Supreme Court Won't Hear Case, But Justice Thomas Questions Constitutionality Of Asset Forfeiture
from the about-freaking-time dept
We've been writing about the sheer insanity of asset forfeiture for many, many years. If you happen to have missed it, civil asset forfeiture is the process by which the government can just take your stuff by arguing that it must have been the proceeds of criminal activity. They literally file a lawsuit against your stuff, not you. And, here's the real kicker: in most places, they never have to file any lawsuits about the actual crime, let alone get a conviction. They just get to take your stuff, say that it must have been the proceeds of a crime, and unless you go through the insanely expensive and burdensome process of demanding it back, they effectively get to walk off with your stuff. Law enforcement has literally referred to the process as going shopping. Most people who understand what's going on recognize that it's just state-sponsored theft.
I'm constantly amazed to find people who simply don't believe civil asset forfeiture could possibly work the way it does. The whole process is so crazy and so lacking in basic due process, that many people literally find it unbelievable. And while some states have moved towards requiring a criminal conviction to keep the stuff, many don't have that, and our President and Attorney General are huge fans of civil asset forfeiture -- so it's unlikely to change any time soon.
That is, unless the courts get involved. While the Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal on yet another egregious case of civil asset forfeiture, Justice Clarence Thomas issued an accompanying statement suggesting that he's having trouble understanding how civil asset forfeiture could possibly be legal in its current form. The case in question is egregious, but not all that unlike many other cases we've written about. People travelling with a large sum of cash (for a perfectly legit reason) are stripped of the cash by law enforcement who doesn't believe their reasons -- and then never files any criminal charges or anything, but just takes off with the cash:
Early in the morning on April 1, 2013, a police officer stopped James Leonard for a traffic infraction along aknown drug corridor. During a search of the vehicle, the officer found a safe in the trunk. Leonard and his passenger, Nicosa Kane, gave conflicting stories about the contents of the safe, with Leonard at one point indicating that it belonged to his mother, who is the petitioner here. The officer obtained a search warrant and discovered that the safe contained $201,100 and a bill of sale for a Pennsylvania home.
The State initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against the $201,100 on the ground that it was substantially connected to criminal activity, namely, narcotics sales.
Of course, no criminal charges were ever filed against any of the individuals related to this. The government just took the money. The lower courts all sided with law enforcement, and now the case had a chance to go before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it passed on the case (as it does with most petitions), but Thomas is clearly troubled by all of this:
... civil forfeiture has in recent decades become widespread and highly profitable.... And because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture....
This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. According to one nationally publicized report, for example, police in the town of Tenaha, Texas, regularly seized the property of out-of-town drivers passing through and collaborated with the district attorney to coerce them into signing waivers of their property rights.... In one case, local officials threatened to file unsubstantiated felony charges against a Latino driver and his girlfriend and to place their children in foster care unless they signed a waiver.... In another, they seized a black plant worker’s car and all his property (including cash he planned to use for dental work), jailed him for a night, forced him to sign away his property, and then released him on the side of the road without a phone or money.... He was forced to walk to a Wal-Mart, where he borrowed a stranger’s phone to call his mother, who had to rent a car to pick him up.
These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.... Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.
From there, Justice Thomas looks through the historic rationale that has allowed these laws to remain on the books, and finds some problems, especially concerning how differently the law is being used, and the general conflation among some of the criminal procedures and civil procedures:
The Court has justified its unique constitutional treatment of civil forfeiture largely by reference to a discrete historical practice that existed at the time of the founding.... This practice “took hold in the United States,” where the “First Congress passed laws subjecting ships and cargos involved in customs offenses to forfeiture.”... Other early statutes also provided for the forfeiture of pirate ships.... These early statutes permitted the government to proceed in rem under the fiction that the thing itself, rather than the owner, was guilty of the crime.... And, because these suits were in rem rather than in personam, they typically proceeded civilly rather than criminally....
In the absence of this historical practice, the Constitution presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation... I am skeptical that this historical practice is capable of sustaining, as a constitutional matter, the contours of modern practice, for two reasons.
