FBI Seized $900K from Safe Deposit Box on 'Pure Conjecture,' Federal Judge Says
reason.com
reason.com
Extend this further to the fact that politicians suffer no consequences whatsoever for lying and you have a situation where the political class can manipulate and twist matters to fit their objectives, while, if you do the same, you can end-up in prison for a long time.
I have always felt this asymmetry is very wrong. Lying might have a place in law enforcement, for example, when infiltrating a human trafficking organization. No problem with that at all. It should, however, be treated like a warrant. In other words, a judge should authorize it and it should be documented.
This is a silly example but it is the only one I have from personal experience. When I was younger I got a speeding ticket that was a complete lie. The cops knew it. And, in fact, the wrote it down. It was something like going 35 in a 25 zone, when, in reality, the posted speed limit was 45. This cost me both time and money, even when the ticket was summarily dismissed by the judge when I showed pictures of the speed limit sign. What did not happen was some kind of consequence trickling down to the cops who pulled me over and lied about the entire thing --and were stupid enough to document the lie.
This isn't about being vindictive, I respect and appreciate cops, they do a job few of us would consider doing and it is hard. However, both cops and politicians should live by the same rules we have to live by. And, when it comes to lies, I could make a case that the consequences should be serious because they hold authority and power we don't have.
And we know that human memory and recollection is fallible. Prosecutors know this too. But government officials can freely abuse this in the name of getting a conviction.
I’ve never been able to look at the justice system the same way since watching “Don’t talk to the police”.
In other words, if they pull you over for speeding, the relationship isn't the same as the case where you might be asking a cop for directions or if you are engaging with them because you were a victim of a crime. In the first case they will use their training and knowledge against you to the extent necessary given the circumstances, the the other two cases they will be helpful and supportive.
I do not vilify police officers --the individuals-- for this. It is their job. This is what they do. They would not be doing the very difficult work they do every day if they did not, for example, gather evidence and use what suspects say as evidence, etc.
My problem is with asymmetry of the law as it pertains to lying. When a politician gets on TV and lies, and lies and lies --for years!--, suffering no consequences whatsoever, well, I just don't think that's right.
Thinking of this as an evolutionary process, if the fitness function responds positively to lies, the net result will be evolving towards a condition where lies are a normal part of how one gets ahead or survives. And this is precisely what we have.
Some might say: Well, politicians would not be able to say much on so many subjects if the absolute veracity of their statement was a requirement.
That's fine. I'd rather they shut the fuck up than lie to us with impunity. Or, more accurately, they would be forced to say things like "What I am about to say might not be accurate at all, I don't have first-hand information or supporting evidence for this", or something like that. Then they can go off and spew out their fabrications. Or, if they know they need to lie, they get a court order that allows them to do so on a very narrow basis.
Government works for us. We can't do well if they are lying to us with impunity.
I'll give you an example. We are about to spend an insane amount of money on roads, bridges, government buildings and who knows what else. One of the stories we hear is that we need this in order to be competitive. This is an absolute lie.
Why?
Name ten companies, in the last 50 years that opted not to locate their operations in the US due to the condition of our roads and bridges.
Can anyone produce this list?
No?
How about one? Just one?
No?
Roads and bridges are not the problem then. We need to invest in whatever is required to inshore some portion (because we can't do 100%) of the industrial based lost over the last 50. Semiconductors is a good example of this. Instead of burning cash we don't have on redoing perfectly good roads, we need to have a national objective to bring back semiconductor manufacturing, even if that means subsidizing it for ten years. This is just one example. There are dozens, hundreds, of sectors that need the same treatment. And yet politicians are lying to us every day with bullshit urgency about roads that we don't need fixed. Just a block away from our home about a quarter of a mile of a perfectly good avenue got ripped-up and repaved. I have lived here for more than twenty years. This avenue has been fine that entire time, no issues at all. Nothing. I asked neighbors. Nothing. Well, we just spent a non trivial amount of money "fixing" it, for no good reason at all.
Anyhow, the point is the asymmetry in this regard provides government and law enforcement with a great deal of power over us, whether that be to manipulate with impunity or incarcerate without consequence. This is wrong.
We see the most egregious cases in the news , but that means there are many more less notable cases with the same degree of injustice for lots individuals who aren’t always bright.
It’s as unseemly as having some guy in highschool talking the slow girl in class to go out with him.
There are enough bad people trying to do bad things. Go after them, do it professionally. Not this “I got Martha for lying, gimme my promotion” quickie stuff.
Maybe the US could copy the idea?
