Lawsuit: CBP Took $240,000 From Man And Refused To Respond To His Forfeiture Challenge Until It Had Already Processed It

from the because-barely-any-due-process-is-far-too-much-due-process dept

Wed, May 4th 2016 2:01pm — Tim Cushing

Looks like someone might be getting their money back after CBP agents -- operating a great distance from the US borders -- seized $240,000 from a man traveling through Indiana. While driving along I-70 outside of Indianapolis last November, Najeh Muhana was pulled over for not signalling a lane change. That's when things got weird and a bit unconstitutional.

According to his filing for return of his money, Muhana's vehicle was searched "without consent, warrant or probable cause." The Hancock County Sheriff's Department officers even brought a drug dog to the scene, but failed to uncover any contraband. The $240,000 Muhana was carrying caught their eye, though.

Muhana (correctly) intuited the officers wanted to take his money. So he told them he had just been talking to the person the money was owed to. This story, which was untrue, seemed to upset the officers, who spent the next hour discussing something presumably related to how they could take the cash from Muhana -- because that is exactly what they eventually did.

This decision was made when CBP agent Scott Thompson -- operating roughly 250 miles from the nearest border -- arrived on the scene. Thompson took the money and gave Muhana a "receipt for property." Muhana, whose native language is Arabic, took this to mean the money would be returned when the CBP finished its investigation into whatever it was it thought was going on here.

Shortly after that, the Sheriff's Department took Muhana into custody based on a traffic stop that had occurred four months earlier in another state. Details on that arrest suggest Muhana may have been involved in selling unlicensed cigarettes.

Najeh Muhana, 39, St. Louis, was preliminarily charged with possession of untaxed cigarettes, according to a Henry County Jail List.

Muhana’s charges stem from an incident that initially began on I-70 in July when members of the Pro Active Criminal Enforcement Team pulled over his rental van for unsafe lane movement. Blankets covered the cargo area and police confiscated 2,400 cartons of Newport cigarettes, valued at more than $147,000, and 650 cans of infant formula, valued at $10,500.

The cigarettes had a Missouri tax stamp, said Major Jay Davis of the Henry County Sheriff’s Department, noting that in Indiana, it is illegal to possess such items without an Indiana tax stamp.

During this stop -- which occurred in November -- officers uncovered nothing more than cash. They may have believed the two were related, but they never bothered connecting the dots for the benefit of Muhana, much less used it as a basis for the cash seizure.

In fact, all the involved agencies did was pass the buck -- along with Muhana's bucks -- whenever he sought information on how to work towards the return of his money. The filing details multiple attempts to obtain any confirmation on the forfeiture, or who he should speak to in order to get the process underway. Further, there's no record that Muhana was ever notified of the CBP's intent to pursue forfeiture -- nothing beyond the mysterious "receipt for property" the CBP agent gave him.

Muhana began making inquiries a few weeks after the money was taken, beginning in December 2015. In January, CBP agent Scott Thompson told him the case had been turned over to the CBP's Ohio office. The following Kafka-esque chain of events is directly from the filing.

On or before January 19, 2016, Mr. Muhana's counsel contacted Eartha Graham, Paralegal Specialist, U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Middleburg, Ohio regarding the status of the Currency.

On January 19, 2016, Ms. Graham responded via email to counsel, stating, "I will need something in writing preferably on company letterhead stating you are representing Mr. Muhana asap."

[...]

On January 20, 2016, counsel followed up with a facsimile to Ms. Graham, in writing,

In response to your email to me yesterday, this will confirm that I represent Najeh Mulhana relating to the seizure of three (3) bags of currency by the US. Customs Service on or about November 6, 2015, in Indiana. The seizing officer was Special Agent Thompson. Mr. Muhana is requesting return of the money.

On January 26, 2016, counsel again contacted Ms. Graham related to the Currency, asking, "Will the agency be sending me some notification regarding its intentions relating to the seized money?" She responded, "Yes, we will be sending something out soon."