First, historical forfeiture laws were narrower in most respects than modern ones.... Most obviously, they were limited to a few specific subject matters, such as customs and piracy. Proceeding in rem in those cases was often justified by necessity, because the party responsible for the crime was frequently located overseas and thus beyond the personal jurisdiction of United States courts.... These laws were also narrower with respect to the type of property they encompassed. For example, they typically covered only the instrumentalities of the crime (such as the vessel used to transport the goods), not the derivative proceeds of the crime (such as property purchased with money from the sale of the illegal goods)....
Second, it is unclear whether courts historically permitted forfeiture actions to proceed civilly in all respects. Some of this Court’s early cases suggested that forfeiture actions were in the nature of criminal proceedings... Whether forfeiture is characterized as civil or criminal carries important implications for a variety of procedural protections, including the right to a jury trial and the proper standard of proof. Indeed, as relevant in this case, there is some evidence that the government was historically required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt....
Unfortunately, for procedural reasons (the people who had their money seized didn't challenge the constitutionality at the lower courts and only did so after losing), the Supreme Court has to reject this case. However, Thomas' pretty clear message is that at least one sitting Justice is very troubled with the idea that civil asset forfeiture as practiced today in many states (and by the federal government) could possibly be considered constitutional.
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, civil asset forfeiture, clarence thomas, due process, supreme court
Reader Comments
The First Word
“https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-bu rglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.696d1e47aa5d
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That can be applied to so many other areas nowadays. Sad really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A call out
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A call out
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I rarely agree with Thomas, but this is a hopeful sign. Maybe next time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
It was 3 AM? He wanted to roll nekkid in almost a million dollars?
I personally wouldn't travel with that much cash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
Seldom is anything other than cash accepted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
Asset forfeiture, if you've been paying attention, has been (mis)used in such obviously non-criminal activities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-bu rglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.696d1e47aa5d
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A call out
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Theft under cover of Authority
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Procedural dodge - failure to flood the court
While not unusual, this practice has always bothered me. It perversely encourages plaintiffs to flood the lower court with every possible argument up front, because anything they forget to claim at first is unusable later. It punishes plaintiffs who, whether through ignorance or poverty, fail to hire a lawyer who will throw everything at the wall. It punishes plaintiffs if they file in a court that, whether explicitly or implicitly, discourages counsel from filing every plausible claim (perhaps through length limits on the filing, or deadlines that preclude adequately arguing every claim). Its sole purpose seems to be to give appellate courts a trivial escape from addressing the issue. I can see why it would be useful for them to have discretion to refuse cases that raise obviously dubious reasons late, but I see no reason that appellate courts should be required to skip out on this procedural basis when the court clearly wants to handle a case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A call out
Try reading the article.
Constitutionality was not raised at the lower court, only at the appeal, and therefore was barred. So the SCOTUS could not rule on the constitutionality, which is why this seems like a 'please raise this in future' request.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
While I understand that this is normal practice, it's bullshit.
The SCOTUS is just dodging their responsibilities under the pretext of process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
If you want to know what that is like, look no further than the CAFC and how screwed up Patents are now thanks to them ignoring SCOTUS precedent for 20 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Soo...
And yet still no one is going to hear the case?
Can one just not ask Mr. Judge... how can you be taken seriously when you do this? It is YOUR ACTIONS that define who you are, not your words. Only idiots that vote R or D are stupid enough to let mere words form the foundations of their judgments.
I understand that getting cases before SCOTUS are not he easiest things to accomplish but the fact that this case is not being heard speaks more than enough for itself.
The ENTIRE judicial system right up to the stank nasty top is defunct!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
Go read the damn constitution, or just try this link.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/10/how-does-the-us-supreme-court-work.html
"The High Court can be very picky about which cases it chooses to take because for the vast majority of cases, there is no right to be heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although there is no hard and fast rule about how the Court chooses cases,"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
Process is SCOTUS's responsibility.
They can't just go ruling on an issue that wasn't raised in earlier proceedings. That's not how appeals work. You can't just change the entire basis for your case when it goes to the Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
No offense, but that is missing the point. It shouldn't matter that you wouldn't want to keep in your possession the asset that is being seized through this outrageous process. And, it is well worth noting that 1) assets are seized when the owners are en route to a bank or other "safe" location for the asset and 2) there is no safe location for the asset, since civil asset forfeiture is often used on items found at people's homes, apartments, etc. or the target's home itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Procedural dodge - failure to flood the court
Counterpoint: why should a plaintiff be able to change his entire case on appeal? How is that an appeal, instead of an entirely different case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Soo...
