket you wont get frisked, tased, or shot
a police racket - not so much
Its win-win if you have a badge!
Government takings has always been a controversial topic whether it is federal, state, and local or the historically more recent by law enforcement.
You can go to Institute for Justice (IJ.org) which covers both types of seizures. We used them to help with CO SB15-006 Concerning Limitations on Forfeiture Actions (https://connect.emailsrvr.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=jeuQpslzpU2XlOmOFgwzD9RKJaTWTNIIp0B5X uCKZNdXlyMCATvX75vTia7E_g6inxbyDzhCErc.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leg.state.co.us%2fCLICS%2fCLI CS2015A%2fcsl.nsf%2ffsbillcont3%2f40B61E453EF6AB51 87257D900079462D%3fOpen%26file%3d006_01.pdf) that we ran this year. This year the Grinch wore Blue and brought in a DA, CoP, and Sheriff from each Committee members district to argue against the bill. Being a GOP stacked committee (one Senator was most recently a Sheriff), they voted with law enforcement against the bill.
Let's be clear, the government is authorized within the constitution to take. It is also clear that they have been abusing those explicit reasons for takings. Law enforcement is authorized by statute to seize as well. It too has clearly been abused. Frequently.
IMO, law enforcement should never be in the position to seize and keep anything. It should always be adjudicated and if so deemed placed into the treasury. If law enforcement needs more - they should (get it) request it just like everyone else does.
My testimony in support of the bill:
Good afternoon Madam Chair, Members. My name is ...., I represent Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and I’m here to testify in support of Senate Bill 006. Which makes Colorado's forfeiture laws more fair.
Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the Colorado today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your cash, your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash, etc.
Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.
This bill still allows local and federal police to seize assets, but it raises the threshold amount of assets that can be seized, requires criminal conviction, and makes law enforcement more responsible for when they are wrong.
It’s time to end civil forfeiture. People shouldn’t lose their property without being convicted of a crime, and law enforcement shouldn’t be able to profit from other people’s property.
No doubt you've heard the recent case of a South Dakota couple who lost thousands of dollars because they had “too much” legal tender on hand. What's in your wallet?
Please stop a police officer from taking citizens money and putting it in his pocket all because he thinks you might be thinking about committing a crime!
I urge you to support SB15-006 and return police to the level of respect and honor that we expect and they deserve. Thank you.
Guymullins
04-19-2015, 11:52
Our alleged government in S Africa passed a bill allowing exactly this a few years ago. It was instantly so abused by the ruling gang to silence their enemies that it seems to have not been used lately. It was so transparently anti-consttutional that it became an embarrassment for a government not easily embarrassed.
Some of the confiscated money and goods found homes in policeman's personal possessions.
All Americans must fight this tooth and nail. The arguments for it are quite persuasive, but it is a poisoned chalice.
We have a local municipal government that has enacted a seizure/forfeiture law for DUI's. The law states if you are picked up for a DUI they are going to take your vehicle and sell it.
No not after you go to court and found guilty.......
They are even in violation of New Mexico's new state law that stops what is the subject of this thread. I am waiting for them to try to take a car and sell it. It should be a good show.
Even the sheriffs department is not happy with the situation. Impounding is one thing but selling it before you are found guilty is a pretty long stretch.
Granted you are more likely to be killed by a drunk here than any where else I have ever lived but selling your property is pretty extreme without your day in court.
Guymullins
04-20-2015, 15:49
We have a local municipal government that has enacted a seizure/forfeiture law for DUI's. The law states if you are picked up for a DUI they are going to take your vehicle and sell it.
No not after you go to court and found guilty.......
They are even in violation of New Mexico's new state law that stops what is the subject of this thread. I am waiting for them to try to take a car and sell it. It should be a good show.
Even the sheriffs department is not happy with the situation. Impounding is one thing but selling it before you are found guilty is a pretty long stretch.
Granted you are more likely to be killed by a drunk here than any where else I have ever lived but selling your property is pretty extreme without your day in court.
Thats enough to drive you to drink
Bleed Green
04-20-2015, 20:10
NM is a strange state in my experience. They pass laws that I have seen very easily could have killed people while waiting for a warrant to be issued on a weekend and in the next breath get progressive on civil asset forfeiture.
