|
https://twitter.com/surfbordt/status/887726792953475072
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Randbrick posted:The biggest thing I worry about in people my age a little older and on down to 18 19 or so, especially white people, and especially men, is social anomie and online crap replacing real social interaction. I don't say this because it's a real insight or because I am so wise, more because my god I just became old. You're old you say? To post a picture you have to PM me your social security number, DL # and your bank and credit card information. I can hook you up. I also have some information from a Nigerian Prince that wan't to pay you $250,000 to help him settle an inheritance. Also, have you heard of this thing called Miracle Spring Water? Can I interest you in some gold?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Overwined posted:It has nothing to do with state laws. It's a 4th Amendment issue. asset forfeiture in certain cases without being charged with a crime is not currently considered to be unconstitutional. It should be, but its not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
How exactly are assets seized if someone hasn't been charged with a crime? "We're bringing you in on suspicion of drug trafficking. We're also taking your car. Oops, we have no evidence, so you can go, but we're still keeping your car"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Covok posted:When I check RCP, I see it at -16, not -23. Rasmussen uses the difference between "strongly approve" and "strongly disapprove" for their net number. As you can see, all 4 of the positions they track are the worst they've ever been for Trump: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
people definitely spend way too much time online to the point that in some cases people get irl and online social norms confused (remember the alt right idiot who got bounced from a protest for wanting to make his memes a central focus) and there will be some kind of backlash against this in the next generation as it becomes cool for teens to go without smartphones
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:How exactly are assets seized if someone hasn't been charged with a crime? If they find stuff like cash when they arrest you they keep it boner confessor posted:people definitely spend way too much time online to the point that in some cases people get irl and online social norms confused (remember the alt right idiot who got bounced from a protest for wanting to make his memes a central focus) and there will be some kind of backlash against this in the next generation as it becomes cool for teens to go without smartphones how will they do that when they're surgically implanted 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:How exactly are assets seized if someone hasn't been charged with a crime? Don't carry large amounts of cash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
They literally charge the assets with the crime, not the person. Like the court documents say “State of Arizona vs. $40,000 in Cash”
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Rigel posted:asset forfeiture in certain cases without being charged with a crime is not currently considered to be unconstitutional. It should be, but its not. It's not that it's not considered Constitutional, it's that no one cares if it is or not. It becomes murkier because it's always been a state issue. But let one fed seize the assets of someone who is clearly and demonstrably clean and it'll be before SCOTUS. As Federalist as SCOTUS has always been, they will not strike an Amendment to the Constitution to protect the states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:How exactly are assets seized if someone hasn't been charged with a crime? The courts allowed it for the same reason that RICO laws were allowed to be hilariously punitive and easily abused. Just like with the mob, the courts basically said "ok drat it, we normally wouldn't allow this, but those wily drug dealers are often so good at avoiding being caught, we'll let you just keep the money if someone is carrying around a crazy amount of cash." This is one of the few cases of guilty until proven innocent in the US. If the cops suspect you of dealing drugs and you were carrying a crazy amount of cash for some dumb reason, then they'll take it, and you'll have to prove to the court that you made that money legitimately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:people definitely spend way too much time online to the point that in some cases people get irl and online social norms confused (remember the alt right idiot who got bounced from a protest for wanting to make his memes a central focus) and there will be some kind of backlash against this in the next generation as it becomes cool for teens to go without smartphones The internet is just a passing fad
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
gregday posted:They literally charge the assets with the crime, not the person. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The internet is just a passing fad definitely do not ever quote me, oocc the poster boy for "spends too much time online"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:How is this not a clear and obvious constitutional violation? Property doesn't have Constitutional rights. Literally. The property is charged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:definitely do not ever quote me, oocc the poster boy for "spends too much time online" Kids are not giving up smartphones, that is old man fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:If they find stuff like cash when they arrest you they keep it This is part of the reason why pimps started wearing big expensive chains
