Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on December 22, 2007, 11:59:28 AM
-
-
Pig thieves.
There are too many police in many places.
Recently a county sales tax levy was defeated here.
A friend of mine was the leader, and the county auditor called up (mentioning that he didn't pay a lot of taxes) to complain to him that they had to lay off a few cops.
This was after building a huge new courthouse and a new prison that they filled up within the past decade. So they decided to raise sales taxes. But it was defeated.
So the county authorities are upset.
-
Considering all the suffering they have caused others, it will be difficult to manage even crocodile tears when those "public servants" are eating dog food.
-
This is part of the control matrix. The elite hates cash. They debase it every chance they get and are tracking it as much as they can.
There is an inherent suspicion of cash that apparently constitutes probable cause in and of itself. Example, and cash deposit into my bank account came under scrutiny when I was trying to refinance our house and had to submit bank statements for the refinance. I had to write a letter explaining the source of the money and *prove* it wasn't illicit (instead of the inverse).
This would have happened to them somehow, some way, anyway. There's no way they could have depositied that in a bank if they wanted to because it's obviously 'drug money', so they'd have been stuck keeping it in a safe. But keeping it in a safe and not using a bank means it's drug money.
They get you comin' or they get you goin'
Use bank cards and let them track every penny.
Oh, and they can forget about getting their money back.
-
The first question that needs to be answered is how did the local police department gain access into the safe in the first place.
-
The first question that needs to be answered is how did the local police department gain access into the safe in the first place.
He shot a home invader and the police came in and were investigating the shooting (pictures, determining bullet trajectory, etc) and somehow cam upon marijuana, possibly out in the open.
Then they could search the place, and did.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/Story?id=4656671&page=1
There are 453 grams in a pound. Crack cocaine is easily tested in the field. The only real problem here is that federal law enforcement got involved at all. This is the result of a bloated, overgrown federal government that is certainly unconstitutional in its current form and function.
-
The first question that needs to be answered is how did the local police department gain access into the safe in the first place.
He shot a home invader and the police came in and were investigating the shooting (pictures, determining bullet trajectory, etc) and somehow cam upon marijuana, possibly out in the open.
Then they could search the place, and did.
No they couldn't just "search" the place because of the other investigation regarding the shooting and robbery, much less gain access to a safe in the home. The sought a search warrant based on probable cause which included the presence of narcotics, paraphernalia, scales, etc. Two anamolies appear in the link above, first he claims that since the money was taken, he can barely survive, but his attorney claims that the new bills found in the safe were the result of bank withdraws taken from a direct deposit account. Secondly, note that the bills were "bundled." Drug dealers ordinarily "bundle" their money. I know this from training and experience. I wouldn't doubt if a K9 unit arrived and hit on the safe as well, but that's just a guess.
-
Sold on the street that 321 grams is worth $4815, this story is bunk. He is a drug dealer, that is why his home was attacked, to get at the drugs.
-
Or rather to get at the money that was in this safe. The FBI should pound sand. Local law enforcement should get that money.
-
Sold on the street that 321 grams is worth $4815, this story is bunk. He is a drug dealer, that is why his home was attacked, to get at the drugs.
I'm sure that's based on the "retail value" - sort of like these diamond merchants who are robbed report their losses based on the retail value of what's stolen.
No government should be able to grab $400,000 dollars of cash and confiscate it without a judicial process. If they can do that to them they can take anyone's possessions.
-
I based it on $15 per gram, you can sell it as 'dime-bags' aswell and make a bit more, but I didn't feel like calculating it on .7 or .8 of a gram for $10. You can also make less by selling it in bulk, either way, he probably bought a pound for a couple grand. Only a drug dealer does that.
The only thing that puzzles me, is how he isn't charged?
-
I agree there should be a judicial process. With that much marijuana, it should be an open and shut case, I don't understand why he isn't charged?
-
The reason why there might be hesitation in filing charges is because narcotics found in a multi-use, shared room makes it difficult to charge a particular individual.
As for the above comment, though the seizure laws are indeed liberal, they hardly constitute a threat to your belongings or anyone else's who doesn't find themselves in a similar predicament. As for judicial process, that IS part of the process. For one who actually earned the money, it should not be difficult to prove. In fact, there is a bit of irony here in that showing some kind of pay stub or bank statement doesn't actually "prove" it's your money, but that is sufficient to force them to give it back. So it is taken through a judicial process, but given back rather easily (at least for those who can show "proof").
