Law Enforcement Wants To Be Able To Seize The Cars And Homes Of People Convicted On Child Porn Charges
from the good-intentions,-but-some-bad-implementation dept
Some odd news out of Massachussetts. Legislators and law enforcement are teaming up to push legislation that would give agencies permission to seize and sell property belonging to people convicted of sexual crimes against children.
A local sheriff and state representative are awaiting the review of a bill that would allow prosecutors at the conclusion of a child-exploitation case to seize and sell assets used by predators, using the proceeds for victim rehabilitation and therapy, education programs for children, or bringing the funds back into law enforcement.
Middlesex Sheriff Peter Koutoujian and Rep. James Arciero testified Tuesday before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on the House bill. They are waiting for a favorable recommendation to move the bill forward.
"We feel that it's important to make sure that we have a zero tolerance when it comes to protecting our children," said Arciero, a Westford Democrat.
The bill would allow the court to seize and sell items, excluding hard drives, that are used to entice minors or to produce or disseminate child-pornography crimes. The proceeds of the sales would fund programs for Internet safety education, victim rehabilitation and therapy, and the purchase of technical equipment for law-enforcement agencies.On one hand, what's being discussed here isn't the far more nefarious civil asset forfeiture, in which property is deemed "guilty" and seized without corresponding convictions. This would be criminal asset forfeiture, which can only move forward once the defendant is convicted.
The resulting funds would be narrowly dispersed, with some going to participating agencies but the bulk of it directly to the special investigative units that handle these crimes.
But there are some concerning aspects to it, not the least of which is the use of the phrase "zero tolerance," which tends to shut down all further critical thinking by those uttering it. For one, the list of items that can be seized is fairly broad. Even though the article notes hard drives will not be permitted to be sold, the statements issued don't specify whether other storage media will be put on the "not for resale" list. In fact, it appears other devices (cameras, cellphones) that formerly stored illegal material will be sold to the general public.
In front of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, Koutoujian testified, "Massachusetts authorities can already obtain warrants and seize cameras, computers, cellphones, vehicles used by perpetrators in child pornography and enticement cases. But this legislation would allow prosecutors at the conviction of the case, with the court's permission, to dispose of the seized property and generate funds that could be put into three narrowly tailored areas."While officials claim the devices will be "wiped" before resale, it's not difficult to imagine this eventually leading to someone ending up with an auctioned item that still contains illicit material. That's just human nature. Sooner or later, the wipe job won't be done as well as it should have been. Or at all. That alone is problematic.
Further problems present themselves in the expanded list of seizable/sellable items. Law enforcement will also take vehicles "involved" in "enticement." A narrow reading would only allow the seizure of a vehicle that has been used in the commission of the crime. But the bill doesn't lend itself to a narrow reading. It would also permit the seizure of property in "dissemination" cases, which means little more than using a torrent service to obtain the illegal material. Downloads and uploads are intertwined, making every illicit file sharer a participant in "dissemination" of child porn, even if that person did not create the images being trafficked or specifically intend to distribute them further.
So, this bill could be used to seize cars from people who've never molested a child, much less used their car to "entice" a child into participating in illegal sexual activity.
The bill also provides for the seizure of houses and bank accounts, using this same tenuous connection. While it is not uncommon for some forms of property to be seized as a means of providing retribution to victims of criminal acts, it's not always applied to criminals who have only viewed child pornography. Restitution orders have been granted to those whose pictures have been distributed, but this hasn't been explicitly tied to the forfeiture of assets.
The bill would effectively cut victims out of the loop, routing seized assets to the agencies participating in the arrest and prosecution. The only caveat that may allow for victim restitution is the fact that the agency performing the seizure needs to seek the court's permission before selling seized items and distributing funds.
The bill does provide a safety valve for families who are unaware of a family member's criminal behavior, hopefully preventing them from losing their houses or vehicles because of another person's activities. But it's very limited. Law enforcement wouldn't be able to seize these assets without it being shown that other owners of these items were aware (or should have been aware) of the defendant's behavior. But it doesn't say where the burden of proof lies, suggesting it might be wrapped up in the petition for property return process, which would place it on the other owners of the property, rather than on the state. (Other homeowners can also ask the court for a "homesteading" exception to prevent residences from being seized, which is probably a better route than challenging the seizure head-on. But this exception doesn't apply to other seized property like vehicles or bank accounts.)
