Slashdot Mirror
CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"
jfbilodeau writes The CBC is warning Canadians about a U.S. program where America law enforcement officers — from federal agents to state troopers right down to sheriffs in one-street backwaters — are operating a vast, co-ordinated scheme to grab as much of the public's cash as they can through seizure laws. "So, for any law-abiding Canadian thinking about an American road trip, here’s some non-official advice: Avoid long chats if you’re pulled over. Answer questions politely and concisely, then persistently ask if you are free to go. Don’t leave litter on the vehicle floor, especially energy drink cans. Don’t use air or breath fresheners; they could be interpreted as an attempt to mask the smell of drugs. Don’t be too talkative. Don’t be too quiet. Try not to wear expensive designer clothes. Don’t have tinted windows. And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
The link is bad. American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money
The link in the article is cut off and gives a 404. Here is the correct link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/a...
Even the police are capitalist. They fiercely serve and protect their budgets.
As a U.S. citizen, I'm baffled as to why courts have accepted the validity of civil forfeiture laws. It strikes me as a blatant violation of our Constitution.
When nationalistic Americans brag about our Bill or Rights, I wonder which version they're excited about: the version one gets from a plain reading of its text, or the twisted monstrosity that the three branches of government have foisted upon us.
Similarly, 99% of the problem could be stopped if they cancelled the Equitable Sharing program and instead insisted that all such seizures to go to the federal government, not to any local fund.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
American police run an extra-legal extortion racket in the name of RICO laws. They can impound property giving the citizen no legal recourse. What do they do with the money? Buy military style riot gear and surplus MRAPS. Boy, I feel safer.
I don't know why any one in Canada would want to visit that cesspool we have what they have only without the suck and with a lot more natural spaces to enjoy.
CBC's article is just a Canadian take on things. The original article (just as scary) is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
You never consent to a search. Make them get a warrant or conduct an illegal search. You may have just bought the car. It may have absolutely NOTHING personal in it. You still don't consent to a search.
Period.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Are you sure there aren't any democrats supporting this unholy mess? Cause I bet this abomination has bipartisan support.
http://www.policecrimes.com/
Required watching (plus associated videos to the right)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
OMG I'm shocked!!!
There's laws in our country that legalized this? What is that law and where can I find some confirmation?
Go shill for your political party somewhere else.
Did you even RTFA? Shall I avoid wearing designer clothes and having an air freshener? Drinking energy drinks is now a mark of being a drug dealer? Please send me a list of approved attire, standards of car cleanliness, and any other requirements for not appearing like a drug dealer.
Your naivete is mind blowing.
You haven't been following this issue very much, have you? Siezures have been made where there was no proof, only suspicion (based on the flimsiest of evidence). As the owner, you don't have the right to challenge the siezure -- the siezure is made against the property itself.
I don't expect that I have much to worry about, but that probably has more to do with my socio-economic status and the color of my skin than any other factors.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
No pretty sure police can't and don't do this in Canada. They actually have to arrest you and the money is evidence if purported to be proceeds of crime.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
First the militarization of small town police departments, SWAT teams for serving routine warrants, rising incidents of shocking brutality and now law enforcement has devolved to the point of being little better than a band of petty thieves. This is getting pathetic and scary. Foreign countries are issuing warnings about the conduct of U.S. law enforcement personnel. Am I the only person who has a problem with that?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
When I go on a road trip I always carry enough cash to buy gas to get to my destination should my credit card stop working.
I got pulled over in Nebraska and when I was getting my license out of my wallet the officer saw a $100 bill in there and ended up confiscating the $400 I had on me as suspected drug money without ever arresting me or even charging me with a crime.
I got a receipt and an affidavit indicating the amount seized and why. I petitioned the court for the return of my money and the court denied me saying that possession of that much cash constituted probable cause of drug activity and that I should be happy not to be in jail for drugs.
You're missing the point: here in America you're *supposed* to be able to "do things that make you look like you are hauling drugs". You're supposed to be able to do whatever you want, as long as it's legal, no matter how illegal it looks.
Let's say I look like a burglar because I locked my keys in the house and now I have to climb in a window: the police have every right to stop me. If I'm (somehow) using my wallet to try and jimmy the window open, the police have a right to seize that wallet. But once I've shown that I'm not a burglar, I should get my wallet back.
The point of this article is, that's not actually how it works. From TFA:
"You’ll have the right to seek its return in court, but of course that will mean big lawyer’s fees, and legally documenting exactly where the money came from. You will need to prove you are not a drug dealer or a terrorist.
It might take a year or two. And several trips back to the jurisdiction where you were pulled over. Sorry.
In places like Tijuana, police don’t make any pretense about this sort of thing. Here in the U.S., though, it’s dressed up in terms like “interdiction and forfeiture,” or “the equitable sharing program.”"
> And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
Well, of course, but I'd say "don't consent to a search, ever. At all."
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Is it just me that thinks this is a sad reflection? The governments of the world are now publishing literature on "How to protect yourself from American Police".
The day you have to learn to protect yourself from police just highlights the whole problem - the institution was designed to protect and serve, not harass, intimidate, lie and extort. This is government sanctioned highway robbery and all in the name of padding out the department budgets. Giving over the proceeds of civil forfeiture cases to police departments represents a damning conflict of interest, especially when most people can't afford to fight these cases. Bullshit. Horseshit. The law has gone mad.
So, you believe it is okay for the government to confiscate your property, without being able to articulate a _reasonable_ suspicion of criminal activity, without charging you with a crime, and without convicting you of a crime?
And there is only one group who puts them in a position to do it the Democrats?
Please there is no effective difference in US politics, it's the same group. Hell politician's change affiliation and still get elected. Sure one side tends to do one thing or another you need something to campaign on after all. Neither wants any real change.
No sir I dont like it.
My little brother had a gig at an auto rental place built into the side of a hotel. Once, they had to pick up a punk concert booker from the airport & they got pulled over by the 5-0 PO. There goes the $9K USD roll he needed to book bands in the city. They may have said something about picking it up from the evdience locker in a few months or something?
everybody knows that in a banana republic the cops are all corrupt and will rip you off.
Just ask John McAfee.
Why are the Canadians surprised by this fact?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
For the police departments, this kind of robbery is just a way to grab some cash. But I wonder if this is accepted on a political level to get rid of non-traceable monetary transactions altogether.
Come on, don't fall for this stuff. It's not like we are a police state (yet).
Oh yes you are. You just haven't been paying attention.
[ReidNews]
The real source is this Washington Post article(s).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
"Good afternoon, Officer. My time is valuable. Your time is valuable. Please don't waste time by asking questions I am not required to answer."
"Sir, Have you been drinking?"
"Am I required to answer that question?"
"No."
