PDA

View Full Version : Texas town stops black motorists, seizes assets



Water Closet
05-09-2009, 07:25 AM
This is incredible. The f**king War on Drugs has done more to destroy civil liberties in this country than any foreign tyrant could possibly achieve.


Texas town stops black motorists, seizes assets
Police have stripped motorists, many of them black, of their property without charging them with a crime. Instead, out-of-towners were offered a grim choice: Sign over your belongings to the town or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.

By Howard Witt
Chicago Tribune


How it works here

Washington state has an asset-forfeiture law that parallels the federal statute. Local law enforcement is allowed to seize drugs, cash, personal property and vehicles if proved in a civil proceeding to have been purchased with, or used in the sale or delivery of, illegal drugs. The state receives 10 percent of the value of the forfeited property, and the seizing agency keeps the rest. Criminal charges or a conviction are not necessary.
Seattle Times staff


TENAHA, Texas — You can drive into Tenaha, a dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana border, if you're African American. But you might not be able to drive out — at least not with your car, cash, jewelry or other valuables.

That's because police have stripped motorists, many of them black, of their property without charging them with a crime. Instead, out-of-towners were offered a grim choice: Sign over your belongings to the town or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.

More than 140 people reluctantly accepted that deal from June 2006 to June 2008, according to court records. Among them were a black grandmother who surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and an interracial couple who gave up $6,000 after police threatened to seize their children and put them into foster care, court documents show.

Neither the grandmother nor the couple was charged with or convicted of a crime.

More... (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008851454_forfeit13.html)

Rockntractor
05-09-2009, 10:00 AM
It's not about drug legalisation with you . It's about making everything a racial issue. Here we have a Seatle liberal scumbag editorialist commenting on a texas town. Point the finger back at yourselves you are the racists.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/PissinOnDemocrats.jpg?t=1241877537

Water Closet
05-09-2009, 10:13 AM
It's not about drug legalisation with you . It's about making everything a racial issue. Here we have a Seatle liberal scumbag editorialist commenting on a texas town. Point the finger back at yourselves you are the racists.

Huh? First, this is a story simply reprinted in the Seattle paper with the embedded comment regarding Washington State laws. It's been all over the media (CNN, Chicago Tribune, elsewhere). I simply googled the story and picked the first occurence.

Second, if you knew anything about me, you would know that racial issues "ain't my bag," as it were. I am certainly more concerned with the rapidly shrinking personal liberties and the growing power of government (federal, state, local). Hence, my statement regarding the War on Drugs. States and the DEA are seizing property of accused drug dealers, including houses, boats, and other items, and selling these prior to any conviction. This is a real problem.

These people, on the other hand, are clearly mere theives, the sort you might find in villages in remote areas of Eastern Europe or western China -- local authorities, including the police, the DA, and the mayor, who are simply using their authority to rob travelers passing through.

Bubba Dawg
05-09-2009, 10:42 AM
Whatever the intent of the War on Drugs, in practice it often turns into a war on civil liberties.

It is not an infrequent occurrence that no-knock warrants are executed erroneously by police on the wrong address because of bad intellignece or even human error.

My inherent distrust of unfettered government also extends to unfettered police power. To me, any governmental power needs to be strongly monitored and reasonably limited.

Water Closet
05-09-2009, 11:42 AM
Whatever the intent of the War on Drugs, in practice it often turns into a war on civil liberties.

It is not an infrequent occurrence that no-knock warrants are executed erroneously by police on the wrong address because of bad intellignece or even human error.

My inherent distrust of unfettered government also extends to unfettered police power. To me, any governmental power needs to be strongly monitored and reasonably limited.

I completely agree. Further, if you pull out a gun and kill a policeman in such a situation, you will most likely be tried as a cop killer. There's a case right now in Maryland where that's happening.

JB
05-09-2009, 11:58 AM
Meh. They were probably guilty of something anyway.

I avoid driving through Harrington, DE because I know the cops write tickets if both of your hands aren't on the steering wheel.

Water Closet
05-09-2009, 12:00 PM
Meh. They were probably guilty of something anyway.

I avoid driving through Harrington, DE because I know the cops write tickets if both of your hands aren't on the steering wheel.

I agree. Probably should have shot them; that way they couldn't have gone to the press. ;) :D

Rockntractor
05-09-2009, 12:03 PM
We have a town in Oklahoma called Shamrock that gets most of it's revinue from people passing through. It's not a color issue though. I see red cars blue ones green pickups everone is asked at gunpoint to contribute.

JB
05-09-2009, 12:14 PM
I agree. Probably should have shot them; that way they couldn't have gone to the press. ;) :DExcellent idea. I may write the mayor with that suggestion. I'll keep you posted.

You left some stuff out from your original rant by the way:
...civil-rights lawyers called Tenaha's practice something else: highway robbery. The attorneys filed a federal class-action lawsuit to stop what they contend is an unconstitutional perversion of the law's intentDuh. What took so long?
Once the motorists were detained, police and the Shelby County district attorney quickly drew up legal papers presenting them with an option: Waive their rights to their cash and property or face felony charges for crimes such as money launderingAnd I seriously need to ask a question...Who would agree to this? What innocent person would just hand over their belongings when they've done nothing wrong? Yeah, it shouldn't come to that but I would tell them to go fuck themselves (in several languages), charge me, beat them in court and then sue with my own laundry list of charges.

lacarnut
05-09-2009, 01:16 PM
What innocent person would just hand over their belongings when they've done nothing wrong? Yeah, it shouldn't come to that but I would tell them to go fuck themselves (in several languages), charge me, beat them in court and then sue with my own laundry list of charges.

I agree with that.

If they did not have drugs on their possession or committed a serious crime, this would be a clear violation of civil rights. I think there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye. BTW, grannies have been caught dealing drugs. So before someone states that these officials are thieves, there needs to be a thorough investigation by the FBI.

hazlnut
05-09-2009, 02:30 PM
Once the motorists were detained, police and the Shelby County district attorney quickly drew up legal papers presenting them with an option: Waive their rights to their cash and property or face felony charges for crimes such as money laundering


And I seriously need to ask a question...Who would agree to this? What innocent person would just hand over their belongings when they've done nothing wrong? Yeah, it shouldn't come to that but I would tell them to go fuck themselves (in several languages), charge me, beat them in court and then sue with my own laundry list of charges.

Let see, you're traveling out of your own state and you get illegally arrented and detained by a group of corrupt police officers and DA. People scared out of their minds perhaps?

Notice they never tried to run this scam on anyone who looked like they could hire a decent attorney and come after them. A legal agreement or contract is invalid and void if it can be proven that is was signed under duress or threat. Money laundering sounds scary to people not familiar with the law.

Lou Dobbs did a pretty in depth piece on this story, it was sickening. A bunch of criminals in uniform working with a a corrupt DA to basically rob people. These thieves were targeting minorities who were coming into the area to buy a used car--and therefore had a lot of cash on them.

Very scary what goes on in some dark corners of this country.

MrsSmith
05-09-2009, 02:37 PM
Doesn't everyone know that the police in about any state can (and will) confiscate cash? :confused: This is not a new development. This has gone on for years now...all over the country...and to all races.

wilbur
05-09-2009, 02:47 PM
Doesn't everyone know that the police in about any state can (and will) confiscate cash? :confused: This is not a new development. This has gone on for years now...all over the country...and to all races.

Yes, and its despicable.

MrsSmith
05-09-2009, 02:59 PM
Yes, and its despicable.