On February 1, 2016, Ms. Graham followed up again with an email to counsel stating, "I just received word from our counsel to request a written statement sign (sic) by Mr. Muhana, stating you will be representing him for currency case." The same day, Mr. Muhana's counsel sent Ms. Graham an email with a copy of the law firm's engagement letter attached.

On February 8, 2016, counsel received a letter from Tessie Douglas, FP&F Officer, US. Customs and Border Protection, Middleburg, Ohio, dated February 4, 2016. In the letter Ms. Douglas stated,

This is with reference to your inquiry on behalf of your client Mr. Najehm Muhana, about the currency that was seized on November 6, 2015.

The circumstances of this case have been reviewed. It has been determined that since your client waived his rights to the currency by signing the abandonment form, he cannot make claims on the currency. The forfeiture process was completed on February 1, 2016.

The next day, Muhana's lawyer wrote back, pointing out several things. First, he had received nothing in the way of a signed waiver by Mr. Muhana indicating his relinquishment of ownership. Furthermore, even if Muhana had signed something of that sort during the arrest, he is unable to read or write in English and may not have known what he was signing. In addition, even if such a signed waiver exists, there's nothing forbidding Muhana from attempting to correct his mistake during the time between the seizure and its finalization. Muhana's attorney demanded the CBP provide him with a copy of the supposed waiver.

A reasonable request, one would think, especially when a quarter of a million dollars was on the line. But guess what? The CBP doesn't turn over that sort of paperwork to people it's taking money from. It will only turn that paperwork over to anyone who asks for it using a completely unrelated process. And that's only if it decides it isn't covered by multiple investigation-related exemptions. Behold: your tax dollars at work, giving you the finger over its cubicle wall.

There was no response until March 7, 2016. This time, counsel received an email from Rose Parks, Paralegal Specialist, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Cleveland, which stated as follows:

The subject-referenced case has been re-assigned to me, as Ms. Graham has left our department. Per my supervisors, we do not provide copies of abandonment forms. To obtain a copy of the form, you would need to file a FOIA request.

Muhana's lawyer fired right back, hoping to find someone willing to provide more info on the up-to-this-point nonexistent waiver.

Ms. Parks:

Thank you for your message. Please confirm that the Agency has referred this matter to the US Attorneys' Office per my prior email for determination regarding forfeiture. Again, my client is making claim to the money. I understood from my conversations with Ms. Graham that the case had been re-assigned to the US Attorney for that purpose. If I have misunderstood her, please let me know immediately.

Nothing there for Mr. Muhana either.

Ms. Parks then stated as follows in her follow-up response: "The currency has been forfeited and the case is closed. No referral is being made."

The money is gone, apparently, after having skipped some necessary intermediate steps. As the filing points out, the government must notify involved parties of the intent to pursue a forfeiture. This is to give people like Najeh Muhana a very slim window in which to raise a challenge. Muhana's lawyer says that -- contrary to the law -- he was never given written notice of the agency's intentions.

The agency claims (sort of) that it had no obligation to do so because Muhana had disclaimed his ownership of it. But the chain of communications clearly show Muhana had both claimed ownership and was interested in pursuing its recovery. The agent directly involved with the seizure was made aware of this in December 2015, less than a month after the funds were taken. The agency itself was notified in writing of Muhana's intent to challenge in January 2016 -- well before the agency's February 1st declaration that the money had been forfeited.

As Muhana's lawyer points out, this is clearly bullshit.

Here, the Agency knew that Mr. Muhana was claiming to be the owner of the Currency through the repeated inquiries of his counsel. Rather than acknowledge those inquiries and respond to them, the Agency delayed any response until after February 1, 2016, when it unilaterally declared a forfeiture of the Currency. Thus, despite actual knowledge that Mr. Muhana was the owner of the Currency, the Agency refused to provide written notice to him about the Currency being seized and the Agency's intention to declare a forfeiture.

Given what's detailed here, it strongly appears as though the CBP processed a forfeiture while skipping past all the due process niceties. If so, Muhana is likely to not only prevail, but "strongly prevail" in his claim against the agency, which means it will not only have to give him back his $240,000 but pay his legal fees as well.