It's also limited solely to owners, so spouses/children/relatives who aren't listed on titles can't challenge the seizure. It also sets a very low bar for government agencies when it comes to "proving" other property owners were "aware" of illegal behavior.
Proof that the conveyance or real property was used to facilitate the unlawful dissemination of visual material or the enticement of a child under the age of 16 on 3 or more different dates shall be prima facie evidence that the conveyance or real property was used in and for the business of unlawfully disseminating such visual material or enticing a child under the age of 16.Houses are where computers are almost always found and one resident torrenting child porn on three different dates is apparently all it will take for state agencies to render unaware family members homeless.
While I can appreciate the Sheriff's complaint that funds seized are often routed towards the expensive upkeep of more glamorous drug interdiction units, SWAT teams and "task forces," this proposal still has a lot of flaws that need to be addressed. The narrow set of criminal acts it applies to, along with the conviction requirement, limits the potential abuse. But adding vehicles and houses to the list of seizable goods is problematic, especially when the underlying crime may be nothing more than possession of illicit images and the use of file sharing software.
Unfortunately, none of these questionable elements can fully be explored until the law has gone into effect. The bill still needs work, especially in terms of determining other property owners' culpability. Because, seriously, something happening three times in the same location is somehow "proof" that other property owners were aware of criminal activity -- criminal activity that is hidden from everyone because it's morally unacceptable everywhere?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, asset seizure, child porn, criminal asset forfeiture, homes cars, massachusetts
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
For example, what if I ask my neighbor to check in on my dog while I'm on vacation for a couple weeks. I give them copies of the keys to the house and all that.
My neighbors decide to use my house as a stage over the next couple weeks for some adult videos starring their underaged kids. I come back after vacation and never know the difference.
A year later they're arrested. Can the police, seeing the rooms of my house in some of their produced child-porn videos, seize my home? And if they *think* they can, would I be able to actually legally (effectively, that is) fight it?
What if I'm particularly computer-dumb and my computer is infested with malware and used as a proxy to protect the actual child-porn collector from discovery? Is my computer now forfeit?
And so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While there might be something noble in the intentions, something something road to hell.
Far to often we see these great ideas pushed and expanded to get more cash. The fact they want to use the cash to fund them like the drug or human trafficking units get funded... they want more toys and toys are expensive.
Family members should have known, and that is why we want to make them homeless. We found evidence, why couldn't they see it? Now sign the deed.
On paper this has all the the heart string tugging won't you do it to protect the children, but it will just end up being another tool to grab more cash with people not questioning because to question means you want children to be molested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I get this right?
That's fucking nonsensical. When there are tangible victims, they might be eligible to recompensation, and in the course of ensuring that recompensation, property may be seized already. That makes sense.
But nowadays, many instances of "child pornography" are indeed victimless crimes and the "perpetrators" are often identical with the "victims". Giving prosecutors carte blanche to exacerbate the damage they dole out with excessive prosecution by being allowed to seize their assets is madness squared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do I get this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should Have Known
I can see a case where a teenager and his/her parents are not getting along and they wind up attending family counseling. One of the teenagers complaints is not enough privacy and the counselor counsels the parents to give the kid some space.
The teenager then becomes involved with sexting and one of the others involved gets caught and because nothing happens in a vacuum all the 'participants' are 'caught' as well. Then the up for re-election prosecutor decides to arrest all the parents because they 'should have known' and gets their houses, cars, heirloom silver service, etc. and some great publicity for the campaign.
Frankly, in my adolescent years I did as much experimenting and testing limits (statute of limitations passed many decades ago, sorry) as most of my friends did, and probably as much as my parents did in their time (well maybe my father, certainly not my mother). There is no way they could have known what I was up to unless they locked me in my room and in some jurisdictions that is considered cruel and unusual punishment.
At some point the electorate is going to catch onto the governments various power grabs and be really pissed. It is not going to happen all at once, but gradually. I hope it is not too gradual or all the recently awoken people will be in jail when the masses finally catch on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Have Known
Technically they would need to modify the scope of the definitions if they wanted it to apply to a new law that was in its own section, because the definitions section explicitly lists which sections it applies to, and this bill doesn't appear to modify that list. So who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Have Known
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
However, this proposed law is equally despicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is little more than Government-sanctioned theft. Even in the case of pedophiles and terrorists. THose people sre still entitled to own property, even if they do not use it.