Yes, it is. It just isn't new, or surprising. Everyone knows that carrying cash or other significant valuables is dumb when traveling.

hazlnut
05-09-2009, 03:10 PM
Doesn't everyone know that the police in about any state can (and will) confiscate cash? :confused: This is not a new development. This has gone on for years now...all over the country...and to all races.

Yes, but they are supposed to return all seized assets if and when charges are dropped--NOT DIVY IT UP AMONG THEMSELVES TO BUY BOATS AND REMODEL A BATHROOM!!!!

Sorry I raised my voice, but when people have obviously been victimized, I can't see how blaming them for being naive mitigates criminal activity. On some of these cases there wasn't even a legal chain of custody... the money just disappeared! And the DA was cutting checks to the officers for 'Investigative Costs'????

Phillygirl
05-10-2009, 10:46 AM
Excellent idea. I may write the mayor with that suggestion. I'll keep you posted.

You left some stuff out from your original rant by the way:Duh. What took so long?And I seriously need to ask a question...Who would agree to this? What innocent person would just hand over their belongings when they've done nothing wrong? Yeah, it shouldn't come to that but I would tell them to go fuck themselves (in several languages), charge me, beat them in court and then sue with my own laundry list of charges.

I've got to expand my education a bit.

Water Closet
05-10-2009, 10:50 AM
Yes, it is. It just isn't new, or surprising. Everyone knows that carrying cash or other significant valuables is dumb when traveling.

I think I see now. It's those people's fault for carrying large amounts of cash and not the hick highway robbers acting in the name of the government? Got it.

MrsSmith
05-10-2009, 02:44 PM
Yes, but they are supposed to return all seized assets if and when charges are dropped--NOT DIVY IT UP AMONG THEMSELVES TO BUY BOATS AND REMODEL A BATHROOM!!!!

Sorry I raised my voice, but when people have obviously been victimized, I can't see how blaming them for being naive mitigates criminal activity. On some of these cases there wasn't even a legal chain of custody... the money just disappeared! And the DA was cutting checks to the officers for 'Investigative Costs'????
I'm sure it is supposed to work like that...but we all know that it doesn't. This has been going on for at least 15 or 20 years, to my knowledge...all over the country. (And to people of all races.) At some point, there will be enough law suits filed to change it. Until then, seriously, don't travel with cash or valuables...unless you can afford a VERY good lawyer, or have the ACLU in your back pocket.

MrsSmith
05-10-2009, 02:49 PM
I think I see now. It's those people's fault for carrying large amounts of cash and not the hick highway robbers acting in the name of the government? Got it.

Why are you back after being banned, let's see, how many times now? :rolleyes: Just can't live without us, or what?

Ordinary, everyday people...like me...know that carrying cash is a dangerous thing to do. We know that most money smells like drugs and K-9 dogs are likely to alert on it...which is, legally, all that is needed for any law enforcement officer to confiscate the money. Unlike super-high-powered world travelers like Cold Warrior (:rolleyes::rolleyes:), we live in the real world, which isn't always fair. Bad things really do happen. So most of us are smart enough to leave the cash in the bank...where it's far safer from both thieves and our government officials.

hazlnut
05-10-2009, 03:03 PM
I'm sure it is supposed to work like that...but we all know that it doesn't. This has been going on for at least 15 or 20 years, to my knowledge...all over the country. (And to people of all races.) At some point, there will be enough law suits filed to change it. Until then, seriously, don't travel with cash or valuables...unless you can afford a VERY good lawyer, or have the ACLU in your back pocket.

So, it's your belief that small town sheriff and police departments all over this country are involved in criminal enterprises with aide of local prosecutor???:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek:

I'll take a very good over the ACLU anyday.;)

wilbur
05-10-2009, 03:04 PM
I'm sure it is supposed to work like that...but we all know that it doesn't. This has been going on for at least 15 or 20 years, to my knowledge...all over the country. (And to people of all races.) At some point, there will be enough law suits filed to change it. Until then, seriously, don't travel with cash or valuables...unless you can afford a VERY good lawyer, or have the ACLU in your back pocket.


I don't think anyone here is suggesting its smart to carry a truckload of cash.... but sometimes its necessary, and it also doesnt take very much for the police to have probably cause to confiscate it.

Its absolutely justified to be outraged at the practice no matter how long its been going on.

Its good to have reminders come to the surface every once in a while that illustrate just what a fool's errand the war on drugs is... a dangerous one at that.


And... this particular case aside... confiscation doesn't stop with cash... they can literally take ANYTHING. Don't we have other threads around here with a lot of righteous fuming over disappearing property rights? Well, take a good look at where it all started.

Rockntractor
05-10-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't think anyone here is suggesting its smart to carry a truckload of cash.... but sometimes its necessary, and it also doesnt take very much for the police to have probably cause to confiscate it.

Its absolutely justified to be outraged at the practice no matter how long its been going on.

Its good to have reminders come to the surface every once in a while that illustrate just what a fool's errand the war on drugs is... a dangerous one at that.
You have the most liberal left wing president ever. Legalize drugs. What is he waiting for by the noise you hear from the left that should have been the first thing on the agenda.

MrsSmith
05-10-2009, 03:19 PM
So, it's your belief that small town sheriff and police departments all over this country are involved in criminal enterprises with aide of local prosecutor???:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek:

I'll take a very good over the ACLU anyday.;)

Small town? It's my belief that this happens all over the country, in all sizes of communities. It is common knowledge. I recall reading about it in Reader's Digest years ago. I'm sorry that real-life facts come as such a shock to some.

Just for your further info, despite the clear language of the second amendment, law enforcement in all areas can also confiscate any gun you may be carrying. They can take your car if they have reason to believe you have drugs in it. For that matter, they can take your house.

Oh, and the EPA can inform you that you can't use your private property for anything, if they have reason to believe that an endangered species may reside on it. They have the power to essentially condemn your land without paying you one penny for it.

And the IRS can inform you that you and your pastor have no free speech rights even when on private property.

Welcome to the "Progressed" Land of the Free.

lacarnut
05-10-2009, 03:30 PM
Why are you back after being banned, let's see, how many times now? :rolleyes: Just can't live without us, or what?

Ordinary, everyday people...like me...know that carrying cash is a dangerous thing to do. We know that most money smells like drugs and K-9 dogs are likely to alert on it...which is, legally, all that is needed for any law enforcement officer to confiscate the money. Unlike super-high-powered world travelers like Cold Warrior (:rolleyes::rolleyes:), we live in the real world, which isn't always fair. Bad things really do happen. So most of us are smart enough to leave the cash in the bank...where it's far safer from both thieves and our government officials.

I went out of state to buy a new car last month. Rather than carrying a pile of cash, I had a bank money order plus $1.5k in cash. Made sense to me; if I got robbed the perp could not cash the money order that was made out to the dealer. I also had documentation (purchase order--email) of what the money was for. If the deal had fallen through, I take the money order to the bank and it gets deposited back into my account. If I was a high roller that liked to gamble, I would find other ways to fund it rather than carrying a pile of dough around. Seems logical to me. I do feel naked when I have less than a hundred bucks in my wallet.

Some people just have to have rolls of cash on their person to impress others plus they do not know when the opportunity presents itself that they will need a grand or two to hire a whore (I mean escort service) for the night. Gotta be prepared for that type of emergency:)

MrsSmith
05-10-2009, 03:40 PM
I went out of state to buy a new car last month. Rather than carrying a pile of cash, I had a bank money order plus $1.5k in cash. Made sense to me; if I got robbed the perp could not cash the money order that was made out to the dealer. I also had documentation (purchase order--email) of what the money was for. If the deal had fallen through, I take the money order to the bank and it gets deposited back into my account. If I was a high roller that liked to gamble, I would find other ways to fund it rather than carrying a pile of dough around. Seems logical to me. I do feel naked when I have less than a hundred bucks in my wallet.

