Comments on: ACLU sues DEA on behalf of truck driver whose money was seized http://blogofbile.com/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/ from the bowels of the mind Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:57:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: beetlbumjl http://blogofbile.com/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-152 beetlbumjl Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:23:24 +0000 http://www.landofbile.com/blog/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-152 I hope the police officer carries around the receipts for his shiny shoes, cos you know, without proof I might believe that he had stolen them. I hope the police officer carries around the receipts for his shiny shoes, cos you know, without proof I might believe that he had stolen them.

]]> By: bile http://blogofbile.com/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-151 bile Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:30:17 +0000 http://www.landofbile.com/blog/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-151 Both can be blamed. But that's not what's at question here. No drugs were found. Nothing to warrant depriving him of "life, liberty, or property." They have taken his money and are requiring him to prove it's his. It's not possible and against the Constitution. You argue a positivist POV yet seem to ignore the Constitution which is the highest law of the land. Interest? Does the IRS give you interest on the money they've been sitting on? Nope. Should they? Sure. Will they ever? No. Both can be blamed. But that’s not what’s at question here. No drugs were found. Nothing to warrant depriving him of “life, liberty, or property.” They have taken his money and are requiring him to prove it’s his. It’s not possible and against the Constitution. You argue a positivist POV yet seem to ignore the Constitution which is the highest law of the land.

Interest? Does the IRS give you interest on the money they’ve been sitting on? Nope. Should they? Sure. Will they ever? No.

]]> By: bosco http://blogofbile.com/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-150 bosco Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:48:34 +0000 http://www.landofbile.com/blog/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-150 <blockquote>They are assuming him guilty and requiring him to prove his innocence. That goes completely against “innocent till proven guilty” aspect of our judicial system.</blockquote> Yes Before we get to far into this, realize that the premise is flawed. You can't prohibit drugs without removing peoples rights. Who's to blame, the legistlative branch that made the laws the the executive who's trying to enforce them? Oh and also I was thinking about whether or not this guy should get interest if the government gives him his money back. Since it wasn't invested you would need some other way to determine the time value of his money.

They are assuming him guilty and requiring him to prove his innocence. That goes completely against “innocent till proven guilty” aspect of our judicial system.

Yes

Before we get to far into this, realize that the premise is flawed. You can’t prohibit drugs without removing peoples rights. Who’s to blame, the legistlative branch that made the laws the the executive who’s trying to enforce them?

Oh and also I was thinking about whether or not this guy should get interest if the government gives him his money back. Since it wasn’t invested you would need some other way to determine the time value of his money.

]]> By: bile http://blogofbile.com/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-149 bile Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:59:50 +0000 http://www.landofbile.com/blog/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-149 <p>They are assuming him guilty and requiring him to prove his innocence. That goes completely against "innocent till proven guilty" aspect of our judicial system. You are asking to prove a negative which ultimately isn't possible.</p> <p>What about the 5th Amendment? </p> <blockquote><p><em>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, <strong>nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;</strong> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I've known plenty of people who kept large sums of money on them because they didn't trust banks. Because of the Federal Reserve and our fiet money supply it's not smart as the government simply sucks the worth of that money away from you... but people still do it. Especially trucker types who are always on the road.</p> They are assuming him guilty and requiring him to prove his innocence. That goes completely against “innocent till proven guilty” aspect of our judicial system. You are asking to prove a negative which ultimately isn’t possible.

What about the 5th Amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I’ve known plenty of people who kept large sums of money on them because they didn’t trust banks. Because of the Federal Reserve and our fiet money supply it’s not smart as the government simply sucks the worth of that money away from you… but people still do it. Especially trucker types who are always on the road.

]]> By: bosco http://blogofbile.com/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-148 bosco Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:18:13 +0000 http://www.landofbile.com/blog/2007/09/02/aclu-sues-dea-on-behalf-of-truck-driver-whose-money-was-seized/#comment-148 The police are saddled with an impossible job of stopping the flow of illegal drugs AND drug money. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who have over $10,000 cash on them are involved with something illegal (no source as I couldn't find anyone doing a study on this). Typically the most accessible illegal activity that brings in the cash is trafficking drugs. the fact that he's a mexican truck driver makes it especially suspicious. Assuming he is innocent, one would hope that he gets his money back, with interest and the ACLU gets paid for defending him. Unfortunately the only way for the police to even begin to fight drugs is to infringe on individual rights. The police are saddled with an impossible job of stopping the flow of illegal drugs AND drug money. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people who have over $10,000 cash on them are involved with something illegal (no source as I couldn’t find anyone doing a study on this). Typically the most accessible illegal activity that brings in the cash is trafficking drugs. the fact that he’s a mexican truck driver makes it especially suspicious.

Assuming he is innocent, one would hope that he gets his money back, with interest and the ACLU gets paid for defending him. Unfortunately the only way for the police to even begin to fight drugs is to infringe on individual rights.

]]>