This is obviously only one side, but here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXtq4a8829g
A guy who worked for a YouTube comedian as a producer, and who allegedly was following a politician to public events and harassing him there, was arrested and charged with stalking. The "Fixated Persons Unit" has a broader mandate than purely terrorism offences, its mandate also extends to stalking and harassment of a "public office holder or internationally protected person, or other person/s nominated by the commissioner of police"
> So far, there's been no word from the "Law Enforcement Conduct Commission" on whether the arrest was lawful (hint: it wasn't)
LECC is unlikely to investigate an arrest while there is a pending criminal prosecution. For them to do so might be seen as interfering with the Court process.
I don't know if the arrest was legal or not. But the police unit which carried out the arrest is irrelevant to the question of its legality.
As I said above, LECC isn't going to investigate the arrest of Langker while Langker's criminal prosecution is pending. In the event that Langker is acquitted or the prosecution otherwise discontinued, it is possible then that LECC will investigate. We can't judge LECC based on this episode because legally it is too early for it to be involved.
all this aside, how about some sympathy for innocents caught up in this unconstitutional dragnet? does the 4th amendment even exist anymore once the feds get involved?
They don't allow anonymous whistleblowing though, and all Tor traffic is blocked too.
It's all pretty much in line with "We say we're fighting corruption, but in reality Hell No... we have things in place to ensure it can't be stopped".
Their website [0] says: "Complaints can be anonymous", "You can provide information anonymously"
> and all Tor traffic is blocked too
They also accept complaints by email, snail mail, and fax. One could use an anonymous emailer to contact them (Mixmaster, Mixminion, etc) over email.
> It's all pretty much in line with "We say we're fighting corruption, but in reality Hell No... we have things in place to ensure it can't be stopped".
I think it is more likely that the blocking Tor is most likely caused by the thoughtless cookie-cutter implementation of government cybersecurity "best practices", combined with a generous helping of technological cluelessness, as opposed to any nefarious motive. Hanlon's razor is apposite.
They say this, but the actual anonymity is based on them actually knowing who you are (after some back and forth)... then not disclosing it.
That's not really being anonymous, just a make believe fantasy version.
Good luck with that!
Their complaint form doesn't support your claims about them.
[0] https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/docs/default-source/complaint-fo...
If you're in any way unsure, then go and try it. After a while, you'll find out you're not anonymous, and are relying on them to provide anonymity. eg it's a fantasy
I didn't miss it. How can there be any "back and forth" if you fill out the form anonymously? They can't contact you for back and forth because you aren't giving them any contact details for that.
If you print the PDF form out and snail mail it, they can't find out who you are, unless they engage in some kind of forensic investigation (tracing the printer, DNA testing, etc). Or you could fill it out electronically and email it to them using an anonymous remailer.
> If you're in any way unsure, then go and try it. After a while, you'll find out you're not anonymous, and are relying on them to provide anonymity. eg it's a fantasy
Did you try?
They can always fabricate cause. I got pulled over last week (I wasn't speeding or anything, I just had out of state plates visiting a friend). When I didn't consent to have him search my vehicle, he walked a dog around my car and fabricated probable cause. I don't do drugs and there have never been drugs in my car, and yet he said the dog "reacted"... Of course he didn't find anything - there was nothing to find. No ticket, just 30-40 minutes of him going through all my possessions.
I guess I should be grateful he didn't "seize" something or shoot me.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-police-use-dogs-...
>an officer who doesn't have reasonable suspicion may not extend a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. The officer who pulls a driver over may not prolong the detention "beyond the time reasonably required to complete" the stop's "mission."
you could sue
How do you get around the spirit of a law? Well you claim what you did was something else because the law doesn’t mention that other thing. It wasn’t a search, it was just conjecture. Sure the end effect was the same but this is a totally different thing.
Or as the old saying goes: "Possession is 12 tenths of the Law"
On a separate issue, a person who ran a Trump group on IRC threatened to kill my family but in an inert way: “I look forward to watching your mom [violent threat].”
This individual, allegedly a hacker, then fabricated a threat to the FBI. A few days later, 2 FBI agents showed up at my residence and asked my property manager if I was violent. They laughed at them.
I spoke to them moments after this and they realized the claim was a lie. And “closed my case”. I gave the FBI the person’s cell phone. The one agent emailed me saying where the person was located but no updates. 5-months later nothing happened.
Then this so-called hacker emailed anti-Semitic threats and emailed a message to the FBI agent and copied me. I confronted the FBI agent over this and asked if this individual was an FBI informant or agent.
Considering this person is monitoring hacker groups, now impersonating me, and emailing FBI agents messages signed with “Hitler”, even though they have this person Verizon phone number, is incredibly sketchy.
Beyond that, there’s been so many FBI scandals that it’s beginning to be embarrassing. I’m not scared of corrupt dumb people regardless if they have a federal badge.
i envy you