Some people just have to have rolls of cash on their person to impress others plus they do not know when the opportunity presents itself that they will need a grand or two to hire a whore (I mean escort service) for the night. Gotta be prepared for that type of emergency:)

Yeah, I'd carry a money order, or cashier's check, or traveler's checks. In fact, if I absolutely had to have cash, I'd wire it to myself at the closest Wal-mart to my destination. But then, I don't really appreciate robbery, even the legal kind. :D

FlaGator
05-10-2009, 04:13 PM
I was out buying 15 kilos of Coke last week but the dude wouldn't accept my Vista or debit card. That really sucked.

Rockntractor
05-10-2009, 04:40 PM
I was out buying 15 kilos of Coke last week but the dude wouldn't accept my Vista or debit card. That really sucked.
Me thinks perhaps you were working under cover!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/alligator-at-door.jpg?t=1241987945

hazlnut
05-10-2009, 04:58 PM
I was out buying 15 kilos of Coke last week but the dude wouldn't accept my Vista or debit card. That really sucked.

LOL!

I hate when that happens...

lacarnut
05-10-2009, 06:36 PM
I was out buying 15 kilos of Coke last week but the dude wouldn't accept my Vista or debit card. That really sucked.

That's not half as bad as what happened to me when I drove my Lambo thru this racist chicken shit hick town with a half million in 100 bills in the trunk and the damn police confiscated my car, my money, my Rolex and my diamond ring.

FlaGator
05-10-2009, 07:11 PM
Me thinks perhaps you were working under cover!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/alligator-at-door.jpg?t=1241987945

I'll have to be much more discreet in the future!

JB
05-10-2009, 08:33 PM
I've got to expand my education a bit.Yeah right. Like an attorney doesn't know how to say FU in at least 3 languages. I thought that was first year stuff.

Teetop
05-10-2009, 08:58 PM
Besides the fact that the D. A. was female. In some communities, it's still "the ole boys network".

Water Closet
05-10-2009, 10:07 PM
Why are you back after being banned, let's see, how many times now? :rolleyes: Just can't live without us, or what?

Ordinary, everyday people...like me...know that carrying cash is a dangerous thing to do. We know that most money smells like drugs and K-9 dogs are likely to alert on it...which is, legally, all that is needed for any law enforcement officer to confiscate the money. Unlike super-high-powered world travelers like Cold Warrior (:rolleyes::rolleyes:), we live in the real world, which isn't always fair. Bad things really do happen. So most of us are smart enough to leave the cash in the bank...where it's far safer from both thieves and our government officials.

And all those women who are stupid enough to dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It's really sad the world some people chose to live in.

Teetop
05-10-2009, 10:30 PM
And all those women who are stupid enough to dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It's really sad the world some people chose to live in.

As Clayton Williams once said during a Governor's race, "When being raped, you might as well sit back and enjoy it, ladies". :rolleyes:

Needless to say, he lost, badly. And rightly so...

Water Closet
05-10-2009, 10:35 PM
Besides the fact that the D. A. was female. In some communities, it's still "the ole boys network".

God! Did you see the DA? Bad teeth, no makeup, stringy hair, freckles, and spending her days singing bad country music.

Teetop
05-10-2009, 10:55 PM
God! Did you see the DA? Bad teeth, no makeup, stringy hair, freckles, and spending her days singing bad country music.

Yeah....DUmmies labeled her a "R", although, I didn't see anything in the article posted to identify her as such. :rolleyes:

hazlnut
05-10-2009, 11:42 PM
Yeah....DUmmies labeled her a "R", although, I didn't see anything in the article posted to identify her as such. :rolleyes:

Perhaps they meant retarded... although, nowadays with the far-right wing...:(

lacarnut
05-11-2009, 02:37 AM
And all those women who are stupid enough to dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It's really sad the world some people chose to live in.

Yea and it's stupid to go out drinking in NYC and let a couple of muzzies kick your ass and take your money. It is really sad that some people do not know how to protect themselves.

hazlnut
05-11-2009, 06:29 AM
Yea and it's stupid to go out drinking in NYC and let a couple of muzzies kick your ass and take your money. It is really sad that some people do not know how to protect themselves.

WHAT, from the COPS!!??:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Giving R a whole new meaning, indeed!!:o

FlaGator
05-11-2009, 06:34 AM
And all those women who are stupid enough to dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It's really sad the world some people chose to live in.

I don't think a lot of people believe that they deserve it, but perhaps they shouldn't be surprised that they attract that societal element. If I stand on the street dressed as a cop, should I be surprised when some one asks me for help?

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 06:50 AM
WHAT, from the COPS!!??:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Giving R a whole new meaning, indeed!!:o

Don't worry. He's refering to something that happened to me once, but he's old and senility is rapidly creeping in. He's garbled the story a bit (he's off by about 3000 miles).

It has no relevance to the discussion, but that's typical. Certain posters here, when they have no argument, often resort to bringing ad hominem attacks into the mix. Pretty soon, another one will pop in and ask me (or you) "WHERE DID YOU SERVE?" Afterwards, he'll post some smilies and blithely declare victory.

noonwitch
05-11-2009, 10:22 AM
It's not about drug legalisation with you . It's about making everything a racial issue. Here we have a Seatle liberal scumbag editorialist commenting on a texas town. Point the finger back at yourselves you are the racists.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/PissinOnDemocrats.jpg?t=1241877537



In this particular case, race is a primary factor. All the cases except one involved black people's rights being stomped on. The other factor is the forfeiture laws that everyone supported in the 80s, when Reagan amped up the War on Drugs. Laws that allow for forfeiture prior to conviction are wrong.

Rockntractor
05-11-2009, 10:25 AM
In this particular case, race is a primary factor. All the cases except one involved black people's rights being stomped on. The other factor is the forfeiture laws that everyone supported in the 80s, when Reagan amped up the War on Drugs. Laws that allow for forfeiture prior to conviction are wrong.
Noonie I think they hand picked the minority cases to display.

wilbur
05-11-2009, 10:47 AM
Noonie I think they hand picked the minority cases to display.

I suppose you have some information we don't then? I mean, apart from whimsical conspiracy theories...

lacarnut
05-11-2009, 11:25 AM
In this particular case, race is a primary factor. All the cases except one involved black people's rights being stomped on. The other factor is the forfeiture laws that everyone supported in the 80s, when Reagan amped up the War on Drugs. Laws that allow for forfeiture prior to conviction are wrong.


How do you know that race was a factor. The lawyer only contacted 40 out of the 147. Did it ever occur to you that the reports indicated race. Why did he not contact the other 107. Oh, that's right, they must have been white. You are an idiot.

The FBI needs to investigate this and make sure all citizens (not just blacks) civil rights are not violated. BTW, if the lawyer is going to file a class action law suit, would it not be logical to include all 147 in the suit?

Rebel Yell
05-11-2009, 11:53 AM
Police have stripped motorists, many of them black, of their property without charging them with a crime

Many, but not all? Do you give a shit about the white ones that were stopped? No, of course not. They should be able to fend for themselves. It's the poor black ones that apparently are incapable doing anything without the help of the "good white ones" like yourself, who heroicly show up to save the day.



If this had been titled "Texas town stops motorists, seizes assets", I would be right there with you. But since the victims who look like me are disregarded, I'll simply disragard them all.