I mean, yeah, one can ask that.
And the SCOTUS's action in this case -- all eight of them, not just Thomas -- is to reject a case that it had no legal basis to take.
Would you prefer that the Supreme Court didn't follow proper legal procedure?
You know, irrelevant knee-jerk swipes at partisans are just as tiresome as irrelevant knee-jerk swipes by partisans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
But that's not really the point. Traveling with a large amount of cash (or other valuable assets) is not, in and of itself, a crime, and should not be treated, in and of itself, as evidence of a crime.
People do lots of things that I don't understand a need for. That doesn't mean the police should be allowed to confiscate their stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
And thus you get to the situation that a person who is known to be innocent can be executed [Scalia]. That's what happens when you put process over all other concerns.
I agree that the Supreme court should not generally deal with cases where the basis for the appeal is changed, but when one of the justices suggests that the prior rulings are unconstitutional? Perhaps a little movement on process is warranted here.
The Supreme Court defines its own rules. It can change them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
You're technically correct, though the namecalling, caps, exclamation points, and out-of-context quote cut off in mid-sentence are probably not the best way of making your point.
SCOTUS can take any case it wants to, but that doesn't mean it should. Just because the appeals process is a tradition and not law doesn't mean that it's a bad idea, or that there's no reason to follow it.
(And "Go read the damn constitution" has been a pretty piss-poor argument for understanding how the Supreme Court works since, oh, right around 1803 or so.)
SCOTUS made the right call on this one; it declined the appeal on valid grounds: the plaintiff is attempting to change the entire basis of the case.
Do you believe that the SCOTUS should be consistent in its guidelines for accepting cases?
And do you believe that SCOTUS should make a habit of taking "appeals" where, instead of seeking to overturn a lower court ruling, a plaintiff instead raises an entirely different argument that is not the same argument that the lower court ruled on?
Because I'd go with "yes" and "no", respectively.
SCOTUS declined to take the case, for valid reasons, but expressed concern about civil asset forfeiture, indicating an openness to take future cases on the subject. That is the correct result, under the circumstances.
Forfeiture should be examined by the Supreme Court. But that doesn't mean the SCOTUS should take any case concerning forfeiture, or that it should have taken this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
Oh God, we're already back to "if this thing was a different thing, would it be the same thing?" again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Privateering career path
Can a civilian sign up for a Letter of Marque and Reprisal? Then send a 30% cut in to the DOJ to cover "taxes and administrative fees"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
Yea, I know, I am such an asshole. But I would rather deal with asshole vs the throngs of fucking idiots running around acting like they know so much and then voting poorly. I have no chance of over coming the idiotic masses so my last vestiges of peace or to vent my frustrations on the idiots.
there is no point in teaching them, they don't care to learn. After that I have to deal with the "victim crowd" where everything done that can be perceived as offensive is it own sin, regardless of the intent of the "perceive" offense.
This is the reason that Every Nation gets the government it deserves. People "actively" and "ignorantly" invite destruction right through the front door under the guise of trying to stop it.
"SCOTUS declined to take the case, for valid reasons, but expressed concern about civil asset forfeiture, indicating an openness to take future cases on the subject. That is the correct result, under the circumstances."
And that is where we lose. The idea that Justice should wait for "contrived" procedure is an injustice of it's own. Sure, it can be difficult to decide which cases are more important than others, but it is pretty clear that Civil Forfeiture is not some small and obscure problem. It is a MONOLITHIC one! And absolutely qualifies as the type of case that SCOTUS should consider making an exception for.
This costs money, it benefits no one but the circus to make the lion jump through hoops, well except for the people paying and looking to be entertained... are you looking to be entertained here? Or do you profit from in some way by making this process draw all the way out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
The moment a procedure runs afoul of someones "liberty" then why should the procedure not be classified as an "illegal" activity.