Forfeiture-Challenge (PDF)Forfeiture-Challenge (Text)

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, cbp, customs and border patrol, doj, hancock county, najeh muhana

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 2:33pm

...and who pays for this?
So CBP illegally forfeits a quarter of a million dollars, skips due process, and then ends up in a court case they will surely lose.

Which they don't really care about, as the worst that can happen is that they have to hand the money back and pay (reasonable) lawyer's fees. That payment, of course, is funded by the taxpayer, not out of their own pockets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
limbodog (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 2:40pm

There really needs to be some sort of repercussion
It can't just be the taxpayers on the hook. This was clearly and obviously abuse of power by many officials involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 3:08pm

>It can't just be the taxpayers on the hook. This was clearly and obviously abuse of power by many officials involved.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 3:25pm

Re: There really needs to be some sort of repercussion
hey, we support this, and vote for every jackhole candidate that says they want to be tough on crime!

repercussions only come in one form... when somebody fights back, and usually have to lose the fight a lot of time before they win the war!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 3:26pm

Re: ...and who pays for this?
But the taxpayers DESERVE to pay.

If we vote in the assholes allowing these officers to remain employed then we get to pay the price of their tyranny, can you can bet we will damn sure pay it one way or another!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 4:53pm

Yet, for all of this, nobody can explain why this guy was driving around with a quarter of a million dollars in cash in his car.

Let's just say the police were not wrong to be suspicious. No sane person does what this guy was doing, unless they don't want anyone to know that they have that much cash and what they are using it for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 5:20pm

Re:
In this country regardless of the amount, it is none of anyone's business why someone has cash.

That we have twisted the "war du jour" to justify this type of activity doesn't change that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JBDragon (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 5:22pm

Re:
Who cares why he has the money in his car. Some people don't trust banks!!! Doesn't matter why, there was no drugs or anything illegal in his car and he did nothing wrong other then not signal a lane change, which 99% of the people out there don't seem to do these days.

I know I would have refused to let the police search my car. Go get your dog, whatever. See MONEY, Lottery WIN for them!!!
Doesn't matter if it was meant for the Red Cross.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shyra, 4 May 2016 @ 5:27pm

Re: -Whatever-
re: No sane person does what this guy was doing, unless they don't want anyone to know that they have that much cash and what they are using it for.

Not necessarily true at all. When I worked with foreign students at our school, it was not unusual for them to travel with large amounts of money from one school to the next. We discouraged it; encouraged cashier's checks, etc. Hopefully, with all the "law enforcement" using any excuse to pull someone over for "driving while not white" these days, those foreign students of today are properly worried enough they ship all valuables ahead of them, instead of carrying them.

Who'd have thought we'd have to warn visitors to this country of "highwaymen" in the 21st century!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 5:57pm

Re:
You are a complete and utter foolish person (I use person since I don't know if you are male, female, or it). Why he was carrying the money is none of your business nor anyone else's for that matter.

Sane people do this all the time, in the expectation that the police are actually law abiding and doing their job properly.

If you call them insane for doing this, we can only assume that you know that the law enforcement agencies are corrupt and criminal and approve of their behaviour and morals. Since they are the only ones who regularly pull people over.

As evidenced by the official complaints, the various law enforcement agents were simply looking for a score. Nothing they did was according to the law, nothing - up to and including the original stop.

May you find yourself in this position each and every day for the next 10 years. May you be a witness to your own downfall at the hands of such people. Because you are still in the mindset of guilty until proven innocent.

I wonder if you are the recipient of tainted cash and goods from such criminal law enforcement.

Finally answer a question, how often do you have ...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldMugwump (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 6:00pm

Re: nobody can explain why this guy was driving around with a quarter of a million dollars in cash
...which is completely irrelevant to the case.

If there is suspicion of a crime, the proper thing to do is to investigate, and pursue criminal charges if the evidence justifies that.

Not to simply steal the money and walk away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 6:39pm

You'd like to think so...
Given what's detailed here, it strongly appears as though the CBP processed a forfeiture while skipping past all the due process niceties. If so, Muhana is likely to not only prevail, but "strongly prevail" in his claim against the agency, which means it will not only have to give him back his $240,000 but pay his legal fees as well.