Rebel Yell
05-11-2009, 01:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SraxSBKuQ8k&feature=related

Constitutionally Speaking
05-11-2009, 01:17 PM
I gotta agree with CW on this one. But the remedy is NOT to give in and give up your property, it is as JB (I think) said: Refuse to give up the property, take the charge and sue the shit out of the govt. entity responsible for this.

noonwitch
05-11-2009, 01:33 PM
How do you know that race was a factor. The lawyer only contacted 40 out of the 147. Did it ever occur to you that the reports indicated race. Why did he not contact the other 107. Oh, that's right, they must have been white. You are an idiot.

The FBI needs to investigate this and make sure all citizens (not just blacks) civil rights are not violated. BTW, if the lawyer is going to file a class action law suit, would it not be logical to include all 147 in the suit?


40 black people out of 147 is 30-something percent. That's a high percentage, for a group that makes up maybe 12-13 percent of the US population. I don't know what the racial makeup of the town in question is, though, it could be a higher or a much lower number than the national statistics reveal.

The FBI should look into it, you're right. I don't know why the lawyer only contacted 40 of the cases, 39 of which involved black people. I don't know what the racial statistics for the police department personnel are, or, specifically, if the cops involved are all white, because that would also be a relevant statistic.


If you think that black people are never singled out for harrassment by white cops solely because of their race, then you are the idiot. As a white person working in a mostly black community, I have always been treated with respect by black police officers, in any community (mostly Detroit and MSP) I've come across them. Most of my african-american coworkers and friends can tell radically different stories about their experiences with suburban cops, who are mostly white. One of my friends from the delinquency program used to tell her teenaged sons "don't drive through Dearborn (Redford/Warren/Hazel Park/Taylor/etc.) unless I'm with you" .

Rebel Yell
05-11-2009, 01:36 PM
40 black people out of 147 is 30-something percent. That's a high percentage, for a group that makes up maybe 12-13 percent of the US population. I don't know what the racial makeup of the town in question is, though, it could be a higher or a much lower number than the national statistics reveal.

From Wikipedia.............

The racial makeup of the town was 46.18% White, 42.35% African American

noonwitch
05-11-2009, 01:54 PM
From Wikipedia.............




That makes a difference. It's not an all-white town, so I assume that african americans are represented in the police department and the city government.

lacarnut
05-11-2009, 02:04 PM
From Wikipedia.............

Aw shit, you done screwed up Noonwitch conspiracy theory with the percentage of blacks that live there. If all the cops are white or blacks for that matter, then it must be a racial issue because you know that's the way it is in the south. :rolleyes:

noonwitch
05-11-2009, 03:23 PM
Aw shit, you done screwed up Noonwitch conspiracy theory with the percentage of blacks that live there. If all the cops are white or blacks for that matter, then it must be a racial issue because you know that's the way it is in the south. :rolleyes:


Did I say anything about a conspiracy theory? I also acknowleged the racial dynamics of the city in a second post, that addressed issues I raised in my initial post about the town in question. I didn't even mention the south as a reason racism occurs. I believe the situations I know of that I pointed to were all in the metro Detroit area. I can give a good example of white cops beating a black man to death in the city of Detroit in the 90s-Malice Green. Two white cops beat the daylights out of an unarmed black crackhead, and killed him in the process. There was a black mayor and a black police chief, and even a black police supervisor at the scene who didn't intervene to stop the beating.

You assume I have prejudices against the south, that I assume that all white people there are racists. I've never said that. If I did, I'd just call you a racist redneck and be done with it.


I don't make claims against the south. I've never lived there, and the days of separate drinking fountains were mostly before I was even born.

lacarnut
05-11-2009, 03:45 PM
Did I say anything about a conspiracy theory? I also acknowleged the racial dynamics of the city in a second post, that addressed issues I raised in my initial post about the town in question. I didn't even mention the south as a reason racism occurs. I believe the situations I know of that I pointed to were all in the metro Detroit area. I can give a good example of white cops beating a black man to death in the city of Detroit in the 90s-Malice Green. Two white cops beat the daylights out of an unarmed black crackhead, and killed him in the process. There was a black mayor and a black police chief, and even a black police supervisor at the scene who didn't intervene to stop the beating.

You assume I have prejudices against the south, that I assume that all white people there are racists. I've never said that. If I did, I'd just call you a racist redneck and be done with it.


I don't make claims against the south. I've never lived there, and the days of separate drinking fountains were mostly before I was even born.

Why would it be a racial issue in the first place. Oh, you read the liberal Seattle news article and took it all in as gospel. 27% of those that lost their property were black. The remaining 83% are probably white. However, Liberals and Yankees are quick to make it a racial issue right off the bat, and it being down south just adds a little flavor to THEIR racism.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 07:48 PM
Why would it be a racial issue in the first place. Oh, you read the liberal Seattle news article and took it all in as gospel. 27% of those that lost their property were black. The remaining 83% are probably white. However, Liberals and Yankees are quick to make it a racial issue right off the bat, and it being down south just adds a little flavor to THEIR racism.

As I pointed out above, the Seattle Times simply reprinted the article with the commentary regarding the laws in Washington State. It' s not a racial issue. It's a bunch of hick highway robbers taking advantage of ludicrous laws passed in the rightous War on Drugs (everyone bow their heads).

MrsSmith
05-11-2009, 08:03 PM
And all those women who are stupid enough to dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It's really sad the world some people chose to live in.

I see your reading skills are as poor as ever. Not that that is a surprise...



Originally Posted by wilbur
Yes, and its despicable.


Yes, it is. It just isn't new, or surprising. Everyone knows that carrying cash or other significant valuables is dumb when traveling.



I suppose great and mighty world travelers with poor reading skills just get really upset when called on their constant need to return to a board from which they have repeatedly instigated their own banning in order to score ban-bragging points on lib boards. So, how long are you going to stick around this time before you need points and get outrageous enough to force a ban? :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
05-11-2009, 08:04 PM
As I pointed out above, the Seattle Times simply reprinted the article with the commentary regarding the laws in Washington State. It' s not a racial issue. It's a bunch of hick highway robbers taking advantage of ludicrous laws passed in the rightous War on Drugs (everyone bow their heads).

The thread title:

Texas town stops black motorists, seizes assets


But you aren't calling it a racial issue. OK!! :rolleyes:

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 08:11 PM
The thread title:

Texas town stops black motorists, seizes assets


But you aren't calling it a racial issue. OK!! :rolleyes:

The thread title comes from the headline which does have that slant. The CNN video notes that is it not only blacks, but also hispanics who are being stopped. I would guess this is true as minorities and potential illegals close to the border make easier prey.

However, I made it clear in the first words of the OP that I considered this an effect of the War on Drugs that can be directed at any of us.

lacarnut
05-11-2009, 08:17 PM
As I pointed out above, the Seattle Times simply reprinted the article with the commentary regarding the laws in Washington State. It' s not a racial issue. It's a bunch of hick highway robbers taking advantage of ludicrous laws passed in the rightous War on Drugs (everyone bow their heads).

I just paid $203 to Chambers County in AL because a hick state cop gave me a speeding ticket. When you fuck up, you have to take responsibility for your actions. When you have a crack pipe, drugs or large sums of money in your possession, you are asking for trouble.

You can rant all you want about the War on Drugs. However, conservatives along with most Americans do not want drugs to become legal. Dope is for dopers.

BadCat
05-11-2009, 08:21 PM
Though I trust cops about as much as CW does, I can't help but think about those guys you see on that TV show called "Cops".

"Do you mind if I look in your car?"
"Go ahead"

Cop proceeds to find a bunch of drugs and guns and such.