In my time here I had not seen the police doing what I would consider abusing asset forfeiture, but then my standard is pretty much the same we have always used at work. If you have a trunk load of dope or aliens and you are the owner of the vehicle you can probably kiss that one good bye as it is hard to argue that you had no knowledge. The only time I have ever been involved in seizing anything that was not loaded was a $5 million dollar ranch and a bunch of vehicles and guns, but the 1400 lbs of coke in the motor home floor and 12 lbs of left over grass in the semi trailer false compartment were pretty much a tip off that the whole lot was a criminal enterprise. Any dept. that uses it as a major revenue stream without owners tied directly to something criminal, other than SWAG and hunches as your proof, needs to really take a look at the meaning of integrity in the dictionary IMHO.
GratefulCitizen
04-20-2015, 22:18
"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner."
Hmmm...
So what is the problem of holding the assets until AFTER the trial then taking possession when found guilty? I have NO problem with that. My issue is agencies taking possession before the trial begins and selling it a auction etc.
So, I buy a sailboat and lease it to a sailing club in order to get a small monetary return on my investment and free maintenance. Another member rents it and has a run in with Bay Watch or the CG. During the search, they find marijuana in a drawer and arrest them and confiscate my boat. No problem, right?
Pat
Remington Raidr
04-20-2015, 23:53
So, I buy a sailboat and lease it to a sailing club in order to get a small monetary return on my investment and free maintenance. Another member rents it and has a run in with Bay Watch or the CG. During the search, they find marijuana in a drawer and arrest them and confiscate my boat. No problem, right?
Pat
The legal question is if you knowingly possessed the substance. You don't discuss amounts or packaging, so possession with intent is a fact to be found AT TRIAL. The State would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you knew the drugs were there and that you maintained control over them for resale. If so, then yeah, you will have to win on wheel of fortune . . . again. So . . . legal problems abound. Maybe enough that the state does not try to take the boat. Depending on the actual amount of the gange, taking the boat may, in itself, be excessive punishment. Maybe the state's attorney decides to exercise discretion and not pursue forfieture. OMFG!!! If you are a member of the refer madness crowd, it is the end of the world as we know it. Dogs and cats living together, human sacrifice . . . MASS HYSTERIA!!!!:D
The legal question is if you knowingly possessed the substance. You don't discuss amounts or packaging, so possession with intent is a fact to be found AT TRIAL. The State would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you knew the drugs were there and that you maintained control over them for resale. If so, then yeah, you will have to win on wheel of fortune . . . again. So . . . legal problems abound. Maybe enough that the state does not try to take the boat. Depending on the actual amount of the gange, taking the boat may, in itself, be excessive punishment. Maybe the state's attorney decides to exercise discretion and not pursue forfieture. OMFG!!! If you are a member of the refer madness crowd, it is the end of the world as we know it. Dogs and cats living together, human sacrifice . . . MASS HYSTERIA!!!!:D
All the while, I'm paying lawyers and the boat payments, while the boat sits idle, impounded.
No thanks.
Pat
Remington Raidr
04-21-2015, 11:55
All the while, I'm paying lawyers and the boat payments, while the boat sits idle, impounded.
No thanks.
Pat
What we MIGHT have here is . . . a . . . failure to communicate. You write your fact pattern as an innocent 3rd party (see Chubs "those aren't my pants") who gets caught up during a legitimate business arrangement. You point out all the costs you would run up and end by saying "no thanks".
To what. To entering into the leasing contract in the first place. Good for you. To having your property encumbered for an unspecified time? Not your choice. No thanks, I don't want forfeiture laws on the books that could result in this happening to me? Well, then we agree. OR, less likely, but in response to the OP, no thanks, just sell it right away so I don't have to spend money on lawyers.:confused:
What we MIGHT have here is . . . a . . . failure to communicate. You write your fact pattern as an innocent 3rd party (see Chubs "those aren't my pants") who gets caught up during a legitimate business arrangement. You point out all the costs you would run up and end by saying "no thanks".
To what. To entering into the leasing contract in the first place. Good for you. To having your property encumbered for an unspecified time? Not your choice. No thanks, I don't want forfeiture laws on the books that could result in this happening to me? Well, then we agree. OR, less likely, but in response to the OP, no thanks, just sell it right away so I don't have to spend money on lawyers.:confused:
No thanks to the continued attack on personal liberty and private property. In my hypothetical, I had no involvement in who the boat was rented to, but, since it is registered in my name, it would be assumed that I, also, use the boat and could have left the contraband on board, as well. No one else who rented the boat between the last time I used it and the person who is caught with would be a suspect. (This is loosely based on an incident that actually happened several years ago in SoCal.) If the renter is found guilty, I lose my boat. (Unless they changed the law.)
