Live data from Hacker News

A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

washingtonpost.com

271–280 of 286 posts

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#271

Has civil asset forfiture been to the Supreme Court? It's blatantly unconstitutional, and given the current panel I'd say it has a great chance of being killed. I do have to say, it's a well known fact trying to make it across any border with a sum of cash is a risky business. I would hope America would be an exception to that fact due to "Due Process", but even I wouldn't place a bet on that. It says very clearly on…

He wasn't crossing a border, which makes it even more random. It was a domestic flight on the first leg of his trip. He had read the rules and was planning to do the proper paperwork for carrying cash at the proper place, before leaving the country.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#272
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I would disagree that the US government offers anything other governments do not. You are very first-world centric, then. While I am no interventionist, you are discounting the role the US Military has worldwide on trade, peacekeeping, and other vital roles it actually does a good job at when it's not fucking things up (which is often). >> I think the US would still be an economically dominant world power if it ha…

Are you trying to suggest that the racial makeup of Germany is inferior to America? I'd say population size, geographic properties (location, climate, resources, etc) and economic history count for much more than any racial inferiority. Germany has a population 25% as large as America, and a GDP 18% of America's. So maybe if you ignored history, geography, a potential nonlinear relationship between population and eco…

>> inferior

Uh, no. Just that it is vastly different and that it is a relevant data point.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#273
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first 3 have long been exhausted for civil forfeiture.

If you voted for democrats, you did the ballot box wrong. Bill Clinton made the problem worse. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=74583 He explicitly didn't want people to be able to defend themselves! "Requiring the Federal Government to provide a free attorney to anyone who wants to contest a forfeiture action would overwhelm the judicial system with frivolous claims." "Raise the standard of proof in f…

"Really, why is any democrat voter complaining about this? It's their own fault."

It's been 21.5 years since anyone voted for Bill Clinton. Those democrats who are 39.5 years or younger have no consequent blame.

And by the way, Clinton's administration posted that opinion about 3 years after anyone had voted for Bill Clinton. The voters no longer had any input.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#274
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to suggest that the racial makeup of Germany is inferior to America? I'd say population size, geographic properties (location, climate, resources, etc) and economic history count for much more than any racial inferiority. Germany has a population 25% as large as America, and a GDP 18% of America's. So maybe if you ignored history, geography, a potential nonlinear relationship between population and eco…

>> inferior Uh, no. Just that it is vastly different and that it is a relevant data point.

Different in a way that's relevant when it comes to explaining discrepancies in economic output?

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#275
post #259
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of many jobs you'd be turned away from for being too smart.

One rationalisation is that hiring someone "too smart" for the work required means that they'll soon become bored and move on, so your effort invested in training them is wasted.

For a modern American police force in the Bay Area, for example, taking a candidate from academy entrant to fully qualified officer is a six-figure cost.

That's why many Bay Area LEOs focus their recruiting on recent graduates from other Bay Area forces.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#276

Only as I get older do I realize how incredibly bad elements of law enforcement in the US can be, and legally so. Few cops and agents are bad, but it is a system with little filtering, personally or institutionally, of the bad elements. Civil asset forfeiture is overwhelmingly unpopular, but when states try to reform it the law enforcement groups rally around it mightily. Essentially they want the right to steal mone…

I partially disagree with your statement that this is legal behavior by law enforcement. It's one of those situations where IIRC the Supreme Court's relevant ruling from long ago was just plain wrong. I think just about every sane adult agrees that this violates the Bill of Rights, regardless of any SCOTUS opinions to the contrary.

Even "wrong" decisions have the force of law.

I haven't read any specific cases, but I wonder if 5th (and 4th) Amendment issues were raised at trial in the first place; perhaps those protections weren't even put in play properly.

[Update] an example of this concern is raised elsewhere in this thread[0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17211885

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you voted for democrats, you did the ballot box wrong. Bill Clinton made the problem worse. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=74583 He explicitly didn't want people to be able to defend themselves! "Requiring the Federal Government to provide a free attorney to anyone who wants to contest a forfeiture action would overwhelm the judicial system with frivolous claims." "Raise the standard of proof in f…

"Really, why is any democrat voter complaining about this? It's their own fault." It's been 21.5 years since anyone voted for Bill Clinton. Those democrats who are 39.5 years or younger have no consequent blame. And by the way, Clinton's administration posted that opinion about 3 years after anyone had voted for Bill Clinton. The voters no longer had any input.

If voters punished parties for things they did in the past, that would be a force towards more long term thinking instead of always reacting to whatever scapegoat the rabble wants to hang today.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#278
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like arresting people when they say something the gov't doesn't like? [1] I'll take a pass, thank you. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...

I can't wrap my head around how you can see it as positive that these kind of actions would go unpunished, in the name of "freedom". If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.

If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.

We've reached peak Poe's law.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#280
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your missing the context here, and falling for clickbaity anger inducing headlines. He had a previous suspended sentence for filming inside a court a couple of months earlier. He then thought "hey, you know what's a good idea? Disobeying a judge's direct no-reporting order (to maintain the integrity of the trial) literally right outside the freaking courthouse . I consider not giving him a slap on the wrist p…

«judge's direct no-reporting order» I can’t seem to be able to find a source that confirms that order actually existed. Do you happen to have a credible one so I can verify it isn’t fake news?

Here's the sentencing remarks from the first case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/committal-for-cont...

Restrictions on what can be reported while a trial is happening are common, and not unusual in England. It should be obvious that you cannot, before someone has been convicted, call them a Muslim Paedophiles or Muslim child rapists, and you can't threaten to go round their house.

After being convicted for contempt of court, and given a very clear warning not to do the samething again he does exactly the same thing again.

For a good summary of the Yaxley Lennon situation there's this from a barrister: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-...

Here's what the judge says (but please do read the entire document):

---begin ---

The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.

MR. KOVALEVSKY: Your Honour, may we extend our thanks for the patience with which you have heard us this afternoon.

JUDGE NORTON: I am very sorry that we have gone on so late. Thank you very much for bearing with this rather lengthy case. Thank you both very much indeed for your help. Finally, can I just say this to Mr. -- I don't know whether it is Robertson or Robson who has just left the court, or indeed to anybody in the public gallery: I hope they have heard what I have said. There are real risks in publication and there are real risks in what is put online, and I hope that everybody will respect the judgment of this court and will not be tempted to do anything which might frankly, unwittingly or otherwise, either impede this trial or might land Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, or indeed themselves, in even more trouble.

Post reply on HN