They don't have a right to look in your car without a warrant (in most states). But they can always use the old "probable cause" excuse.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 08:25 PM
I just paid $203 to Chambers County in AL because a hick state cop gave me a speeding ticket. When you fuck up, you have to take responsibility for your actions. When you have a crack pipe, drugs or large sums of money in your possession, you are asking for trouble.

You can rant all you want about the War on Drugs. However, conservatives along with most Americans do not want drugs to become legal. Dope is for dopers.

Drug pipes are illegal. Large sums of money are not. What the "true conservatives" seem to be saying on this thread is that if you engage in behaviour that could remotely be considered illegal, you should be punished without proof or due process. Wait. Come to think of it, that's exactly the social conservatives' position.

As to legalization of marijuana, you're incorrect about most Americans' opinions. It will happen in most states (other, of course than the fattest, least educated, highest child mortality states of AL, MI, and LA, who will preserve the integrity of the American Dream) within the next 10-15 years. Listen to the mantra of this board in 2001. and 2005 You('ve) lost. Get over it.

MrsSmith
05-11-2009, 08:29 PM
Drug pipes are illegal. Large sums of money are not. What the "true conservatives" seem to be saying on this thread is that if you engage in behaviour that could remotely be considered illegal, you should be punished without proof or due process. Wait. Come to think of it, that's exactly the social conservatives' position.

As to legalization of marijuana, you're incorrect about most Americans' opinions. It will happen in most states (other, of course than the fattest, least educated, highest child mortality states of AL, MI, and LA, who will preserve the integrity of the American Dream) within the next 10-15 years. Listen to the mantra of this board in 2001. and 2005 You('ve) lost. Get over it.

No, what we're saying is that you could be punished for doing nothing wrong, so don't carry large amounts of cash or anything else that might cause the cops to decide you are doing something wrong.

You're still wrong. Like always. Get over it.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 08:36 PM
No, what we're saying is that you could be punished for doing nothing wrong, so don't carry large amounts of cash or anything else that might cause the cops to decide you are doing something wrong.

You're still wrong. Like always. Get over it.

So what you're saying is don't do something that's perfectly legal (carrying large sums of cash), because the authorities might either intentionally (as in this case) or mistakenly take you for a criminal and confiscate your money. What other perfectly legal activities should we refrain from out of fear of the power of government?

Do you people listen to yourselves?

BadCat
05-11-2009, 08:53 PM
End times are certainly upon us as I am somewhat agreeing with CW.

It is, however, not race oriented, it is what I call "driving while looking different".

Since I look like all the guys in this video, I am frequently "slightly detained" by peace officers, for doing nothing but not looking like the majority of the population. And I am as white as snow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hnMgIOnjMs

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 09:11 PM
End times are certainly upon us as I am somewhat agreeing with CW.

It is, however, not race oriented, it is what I call "driving while looking different".

Since I look like all the guys in this video, I am frequently "slightly detained" by peace officers, for doing nothing but not looking like the majority of the population. And I am as white as snow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hnMgIOnjMs

It is NOT ABOUT RACE. The only part that race plays is that the cops probably figure that blacks and hispanics are less likely or capable of contesting the theft.

Rather, it's about the power of the state punishing people for non-conformity.

MrsSmith
05-11-2009, 09:13 PM
So what you're saying is don't do something that's perfectly legal (carrying large sums of cash), because the authorities might either intentionally (as in this case) or mistakenly take you for a criminal and confiscate your money. What other perfectly legal activities should we refrain from out of fear of the power of government?

Do you people listen to yourselves?


Calling the Middle East?

Speaking the name of Jesus in public without using it as a curse?

Carrying a gun?

Endorsing a political candidate while standing on private property in your church?

Leaving your seat belt unbuckled or your helmet at home?

Smoking in your home?



We've been listening all along. You come along with ancient news, expect everyone to get all up-in-arms about it...then try to act as though we're somehow at fault when we respond with, "Yes, we know." If you'd been paying attention...when you weren't banned...you'd have seen many discussions about the abusive powers of government. :rolleyes:

lacarnut
05-11-2009, 09:17 PM
Drug pipes are illegal. Large sums of money are not. What the "true conservatives" seem to be saying on this thread is that if you engage in behaviour that could remotely be considered illegal, you should be punished without proof or due process. Wait. Come to think of it, that's exactly the social conservatives' position.

As to legalization of marijuana, you're incorrect about most Americans' opinions. It will happen in most states (other, of course than the fattest, least educated, highest child mortality states of AL, MI, and LA, who will preserve the integrity of the American Dream) within the next 10-15 years. Listen to the mantra of this board in 2001. and 2005 You('ve) lost. Get over it.

Go back and read my 1st post which I stated the FBI should investigate this and if anyone's civil rights have been violated, the guilty party should be outed. Learn how to read.

Legalization of drugs might happen in a few of the blue states that are so inefficently run and on the verge of bankruptcy that they think taxing is the way to go. If it happens, the greedy politicians will hire a shit pot of state workers to police it. Looks like your so called vision for smaller government get thrown down the toliet. Louisiana has over a billion dolllars set aside in a rainy day fund. Sure sucks to live in a shit hole state like NY that is going to raise state income taxes to 10%.

A word of advise: lay off the drugs. You get caught and your job goes down the drain; at your age, (approaching the 60 year mark) you will have a hard time getting another job.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 09:30 PM
[QUOTE=Water Closet;135727]Drug pipes are illegal.[QUOTE]

Really? Any drug paraphernalia is legal until it has drug residue in it. Correct? Otherwise the store that sold it would be shut down? Wrong on that one.... :rolleyes:

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 09:30 PM
Calling the Middle East? Yes, America should emulate the Saudies. After all, at heart, the fundies are really no different in their opinions than the Muzzies -- male dominated homes, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage. They're only different in their tactics.

Speaking the name of Jesus in public without using it as a curse? Who's been arrested for that?

Carrying a gun? Depends upon where you carry it.

Endorsing a political candidate while standing on private property in your church? Not a problem. However, if the church wants to engage in political activities (to save our mortal souls and to teach us how to dance real slow), they shouldn't have any problem in forfeiting their tax exempt status, should they?

Leaving your seat belt unbuckled or your helmet at home? Stupid laws. People should be able to kill themselves at will. Therefore, euthenasa should also be legal.

Smoking in your home? Tobacco or marijuana?

We've been listening all along. You come along with ancient news, expect everyone to get all up-in-arms about it...then try to act as though we're somehow at fault when we respond with, "Yes, we know." If you'd been paying attention...when you weren't banned...you'd have seen many discussions about the abusive powers of government. :rolleyes:

Most of the people here have been terribliy happy to give up civil liberties over the last eight years to "that good man," Georgie-Porgie, in order to keep us safe from the evil Muzzies.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 09:39 PM
Large sums of money are not.

Bullshit.! I can show you one article a month from the Amarillo Globe News of cash seizures on I-40. Millions of dollars forfeited. Care to try again? :rolleyes:

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 09:41 PM
Bullshit.! I can show you one article a month from the Amarillo Globe News of cash seizures on I-40. Millions of dollars forfeited. Care to try again? :rolleyes:

Please show me the ordinance that makes it illegal to carry large sums of money. If you can't cite a specific law, why don't you STFU?

Teetop
05-11-2009, 09:45 PM
Most of the people here have been terribliy happy to give up civil liberties over the last eight years to "that good man," Georgie-Porgie, in order to keep us safe from the evil Muzzies.
If the "muzzies" are so great, go live in Mecca. Sorry, you can't unless you're a "muzzie"..... :rolleyes:

Like SnObama is going to do anything after the next terrorist attack?