Even with such a blatant cash-grab it's unfortunately entirely possible that a by-the-book judge will declare that since he 'waited too long' the money's no longer his, and he's out both a quarter million and his legal fees because for far too many judges and lawmakers armed robbery is perfectly acceptable if the one(s) doing it have badges.

And of course the very idea that those involved will be punished is utterly absurd, they managed to steal a quarter million for the agency and stall long enough that they might very well be able to keep it, I imagine after a stunt like this they'll be looking not at demotion but promotion or a bonus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 6:53pm

Re: What do you mean "by-the-book" judge?
Do you mean a judge who goes by the US Constitution book or by the DOJ book of "Keep it in our hands" book?

There is a considerable difference you know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Concerned, 4 May 2016 @ 7:20pm

Re: Whatever
This is america, if you want to carry a million dollars around what business is it for anybody but you. Anybody that wants to assert that it's unusual for anybody to do that is correct, it is, but that isn't a reason for cops to take the money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digger, 4 May 2016 @ 8:01pm

Grand Theft Charges should be filed.
Everyone on the government side of this should have grand theft and / or larceny charges filed against them, and double the jail time as it is a slam dunk case.

They did not follow proper procedures, they no longer have the protection or immunity to prosecution normally afforded to government agents.

By failing to follow procedure, they've shown their true colors and should be treated as the criminals that they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digger, 4 May 2016 @ 8:07pm

Re: You'd like to think so...
The only "bonus" these criminals are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.

The person wronged probably knows people who know people in low places who'd take on the challenge pro-bono, after a proper "cooling-off" period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
s2lim, 4 May 2016 @ 8:32pm

Re:
Oh. I guess that makes it OK, then.

Yet, for all of this, we are still plagued with abusive pigs. And they only seem to be multiplying, or are amplified, or both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 8:56pm

Re:
People should not feel like they have to explain why they are exercising their rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greevar (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 9:48pm

Re: Re:
Muslims are bound by their religion to not use banks that charge interest, as usury is against their religious laws. So, yes, they definitely don't trust (American) banks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 10:40pm

Re:
The reasoning why there was monies in the vehicle is absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand and therefore no explanation is required nor needed.

I thought you knew how legal processes work.. Seems I was wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 11:17pm

I wonder how long before all tourism from the rest of the worlds citizens dries up completely in the US. Canada and Russia have already issued warnings to their citizens don't carry cash if you travel to America, the police are likely to steal it from you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 11:23pm

Re: ...and who pays for this?
Unless of course they come up with some bullshit defense and the judge sides with them solely because they defend "freedom" and must be taken on their word that they should get to keep their stolen money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 11:29pm

Re:
Yes instead they should keep their money in banks that had to be bailed out because they bet and lost most of the money people had in their bank accounts.

In you're mind the police can do no wrong, so give up trying to pretend otherwise
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 11:32pm

Re: Re:
He is a die hard supporter of the police and government police state that can never do wrong and anyone they target must be a criminal solely because they were targeted, not based on silly notions of evidence or guilt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 11:34pm

Re: Re: What do you mean "by-the-book" judge?
considering how those in charge view people that support and believe in constitutional rights as dangerous terrorists. The few judges that will defend those rights are getting removed bit by bit. They are badly outnumbered by those that support a police state instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 11:59pm

Stealing process
Our [CBP] reasoning is simple: stealing someone's money is definitely much easier when they're not challenging the stealing process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 12:06am

Re: ...and who pays for this?
Well, Mr. Muhana already paid for this; it's oyl fair that everyone else pays, too!

After all, we're all in this together.

(/s)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dadtaxi, 5 May 2016 @ 1:00am

Re: nobody can explain
"Let's just say the police were not wrong to be suspicious"

Granted.

So what? Suspicion by police is proof of sod all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 1:49am

Re:
And this absolves the hoops this guy was forced to jump through to challenge the forfeiture how, exactly?