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Property doesn't have Constitutional rights. Literally. The property is charged. United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Overwined posted:It's not that it's not considered Constitutional, it's that no one cares if it is or not. It becomes murkier because it's always been a state issue. But let one fed seize the assets of someone who is clearly and demonstrably clean and it'll be before SCOTUS. As Federalist as SCOTUS has always been, they will not strike an Amendment to the Constitution to protect the states. This isn't the first time the supreme court has heard the issue, within the US it was used during prohibition when the cops couldn't prove you were bootlegging, but decided to take your car anyway. That said, the court has been more and more hostile to asset forfeiture in recent years and may be talking themselves into banning the practice, but its hard because we're talking about some ancient precedents. It goes back to British common law from what I read, where they seized the ship because the ship was guilty of a crime against the Royal navy. If the owner later says his ship was stolen and it wasn't his idea to use it illegally, too bad, we're keeping your ship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/250/410/2341251/
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:If they find stuff like cash when they arrest you they keep it Ghost in the Shell was cool, other than horrific stuff about brain hacking and poo poo. Frankly, it feels rather optimistic in many ways
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/887733504087400449 They really should. Too bad they're all too spineless to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Case of One 1985 Nissan, 300ZX, VIN: JN1C214SFX069854, 889 F.2d 1317. 1989 case heard by the Fourth Circuit using the older naming style, because the owner was murdered before the government could arrest him on suspicion of drug trafficking. U. S. v. 422 Casks of Wine (1828), an early 19th-century example United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola (1916), brought under the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) against, not The Coca-Cola Company itself, but rather "Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola". United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar (1924) — Early Food and Drug Administration case. United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile (1926) United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936), a case involving contraceptives Margaret Sanger attempted to import, heard by the Second Circuit. United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F.Supp. 208 (W.D.N.Y. 1941) United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, the landmark 1933 ruling by John M. Woolsey that James Joyce's novel had sufficient literary merit to overcome its obscene portions. Upheld on appeal as United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce. Marcus v. Search Warrant, full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri. An unusual in rem case heard by the Supreme Court where the named object was not the seized property but the warrant under which it was seized. Since all the government agents involved were indisputably acting within the law as it stood, the only way for the petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of the seizure was to name the search warrant itself as defendant. Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case holding seizure of allegedly obscene materials unconstitutional without prior hearing to determine obscenity. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule prevents the forfeiture of material seized in cases where the Fourth Amendment was violated. Memoirs v. Massachusetts, case involving Fanny Hill, heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 (full title: A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts) United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, an obscenity forfeiture case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, a case very similar to the above heard by the Supreme Court two years later. United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976). Held that the seizure provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act do not violate the Due Process Clause. People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991) United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque (2001) R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, R.M.S. Titanic 286 F.3d 194 (2d Cir., 2002) – here distinguishing between plaintiff (company) and object, of the same name; in full the case also named persons as defendants, and identifies the object more precisely as: The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, its engines, tackle apparel, appurtenances, cargo, etc., located within one (1) nautical mile of a point located at 41° 43′ 32″ North Latitude and 49° 56′ 49″ West Longitude, believed to be the R.M.S. Titanic, in rem; United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency (2006), an asset forfeiture case based on drug law. United States v. 127 Shares of Stock in Paradigm Mfg., 758 F.Supp. 581. A 1990 case from California where a former spouse and children sought to recover securities allegedly purchased with the husband/father's proceeds from drug sales. United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case involving eminent domain, holding that cost of replacement for taken property does not have to be calculated in its fair market value. United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins (9th Cir., 2008). Asset forfeiture case under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000. United States v. Various Pieces of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, 649 F.2d 606 (8th Cir., 1981). Company that was caught trying to sell them to the Soviets claims the long delay between seizure and forfeiture proceedings was a due process violation. United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton (2013). The case was brought to stop the sale of a dinosaur skeleton that had allegedly been looted from the Gobi Desert in violation of Mongolian law.[5]