-
As for the above comment, though the seizure laws are indeed liberal, they hardly constitute a threat to your belongings or anyone else's who doesn't find themselves in a similar predicament.
That's hardly a reassurance. Who's to say someone couldn't have a large amount of cash stashed and invites someone in who happens to have contraband, then the cash is confiscated.
As for judicial process, that IS part of the process.
There was no judgement in court. $400,000 dollars taken without any jury decision, but on the judgment of cops. Sorry, that's robbery.
For one who actually earned the money, it should not be difficult to prove.
What happens to the presumption of innocence? A person shouldn't have to prove they earned the money they have before someone else takes it.
In fact, there is a bit of irony here in that showing some kind of pay stub or bank statement doesn't actually "prove" it's your money, but that is sufficient to force them to give it back.
Where is a law that says someone must keep their money in the bank and prove that they've earned their money legitimately in order to avoid having it confiscated?
So it is taken through a judicial process, but given back rather easily (at least for those who can show "proof").
It really is outrageous that a person can have $400,000 dollars confiscated because a mere hundredth (in nominal "street" terms) of contraband narcotics is found?
-
I guess the moral of the story is that anyone keeping a large sum in their personal possession should have it very carefully concealed and not rely on the poorly named "safe" (most are anything but safe)
-
Sold on the street that 321 grams is worth $4815, this story is bunk. He is a drug dealer, that is why his home was attacked, to get at the drugs.
I don't think anyone would break in to get 11 ounces of weed. That's not that much. Although, it's probably more than can be justified by 'personal use' as he claims he does for pain management.
As for his direct deposit by the way, he gets some sort of retirment, a pension, since the article said he was 'retired' and the job sounded union. That or social security.
He *should* be able to survive though, he is claiming he cannot...
-
As for the above comment, though the seizure laws are indeed liberal, they hardly constitute a threat to your belongings or anyone else's who doesn't find themselves in a similar predicament.
That's hardly a reassurance. Who's to say someone couldn't have a large amount of cash stashed and invites someone in who happens to have contraband, then the cash is confiscated.
First of all, the title of this thread has clearly conditioned your response to the set of facts. Secondly, in your hypothetical, supposing that a guest was found to possess narcotics isn't sufficient probable casue to search your home based on that fact alone. You're not taking the totality of the circuмstances into account and thus you "fear" that the money in your safe could be "arbitrarily" seized.
As for judicial process, that IS part of the process.
There was no judgement in court. $400,000 dollars taken without any jury decision, but on the judgment of cops. Sorry, that's robbery.
There's a distinction between forfeiting something and seizing a thing. According to your logic, it would be "kidnapping" for a police officer to arrest and jail an individual based on probable cause.
For one who actually earned the money, it should not be difficult to prove.
What happens to the presumption of innocence? A person shouldn't have to prove they earned the money they have before someone else takes it.
That presumption still stands in relation to factual guilt, but not according to legal guilt. The same principle holds in ecclesiastical law. According to your jurisprudence, or lack thereof, civil authority would be unable to arrest a person based on probable cause, collect evidence or otherwise prosecute any crime at all. Your last sentence is backwards and assumes complete arbitrariness in the law. If your irrational fears were in any way valid, why are the police not examining the bank records of every American citizen and seizing large sums of money, forcing them to prove it was legitimately earned?
In fact, there is a bit of irony here in that showing some kind of pay stub or bank statement doesn't actually "prove" it's your money, but that is sufficient to force them to give it back.
Where is a law that says someone must keep their money in the bank and prove that they've earned their money legitimately in order to avoid having it confiscated?
I can't argue with your imagination and your continual refusal to associate the facts of the case with subsequent actions on the part of law enforcement is simply dishonest. There is in fact no law that requires money to be kept in a bank (though in this case it was alleged that he did have a bank account with direct deposit). This question again stems from your stubborn refusal to look at the totality of circuмstances in a concrete case, thus fomenting an irrational tirade and fear.