Moreover, I am reminded of a poem from 1930s Germany, which was a stark warning, and not a guidebook. It begins thus:
First, they came for the gypsies, and I did not speak out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The resulting funds would be narrowly dispersed, with some going to participating agencies but the bulk of it directly to the special investigative units that handle these crimes.
Fuck the victims of child sexual abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Laws these days fuck the victims twice. Example... if a business has been breaking the law they get fined, but the victims of that law break will not see any remuneration.
In my opinion a new Amendment to the Constitution should be, no fines of any kind or form may be levied against any individual or entity for breach of any law whether perceived or found guilty in court of law. People just need to go to jail, but also for vastly shorter periods of time.
Want to speed? Great! 1 day in jail! Being able to pay your way out of broken laws is what leads to this type of corruption for both citizenry and officials. You will find that those making laws will be quite a bit more sane about it when you take all of the money influence in the form of fines away. Red Light traffic cameras, drug charges, DOL violations... holy shit this list would go on forever!
A whole lot of people would not be nearly as quick to abuse your rights if the only punishment was jail time. This should apply double to officers and administrators of the law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, absolutely. But considering the golden rule (he who has the gold makes the rules), it will never happen if left to the ruling class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devils Advocate
What has this got to loose now? So from dangerous, we make him a menace to a society. What can possibly go wrong?
Americans, please do smth about it NOW, before that sort of shit hits EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money maker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money maker
It's worse than "forgot". Often you can't properly delete data from flash memory.
And if you do find a device with correct support for secure erase in its firmware, what you get at retail won't necessarily be what was reviewed:
"Instead of the original Silicon Motion controller, the new batch of PNY Optima drives had a different, SandForce-based controller known for its less-than-perfect implementation of garbage collection leaving data on the disk for a long time after it’s been deleted."
http://articles.forensicfocus.com/2014/09/23/recovering-evidence-from-ssd-drives-in-2014-un derstanding-trim-garbage-collection-and-exclusions/
About the only cure for this is going to be for someone overseas to purchase one of these tainted goods, and then publically gift it to one of the idiots who drafted this law, and add "oh by the way, STRICT LIABILITY".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Money maker
I am presuming that the method of data removal is predicated on the drive being usable afterward, because a drill seems the most effective method of drive destruction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Money maker
I hear this sort of thing all the time, but it always ignores one simple fact; No device is designed to be able to retrieve data once it has been overwritten.
If you have a 16GB SD card and you simply delete the files and call it a day, someone may still be able to recover them. However, if you then fill the card up with another 16GB of files, say large dummy files full of zeros, it overwrites all of the data that was previously there. A 16GB flash drive or SD card will store 16GB of data. Not 32GB, not 64GB. If you fill it with 16GB of data, that's the only data that will be on the drive/card.
The myth that overwritten data can still be recovered comes from hard drives. Under IDEAL laboratory conditions, highly specialized equipment can sometimes detect traces of the previous magnetic pattern, provided that the data has only been overwritten once, however the process is not foolproof. It also doesn't work if that portion of the drive has been written to more than once because they can't separate the patterns. Highly specialized equipment can also sometimes find a few bits of data on the edges of tracks where the head placement wasn't perfect, but again, this takes expensive equipment and all you recover are fragments of data, not complete files.
For anyone outside of the intelligence community, once data on a device has been overwritten even once, it's gone.
Don't believe me? Data recovery services charge large amounts of money to recover data from failed or damaged hard drives and they would love to take your business. Contact some of these companies, tell you have a hard drive in perfect condition that you accidentally "zero-filled" and ask them how much they would charge to recover all your data. Make sure to tell them that while the entire drive was overwritten, it was only overwritten once. They'll tell you that it's impossible to recover anything of value from such a drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will happen some day
Some avid eBay seller attends the police auction and purchases lots of digital media and devices.
These items are then put on eBay and sold to the highest bidder.
When the winning bidder gets the item they discover child porn. Seller is promptly arrested and all their assets seized.
Problem #2
Some sick person is making child porn with their kids without their spouses knowledge. Once discovered they are arrested and their assets seized. The ignorant spouse and the victims of the crime are now homeless, have no transportation and no money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It will happen some day
I would guess that small items like cameras would be sold to a police officer for a fraction of the actual resale value, and then they would sell it online and pocket the profits. The buyer who reported the pictures would then be arrested for possession, partly since now it's their word vs a police officer, and partly because they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It will happen some day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plants
Suppose a torrent site in Europe is hosting copies of Traci Lords' porn movies? Someone in the U.S. might download them not knowing that Traci is in them or that she was underage when she made them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparently,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
these people are looking for excuses now to perform bigger heists. we didn't beat the mafia. we became the mafia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Low bar?