"Please stop wasting time. As I said, my time is valuable. Am I free to go now?"
etc.
I love how in several of these cases, they force the person to wait, bring in a dog, and then the dog "alerts" but there are NEVER any drugs... just money. This seems to contribute well to the theory that many dogs are just acting on a signal from the trainer (whether implicit or otherwise).
It's happened 65 thousand times according to this article. You can't assume that just because someone can't afford a lawyer that they're guilty.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
They've been running this shake-down on Americans traveling out-of-state, too: http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
Basically, if you're not a local, they'll pull you over for some piss-ant, often fabricated infraction, claim that they "smell weed" (especially if your plates are CO or WA) threate-^h...extort you with some scary-sounding charges (which you'll be greatly disinclined to accept when you're a considerable distance from home, not wanting a huge ticket, points on your license and a trial that you'll lose in a kangaroo traffic court) and then miraculously offer to "make it go away" if you fork over whatever cash and valuables you've got in your car, which they get to use to pad their budget or their own fucking wallets (because it's untraceable and you're in the middle of dogfuck nowhere, who's gonna know, right?)
This is *literally* sanctioned and institutionalized highway robbery and they've gotten away with THOUSANDS of them.
Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.
Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
In places like near the borders where the police routinely randomly pull people over to search, NOT consenting will give them every reason to detain, bother, and harass you on the possibly-still-statistically-valid (well, it used to be valid, I don't know if still is) assumption that people who refuse consent are more likely to be hiding something than those who do consent.
In these situations, where they plan on doing a cursory search of every random vehicle they pull over, consenting will almost always get you on your merry way in a reasonable period of time - less time than not consenting. Why? Because the police don't want to waste time with someone who "looks like a regular person" if doing so will let many more people - some of whom may be "up to no good" - get through without being pulled over.
Of course, if you've already given the police a reason to want to harass you even through no fault of your own, such as (hypothetically) having a bumper sticker promoting a sports team that the cop hates, or if you are just unlucky enough to get pulled over by a cop that is in a bad mood, you may be screwed whether you consent or not.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The next line won't be "Okay, gtfo."
It'll be: "Sir, please step out of the car."
That's why I have a personal policy of always costing them more money than they seize from me. You confiscated $400 from me? I'm going to arrange to use more than $400 in police resources. I will mail you enough letters that you'll spend more than $400 just responding to them. I'll sue in small claims court so you have to send a representative to get it tossed out, then hire a lawyer to send fancy letters forcing the department to hire another fancy lawyer to send responses back.
I don't read AC A human right
And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
I have been pulled over twice for minor offenses such as a burned out taillight bulb and then had my vehicle searched for no cause. The police said they smelled marijuana and didn't need my consent. Basically, all they have to do is lie and the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper as far as they are concerned. They found nothing either time.
It's happened 65 thousand times according to this article. You can't assume that just because someone can't afford a lawyer that they're guilty.
Seizure of property perhaps. Unjustified seizure of property, not so often. I've only heard of ONE case myself where the seizure was found to be unjustified.
So are you claiming that some people just let the property go when it wasn't a justified seizure? Can you produce examples? I'm sure there are organizations that would be happy to fund the legal bills to get their property back as what you suggest is a violation of the 5th amendment.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Choose to look like you might be doing something illegal" is one heck of a slippery slope. The problem here is that police can seize cash from you without valid cause. You are right its not a mexico like thing where they are taking $100 off random Canadians. However, you might want to think twice about that 10,000 you have to buy a classic car/motorcycle. And that is what they (the government of the Canada) are saying. That anyone should have to go through such a crazy process to get there money back (prove you aren't a terrorist or drug dealer? isn't the deal here supposed to be they have to prove you are one first?) is a sign that the laws are amiss in favor of the ever-growing local police. The ones that seem less friendly than ever no matter how innocent you are. I'd also like to point out that "This unlawful seizure has only happened in a handful of cases over the last decade" as you mentioned is not necessarily true. Please cite statistics, I believe there have been only a handful of PUBLIC cases, but that's because not everyone is interested in a media circus, guilty or not. How do you know who is guilty and who's not? By if they fight to get the money back? What if it costs more to fight it (say if you... lived in Canada)? Once again, cites please. Lastly, even if this is more PR than reality as far as travelers go, it's a good idea to warn people about US LEOs. We seem to have a very large amount of people in prison compared to any other comparable nation. Is it because we are inherently worse than them? I doubt it.
I hate the continued militarization of the police as much (or more) than the next man. But the advice in the first link is liable to lead to more hassle than good. I would never consent to a search, and if a cop kept me longer than I thought reasonable for a traffic stop, I would ask if I was free to go. But not talking to police AT ALL like the first link suggests is just liable to mean more trouble for me. Yes, I could get out of it if I was innocent, but why get into it? Of the few times I've been stopped by cops, I've been civil to them, and they've been civil right back. I think the trick is knowing your rights and standing up for them, but not being a general dickhead. But hey, that said, fuck the police! You know, like just in general man..... :)
That's the problem. Judges won't.
This is happening in small towns that see small highway streatches as a way of earning easy cash - with judges that at best don't give a damn or at worst were hired (yes, hired) to make the money stay where it is as much as possible.
You are so seriously misinformed, go look it up there are cases of this all the time.
If the judges are as close to corrupt as legally possible, of course most cases aren't going to get far.
As much as I like the idea of limiting my responses to legally identifying myself according to my state's laws, presenting any registrations or licenses potentially necessary, and then locking myself into a loop of, "am I being detained?" "am I under arrest?" "am I free to go?" I'm also smart enough to know that the any chance of the officer simply sending me on my way with a warning to keep my insurance card in the car and get a new tail-lamp next time I pass a Checker/Kragen/AutoZone flies right out the window when that happens.
It's a good idea to know your rights, not offer consent to searches, not volunteer any unnecessary information...but it's downright foolish to get into some sort of "I am being detained" back-and-forth through a slit cracked in the window.
Let me guess, you either are a cop, or have never actually had any real dealings with an LEO?
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Oh I understand the issue just fine. But, they have to have a minimum level of proof to do the seizure and they also have to defend the action in court if/when the property owner objects. A judge will rip them a new one if they don't come up with justification and the property owner objects. There are checks and balances here.
No ,they don't need a minimum level of proof to carry out the seizure. They need a minimum level of proof to defend the seizure in court--which is a totally different ball game. Attorneys cost money, even if fees are eventually awarded many potential plaintiffs can't afford to be out of pocket for the time (months or years) required for a case to make its way through the courts. Seizures made against out-of-town and out-of-state victims are even harder to challenge--it can be quite costly to repeatedly travel to a distant jurisdiction's courts, even if you can afford to take the time off work. And to challenge even a blatantly illegal seizure is to invite additional scrutiny and future harrassment.