Sit on his ass, in the Oval Office, and read off the teleprompter, that's about it....

lacarnut
05-11-2009, 09:46 PM
Most of the people here have been terribliy happy to give up civil liberties over the last eight years to "that good man," Georgie-Porgie, in order to keep us safe from the evil Muzzies.

That would have been the shits if you had gotten blown up driving thru the Lincoln tunnel. If we would have had your beloved O in office the last couple of years, waterboarding might have been to cruel for this community organizer to fathom resulting in a kaboom.. We will see if this idiot can make it thru the next 3 1/2 years without another terror attack on our home soil. The evil Muzzies might come to haunt your dumb ass.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 09:49 PM
Please show me the ordinance that makes it illegal to carry large sums of money. If you can't cite a specific law, why don't you STFU?

Suck the fart out of my ASS, motherfucker. And read it well, DUmb-ass!

Water Closet means toilet in europe, DUmb-ass! (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp)

Now! YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 09:57 PM
That would have been the shits if you had gotten blown up driving thru the Lincoln tunnel. If we would have had your beloved O in office the last couple of years, waterboarding might have been to cruel for this community organizer to fathom resulting in a kaboom.. We will see if this idiot can make it thru the next 3 1/2 years without another terror attack on our home soil. The evil Muzzies might come to haunt your dumb ass.

Once again, and typical for yours and others argument here, you attempt to deflect the argument by suggesting that I supported (and thereby implicitly agree with all of the policies of) the current president. I do not, as I did not vote for him. My assessment of him is that he's done some good things (embryonic stem cell research, reversal of the Mexico City agreement, renewal of our alliances) and some bad things (taxes.missle defense, health care). I suppose it's too "nuanced" for you true conservatives to actually believe there are people who support some of the things that Obama has done and yet oppose the others.

As for "evil Muzzies," having lived in Saudi for 5 years and in Sarajevo for 2, I think I might know more about them than you do. At least I know the difference between an abaya and a hijab, which is more than I can say for most of the "Muzzie experts" here.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 09:59 PM
If the "muzzies" are so great, go live in Mecca. Sorry, you can't unless you're a "muzzie"..... :rolleyes:

Like SnObama is going to do anything after the next terrorist attack?



Sit on his ass, in the Oval Office, and read off the teleprompter, that's about it....

I'm waiting for you to cite the law that makes it illegal to carry large sums of money. Until then, why don't you simply STFU.

And you should know that being the prez is "hard work."

Teetop
05-11-2009, 10:02 PM
I suppose it's too "nuanced" for you....balh, blah, effin BLAH!

A.K.A. I guess you figured out, I'm blowing smoke up your butts.

What a friggin tool. :rolleyes:

A cheap tool at that....

Teetop
05-11-2009, 10:04 PM
I'm waiting for you to cite the law that makes it illegal to carry large sums of money. Until then, why don't you simply STFU.

And you should know that being the prez is "hard work."

DUmb-ass, see the pdf file at the bottom of the article that cites the FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING?!




DUH!

Teetop
05-11-2009, 10:08 PM
I'm waiting for you to cite the law that makes it illegal to carry large sums of money. Until then, why don't you simply STFU.

And you should know that being the prez is "hard work."

So, what about the "drug pipes" being illegal, DUmmie?! Care to discuss that anymore?


Thought not, DUmb-ass. :cool:

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 10:12 PM
Suck the fart out of my ASS, motherfucker. And read it well, DUmb-ass!

Water Closet means toilet in europe, DUmb-ass! (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp)

Now! YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Does it!!!! Does Water Closet really mean toilet!!!! OMG, you've got me! What a brilliant person you are. Ever been out of Podunk?

If you read the ruling (I assume you can read as you appear to be reading my posts), it does not make it illegal to carry large sums of currency. The court, at least the R appointees to the court, ruled that there was probable cause to declare the money as proceedings from a drug operation.

This illustrates the sham that the War of Drugs really is. A pretense by the govenment to seize personal assets. However, even the stupidity in this case did not go so far as to rule it illegal to carry large sums of money.

Now, why don't you STFU.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 10:16 PM
So, what about the "drug pipes" being illegal, DUmmie?! Care to discuss that anymore?

Thought not, DUmb-ass. :cool:

Huh? That was in a response to lacarnut who combined large sums of money with drug pipes. Possession of drug paraphanelia is clearly illegal (whether it should be or not is a different discussion). Possession of large amounts of cash is not, despite your rather pathetic attempts to suggest it is.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 10:19 PM
Does it!!!! Does Water Closet really mean toilet!!!! OMG, you've got me! What a brilliant person you are. Ever been out of Podunk?

If you read the ruling (I assume you can read as you appear to be reading my posts), it does not make it illegal to carry large sums of currency. The court, at least the R appointees to the court, ruled that there was probable cause to dedlare the money as proceedings from a drug operation.

This illustrates the sham that the War of Drugs really is. A pretense by the govenment to seize personal assets. However, even the stupidity in this case did not go so far as to rule it illegal to carry large sums of money.

Now, why don't you STFU.

I'll give you a clue euro-trash, the pdf flie states the stautes at the end of page five in the pdf.

DUmb-ass, IRS law states clearly that anything over $10,000 is elgible to be forfeited, or reported to the IRS. Everyone in America knows that. But, euro-trash, such as yourself has no clue, Now Shut the FUck Up and speak when your spoken to.

hazlnut
05-11-2009, 10:21 PM
That would have been the shits if you had gotten blown up driving thru the Lincoln tunnel. If we would have had your beloved O in office the last couple of years, waterboarding might have been to cruel for this community organizer to fathom resulting in a kaboom.. We will see if this idiot can make it thru the next 7 1/2 years without another terror attack on our home soil. The evil Muzzies might come to haunt your dumb ass.

Opps, you had a little typo there... Fixed it for ya. You're welcome, licknut.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 10:23 PM
Huh? That was in a response to lacarnut who combined large sums of money with drug pipes. Possession of drug paraphanelia is clearly illegal (whether it should be or not is a different discussion). Possession of large amounts of cash is not, despite your rather pathetic attempts to suggest it is.

Wrong again, read the ending paragraph of page five and onto page sixof the pdf, and tell me who fukll of shit and who isn't, EURO-TRASH.

hazlnut
05-11-2009, 10:27 PM
Wrong again, read the ending paragraph of page five and onto page sixof the pdf, and tell me who fukll of shit and who isn't, EURO-TRASH.

Teebrain's sneakin' drinks again!:eek:

Teetop
05-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Teebrain's sneakin' drinks again!:eek:

couple 'o beers! LMAO!

edit to add; I am tring to "hunt and peck" type damn it!

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 10:34 PM
Wrong again, read the ending paragraph of page five and onto page sixof the pdf, and tell me who fukll of shit and who isn't, EURO-TRASH.

Uhm, for those of you who don't want to go to the PDF, here's the paragraph that Podunk Pete is referring to...


Since the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, the
burden is on the government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
seized property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Forfeiture is
warranted under 21 U.S.C. § 881 when the government establishes a “‘substantial
connection’ between the property” and a controlled substance offense. 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(c)(3). We review any predicate factual findings for clear error, but the ultimate
conclusion as to whether those facts establish a “substantial connection” between
seized currency and a narcotics transaction is a mixed question of law and fact that
we review de novo. See United States v. Dodge Caravan Grand SE/Sport Van, 387
F.3d 758, 761 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d
496, 501 (8th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413
F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2005).

This establishes the illegality of carrying large sums of cash? It may indeed establish the danger of carrying such under a government that extends the powers of the War on Drugs to every facet of private life. However, it does not establish the former.