Or wait... you forgot the whole "right to a speedy trial" and all of that stuff. A persons property was stolen from then under the color of authority, in breach of the 4th and now the court is in the process of ensure that any 6th amendments are also unobserved.
As I stated in another post, this is a pretty good example of how bad the Judicial System has become.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Soo...
Really? SCOTUS can take any case they like, it's pretty much their prerogative. The only thing stopping them is them. There is a REASON why they are the highest court in the land and why they are codified in the Constitution which you likely have no bothered to study.
"You know, irrelevant knee-jerk swipes at partisans are just as tiresome as irrelevant knee-jerk swipes by partisans."
Yea yea, I know, more bees with honey, except that means nothing. Most people want someone else to do the work to save them. Hence "government" and its entire inception. You expect me to pay that any respect?
Here is a snippet of something important.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — "
I am ALMOST certain you have read that somewhere before. The entire Government is work in opposition to the principals that founded America. And people like you are asking them to do it too! So no, I will not have respect for a bunch of obtuse crybabies that look to someone else, especially a government of men, to save them from themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
You have now twice performed logical gymnastics to justify government authorized villainy.
Tell me now, if this is true...
"Besides, if someone knows you're doing it you might have more to worry about than the police seizing it, like folks with guns who are not afraid to use them."
Then you must think this is true...
"If a woman where suggestive clothing it's her fault for getting raped and the police should haul her ass to fucking jail for 'reasons'"
Do you people not bother using any mental floss?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Soo...
"Would you prefer that the Supreme Court didn't follow proper legal procedure?"
Tell me which legal procedure says that the court cannot take this case? Or are you like all the rest, think they know what they are talking about when they don't? Don't let Dunning-Kruger bite you in the ass.
What a bunch of tools!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
[ link to this | view in thread ]
literally find it unbelievable
that is exactly my reaction the first -- i don't know how many times -- i heard about this. i simply couldn't believe that could happen in this country.
even now, today, on occasion when i haven't been thinking about this, some mention of it startles me again.
there is no way this sort of thing could happen in the nation of our forebears.
no way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
The SCOTUS took up a more narrow case about it. But then after deliberating they basically announced there would be another hearing on much broader questions (which would allow them to strike down much more then the narrow part of the law the case was originally about).
The SCOTUS has done the same before, asking the two parties to come back and deliberate over something else related to the original lawsuit. At time's it's just used as a stalling tactic for political reasons (like Brown vs Board of Education, where several justices were working extra hard behind the scenes to get a unanimous ruling, but needed more time to sway a few hold out justices), but other times it's used to expand the scope of the suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why it this taking so long to challenge
When the SCOTUS finally declares AF as unconstitutional. I hope they tack on a retroactive order that all stolen property is to be returned to the rightful owner. If they sold someone's property for cash, then the original owner must be compensated accordingly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
I guess you have never purchased a used auto from a private seller.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A call out
The law deals with grey all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Asset forfeiture is nothing but theft by badge that in itself proves the police are criminals and not to be trusted under any circumstances. Since the police in general can not be trusted in any circumstances that means everything they do is most likely illegal under any rational interpretation of any country's laws. Which translates into a criminal gang is running (both meanings) the U.S.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why it this taking so long to challenge
Perhaps because, when faced with someone with the means and determination to take it that far, the government always caves (perhaps not a full cave, but a settlement), thus preventing a higher court from reviewing the case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But there's no way anyone is going to agree to this. Not when such a large shadow budget is at stake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's unlikely, given that the bulk of that was one particular asset seizure from a guy named Bernie Madoff. That was the result of a criminal prosecution, so it's not the kind of case we're talking about here where the police have no intention whatsoever of investigating any alleged crimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Making it harder for someone to express themselves in a timely manner is s
A key part of free speech. Howver, it does not apply here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have literally nothing better to do right now.
So yeah, I am gonna go through all your comments on this story, cut out everything that reads like the ramblings of someone in dire need of medication for a mental health condition, and address whatever is left as best I can.
The Nazis literally used that defense at the Nuremberg trials. It did not work then. It does not work now.
Police do perform a hazardous job, yes, but there are bad police officers within departments around the country. To deny that fact is to deny reality.