So it is taken through a judicial process, but given back rather easily (at least for those who can show "proof").
It really is outrageous that a person can have $400,000 dollars confiscated because a mere hundredth (in nominal "street" terms) of contraband narcotics is found?
It's only "outrageous" to a willfully blind man who doesn't understand the principles of law and justice. You also refuse to carefully examine the oddities of the case, which is further evidence of your bad will and hatred of law enforcement. For example, how do you know their stash isn't kept somewhere else? What were they doing with scales meant to weigh narcotics? What was crack cocaine and a fairly large amount of marijuana doing in the house in the first place? If that money came from bank withdraws, it should be easy to prove that it was legitmately earned. Remember, the threshold to "prove" it's your money is very low. Why isn't he simply providing the evidence? If he amassed so much money over time based on a mere pension and SS (a relatively short period of time) why does he now claim to be unable to survive? Why was there an attempted robbery at the home with one of the suspects claiming that they were after his cash because he was a drug dealer?
-
The same principle holds in ecclesiastical law. According to your jurisprudence, or lack thereof, civil authority would be unable to arrest a person based on probable cause, collect evidence or otherwise prosecute any crime at all.
That is absurd. Seizing $400,000 dollars and then say "prove that it's yours" is putting the burden of proof on the accused.
It's absolutely disgusting the way police departments have gotten into the business of seizing cash and keeping it on mere suspicions. It is state sponsored police corruption. It is a form of robbery, and it has nothing to do just legal process. You can't lock someone up in prison without a trial, and you shouldn't be able to take $400,000 either without proof that it's illegal money.
I know one thing: I don't want someone like Caminus interpreting the law or sitting on a jury.
-
There is in fact no law that requires money to be kept in a bank (though in this case it was alleged that he did have a bank account with direct deposit).
That's right, there isn't. So how is it just to seize $400,000 on mere suspicions because someone is caught with 11 ounces of cannabis?
Why not just give them license to pillage the whole house? There's absolutely no difference.
"If you are found in possession of a certain quantity of cannabis we'll take all you money and guns"
That's lawless.
-
Lawless? I readily grant that there are serious abuses of forfeiture laws, but notion of seizing and eventaully forfeiting ill-gotten property is ancient. Actually, based upon what you're saying, it seems you are an unwitting quasi-anarchist. Listen, if this man's money came from legitimate sources, it would be very easy to provide docuмentation via. bank records, paychecks, etc. The fact that he cannot provide this basic docuмentation is highly suspicious in light of the circuмstances. Until you actually deal with the facts, I rest my case.
-
Lawless? I readily grant that there are serious abuses of forfeiture laws, but notion of seizing and eventaully forfeiting ill-gotten property is ancient. Actually, based upon what you're saying, it seems you are an unwitting quasi-anarchist. Listen, if this man's money came from legitimate sources, it would be very easy to provide docuмentation via. bank records, paychecks, etc. The fact that he cannot provide this basic docuмentation is highly suspicious in light of the circuмstances. Until you actually deal with the facts, I rest my case.
What about his possessions?
Why not just reposess everything and buy the house?
Forfeiting ill-gotten property should require a trial, not a cop wanting to grab cash for the department. As for being required to "prove" that the money is yours and not ill-gotten, it's the responsibility of the police to prove that it is ill-gotten.
There's nothing anarchical in saying cops should not be able to seize cash. Quite the contrary, it's an anarchical system that says very large amounts of cash are allowed to be seized because of the discovery of 1/100 that amount in contraband.
-
Lawless? I readily grant that there are serious abuses of forfeiture laws, but notion of seizing and eventaully forfeiting ill-gotten property is ancient. Actually, based upon what you're saying, it seems you are an unwitting quasi-anarchist. Listen, if this man's money came from legitimate sources, it would be very easy to provide docuмentation via. bank records, paychecks, etc. The fact that he cannot provide this basic docuмentation is highly suspicious in light of the circuмstances. Until you actually deal with the facts, I rest my case.
What about his possessions?
Why not just reposess everything and take the house?
Forfeiting ill-gotten property (unless it clearly belongs to someone else) should require a trial, not a cop wanting to grab cash for the department. As for being required to "prove" that the money is yours and not ill-gotten, it's the responsibility of the police to prove that it is ill-gotten.