MrsSmith
05-11-2009, 10:45 PM
You know, Toilet, Reagan is no longer president. Maybe the Great O will change the laws you dislike so much.

Of course, he'll continue to grab power for the government while he's at it...can anyone say "Cap and Trade?"

But it'll be the kind of government abuse that you libs can love. You can feel all warm and fuzzy about Saving the Environment for the children you've slaughtered before birth.:rolleyes:

Teetop
05-11-2009, 10:46 PM
Uhm, for those of you who don't want to go to the PDF, here's the paragraph that Podunk Pete is referring to...



This establishes the illegality of carrying large sums of cash? It may indeed establish the danger of carrying such under a government that extends the powers of the War on Drugs to every facet of private life. However, it does not establish the former.

Well, blame Clintoon. it was under his watch that, that act was passed, not BusHitler. Ignorant-ass.

And it does establish what I am agruing, DUmb-ass.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 10:59 PM
Huh? That was in a response to lacarnut who combined large sums of money with drug pipes. Possession of drug paraphanelia is clearly illegal (whether it should be or not is a different discussion). Possession of large amounts of cash is not, despite your rather pathetic attempts to suggest it is.

OK Euro-trash DUmb-ass, I play poker. I'll call your bluff. Cite US law where "drug pipes" , without residue, are illegal.

And be specific as I was. :rolleyes:

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:01 PM
Well, blame Clintoon. it was under his watch that, that act was passed, not BusHitler. Ignorant-ass.

And it does establish what I am agruing, DUmb-ass.

Well, you completely lost that argument, i.e., that carrying large amounts of money is illegal, so you divert to an evil Clinton argument (ah, the morally corrupt Clinton, doing what the Falwells of the world condemned). You people are really, really pathetic.

Oh, oh!! I know. Why don't you ask me "WHERE DID YOU SERVE?" That will clinch it for you. The you can top that off with a few ignorant French jokes. Perhaps throw in a few Muzzie references to demonstrate your complete ignorance of Islam. Spread in a few Christian values, like male authority in the home,the sanctity of marriage, and Jimmy Bakker. Bake until hdll freezes over.

And you have the perfect CORNCOB COUNTY PIE.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:06 PM
OK Euro-trash DUmb-ass, I play poker. I'll call your bluff. Cite US law where "drug pipes" , without residue, are illegal.

And be specific as I was. :rolleyes:

Jeez, you obviously don't make a living playing poker (or a decent living, anyway). BTW, we're not talking about federal laws here. The OP references state and local laws....

Conservative girls are easy (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/1975/13A-12-260.htm)

Shannon
05-11-2009, 11:07 PM
The you can top that off with a few ignorant French jokes.



That's what this thread needs. French jokes. I love French jokes.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 11:14 PM
Well, you completely lost that argument, i.e., that carrying large amounts of money is illegal, so you divert to an evil Clinton argument (ah, the morally corrupt Clinton, doing what the Falwells of the world condemned). You people are really, really pathetic.

Oh, oh!! I know. Why don't you ask me "WHERE DID YOU SERVE?" That will clinch it for you. The you can top that off with a few ignorant French jokes. Perhaps throw in a few Muzzie references to demonstrate your complete ignorance of Islam. Spread in a few Christian values, like male authority in the home,the sanctity of marriage, and Jimmy Bakker. Bake until hdll freezes over.

And you have the perfect CORNCOB COUNTY PIE.


What's wrong, euro-trash DUmb-ass, can't read Engrish very well? What did the USC stautes tell you?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 46 > § 983Prev | Next § 983. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings

(c) Burden of Proof.— In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property—
(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture;

....

(3) if the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.


TITLE 21 > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part E > § 881Prev | Next § 881. Forfeitures
How Current is This? (a) Subject property
The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:

(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.

Tells me I won, game, set and match, DUmb-ass.

:cool:

Rockntractor
05-11-2009, 11:17 PM
That's what this thread needs. French jokes. I love French jokes.
France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes.”—Mark Twain


“I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.”—General George S. Patton

“Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.”—Norman Schwartzkopf

“We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it.”—Marge Simpson

“As far as I’m concerned, war always means failure.”—Jacques Chirac, President of France

“As far as France is concerned, you’re right.”—Rush Limbaugh

“The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee.”—Regis Philbin

“You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn’t have the face for it.”—John McCain, U.S. Senator (AZ)

“I don’t know why people are surprised that France won’t help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn’t help us get Hitler out of France either.”—Jay Leno

“The last time the French asked for “more proof’’ it came marching into Paris under a German flag.”—David Letterman

“War without France would be like … uh … World War II.”

“What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against Disney World and Big Macs than the Nazis?”—Dennis Miller

“It is important to remember that the French have always been there when they needed us.”—Alan Kent

“They’ve taken their own precautions against al-Quaida. To prepare for an attack, each Frenchman is urged to keep duct tape, a white flag, and a three-day supply of mistresses in the house.”—Argus Hamilton

“Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle that was being advertised on eBay the other day—the description ‘Never shot. Dropped once.’”—Rep. Roy Blunt (MO)

“The French will only agree to go to war when we’ve proven we’ve found truffles in Iraq.”—Dennis Miller

“Raise your right hand if you like the French. Raise both hands if you are French.”

“Question: Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris?
Answer: It’s not known, it’s never been tried.”—Rep. Roy Blunt (MO)

“Do you know it only took Germany three days to conquer France in WWII? And that’s because it was raining.”—John Xereas, Manager, DC Improv.

“The AP and UPI reported that the French Government announced after the London bombings that it has raised its terror alert from ‘Run’ to ‘Hide.’ The only two higher levels in France are ‘Surrender’ and ‘Collaborate.’ The rise in the alert level was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively disabling their military.”

“French Ban Fireworks at Euro Disney. ... The French government announced today that it is imposing a ban on the use of fireworks at EuroDisney. The decision comes that day after a nightly fireworks display at the park, located just 30 miles outside of Paris, caused the soldiers at a nearby French Army garrison to surrender to a group of Czech tourists.”—AP Paris
http://neveryetmelted.com/2006/09/28/french-jokes/

Teetop
05-11-2009, 11:19 PM
Jeez, you obviously don't make a living playing poker (or a decent living, anyway). BTW, we're not talking about federal laws here. The OP references state and local laws....

Conservative girls are easy (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/1975/13A-12-260.htm)

Typical liberal ploys, move the goal posts. Yes, DUMB-ASS we are talking about Federal Laws.

Your reply on #71 of this thread.


Please show me the ordinance that makes it illegal to carry large sums of money. If you can't cite a specific law, why don't you STFU?

I cited the specific laws and now, you move the goal post.