If crooked cops can hit the 'sweet spot' of around a few thousand dollars, in most cases it's going to be too much of a hassle and expense for a victim to fight.
~Idarubicin
Neatly proving that you don't have a clue. Read this and see how asset forfeiture happens in the real world.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
only one case where the seizure was found to be unjustified does not actually mean all the rest were really justified. (It also doesn't mean they weren't, of course. Insufficient data. But it feels unlikely that there were no other incorrect seizures; 65000 instances with no false positives is a better accuracy rate than almost any human activity.)
Absolutely. If I were running drugs, I'd just avoid all that shit's that listed.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Q.E.D.
Why are the Canadians surprised by this fact?
Two answers:
1) We aren't.
2) We need to be reminded now and then just how corrupt and borken the republic to our south actually is, as we tend to forget it and have trouble believing it.
Canadians, for all of our manifest imperfections, live in a relatively lawful country and take for granted that people in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand do as well. Despite being bombarded by news stories out of the US and UK in the past ten or fifteen years about how lawless things are getting there with their out-of-control security states we simply have trouble processing the practical implications.
Although... I renewed my passport recently and realized I haven't actually traveled to the US in over five years, whereas in the previous five years I had worked, lived and vacationed in the US. So we do kind of appreciate what a dangerous, arbitrary and lawless place the US has become, we just react by avoiding it rather than thinking much about it.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I hate stuff like this. I hate it because it is crooked and evil. I hate it because there is very little recourse for the average citizen to make against an attack like this.
Contact your congress reps, local and federal. Try to get them to change the law. What is happening in these stories should be illegal.
Like I said to another poster. This unlawful seizure has only happened in a handful of cases over the last decade, and those where corrected by the courts, property returned and officers involved appropriately disciplined.
The original story reads like this happens every day. Sorry, that's not true. It doesn't happen once a week, or once a month even.
Are you sure?
From the Washington Post article that the CBC author quoted.
I'm not sure about the numbers either, but even if they're off by an order of magnitude, it seems like a lot of seizures.
Further interesting is the last line. It reads to me like half of the seizures are ABOVE $8,800.
Posting AC just because:
The US revolution was unique. Essentially it was one government breaking away from another government, and not an overthrow of the current one.
People don't know how serious a revolution gets, which is why I respect the zeal of groups like the three-percenters, but I consider them foolish since they are not going to effect change by threatening armed revolt. Instead, they need to change what they do at the ballot box, not at the ammo box. Some things about revolution:
1: It will be stopped quickly. If push came to shove, .40 pistols and AR-15s won't do much against mercenary troops, UAVs, gunships, and Sarin gas containers. One brief shock and awe treatment, and most "revolutionaries" will be slapping the Flexicuffs on themselves and their families.
2: It will be violent. Most Americans are not used to real violence. At most, they play Call of Duty.
3: In a revolution, the most brutal and violent psychopaths will be running the show. ISIS shows what happens when there is a power vacuum and the result of no government in a region. Almost every professor at the university I went to who worked/taught in that region said a group like ISIS would form, and they were right.
4: What group would end up on top? Christianity is declining, and Islam is destined to be the top US religion in ten years (well, materialism is the #1 religion in the US, but spending a life chasing the dollar isn't really "official"). Would people want the US to end up like Iraq with sectarian violence forever and ever, separated by racial and religious lines? I'm sure a lot of people worldwide would love this, but not people living here.
5: There are players sitting on the sidelines. The US is the world's #1 food exporter, to the point where many nations would starve if shipments ceased. If the US government got weak enough, it would be inevitable that China would invade so they would have a secure, fertile area for crop growing. Already, they have a monopoly on pork companies in the US (which is why the price of bacon has doubled this past week.) Other players would love a chunk of the US territory, be it a return of Texas to Mexico, or a Middle Eastern nation deciding they are tired of the region and choose one of the Carolinas as a new Damascus or Dubai. What happened to the native Americans can easily happen to the current US population should the government get weak.
6: The US is a mitigating power globally. Should the US weaken and stop being a player, it would only be a matter of time before the Pacific Rim got hot. If one thinks the Middle East is bad, wait until China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, even Australia start battling it out over racial and territorial disputes. China is getting belligerent , and Japan is re-militarizing.
Europe would be affected. For more than half a century, Western Europe had to spend almost nothing on defense. With the US gone, they would have to raise an army, or just watching as the ISIS map becomes a reality. The current European doctrine of Chamberlain-esque constant appeasement can only go so far. Would Germany want to split into the FRG and GDR again in order to avoid war with Russia? Do they want to return to Bonn for all government function? Would Spain mind having Arabic be its only official language? These scenarios would almost invariably happen if it were not for the US.
7: I'm sure people celebrate this, but even though states' rights are "cool", such as the Colorado candidate for governor who wants to take ownership of all Federal land and sell/privatize it, a bunch of states will be easily overrun by a foreign invasion force. The only reason why hostile actors have not fought wars on US soil directly in a century is the "united" part of the US.
8: People forget that the US government was hammered out as a 13 way compromise. Think that would happen again in this climate where the government shuts down almost every non-election year (and people forget th
I really don't like living in this Sh*thole of a country :-(
Plenty of other options Like warm weather try mexico, like cold weather try Canada, don't mind long flights try Australia (aka america done right)
Problem is: The lawsuit is against the property, not against you. You can't sue anyone to give the property back; you can only become a third party claimant in the lawsuit against the property.
Please send me a list of approved attire, standards of car cleanliness, and any other requirements for not appearing like a drug dealer.
I believe the primary rules for "not looking like a drug dealer" are:
1) be white
2) be middle-class
3) be middle-age
4) be male
5) be conventional in dress, behaviour and language
And really, if you aren't a white, middle-class, middle-age, conventional male, do you really have anyone but yourself to blame?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
http://jalopnik.com/5913416/co...
It has cost billions going into trillions of dollars and the only thing accomplished is the politicians have achieved the back door standing army they have been trying to get since the end of the civil war.
lose != loose
Unless you are incredibility stupid, or actually doing something illegal, you have nothing to fear from 99.999% of law enforcement, and for that 0.001% of the time there is a risk, there isn't much you can do anyway. But you have the same things at home I'll bet.
Are you deliberately lying or is the problem that you have not yet learned to Google before posting extraordinary claims?
Your claim is directly contradicted by an article in the New Yorker that was probably pivotal in raising the alarm. Here is a small sample:
Yet only a small portion of state and local forfeiture cases target powerful entities. "There's this myth that they're cracking down on drug cartels and kingpins," Lee McGrath, of the Institute for Justice, who recently co-wrote a paper on Georgia's aggressive use of forfeiture, says. "In reality, it's small amounts, where people aren't entitled to a public defender, and can't afford a lawyer, and the only rational response is to walk away from your property, because of the infeasibility of getting your money back." In 2011, he reports, fifty-eight local, county, and statewide police forces in Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars. With minimal oversight, police can then spend nearly all those proceeds, often without reporting where the money has gone.