That part of the law discusses whether the property was used for the activity. But it's not relevant to awareness unless the owner was aware of those 3 instances. So... if they were aware, they were aware. I'm not sure what the problem there is (other than that the government shouldn't be seizing houses in general.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burden of proof
It actually does say where it lies.
The state must "prove" probable cause. After that, anyone else has the burden of proof that it's not forfeitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does CGI count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does CGI count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does CGI count?
Depending on the prosecutor, court and jury, they could be convicted of possessing or distributing child porn for a video that everyone involved knows is CGI. The "PROTECT Act of 2003" pretty much criminalized all depictions of children engaged in sex, real or not. There's a provision that the depiction has to be "obscene", but we all know how easy it is to find a jury who will find virtually anything obscene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tone deaf, part [Nan]
All that, and along comes yet another tone-deaf police agency, seeking to buck the currents of civility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step 2) It's already being done for "other crimes", there is no logical reason it shouldn't also apply to crime X, Y, Z, and eventual most or all
Step 3) Once it's in place, we are fine crank up the dial and rake in the money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two points
2) The bigger issue is how we, as a society, are treating sexual offenders so badly. Now, don't get me wrong, these crimes are horrible and the offender should be punished when found guilty. But we never see these laws for violent offenders. Let me rephrase the proposal:
The bill would allow the court to seize and sell items, excluding hard drives, that are used by murderers and serial killers.
If someone is convicted of a sexual crime, they have to go on a registry for the rest of their life, tell their neighbors when they move into a community, and possibly have their assets seized.
By comparison, a murderer can serve his 50 years, get out of jail, never have to go on a "murderer registry", never tell his neighbors, and never have his assets seized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two points
How about anyone convicted of a violent crime? Shouldn't people have the right to know if there is a violent criminal living in the area?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in the vast majority of cases, seizing the home prevents nothing as far as future crimes. Someone who uploads or downloads porn can do that from their cell phone even if they're living under a bridge. I can see seizing a home if it contains a dungeon or something, or a car if it was actually used to abduct a child, but you know that's not the purpose of the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So? Hasn't stopped it in drug cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No abuse here...
2. Point individual to download movie file
3. Profit (for the police involved)
4. Rinse and repeat (for all political adversaries)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta Cash 'Em All.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the bill explicitly states that once the state passes the "probable cause" threshold, the burden of proof is on anyone else claiming the property. So, yeah, if you're the homeowner, you have to somehow prove that you DIDN'T know. I am not sure how that is possible to do.
(I posted something similar a few hours ago but I think the spam filter ate it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not. By design it's meant to be incredibly difficult, if not flat out impossible, just like other similar armed robbery at badge-point laws.
If you can completely flip 'innocent until proven guilty' around to 'guilty unless proven innocent', then conviction and seizure rates skyrocket, and if you get a cut of anything successfully 'seized', well, the more you can grab the better off you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should take at least a week before its abused.
Same game. New name.
Who cares. He's a druggie.
Who cares. He's a terrorist.
Who cares. He's a pervert.
Who cares. He's a hacker.
Who cares. He's a hoarder.
Who cares. He's a trans-sexual.
Who cares. He's a hippie.
Who cares. He's a file sharer.
Who cares. He's a Muslim.
Who cares. He's a foreigner.
Who cares. He's an eco-warrior.
Who cares......
When the cops steal more property than the crooks, but only the crooks and the victims go to jail, you know you're living in a Fascist Police State.
For those of you who are saying, "Well I'm not any of those things, so I don't have to worry.", ask yourself this;
Who are the cops going to steal from after they've robbed all the "bad" people of their goods?
Answer: You, the "good guys".
That's what the public surveillance is for.
Turning "good guys" into potential sources of free assets.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should take at least a week before its abused.
Who cares. He's a terrorist.
Who cares. He's a pervert.
Who cares. He's a hacker.
Who cares. He's a hoarder.
Who cares. He's a trans-sexual.
Who cares. He's a hippie.
Who cares. He's a file sharer.
Who cares. He's a Muslim.
Who cares. He's a foreigner.
Who cares. He's an eco-warrior.
Who cares......
You left out gingers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Should take at least a week before its abused.
errrr....... ummm...... yeah, guess I did indeed.
refresh my memory willya...