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Property doesn't have Constitutional rights. Literally. The property is charged. That doesn't make any sense at all. Property has no agency, so how the hell can you charge it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/887733504087400449 He would probably, in his stupid, incoherent manner of speaking, describe something that sounds a lot like single-payer. I'm halfway convinced that Trump legit believes we should implement a big government-run health care program, that is somehow different from what Bernie wants for reasons too boring for Trump to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/887731367869657089 Okay then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:That doesn't make any sense at all. Property has no agency, so how the hell can you charge it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Ghost in the Shell was cool, other than horrific stuff about brain hacking and poo poo. Whatever you do, don't read the The Quantum Thief series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:That doesn't make any sense at all. Property has no agency, so how the hell can you charge it? We just do. I think the theory is basically "if you didn't do it, then you were careless enough to let that gun be used to shoot at us, so gently caress you, its ours now" The morality and logic of asset forfeiture starts to fall apart when we're talking about cash that we think are proceeds from drug sales, instead of a getaway car speeding away from a bank robbery, or military rifles being used to shoot at police.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
yesss spit in cheeto's face
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:My 94-year-old grandmother recently told me she was ashamed to admit that she voted for Trump. Did she vote for McCain and Romney? My grandmother, who died 5 years ago, never got beyond seeing things in terms of race, like EVER, and made a "joke" to me once about being a "President Lover". Haha, get it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Rigel posted:He would probably, in his stupid, incoherent manner of speaking, describe something that sounds a lot like single-payer. There are right wing and left wing versions of universal healthcare. Different countries vary a ton on how much private companies mange stuff. There is a reason every modern country on earth can have universal healthcare even if many counties aren't Bernie utopia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Phoix posted:https://twitter.com/LauraLitvan/status/887714930698444801?s=15 Dementia tends to have that kind of side-effect. There Bias Two posted:How is this not a clear and obvious constitutional violation? Asset forfeiture in and of itself is itself little more than unlawful search and seizure but if you're hoping the courts will care you're in for a bad time. And Federal Law always overrules State Law. A state has absolutely zero authority to say "X is illegal, that means you dirty feds can't do X" as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:That doesn't make any sense at all. Property has no agency, so how the hell can you charge it? The precedents literally trace back to the medieval law of deodand, which charged objects that we're seen to cause harm, like if a cart rolls over someone it must be possessed by spirits, arrest it. That doctrine got extended to shipping in the early modern era as sortof a proto-corporate doctrine so people could proceed against ships for actions of crew, and then in the 19th and 20th got accepted as anti smuggling. I'm oversimplifying but that's the basic trace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Property doesn't have Constitutional rights. Literally. The property is charged. This argument just doesn't make sense to me though. The fifth clearly says that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process. How does taking someone's property and holding it until they prove that it is legitimately theirs not a violation of that idea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Ok, so is the DoJ policy actually changing anything? Is it that it's going to be used broader now, or is it just officially stating what they have been doing all along?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:lol at the election pushing Americans to drink more liquor. Lord knows I'm doing my part. USA! USA! USA!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:This argument just doesn't make sense to me though. The fifth clearly says that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process. How does taking someone's property and holding it until they prove that it is legitimately theirs not a violation of that idea? Why are you defending evil drug dealers The argument doesn't make sense unless you spend a lot of time reading maritime law precedents about smuggling and are also willing to ignore logic if it means cops get to take stuff from browns
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
twice burned ice posted:This argument just doesn't make sense to me though. The fifth clearly says that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process. How does taking someone's property and holding it until they prove that it is legitimately theirs not a violation of that idea? The owner gets due process, its just that the standard of proof is a hell of a lot lower, and many rules are relaxed. I think you just need to say that someone is at least 51% likely to be guilty, and pleading the 5th can be held against you for asset forfeiture. Also they don't need to prove guilt before taking your poo poo, they take your poo poo, and then you have to prove innocence (or at least less than 51%) to get it back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:14
|
|