First off: Anyone who describes themselves as "interesting" is likely a boring asshole.
Second: "Socialist" is not the shut-down-everything passphrase you think it is.
And finally: You have not been "silenced". Your comments on other posts were hidden away because they were flagged by the commenter community; you can still see them if you click the link that lets you reveal the comment. But I want you to hold onto that thought because I am eventually going to explain all the things that are wrong with it.
He already has.
Again, hold onto that thought. I will get back around to it.
…okay I was going to wait until later, but you have a specific obsessive flaw in your thinking and it needs fixing now.
Techdirt is a privately-owned platform. You are not entitled to use it in any way, for any reason. If the moderation staff were to ban you from posting or hide your comments, that would suck for you — but it would not be a First Amendment violation.
The First Amendment protects your right to speak freely from government interference. It does not guarantee you the use of a specific platform, which is a form of association and assembly. And it does not prevent others from criticising you, for criticism itself is (protected) speech.
I do not need foul language or base insults. You are not worth that level of effort.
I have attached my name to this post. Where is yours?
Only if it includes all the changes made to copyright law in the past two centuries — like the one that turns the phrase "limited times" into a bad joke by extending copyright terms beyond someone's death.
Here is a simple rejoinder to that claim: How did his work affect ARPANET's development, and the eventual widespread adoption, of the electronic messaging system that eventually went on to become the "email" system everyone is familiar with? Because from what I can see, ARPANET already had all the basic standards of email in place well before Shiva Ayyadurai ever came close to finishing his "EMAIL" program.
You know you just admitted that you would be unable to judge that case on its merits, right? Biases are (ideally) not something judges and juries are supposed to let guide their decisions.
I think you are Shiva Ayyadurai.
See the title I put in this post? Yeah, I had nothing better to do before I went to sleep last night than laugh at this ridiculous chain of comments — and, on a hunch, look up Ayyadurai's social media accounts. After sifting through endless shill posts about health food and whatever, I found enough posts to help me compare the writing style of these posts with his.
The intentional capitalisation of specific words (such as "Inventor of Email"), the fawning over America, and the overuse of phrases with the "American" adjective (e.g., "American Patriot", "American Inventor") are not definitive proof that you are Shiva Ayyadurai. But those specific usages of language are enough to make me think there is a strong chance that you are Shiva Ayyadurai.
"I get it. It ain't makin' me laugh, but I get it."
Mr. Masnick is not obligated to give you a platform.
Knighthood is not something that is done in the United States. And besides, as President, Trump is a public servant — the public servant — not a king.
Your words, not mine.
[citation needed]
Any case he could make would be shut down by the well-documented history of the development of email.
There is no evidence that he influenced ARPANET's development of its own messaging system, the standards of which would become the foundation of email as most people know it today. (As pointed out above, ARPANET's development of email predates his "EMAIL" program.) There is no evidence that he either influenced or personally had a hand in the development of Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), the protocol used for email since 1982. There is no documented, credible, independently verifiable evidence that proves Shiva Ayyadurai did anything to influence or take part in the development of the email system as most people know it today.
That sounds an awful lot like a threat of violence, sir. You do realise that threatening someone with violence is not protected speech, right? You can actually be charged with a crime for that.
"I get it. It ain't makin' me laugh, but I get it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I have literally nothing better to do right now.
First, a key point:
>>> Mr. Masnick is not obligated to give you a platform.
Actually, he (or Techdirt) is. Techdirt is a business, agreed to serve the public as condition of its very existence. Read the CFRA closely: it just states common law (and passed unanimously). Techdirt has (visibly) reserved no right to edit comments. It's not being a neutral platform but a partisan blog. Paying for a web-site does not confer immunity from common law. Techdirt is suppressing criticism and dissent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glad to see STStone with the "block-quote and contradict" technique. Here's some back.
>>> Mr. Masnick is not obligated to give you a platform.
Actually, he (or Techdirt) is. Techdirt is a business, agreed to serve the public as condition of its very existence. Read the CFRA
closely: it just states common law (and passed unanimously). Techdirt has (visibly) reserved no right to edit comments. It's not
being a neutral platform but a partisan blog. Paying for a web-site does not confer immunity from common law. Techdirt is
suppressing criticism and dissent.