The intent of the law was to make people use caution when loaning a vehicle to someone who they suspect could use it in a crime. But when they discovered the revenue that could be generated, the original intent was ignored in favor of the money.
Pat
All the while, I'm paying lawyers and the boat payments, while the boat sits idle, impounded.
Pat
If you're lucky. Most states with asset seizures laws impound it, sell it and keep the proceeds....w/o due process (i.e.-charged but not convicted)....the whole point of this thread.
Surf n Turf
04-21-2015, 15:50
Looks like this is government authorized theft, and not a lot of protection :(
SnT
Federal law allows law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to seize property, including money, from people convicted of certain federal crimes, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and organized crime. The seizure is known as “forfeiture,” and it’s done without compensation to the owner. Prosecutors must be able to prove that the defendant used the property to commit a crime, earned the property from illegal activity, or purchased the property using the proceeds of illegal acts. Forfeiture laws are intended to punish the defendant, reduce profits from -- and thereby deter -- criminal activity, and produce revenue for law enforcement agencies.
In addition to federal forfeiture laws, most states have laws that permit state agencies to seize property gained or used in criminal activity. This article explains forfeiture in federal criminal cases only.
Forfeiture: What Can Be Seized?
Forfeiture has existed in the United States since colonial times. At that time, the government could seize the property of anyone convicted of treason. Historically, forfeiture was permitted in only a handful of situations and it was rarely invoked.
Beginning in the 1970s, federal lawmakers dramatically expanded forfeiture laws in an effort to combat drug trafficking and organized crime. Since then, the amount and value of real and personal property seized by the federal government has increased substantially.
Today, DEA agents can seize a boat if they can show that it was used to transport drugs, a warehouse if they can show it was used to store drugs, a residence if they can show it was purchased with money made from money laundering, and even a car that was used by a “john” to hire a prostitute.
Tough Luck for the Innocent Wife
Historically, the “innocent owner” defense was not available because the property itself was considered tainted. As a result, otherwise blameless owners could have their property seized, even as recently as 1996. In a case decided that year, a husband used the family car for a tryst with a prostitute; following his conviction, the car was seized under authority of the city's nuisance law, which provided for forfeiture of property that contributed to a legal nuisance. (Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996).) The defendant’s wife co-owned the car, and protested its forfeiture. The Supreme Court ruled that the car could be seized, despite the wife’s having no knowledge of her husband’s intentions when he left the house that night.
Many lawmakers and judges were unhappy with the Bennis decision. In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), partly in response to the Bennis opinion. Under this law, innocent owners—those who did not consent to the illegal use of the property, nor had any knowledge of it; and particularly those who did all they could reasonably do to prevent illegal use—are protected from forfeiture.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/white-collar-crime/defenses-civil-asset-forfeiture.htm
Bleed Green
04-21-2015, 17:15
So what is the problem of holding the assets until AFTER the trial then taking possession when found guilty? I have NO problem with that. My issue is agencies taking possession before the trial begins and selling it a auction etc.
I think that realistically that would be kind of tough just predicated upon the volume of vehicles we were seizing at the time Brush. To do as you suggest would have required a secured parking lot the size of Rhode Island. Thankfully almost all of them were sold for cash and when you contacted the RO they had a bill of sale or similar proof that they had disposed of it a bit before we snared it. Thus we never really encountered what we are seeing in todays legal environment.
Today, DEA agents can seize a boat if they can show that it was used to transport drugs, a warehouse if they can show it was used to store drugs, a residence if they can show it was purchased with money made from money laundering, and even a car that was used by a “john” to hire a prostitute.
Hay DEA does not persecute Prostitutes or the John's.:D Remember they party with them.:eek:
Bleed Green
04-21-2015, 20:36
And it is even better when you can do it all on per diem or so I hear. :eek:
Bleed Green
04-22-2015, 19:38
We never had to deal with much in the way of waiting for trials though. Back when I was a kid in the job it took an alien getting killed before an AUSA would actually contemplate prosecution. Kind of like we would have to be in the hospital for at least a night or two to get the Feebies to prosecute for assault. Honestly the only times I can recall ever having a seizure contested was generally a sign to run a dog on the vehicle if it was a dope case because you could bet dollars to donuts there was part of the load you didn't find.
What I am totally astounded at is some of the horror stories that I have read the past few years. Not that I have ever been a big fan of defense attorneys, but a lot of these agencies make me wish I were one just because.