It takes only a pinch of common sense to realize that if you allow a group of people the right to stop law abiding citizens and take their money and possessions with no legal repercussions then this right will be abused.
In some places it costs well over $1,000 for a citizen to start fighting a seizure. If the cops took $500 or less then fighting and winning will cost at least $500 and likely thousands of dollars more.
In a backhanded way, you seem to be saying that the police in America are a bunch of nincompoops who haven't yet figured out that it is much easier to steal smaller amounts of money from people who can't or won't fight back than it is to steal larger amounts of money from people who can and will fight back.
The way the system is set up, it may be impossible to provide accurate statistics on what percentage of these civil forfeitures had anything at all to do with criminal activity because no criminal charges need to be filed and there are big disincentives that prevent even completely innocent people from fighting back.
Many of the anecdotal stories in the New Yorker article show how easy it is for civil forfeiture laws to be systematically abused by the police. Even if the original system was created with the best of intentions it has devolved into us basically paying the police handsomely to violate people's Constitutional rights.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I guarantee it. Basically distrust anyone who blames the countries ills on just one party because they are broadcasting their partisanship (and no, partisanship is not a virtue, it is a vice of the highest order).
Hmm, 62K seizures in 13 years across the entire nation...
So, a bit fewer than 5K per year nationwide. Which is considerably lower than your chance of getting killed in an auto accident (about 33K per year).
So, while it's pretty clearly corrupt and of questionable Constitutionality, it's not so prevalent as to make it something to really worry about if I have seven times as much chance of being killed in an auto accident (or twice as much chance of being murdered).
Note that I am not endorsing this sort of behaviour by police/judges/feds. Merely pointing out that TFA is aiming to be rather more alarmist than reality requires....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Ever hear of saying no? "Sir, if you want my cash, you will have to arrest me and charge me with a crime."
or
"Sir, I will be happy to comply when you have a search and seizure warrant signed by the court. You may contact me at [phone number] once you have it. Until then, if I'm not under arrest, I'll be leaving."
Seriously, stop orzing. Yes, he'll be pissed... but what's he going to do, pull you out of your car? Shoot you? Maybe, but unlikely. Keep your door locked, and be firm but polite. Oh, and if you end up in court get an attorney to fight it, there's no justice for those without legal representation. None whatsoever.
I used to look like the guy on a package of Zig-Zag papers, got pulled over all the time, and let them search my van. They never found anything because there was nothing to find.
Like I said to another poster. This unlawful seizure has only happened in a handful of cases over the last decade, and those where corrected by the courts, property returned and officers involved appropriately disciplined.
...
Can you point us to support for this claim, somewhere? I'm sure you wouldn't just be making this up.
Thanks.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Agharta, Inner Earth, whose entrance is at the North Pole.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There were several more specific cases cited in the Washington Post article, as well as statistics showing that 40% of people who chose to take the issue to court received their money back.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
And ANY of what you listed is grounds for civil forfeiture of cash the person might have on hand? Jesus H.
Wrong. They can. They currently don't, but they're warming up to it fast.
...Steve
Cool.. what if I don't want the police digging through my possessions at will? I assume you'd be cool with them rummaging around in your house too, yeah?
I wish more people had your attitude. Yes we have many problems that need to be worked on, but things could be much worse. I wish we COULD get more participation from the citizenry. The interest just isn't there. We seem to be too busy trying to keep things together (working to keep up on bills, trying to spend quality time with our families, trying to find some quality time for ourselves, etc.) to dedicate any significant time to something like public service. So we let those who want to spend that time do it and we wind up with many who are in it for all the wrong reasons (money, power, fame, etc.) running our cities, states, & country. To be fair, there are plenty of good people in our governments. There just aren't enough of them.
I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
I don't believe this is a partisan issue. It's a matter of good and honest governance, which neither of the two major parties has clealry demonstrated in recent memory.
Canada isn't trying to tell you anything. It's just warning Canadians that US cops are corrupt as fuck, and how to reduce the chances something bad could happen to them when travelling in the US.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Pretty much this.
TL;DR, careful what you ask for, you might get it and peaceful conflict resolution always beats the alternative.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
As far as I know, cash is still legal to use. If the police cannot prove it was ill-gotten gain, than it should always be returned (in a fair country).
No. They're signs that law-enforcement can use to help them identify possible smugglers. Do you feel a special need to put words in my mouth and then become outraged at them?
Odd then that women get far lesser prison sentences than men for the exact same crimes. Muh soggy knees!
I agree, except for #4. Islam at the top religion in the US in 10 years is just silly talk. It would require MASS conversion.
we can check policy votes and budget votes....Republicans are lockstep against government agencies that do oversight
Thank you Dave Raggett
No., I'm saying that doesn't happen. It's only happened a handful of times, EVER, and the courts fixed it.
It happens every time property is seized and used without an associated criminal conviction. Why in the hell is this concept so hard for people, if the property is used or the proceeds of a crime PROVE IT! Anything else is such a prima face violation of the 4th and 5th amendment that I am surprised the founding fathers haven't risen from the grave to kick the ass of whoever supports this crap.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
yeah i know it's a message for Canadians, but my comment was about the *significance* of the bulletin and *who is responsible*...because that's part of how you **fix the problem**
Thank you Dave Raggett
So, basically the same advice they give when travelling to any other banana republic?
Pathetic when they give the same warnings about American cops as they used to about Mexico or other places with corrupt cops.
Any badly written law will get abused like this. Because now these guys can seize money and stuff without any legal process other than "because I said so".
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So did Germans in Nazi Germany.
Not really. The Nazis got control of the Reichstag by forming a plurality coalition government with other fringe parties, then negotiated with Germany's two MAIN political parties (neither of which had a majority, but both of which had pluralities that were larger than the number of Nazis, but smaller than the coalition of minor parties assembled by the Nazis) to convince them that allowing them to be nominally in charge was a lesser evil than cooperating with their traditional arch-rivals.
At the risk of getting downmodded, the Nazi takeover of Germany's government is basically the same thing that happened to the US when the Tea Party ended up with enough seats in Congress to be disruptive, without actually being able to seize outright power. We just got damn lucky that they ended up being just a few seats short of achieving their goals before Americans realized how completely nuts most of them were.
