131–140 of 161 posts
It's not obvious what technical solutions exist that are practical to combat this. I feel like a lawsuit against DHS / ICE and related parties is an unfortunate but necessary step.
Don't use domains subject to US law. That means COM/NET/ORG.
While there are more important things in life (like being accused wrongly of child pornography), I wonder how that effects their Google rankings to suddenly have your entire domain ripped out from underneath you and pointing to a duplicate content site. Is there any recourse for this action? Seems that this would trigger unreasonable search and seizure.
While there are more important things in life (like being accused wrongly of child pornography), I wonder how that effects their Google rankings to suddenly have your entire domain ripped out from underneath you and pointing to a duplicate content site. My educated guess based on experience working with people affected by dissimilar causes but similar appearance to Google: a massive hit to rankings/traffic within abo…
Considering how many sites have analytics these days, being able to show a strong correlation between a big blow to your traffic and a decline in revenue would (I think, IANAL) be very good evidence. Instead of asking the judge to imagine the possible ramifications, you'd be presenting solid data whose admissibility the judge could make a quick decision about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil forfeiture in and of itself makes a mockery of due process. Indeed, once you make once exception to due process, you can argue ten more through. Whether civil forfeiture is done by a judge or cop, it involves the justice taking stuff from you without a trial . The final result is the "Judge Dred scenario". Merely a trial called "United States v. $250,000 in cash" should be a rather bald statement that what is g…
So basically you want to hold the trial before any warrants are issued. Whether civil forfeiture is done by a judge or cop, it involves the justice taking stuff from you without a trial. This is simply not true. Here's a recent case where the government's claim was rejected and it was ordered to return the seized money to the owner, plus legal costs: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3005668348588117...
B) Read my statement again. Your example doesn't contradict it at all. The fact that some people sometimes get some relief after the fact doesn't prove that doing things this is fair or that it involves anything like the spirit of due-process. You can fight bureaucracy and win occasionally in even extremely authoritarian countries.
Edit: OK, reading my original post, I should have said "when you lose everything before, the claim that you can sue to get it back becomes a mostly empty claim". I hope the direction I'm going is clear in any case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first thought when I saw this was that it wasn't possible to bring civil claims against the federal government. But looking it up, I found the Federal Tort Claims Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTCA ) which changed that in 1946.
That bill was passed after the b-25 crash on the empire state building in 1945 to allow for exceptions to soverign immunity in only very specific and sometimes hard to define cases. In 1947 there was the texas city disaster where 581 people died. The largest industrial accident in us history. Under the FTCA legislation the case was taken all the way to the supreme court where they ruled the government wasn't liable f…
(Not saying you should go shoot up the government whenever you have a minor disagreement, but the only reason why guns are legal at all these days is because the Framers thought that this would help keep the government honest. Not sure that this actually works in real life though.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That bill was passed after the b-25 crash on the empire state building in 1945 to allow for exceptions to soverign immunity in only very specific and sometimes hard to define cases. In 1947 there was the texas city disaster where 581 people died. The largest industrial accident in us history. Under the FTCA legislation the case was taken all the way to the supreme court where they ruled the government wasn't liable f…
Pretty sure that's why they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution. (Not saying you should go shoot up the government whenever you have a minor disagreement, but the only reason why guns are legal at all these days is because the Framers thought that this would help keep the government honest. Not sure that this actually works in real life though.)
It sure would be nice if the government just didn't know about the internet.
This is one of the reasons I host my DNS outside of the US. Hopefully there would be a few more hurdles to jump over before a mistake like this could happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's rather like people who buy a book just so they can burn it. If I'm the publisher, that's my cue to reprint as fast as possible.
I'm pretty sure that the book was sent to the relevant government people to be vetted, before it was published. The first time around, someone in the government must have missed the details. The second time around, I'm sure they combed through it and pointed out the things that they would prefer the author left out. After that, the modified book probably got the green light. I don't see why you would want to be an as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically you want to hold the trial before any warrants are issued. Whether civil forfeiture is done by a judge or cop, it involves the justice taking stuff from you without a trial. This is simply not true. Here's a recent case where the government's claim was rejected and it was ordered to return the seized money to the owner, plus legal costs: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3005668348588117...
A). I want to hold a trial before any punishment can be meted out. Yes, I think that concept has a long history in common law. Warrant for evidence are a different story. B) Read my statement again. Your example doesn't contradict it at all. The fact that some people sometimes get some relief after the fact doesn't prove that doing things this is fair or that it involves anything like the spirit of due-process. You c…
B) I am not a fan of ever-expanding civil asset forfeiture policies either. But some things are illegal to possess and thus subject to forfeit in the first place. The contraband nature of such items are established before the seizure warrant issues, which is what happened here.
I agree with your aim, but not your analysis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically you want to hold the trial before any warrants are issued. Whether civil forfeiture is done by a judge or cop, it involves the justice taking stuff from you without a trial. This is simply not true. Here's a recent case where the government's claim was rejected and it was ordered to return the seized money to the owner, plus legal costs: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3005668348588117...
A). I want to hold a trial before any punishment can be meted out. Yes, I think that concept has a long history in common law. Warrant for evidence are a different story. B) Read my statement again. Your example doesn't contradict it at all. The fact that some people sometimes get some relief after the fact doesn't prove that doing things this is fair or that it involves anything like the spirit of due-process. You c…
You may be in luck. It just so happens that at least one member of the US Supreme Court doesn't believe punishment can be inflicted before conviction because the entire concept of punishment requires a conviction. That's right, there is no such thing as pre-trial punishment by definition.
As for B, you can't always sue to get it back. In fact, under my understanding I'd say you rarely can.