=============================================
[Attempted to get this in at 1135 Pacific Wednesday with a session/IP that had already posted twice, but TOO LATE! Techdirt
blocked it and has gone back to okaying every comment. Is this the way free speech is supposed to work? Are you proud of
Techdirt and glad that it stymies my attempts to comment here, STStone?]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Glad to see STStone with the "block-quote and contradict" technique. Here's some back.
If you don't see criticism of Techdirt, for me it's because blocked. You wouldn't know about it except for the rare times I get through. Masnick censors out of sight, more evidence of evading the law. If he was honest, he'd state some rules for commenting here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Glad to see STStone with the "block-quote and contradict" technique. Here's some back.
I am happy that I only need a single "xkcd" strip to counter whatever argument you had going.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I have literally nothing better to do right now.
I only need a single "xkcd" strip to counter whatever argument you had going. But since that did not seem to get through to you the first time…
Techdirt is a privately owned, privately maintained blog. Its owners and moderators have no legal obligation to allow your speech in the blog's comments section. There is no legal precedent that says they must; if anything, there is likely more legal precedent (including the "freedom of association" part of the First Amendment) that protects their right to moderate the commenter community of this blog however they see fit.
You cannot legally force Techdirt to host your speech, free of charge and regardless of its Terms of Service, any more than you could legally force any online service (e.g., Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube) to host it. Anything that says otherwise would go against decades — possibly even centuries — of established First Amendment caselaw.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Glad to see STStone with the "block-quote and contradict" technique. Here's some back.
Case law doesn't include everything nor does it express common law, nor are courts the ultimate authority. According to "case law" from lawyers, slaves must be returned from free states.
Have you READ the CFRA? This site has a "form contract", supported by its stated positions, and it's simply blocking criticism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Glad to see STStone with the "block-quote and contradict" technique. Here's some back.
Common law rarely comes up in court cases because everyone understands that it's NAILED DOWN, there's no use disputing. You've cleverly avoided acknowledging the overarching primacy of common law by putting on a veneer of "authority". Phooey on you. You're evidently member of the medieval lawyer's guild; if so, you're bound by oath to support the guild over the Constitution.
"Case law" is not the whole of the law, nor in the United States are lawyers in black robes the last word, and particularly not for the "natural persons" whom our judges are supposed to SERVE. Techdirt is a business, a fiction actually, and Masnick an employee of it, but Masnick is running the site as if his personal property. That's been outlawed since lunch counter sit-ins in the South established that businesses must serve all equally.
The clincher is that Techdirt is doing its censoring behind the scenes: if was legal, it would publicly state a commenting policy, who violates it, and with some means for redress upon restored "good" behavior. Techdirt will not even acknowledge its hidden censoring, because THEN it would be NAILED DOWN by common law. Is that not so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One simple request
Show me the law or the legal precedent that says you can legally force your speech upon a platform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would love to believe this is true, but I think this guy is here for the long haul. He seems far more dedicated than even out_of_the_blue or whatever he calls himself these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On a slightly unrelated note, I really must commend you, your patience in dealing with this individual is truly amazing, even it is helped, as you said, by having nothing better to do at the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having been on "the other side" of trolling before has given me the clarity to know better than to just curse at them and call them names. Trolls mainly want an emotional reaction. I prefer to question whatever logical point they might have been trying to make (and toss in a cultural reference or joke every now and then).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Anything you can win a Title 42, Section 1983 lawsuit over in civil court is also a crime under Title 18, Section 242. The DOJ seldom prosecutes such crimes, but they are still crimes.
There is no doubt that police cars, guns, body armor and the building that houses all of that facilitates police activity.
But when the police activity is illegal, then that property has just facilitated a crime -- and that's one of the things that property gets sued for and confiscated for under civil asset forfeiture laws.
Any police department that has had an officer violate someone's rights, ruled the officer justified/in accordance with departmental policy and then lost a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit over it should be eligible to be forfeited.
Can you imagine how police would scream in outrage if someone actually did it? Appealing it all the way to SCOTUS on constitutional grounds would do nicely for a test case too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
civil asset forfeiture
[ link to this | view in thread ]