I say this with direct first-hand knowledge, because I went to college and used to be friends with some of them... there are Tea Party strategists who've studied the Nazi Party's rise to power, their tactics, and the strategies that worked. The Nazis won tiny victories, then had some of the finest filmmakers to ever walk the earth produce documentaries that were mostly fiction, but had enough truth to be accepted by many as plausible. Many of those strategists are vaguely aware that they're playing with fire, but have NO IDEA just how dangerous the game they're playing can become almost overnight.
There's a reason why the Nazis held their biggest public events at night. They used the same tricks modern directors use to turn a few dozen extras into a cheering crowd big enough to fill a stadium. They herded the attendees into crowded areas, then blinded them with arc lights so they couldn't see that the stadium was mostly empty. They deafened them with loudspeakers that amplified the (small) crowd ITSELF. And creatively edited in footage from unrelated sporting events (that DID have large crowds) to convince everyone who saw the newsreel a few days later -- including the relatively small number of attendees at the event itself -- that it was WAY bigger than it really was.
In many cases, elected Nazi officials did things that were blatantly illegal, or at least ambiguously taboo, and did it amidst a media firestorm they stoked with contrived moral outrage. They piled HUGE lies onto small lies, knowing that people would dismiss the big ones, but believe the more reasonable-sounding small ones. And every step of the way, they built up the exploits they got away until German voters started to believe they were legitimate, if not respectable.
Truth be told, most Nazi voters were fairly normal people. Many of them DID think the party's leadership was kind of nuts, but swallowed their propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The Nazis used the same tactics used by modern religious cults to draw in families, then convinced them to cut off contact with friends and family members who left the party... and socially-pressure them into publicly displaying their support for the Nazi party, even if they privately voted for someone else.
We NEED to study and understand the Nazis. Not because they were in any way, shape, or form admirable (or even non-reprehensible), but because their tactics are alive & well today, and being actively used against us, and most people are fucking OBLIVIOUS to it. Over the past 70 years, we've hyperfocused so much on Nazi concentration camps that we've completely forgotten how they managed to totally pwn Germany itself... and as a result, we (Americans) don't recognize what we're seeing now as the latest manifestation of the same tactics that finally allowed them to take control of Germany, even WITHOUT a real majority. In a very real sense, the Nazis lost the ground war, but perversely won an enduring victory in the public relations realm that has scarred our society with an eternal belief that the Nazis wer
Same in canada, you risk yourself driving any time from November - April when ever you see a states license plate that is further south than NY.
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
From your link a few paragraphs, you posted AC, but this story needs to be modded up a bit.-----
The county’s district attorney, a fifty-seven-year-old woman with feathered Charlie’s Angels hair named Lynda K. Russell, arrived an hour later. Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver she drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,” or Child Protective Services.
“Where are we?” Boatright remembers thinking. “Is this some kind of foreign country, where they’re selling people’s kids off?” Holding her sixteen-month-old on her hip, she broke down in tears.
Later, she learned that cash-for-freedom deals had become a point of pride for Tenaha, and that versions of the tactic were used across the country. “Be safe and keep up the good work,” the city marshal wrote to Washington, following a raft of complaints from out-of-town drivers who claimed that they had been stopped in Tenaha and stripped of cash, valuables, and, in at least one case, an infant child, without clear evidence of contraband.
That's just the cash. There's also the cars, boats, houses, businesses etc. About a year ago the CBC had a show on this including an interview with a motel owner who had his motel forfeited due to renting out a room to a drug user. He was as innocent as could be and eventually got his business back after much hassle but it seems forfeiting houses is also common. Interestingly they only go after stuff that is paid off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Don't visit the US! I've had a great experience visiting Cuba. Hell, some people probably had a better experience visiting East Germany.
Come to the US, we'll strip search you, steal you money, and and we won't even say please. And that's if you're white!
A fixed, dusty, written-on-parchment Constitution means what it said when it was written (yes, even including the non-free persons being only counted as 3/5ths for congressional seat allocation (the Constitution does NOT discriminate on skin color - READ it)) and may only be changed via a lengthy and politically-difficult amendment process. A "living" Constitution can have all its words "re-interpreted" to fit modern times, of course by any judge in any jurisdiction to fit any political desire de jour.
The modern left learned in the 1960s that it was far easier to get their way in the courts through judicial rulings than in the legislatures, so they became big fans of changing society through the courts - and left-leaning judges declaring that the Constitution says things it plainly does not are key to this political scheme; One need look no further than the Roe-v-Wade case where whacko lefty judges cite "penumbras" and "eminations" (instead of the actual words of our founders) to justify what would become the wholesale slaughter of MILLIONS of innocent human beings. They had an agenda: enable abortion via the courts, even though the Constitution said NOTHING either way about the issue, because they could not get it legitimately through the congress. The PROPER method would have been to make their arguments to the public, convine the public to support them, and then use that public support to motivate the politicians to change the laws. The IMPROPER way was to get some left-wing judges to write that there were "penumbras" in the Constitution. The only reaon the left likes all this "living document" nonesense is that nobody on the right uses it against them. Imagine a right-wing court imagining that there were "shadows" and "penumbras" in the Constitution that meant all gays should be put to death by the same means as those the court allowed to be aborted... the shrieks and howls from the left (and even the right, who are after-all the ones who despise thi sort of lawless judicial activism) would be deafening. This sort of on-the-fly re-interpretation of the words in the Consitution should be repugnant to ALL Americans.
As the AC mentioned, the goal is less to get my money back than to make sure they don't turn a profit. That's their ultimate goal - increase the funding available to them so they can have more toys. If they're spending it on postage to respond to my letters, they're not buying more toys with it. They're not buying a fancy cruiser if they have to hire a temp worker to watch me because I plop my ass in their precinct protesting for whatever reason, asking questions, and making freedom of information requests.
As for 'can't sue them to get the money back', they have to send a representative to the court to make that argument. Sure, they might win, but that's X hours of the representative's time.
Meanwhile I'll be posting 'row row fight the POWAH!!' online and soliciting donations to continue my campaign of legal harassment for their imposing fiscal penalties outside of proper justice channels.
I don't read AC A human right
Of course! It's all rainbows, sunshine, lollipops and unicorns up here so there's nothing interesting to report.
Yup. And honored by a "mainly Canadian economics blog", no less.
That's why I have a personal policy of always costing them more money than they seize from me. You confiscated $400 from me? I'm going to arrange to use more than $400 in police resources. I will mail you enough letters that you'll spend more than $400 just responding to them. I'll sue in small claims court so you have to send a representative to get it tossed out, then hire a lawyer to send fancy letters forcing the department to hire another fancy lawyer to send responses back.
In Australia that will have you listed as a vexatious litigant and you'll be denied access to the small claims and civil courts unless the court decides your claim has merit.
The most famous case of vexatious litigation in Australia was in the 70's where a person repeatedly sued the government of Australia claiming they did not have the right to issue paper money.