Wutza ginger?
You mean like ginger-"snaps".......?
Christmas Cookies??
I'm gonna take a leap of faith here and assume you meant "ganger", as in street-"gang"-memb"ers", like Crips, Bloods, etc., sorta thing.
If so, oops, my bad, yeah them too.
USA got more bad-ass boogey-men now than the kriss-chunz had during the dark ages. Getting real hard to list them all.
Real good thing ya'all got the CIAF BIN SADOJ hiding in yer bedrooms to protect you 24/7 from this ever-increasing roster of night-terrors eh.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Should take at least a week before its abused.
A redhead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More money for the CIC (crooks in charge)
There are all kinds of allegations involving politicos in very high places.
Somehow the wealthy and powerful are rarely are targeted.
Oh well, steal $ from easy Pickens, as they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn it around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arresting, Confiscating property is a doiv cgtrin of devils.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Obey God's word saving your soul. That saved soul will not see God as if he was fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A$$et Forfeture is always great for Law Enforcement, bad for citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pariah.
They've already been convicted of sexual child abuse. What's worse than that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pariah.
Perhaps we should once again nuke Japan, to eliminate Hentai as well.
"They've already been convicted of sexual child abuse. What's worse than that?"
Give'em time.
I'm certain the Forces of Order At Any Cost will come up with many new ways of making pariahood even more awful than normal, while making a profit in the process.
Taking all their property seems like a very good start.
Perhaps, sterilization/castration and branding their foreheads with a huge "cent" symbol - a capital "C", with a perpendicular bar drawn through its center - can become the thing to do after they've been stripped of all their worldly goods.
The symbol would of course stand for "No Child", both to represent the condition of castration/sterilization and as a warning to kids to stay away from the pariah. The profit would come both from taking their goods and giving employment to those good men and women who love to remove body parts and burn flesh for fun.
I'm sure that even a small glance into the past history of human kind will give you an encyclopedia of ways and means used to increase the torture and humiliation of those our societies deems despicable and deserving of institutionalized torment.
Check out the Maleus Malificarum for some real good tried and true tortures/punishments. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pariah.
I read an old book about that, but it was about another form of deviance, adultresses.
That was just one twisted sexual deviant misogynist. Even the RCs dumped him in record time. This is institutionalized shunning, a la the original untouchables, which is just a small step above servitude. I'm not happy about prisons reaching out to exert control over those who've served their time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pariah.
I think an extensive examination of the process of creating pariahs - regardless of the society under scrutiny or the moral rule promoting the condemnation of people that is used - will show that "servitude/slavery" is the primary, and possibly the sole purpose of the process.
Slavery is a well established goal of human society's morality rules, because it eliminates the cost of labor, enriching the already wealthy by reducing expenditure, and modern prisons are now pretty much just slave labor camps.
I understand that American prison-made jeans are cost-competitive with Chinese slave-labor-made jeans.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pariah.
I've argued before that criminals should all have have their convictions tattooed on their foreheads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pariah.
I imagine there would then be a real demand for an enterprise that specialized in the removal of such tattoos, not so much as a way of removing the identification from the foreheads of criminals, but for the purpose of dis-branding the thousands of wrongly convicted innocents that the "justice system" creates every year.
When the justice system gets it right 99.99999% of the time, your idea might have some small merit, but that percentage is far away from its current success rate and permanently scarring an innocent human being is not something we should think of as unavoidable collateral damage.
Unless of course you're one of those people I mentioned above:
"...and giving employment to those good men and women who love to remove body parts and burn flesh for fun."
In which case I suppose you simply can't help but try your best to set up future employment for yourself and your ilk.
Sadly, I'm just one of those people who would rather examine and understand the root causes of harmful behaviors such as rape, assault and child abuse, and try to work towards removing the cause, instead of just hammering on the symptoms or committing revenge upon the people who do such things, so coming up with new ways to abuse the criminals isn't really my goal.
But, if you want to go one step further, why not champion the notion of dissecting executed murderers and harvesting their organs to use in hospitals to save lives through transplantation.
At least that will make you sound somewhat humane.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pariah.
Where's the fun in that? I demand to be entertained, even (or especially) at someone else's expense. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pariah.
Take a number. :) /s
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The so called "justice" system has a .1% accuracy rate.
The treason for profit prison system should be shut down and everyone involved simply deported or executed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pigs are always completely full of crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]