There's nothing anarchical in saying cops should not be able to seize cash. Quite the contrary, it's an anarchical system that says very large amounts of cash are allowed to be seized because of the discovery of 1/100 that amount in contraband.
-
Lawless? I readily grant that there are serious abuses of forfeiture laws, but notion of seizing and eventaully forfeiting ill-gotten property is ancient. Actually, based upon what you're saying, it seems you are an unwitting quasi-anarchist. Listen, if this man's money came from legitimate sources, it would be very easy to provide docuмentation via. bank records, paychecks, etc. The fact that he cannot provide this basic docuмentation is highly suspicious in light of the circuмstances. Until you actually deal with the facts, I rest my case.
Another typically willful and rabbinical misrepresentation of the facts regarding in rem asset forfeiture.
The US Supreme Court has supported the тαℓмυdic pilpul that, the property is being prosecuted, not the citizen, so that there is no problem with the guilty until [never] proven innocent inversion of justice. The innocence of the owner is no defense.
When property is seized, the records are usually seized and the money that would hire a competent lawyer to make the case is also seized. So, the cops hold (and conceal) the exculpatory evidence and so seize the only hope of vindicating your "guilty" property. Too, there is typically a period of only a few days in which an action to retrieve the property can be filed, so absent resources and sometimes still in jail, the speedy passing of the statute of limitations makes the property completely irrecoverable.
Contrary to the witless "anarchy" accusation against the victims and their defenders, the fair charge is of tyranny against the perpetrators. Here is a fair summary of how in rem asset forfeiture is used to steal under color of law:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
Disclaimer: Wollstein is no Catholic, but a libertarian, however the facts he adduces are no less true.
-
Lawless? I readily grant that there are serious abuses of forfeiture laws, but notion of seizing and eventaully forfeiting ill-gotten property is ancient. Actually, based upon what you're saying, it seems you are an unwitting quasi-anarchist. Listen, if this man's money came from legitimate sources, it would be very easy to provide docuмentation via. bank records, paychecks, etc. The fact that he cannot provide this basic docuмentation is highly suspicious in light of the circuмstances. Until you actually deal with the facts, I rest my case.
Another typically willful and rabbinical misrepresentation of the facts regarding in rem asset forfeiture.
The US Supreme Court has supported the тαℓмυdic pilpul that, the property is being prosecuted, not the citizen, so that there is no problem with the guilty until [never] proven innocent inversion of justice. The innocence of the owner is no defense.
When property is seized, the records are usually seized and the money that would hire a competent lawyer to make the case is also seized. So, the cops hold (and conceal) the exculpatory evidence and so seize the only hope of vindicating your "guilty" property. Too, there is typically a period of only a few days in which an action to retrieve the property can be filed, so absent resources and sometimes still in jail, the speedy passing of the statute of limitations makes the property completely irrecoverable.
Contrary to the witless "anarchy" accusation against the victims and their defenders, the fair charge is of tyranny against the perpetrators. Here is a fair summary of how in rem asset forfeiture is used to steal under color of law:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
Disclaimer: Wollstein is no Catholic, but a libertarian, however the facts he adduces are no less true.
Yes, it clearly is a form of punishment without trial, it is robbery, and yes, the justifications for it are downright тαℓмυdic.
-
So let me get this straight, one here believes that the seizure and/or forfeiture of property related to criminal activity is inherently immoral and unjust, whereas the other claims that this legal concept finds its source in the тαℓмυd?
-
So let me get this straight, one here believes that the seizure and/or forfeiture of property related to criminal activity is inherently immoral and unjust,
No, the seizure of property with the claim that seizing a person's property does not require a trial and proof that it is unjustly acquired is unjust. It's not hard to understand. Either a person is guilty before prove innocent or the police are free to seize a person's properties on suspicions or a person has the right to his person and property unless convicted before a jury of his peers of illegally acquiring the money. If the police can clean a person out without proving that they're taking illegal money (and worst of all keep the money) then the police are acting as robbers.
whereas the other claims that this legal concept finds its source in the тαℓмυd?
I didn't say it originates in the тαℓмυd. It's just that the тαℓмυd has a myriads of excuses for stealing from gentiles.