Then again in authoritarian Australia, we have this silly law that the police cannot seize cash unless they have a warrant to seize evidence (I.E. if a house is raided as part of a warranted drug raid, large amounts of money can be seized) and they are not permitted to keep it (even if proven to be proceeds of crime, the money goes back to the state or federal coffers).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
In Australia that will have you listed as a vexatious litigant and you'll be denied access to the small claims and civil courts unless the court decides your claim has merit.
Like in any situation, knowledge of the system is a must for doing this sort of thing. In the USA it's pretty easy to sue in small claims, and normally speaking if your claim is tossed out in small claims that doesn't disallow you from 'appealing' it right into the normal court system, which is what I was talking about.
I wasn't actually talking about repeatedly suing them for the same thing. I was talking about doing the usual procedure - sue them in small claims, then elevate to the civil courts. The trick is that the normal response to a letter written by a lawyer is another letter written by a lawyer, and this can get quite expensive quite fast, but quite a bit of back and forth via official documents isn't unusual before an issue ends up going to the courts.
Then again in authoritarian Australia, we have this silly law that the police cannot seize cash unless they have a warrant to seize evidence
This is actually something I've written to my representatives about. I know it's screwed up, I don't like it, and want to see it stopped. You Aussies, going by statements from Australian citizens I've had conversations with on other boards, have your own issues that are seriously FUBAR.
I don't read AC A human right
The next line won't be "Okay, gtfo."
It'll be: "Sir, please step out of the car."
This.
/breathing until the machine beeps
/I drive off.
I certainly understand that there is no need nor is it prudent to surrender more information than necessary to the police but trying to play smart arse with the cops is asking for trouble.
So the way it goes down in Australia
Officer: Good evening sir.
Me: Officer.
Officer: How are you tonight sir?
Me: Not bad.
Officer: Have you had anything to drink tonight.
Me: No.
Officer: Where have you come from tonight.
Me: Work.
Officer: Please breathe into this until I tell you to stop.
Officer: All OK sir, thanks for your co-operation.
Plus it leaves the cops in a good mood so if you blow slightly over (say 0.01) they'll tell you to go and sit down for half an hour when they'll retest you again instead of booking you right away (half an hour where your body gets rid of the alcohol in your system).
If you start getting cagey or trying to use laymans legalese on them they'll get suspicious and hold you on that.
I prefer Australia's breathalysers because they're much faster than roadside sobriety tests (and not court admissible, if you blow over you have to have a blood test which gives you extra time to metabolise the alcohol) and means there is a minimum evidence requirement above the officers word that he or she smelled beer on your breath.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
In Australia it's pretty similar with small claims and appeals. Our legal systems have the same historical basis.
Vexatious litigation is reserved for people who have repeatedly made frivolous cases with the obvious intent of trying to harm the other party (be it financially, reputation or otherwise).
It doesn't matter if it's the same thing, multiple frivolous cases are considered repeatedly suing even if they're for different things. For the times where you legitimately (or even could legitimately) have a problem with the police, the court wont think twice, but making a claim for every single time you get in trouble with the cops and the court will notice. In Oz we take police corruption very seriously. I know someone who thought it was a good idea to fight every ticket. After their 10th court appearance when they were obviously guilty (the cops always had photo or video evidence) he had his license cancelled and declared a vexatious litigant. He's got his license back after his suspension period (and subsequently lost it again due to a pair of reckless driving charges) but any appeals he wants to make now have to be launched on his behalf by a public notary (lawyer, justice of the peace, holder of public office and so forth) which he's failed to do.
Point in short, abuse your right to sue in Oz, it will be taken off you... but it takes a lot for that to happen.
Yep, Hoon laws.
:)
We have a few dumb laws but less corruption. All in all, I prefer our brand of madness
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Not totally convinced that we have a lawless security state, although there was a recent scandal when a police officer was armed during routine policing. Not the sort of thing we really want to see in this country.
Hmm... I don't know how exactly it is working in USA, but wouldn't they just pocket $400 - well, I mean, use them on new shiny toys - and just ask federal or state government for more money on the "legal hurdles"? Seems pretty logical thing to do.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
In order for Germany to turn Nazi a situation of deep, moral depravity was required. The collapse of the economy created terror and panic and the Soviets gathering strength also menaced Germans. A state of great fear was key to dumping all sane morality into the crapper. Belief in God among the masses took a hit as well. After all in poverty and panic it is all too easy to claim that there was no God as God would never allow such a state of affairs to exist. There is another unpopular fact that the world doesn't want to admit. German science and art was the pinnacle and no nation came close to doing what Germans had done. They actually had something to loose. And the Soviets did threaten to erase German culture completely while a failed economy mean building a competitive military was very unlikely. The effect was that the German masses sent their morals to the dump and were very aware of the mass murders taking place, Keep in mind that concentration camps were railroad depots and travelers could easily see Jews at forced labor, starving and without protection from the cold, laboring on the tracks near the camps. These inmates were walking ghosts who were obviously being starved. One American GI that I met was laboring in the cities in public view with complete nudity as his clothing had decayed on his back and fallen away, He was forced to defuse bombs that had not exploded. A German housewife was offended by his male organs showing and tossed him a used pair of pants, The notion that Germans did not know is bullshit.
Cops are being forced to generate income for cities and counties. By putting pressure on the cops they are forced to concentrate on trivial traffic violations rather than catching people who are really menacing in traffic. The housewife who is five miles over the speed limit may get lots of tickets. But laying in weight for the person that drag races at very high speeds takes too much time so the cops are sort of encouraging extreme violations. One red light cam can grab over one million dollars a year for the city. Local policy is to not take points away for cam caught offences. They just want the money and keeping people driving means more tickets. The average good driver does create enough minor violations to suffer loss of license every year.
They'll just stonewall anything that doesn't come from a court/judge. Or worse, they'll rubberwall it instead (which is kind of like stonewalling, with the addition of making you bounce back, i.e. create more work for you). You'll end up in a game where you'll have to spend more than one dollar for every dollar they spend. And since they have practically unlimited funds, the only thing that will happen is that you will run out of money.
Heh... And I thought that "Interstate 60" was a satirical comedy with little basis in reality.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
To really seal the deal put NRA and Tea Party stickers on your vehicle. Playing country music and Rush Limbagh is also a big plus.
Why is Snark Required?
There's many things wrong with the UK, but in general our police forces are not corrupt and won't take money from you if you're pulled over. They're incredibly unlikely to shoot you either.
I don't see a contradiction between what you're saying and what the parent is saying. It's entirely plausible that the Germans knew of the holocaust (even if in a deep state of denial later), and that their rise to power happened, in part, via crazy propaganda tricks.