What a surprise that when authority messes up, you're frothing at the mouth and leaping to the forefront to sing their praises. Talk about whipped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 3:48am

Re:
@ whatever-
what a dependable shitheel you are:
whenever there is a chance to side with authoritarian goons who have gone FAR beyond their legal mandate, whatever will be there to defend the indefensible...
YOU and your ignorant ilk make me ashamed to be an American, you authoritarian POS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 3:58am

is that all?
"which means it will not only have to give him back his $240,000 but pay his legal fees as well.

What about damages? What about interest? They wrongfully seized his property and time went by while his property was in their possession. He is due damages and interest in addition to lawyers (and any other relevant) fees, court costs and of course his original seized cash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 4:43am

Re:
Canada and Russia have already issued warnings to their citizens don't carry cash if you travel to America, the police are likely to steal it from you.

The US is Canada's Mexico.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 5:30am

Re:
Yet, for all of this, nobody can explain why this guy was driving around with a quarter of a million dollars in cash in his car.

The short answer is "none of your fucking business."

If they're suspicious, they can investigate. You seem to want to allow them to skip that part, go right to "he's guilty" and take his cash.

What an asshole you are!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 5:44am

Re:
"Yet, for all of this, nobody can explain why this guy was driving around with a quarter of a million dollars in cash in his car."

Probably because that is meaningless in this discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMe (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 6:27am

Freedoms are being lost every day
Regular readers of sites like TechDirt know this. Corporations and government agencies keep expanding their 'rights' while ignoring the constitution or 'rights' of the citizens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 6:33am

Re: Freedoms are being lost every day
It's in their nature. Part of the whole "eternal vigilance" thing means that it's critical that us ordinary citizens raise hell to actively defend our rights each and every time they are threatened. Our system relies on this.

A big part of the problem is that most people don't do this. Remember the old adage about the difference between privilege and liberty: privileges are given, liberties are taken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 8:40am

Forfeiture known by any other name is still theft
It sickens me to know that so many agencies in the US have no problems stealing money from people. If the people did anything remotely like this, they would be in jail for a quite a long time. Put a badge on the thief and it is legal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 9:56am

Re: Re: ...and who pays for this?
Voting against those assholes is still voting for just different assholes.

And voting against alleged non-assholes is spoiling the vote for the slightly-less-evil asshole.

If we're willing to give the benefit of the doubt that the elections aren't rigged (e.g. Gerrymandered) and that these officials could somehow fix the tyranny, the system is still way broken.

Look up criticisms of FPTP elections. Then re-assign your blame accordingly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vancedecker (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 10:13am

Yet Another Libertarian 'Free-Citizen' Circle Jerk
Translation from Libertarian Uberspeak to English:

Man previously arrested for smuggling cigarettes, found in another state with lots of cash from sale of other illegal cigarettes. Money was confiscated. Outraged Msulim Drug Dealer demands his money back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 10:29am

Re: Forfeiture known by any other name is still theft
Agents of the law are above the law.

Who's going to prosecute them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 10:52am

Re: Yet Another Libertarian 'Free-Citizen' Circle Jerk
Translation back to How the Law is Supposed to Work:

Man previously arrested for smuggling cigarettes, found in another state with lots of cash. Police confiscate cash without probable cause and retain it in violation of forfeiture procedures, and with actual knowledge that he wanted it back.

Demanding due process is not "libertarian uberspeak".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 11:09am

"Msulim Drug Dealer"
I think vancedecker's subtext was pretty clear.

Muslims are very scary and I'm glad for this one being neutralized and shown he's not welcome.

vancedecker's antipluralism was obvious. He might as well have called Muhana a terrorist or a black thug.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 11:46am

Re: Re:
And this is what I find creepier about authoritarian boot-lickers than anything else. They demand strict adherence to the laws and rules that have been put in place to govern our behavior, regardless of how logically incoherent these laws may be. They're absolutists.