Europe would be affected. For more than half a century, Western Europe had to spend almost nothing on defense. With the US gone, they would have to raise an army, or just watching as the ISIS map becomes a reality. The current European doctrine of Chamberlain-esque constant appeasement can only go so far. Would Germany want to split into the FRG and GDR again in order to avoid war with Russia? Do they want to return to Bonn for all government function? Would Spain mind having Arabic be its only official language? These scenarios would almost invariably happen if it were not for the US.
Western Europe has a nuclear deterrent as well as a reasonably large conventional military. It's not on the scale of the US, but it's sufficient to make it impossible for Russia simply to re-conquer Eastern Europe.
And I do wish people would stop acting as though Islamic State is some new superpower, rather than a bunch of unusually well funded terrorists.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We have so many laws and regulations that it is probably physically impossible for a single individual to read all of them in a lifetime, and we are creating more every day. Even one segment of the law that almost everyone has to deal with each year is basically unintelligible as it is almost 4 million words long and that is just the US Federal tax code.
Now joking aside we are probably at a point where due to the number of laws we as a country are very similar to a lawless one. You know it is bad when the people who do research for congress can't provide a count of the criminal offenses that exist in the USC:
When staff for a task force of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update its 2008 calculation of criminal offenses in the U.S.C. in 2013, the CRS responded that they lack the manpower and resources to accomplish the task.
Time to offend someone
Not posting AC, because this is beyond idiotic.
1: Just like the insurgency in Iraq was stopped quickly? It's quite obvious that you can't take out stealth bombers with pistols and you can't protect yourself against nukes with a shotgun, but it's quite impressive what an armed populace can accomplish.
2: American society exposes its citizens to more violence than nearly any other developed country.
3: This is the only point you make that isn't total shit.
4: We're teaching our kids creationism in public schools, but you say Christianity is declining? Brownskins across the country are getting harassed, even Sikhs for fucks sake, but Islam is destined to be the top US religion in ten years? How out of touch with reality can one possibly be?
5: This is comical. Why are countless countries around the world complaining about how heavily subsidized US food exports are destroying their domestic agriculture industries? Why isn't China already invading any of the countless places in the world that have quality arable land but a weak government? Why does my broker tell me that my shares of KRFT (Oscar Mayer, one of our largest bacon producers, is owned by Kraft) are still owned by me and not China? How will Mexico conquer Texas if they can't even control the territory they already have? Why isn't some Middle Eastern nation building a new Damascus or Dubai in Mexico, which already has a weak government?
6: The US has been a belligerent in many (if not most) of the world's recent conflicts. Read a book.
7: Hostile actors? Who the fuck are you talking about? Japan 75 years ago?
8: What the fuck does this even have to do with a revolution? Is there some reason why we'd need a new government to take the form of a federated republic?
tl;dr, both you and the people who talk about revolution are clueless. A revolution would be stupid primarily because we already have a government, and the pain of getting a new one would be greater than the suffering we experience under the current one. It has nothing to do with Obama converting everyone to Islam or China invading our farms.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
The lesson here is that Nebraska sucks. The entire state seems to be setup to extract money from people driving through it since nobody would want to stop. When they have construction zones that stretch for 10+ miles where all you see is the occasional road barrel off in a ditch or the occasional construction equipment that has been sitting so long the hydraulics are rusting but it is a construction zone with a lowered speed limit and double fines so you will see cops every 2 miles waiting for the speeder.
Time to offend someone
This just gives me some ideas of what condition I should keep the interior of my old junk jeep in. It is perfectly road worthy but beat up and rusty on the exterior and I don't bother to really clean the interior after hunting or camping. There are even blood stains on the roof from the deer I have shot over the years. I am the kind of person who would make a big stink about things and do my best to put the screws to the police department if they pulled that on me.
Time to offend someone
While sitting in a similar boat to yours self I have wondered if one could file theft charges against the officer doing the seizure. I don't know if this has been tried or is even prevented by law but if I found my self in that situation that is what I would do.
Granted you would be filing it in the with the department that the officer works for but if you had a video and audio recording of the incident it would seem like good evidence and make some hay with the local media about it providing them the recording.
Time to offend someone
The GP probably just expects his police states to have iron gauntlets instead of velvet gloves.
Time to offend someone
That sounds exactly like what a drug smuggler would try to look like, therefore being all 5 of these woud be suspicious...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Americans in their own country might not have privacy rights, but Canadians signed a US-Canada treaty that gives them the same privacy rights in the US as they have in Canada.
Be polite (not hard if Canadian), but don't let them treat you like an American serf.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Fairly sure the Rich don't have a lawless security state in the States, it's just everyone else.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
nless you are a Brazilian plumber.
Mod parent up.
When comparing the US with the UK, I'd choose the US within a second. At least the US isn't ruled by a great-grandma.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
An armed populace practically can't be subjugated by any outright oppressor, be it foreign of domestic. If you have to have a gunfight with, and kill most of the populace, then you didn't really 'win' as an oppressor. You can't kill them all.
First, subjugation has many forms. Can you buy a non-low flush toilet in the U.S (federally mandated by George Bush (first) since 1997) no matter how many guns you own? Can you deposit over $10,000 without being reported to the federal government? Can your land be forcably purchased to build a shopping centre?
Second, "force" can be coersive, not just physical. So you have guns. Do you have money? Not any more you don't. Do you have electricity, water, internet, phone service? Nice while they lasted. Can you leave home and go anywhere to get food, gas, or other supplies? Those were the days. No matter how many guns you might have, a seige will eventually end - and not worth it for most people.
Third, both George W Bush's war in Iraq, and Putin's actions against Ukraine shows that even in a modern internet-connected world, the vast majority of a country's population can be completely convinced of something that is demonstrably not true (Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, Ukrain wasn't overthrown by Nazis putting Russians into concentration camps). When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S testified to Congress that she was actually a nurse in Kuwait who watched Iraqi soldiers dump babies out of incubators to die on the floor (no such event was ever confirmed) - nobody asked even the very first question that would have exposed this lie. Opponents of the U.S government can be adequately demonized, then taken down with overwhelming public support.
Fourth, acting against the entire population might be impractical, but it's much easier to target specific groups one at a time. A large percentage of the U.S population already has nearly no rights already, as a result of nickle-and-diming laws that build up. For example, some states charge court fees to the accused, even when they are found innocent (i.e you used the court to prove your innocense, you must pay for that service), even for a minor crime like tresspassing. The poor often cannot pay, and can be imprisoned for that. There are prison fees, and failing to pay those can extend the term or result in reincarceration on release. There has built up a population of "un-people" who are otherwise law-abiding, but must avoid arrest, relying on a growing underground society of family, friends, and criminals to get illegal work, handle finances, find places to live, and so on. When sick they can't go to the hostpial or be turned in (they have back room "clinics"), when a victim of crime they can't go to the police. They can't use banks (so need cash, which the police can take as mentioned in the posted story). For other people, many are denied voting rights due to technicalities like lack of a drivers license or permanent residence. People caught urinating in public are put on a sex offenders list, which has such impossible restrictions on where to live and limits to work these days that many need to go into hiding just to survive. Minorities are stopped and searched on New York streets for no reason other than being black or hispanic.
Those are things that are already done. Those laws and actions are supported because the victims are "criminals" and in a black-and-white viewpoint, a "technical criminal" is as much a criminal as a murderer, and deserves no rights (and to be accused is to be a criminal).
All put together, this means even if the entire free population of the U.S were armed and trained, they could still be subjugated completely by a government that wanted to. Keep in mind that the repressed population of Iraq (pre-2003 overthrow) was also heavily armed (rifles mostly), but that didn't help them against Saddam Hussein's well organized repression.
So if they're all , essentially, crooked, will bribery work, like in Mexico? OTOH, probably not ;-) They might think there's more where that came from! Well, here we have it, don't we? Crooked government, dismantling of all constitutional rioghts, except for those in the authorities favor, and now, crooked cops.. using the legal system to portray the impression of legitimacy... Once a society gets all three of these, nothing less than all out civil war will return liberty. Honestly, how'd y'all let it get so bad? I'm not saying we don't have a problem in Canada, but so far , corruption isn't nearly at the levels it is across the border...
... Interestingly they only go after stuff that is paid off.
That makes a good case for being mortgaged to the hilt ;-)
It doesn't matter if it's the same thing, multiple frivolous cases are considered repeatedly suing even if they're for different things. For the times where you legitimately (or even could legitimately) have a problem with the police, the court wont think twice, but making a claim for every single time you get in trouble with the cops and the court will notice.
It doesn't take multiple lawsuits over $400 before the police department has spent far more than $400 simply doing all the legal stuff. I don't get into trouble with the cops that much(or really ever).
Point in short, abuse your right to sue in Oz, it will be taken off you... but it takes a lot for that to happen.
If I sue because they confiscated money on me claiming that it was 'probable cause' that it's mere existence in my vehicle means it's drug money, I surely have recourse to arguing against it in a court of law. All the way up to the federal supreme court (SCOTUS). Such is highly expensive, especially if it's 'only' over $400, but my point would be to make it clear that at that point I'm doing so not to recover the $400, but for the principle of the matter. I fail to see how I'd be declared a Vexatious litigant over following the proper procedures in a SINGLE lawsuit starting at small claims and being appealed up as necessary. That I would engage in an active political campaign against the practice would be a separate matter.
Unless I'm the target of a directed police campaign, such is unlikely to happen to me more than once, period. If I AM the target of such a campaign, that's another reason to sue, but would roll up all the police actions against me into a single suit.
As for corruption, I'm not so sure. Part of our 'problem' is that we really, really like to air our dirty laundry.
I don't read AC A human right
They can ask, but they not actually likely to get it. The feds don't compensate state actors for 'legal hurdles' on any sort of regular basis. Even state legislators tend to ask some very pointed questions when you beg for money due to lawsuits, and keep in mind that I'd be writing to them, so they have MY side of the story.
Consider red light cameras - the moment revenue dropped such that the cameras weren't making enough money to cover the hassle(which included lawsuits over them), many local governments started dropping them like hot potatoes.
Make it so that the anticipated butt-hurt from confiscating random cash in the low hundreds without substantial additional evidence is thousands in hassle expenses and they'll stop doing it.
I don't read AC A human right
They'll just stonewall anything that doesn't come from a court/judge. Or worse, they'll rubberwall it instead (which is kind of like stonewalling, with the addition of making you bounce back, i.e. create more work for you). You'll end up in a game where you'll have to spend more than one dollar for every dollar they spend. And since they have practically unlimited funds, the only thing that will happen is that you will run out of money.
You have to remember that the goal isn't to get my money back, it's to cost them, preferably in a very legal and visible way, more than what they took from me. If I spend $1200 in order to cost them $800 because they 'improperly' confiscated $400 from me, so be it. It's very much a scorched earth policy. Sure, I'll try to be efficient about it, but that's the way it goes.
And since they have practically unlimited funds, the only thing that will happen is that you will run out of money.
It's not without end - I'm not trying to bankrupt them. I'd be satisfied somewhere between costing them 2-10x what they took.
I don't read AC A human right
The idea isn't to bankrupt them. The idea is to make the confiscation unprofitable. If the police find that, when they confiscate $400, they're likely to have to spend $1K because of it, that will discourage them. Of course, the victim will likely have to spend even more money, but revenge can be sweet.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
although if it looks really illegal, probable cause can come into play, and its reasonable for it to do so.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This should mark the Godwin point for this thread, but your post is too informative for that. Congrats, you have found an exception to the law!
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
An important first step I believe would be to make that first small claims suit directly against the officer(s) involved. LE agencies rely on the officers on the front lines to do these confiscations. If those officers get hit with small claims suits frequently enough they'll lose any desire to confiscate where there isn't a criminal case to be made.
"At least the US isn't ruled by a great-grandma"??
It could only improve it. My great-grandma was a remarkable woman, practical, restrained & wise.
Same can't be said for most of the occupants of the Oval Office for the past 40 years.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Police officers 'in the line of duty' are heavily shielded by their respective departments, so I doubt that even a small claims court motion would succeed without involving the department.
Still, I'd have them be a named party, thus generally requiring the officer AND police representative to show up to make their case. If it's tossed out(which I figure it will be), then go to a full court.
I don't read AC A human right
My great-grandma was a remarkable woman, practical, restrained & wise. Same can't be said for most of the occupants of the Oval Office for the past 40 years.
The difference is that the occupants of the Oval Office were elected, and could be thrown out every 4 years. Same can't be said for the great-grandma that rules Great Britain.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Except that she's only a figurehead. The real power resides in Westminster and the Prime Minister.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Oh great wise one! (#1148), can you please point me to the source of your wisdom (seriously I'd love to see for myself but I can't find anything on this in Canada).
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Please there is no effective difference in US politics, it's the same group.
People keep saying that, but it is too broad a brush. If you take corporatism, levels of corruption, national defense, privacy rights (patriot act, wiretapping, etc...), police power, etc., as the sole indicators, then yeah, Republicans and Democrats are identical.
But you can't pretend there aren't huge differences in other areas. You may consider those areas inconsequential, but lots of other people consider things like social issues (education, medicine, reproductive rights/lack of rights, gay marriage, legalize/don't legalize pot, etc...), taxes (trickle down vs trickle up, etc..), federal vs state power, as huge issues.