Yet the second something like this comes up, they blow off basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" and "evidence" in favor of "the gut feelings of people who wear matching outfits and badges". The Whatevers of the nation are the biggest fucking enemies of law and justice we have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 11:58am

Re: "Msulim Drug Dealer"
If you take his comment history as a whole, the subtext is simply "I'm scared of everything except Mommy." Makes Whatever seem like the love-child of Abbie Hoffman & Noam Chomsky.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymouse, 6 May 2016 @ 9:52am

What's maybe most scary is how nobody seems to even care that both traffic stops seem to be transparently BS excuses to search this guy without a warrant. I mean, the "Pro Active Criminal Enforcement Team" doesn't exactly sound like guys writing routine traffic tickets, does it? And if staties were writing tickets for everyone who changed lanes on an interstate without signaling, well, they'd be busy busy beavers, and certainly wouldn't have time to call drug dogs to everyone they were writing routine traffic tickets to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2016 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re: Re: ...and who pays for this?
Your stupid logic is circular and reads more like, if you can't beat the, just roll the fuck over like a bitch.

Elections are Rigged, starting with the Party system... it is the very reason parties get started. People stupidly think the parties are for like minded people to team up and have a bigger voice when it really is just a 3rd party holding shit over everyone's head saying, be in my party or get nothing, and if you work in my party... well you fucking work for the party NOT the people.

If the people "tolerate" corruption in their government then they are NEVER innocent, and deserve to pay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: ...and who pays for this?
You can't blame the people. They're just people.

They're not always rational.

They're not eternally vigilant.

They're biased as hell.

They'd be pretty content with bread and circuses.

They tolerate a lot of shit. And they cause a lot of shit for all the wrong reasons.

But they're the same people that every other civilization gets.

Whether we try a model based on reciprocity and equality, or a model based on elitism and manipulation of the masses (because they're really easily manipulated) is up to us.

Some people would rather be kings of third-world police-state banana republics than middle-managers of star-spanning cultural and humanitarian republics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2016 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re: Yet Another Libertarian 'Free-Citizen' Circle Jerk
Unless of course you believe in the theory that police never do any wrong and always uphold the laws. So anyone they arrest must be a criminal solely because the police never make any mistakes.

I really hope people like this are paid for shills instead people that actually believe in this wanting a tyranny nonsense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 May 2016 @ 10:00am

Re: Re: Re: Yet Another Libertarian 'Free-Citizen' Circle Jerk
I can't speak for any of the commenters here, but I do personally know people who sincerely believe that the cops are close to infallible and that an effective police state is a desirable thing (although they'd never phrase it that way). Oddly, these people are also ones who claim to detest "big government". Go figure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 7 May 2016 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet Another Libertarian 'Free-Citizen' Circle Jerk
The human animal has strong (irrational) instincts to respect authority and presume they know what they're doing and are looking out for the rest of us.

It's great in small groups when the chieftain or priest has a similar instinct to look out for the braves and peons.

In larger societies the dynamic doesn't work so well, but it makes for amazing barn-raising efforts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bubba, 7 May 2016 @ 5:22pm

It appears someone at DHS is suffering from small-penis anxiety and thus a need to prove he's a "real man" by going after Internet commenters. Does King Jong-Un secretly run DHS? ;-)

http://boingboing.net/2016/05/06/homeland-security-want-to-subp.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2016 @ 8:51am

And now the corrupt police are trying to subpeona the commenters...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 9 May 2016 @ 2:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...and who pays for this?
[Sad but True]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 9 May 2016 @ 2:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet Another Libertarian 'Free-Citizen' Circle Jerk
They don't mind "big government" all that much as long as they're not being directly affected by it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just me, 28 Aug 2016 @ 5:35am

Re: Re: Whatever
traveling across state lines with any amount over 10,000 is against federal money laundering statutes. With large amounts of cash sometimes transactions are made with out paying sales tax. My father traveled with bearer bond during the collapse of the early 80's. They are not cash so that was a work around back then. They are no longer issued. Long Live Bitcoin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 28 Aug 2016 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Re: Whatever
traveling across state lines with any amount over 10,000 is against federal money laundering statutes.

Citation needed. Here are my contrary citations.

http://www.snopes.com/business/money/10000.asp
http://www.airsafe.com/issues/baggage/cash.h tm
https://www.fincen.gov/whatsnew/pdf/CTRPamphletBW.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]