Typical lieberal ploy. :rolleyes:

Art. 59.05. FORFEITURE HEARING. (a) All parties must comply
with the rules of pleading as required in civil suits.
(b) All cases under this chapter shall proceed to trial in
the same manner as in other civil cases. The state has the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that property is subject
to forfeiture.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to forfeiture under this
chapter of property belonging to the spouse of a person whose acts
gave rise to the seizure of community property that, because of an
act of family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code,
the spouse was unable to prevent the act giving rise to the seizure.
(d) A final conviction for an underlying offense is not a
requirement for forfeiture under this chapter. An owner or
interest holder may present evidence of a dismissal or acquittal of
an underlying offense in a forfeiture proceeding, and evidence of
an acquittal raises a presumption that the property or interest
that is the subject of the hearing is nonforfeitable. This
presumption can be rebutted by evidence that the owner or interest
holder knew or should have known that the property was contraband.
(e) It is the intention of the legislature that asset
forfeiture is remedial in nature and not a form of punishment. If
the court finds that all or any part of the property is subject to
forfeiture, the judge shall forfeit the property to the state, with
the attorney representing the state as the agent for the state,
except that if the court finds that the nonforfeitable interest of
an interest holder in the property is valued in an amount greater
than or substantially equal to the present value of the property,
the court shall order the property released to the interest holder.
If the court finds that the nonforfeitable interest of an interest
holder is valued in an amount substantially less than the present
value of the property and that the property is subject to
forfeiture, the court shall order the property forfeited to the
state with the attorney representing the state acting as the agent
of the state, and making necessary orders to protect the
nonforfeitable interest of the interest holder. On final judgment
of forfeiture, the attorney representing the state shall dispose of
the property in the manner required by Article 59.06 of this code.
(f) On forfeiture to the state of an amount greater than
$2,500, the clerk of the court in which the forfeiture proceeding
was held is entitled to court costs in that proceeding as in other
civil proceedings unless the forfeiture violates federal
requirements for multijurisdictional task force cases authorized
under Chapter 362, Local Government Code. The procedure for
collecting the costs is the procedure established under Subsections
(a) and (c), Article 59.06.
(g) If property is seized at a federal checkpoint, the
notice of seizure and intended forfeiture may be filed in and the
proceeding may be held in:
(1) the county in which the seizure occurred; or
(2) with the consent of the owner, operator, or agent in
charge of the property, a county that is adjacent to the county in
which the seizure occurred, if both counties are in the same
judicial district.




Game, set, match, Shit-stain.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:20 PM
What's wrong, euro-trash DUmb-ass, can't read Engrish very well? What did the USC stautes tell you?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 46 > § 983Prev | Next § 983. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings

(c) Burden of Proof.— In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property—
(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture;

....

(3) if the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.


TITLE 21 > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part E > § 881Prev | Next § 881. Forfeitures
How Current is This? (a) Subject property
The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:

(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.

Tells me I won, game, set and match, DUmb-ass.

:cool:

You're obviously genetically defective. Here's the facts:

1. I stated that it is not illegal in this country to carry large sums of money
2. You stated that it was.
3. In support you cite a ruling that clearly states that it is the government's burden to determine if money seized is the result of drug transactions.
4. On the basis of the argument in (3) you claim to have proven (2).

Are you really as stupid as you pretend to be. Wait. I think we all know the anser to that.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:25 PM
Typical liberal ploys, move the goal posts. Yes, DUMB-ASS we are talking about Federal Laws.

Your reply on #71 of this thread.

I cited the specific laws and now, you move the goal post.

Typical lieberal ploy. :rolleyes:

Game, set, match, Shit-stain.

You're not even making any sense by conservative standards now. The whole discussion actually focused upon state and local laws (see the OP). My reply in 71 that you cite as some sort of proof that we were discussing federal laws does not cite the federal government. The ruling you cited clearly states the opposite (that large sums of money are not illegal and that it is incumbent upon the government to prove that those monies were derived from illegal activities).

I just don't know what to say in response to your completely non-logical statements.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 11:27 PM
You going to SHUT THE FUCK UP NOW, Pissie and Shit-stain? You got ....

http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~poobah/pwned.jpg

Teetop
05-11-2009, 11:30 PM
You're obviously genetically defective. Here's the facts:

1. I stated that it is not illegal in this country to carry large sums of money
2. You stated that it was.
3. In support you cite a ruling that clearly states that it is the government's burden to determine if money seized is the result of drug transactions.
4. On the basis of the argument in (3) you claim to have proven (2).

Are you really as stupid as you pretend to be. Wait. I think we all know the anser to that.

In this case, the locals were wrong, shit-stain, but you were wrong all along. I cited Federal and State laws proving you wrong and you still have your head firmly up your ass.

Just admit it.

The first step to recovery is admitting you were wrong.... :D

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:31 PM
You going to SHUT THE FUCK UP NOW, Pissie and Shit-stain? You got ....



Okily, dokily Ned. I think any rational person reading this thread (if any rational person would read this thread) can make up their own minds as to who's correct and who's not.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 11:37 PM
Okily, dokily Ned. I think any rational person reading this thread (if any rational person would read this thread) can make up their own minds as to who's correct and who's not.

Very true, shit-stain. I am a conservative democrat, using facts. you, on the other hand are, a barking moonbat, using emotions to argue.

I won.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:43 PM
Very true, shit-stain. I am a conservative democrat, using facts. you, on the other hand are, a barking moonbat, using emotions to argue.

I won.

You won. You cited ONE LAW that made it illegal to carry large sums of cash (not)? You're a fool.

Rockntractor
05-11-2009, 11:44 PM
You won. You cited ONE LAW that made it illegal to carry large sums of cash (not)? You're a fool.
Lets vote. 1 for you teetop

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:45 PM
Lets vote. 1 for you teetop

Pigs can't vote in our democracy.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 11:46 PM
You won. You cited ONE LAW that made it illegal to carry large sums of cash (not)? You're a fool.

Two Federal laws and one State law, Shit-stain. At least get that right. :rolleyes:

Goodnight fart breath.

Teetop
05-11-2009, 11:47 PM
Pigs can't vote in our democracy.

The US isn't a democracy, fart breath.


night.


I expect you to cite US or Texas laws concerning "drug pipes", without residue, when I return, fart breath....

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:49 PM
That's what this thread needs. French jokes. I love French jokes.

I like French jokes as well. However, I much prefer French wines, French cheeses, and (of course) French women (particularly those from the southeast).

Rockntractor
05-11-2009, 11:49 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/terlet.jpg?t=1242100069

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:51 PM
Two Federal laws and one State law, Shit-stain. At least get that right. :rolleyes:

Goodnight fart breath.

Sorry, the wording was obviously too nuanced for you. You cited no law that made it illegal to carry large sums of currency. You cited several laws that said that such currency could be used as partial proof of crimes, in conjunction with other evidence, the burden of proof being on the government. That does not make it illegal to carry large sums of currency.

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 11:52 PM
The US isn't a democracy, fart breath.


night.


I expect you to cite US or Texas laws concerning "drug pipes", without residue, when I return, fart breath....

Nevertheless, pigs still can't vote, hick.

lacarnut
05-12-2009, 12:05 AM
, I much prefer French women .

Especially those ones that do not shave their underarms and do not bath every day. :eek:

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 12:10 AM
Especially those ones that do not shave their underarms and do not bath every day. :eek:

It's "bathe." And you're siure you're not talking about the fundie American stay-at-home-mommies with 5 to 8 brats (but stsinner and God will praise them for preserving the White Christian race) and slobber on their arms? Most of the French women I've known had shaven underarms (although not all) but were not necessarily shaven all over.

lacarnut
05-12-2009, 12:21 AM
It's "bathe." And you're siure you're not talking about the fundie American stay-at-home-mommies with 5 to 8 brats (but stsinner and God will praise them for preserving the White Christian race) and slobber on their arms? Most of the French women I've known had shaven underarms (although not all) but were not necessarily shaven all over.

No, I am talking about those French women that do not take a bath every day. That is a EU thingy with hairy women. I wonder when that backward country is going to get enough air conditioners so that 15,000 Frenchies do not die from the heat.

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 12:33 AM
No, I am talking about those French women that do not take a bath every day. That is a EU thingy with hairy women. I wonder when that backward country is going to get enough air conditioners so that 15,000 Frenchies do not die from the heat.

Too bad they couldn't all go to Wal-Mart and buy the same Chinese manufactured crap as the rest of the hicks. Then, maybe, they'd look like...

http://djkonservo.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ed-hill.png?w=286&h=300

lacarnut
05-12-2009, 01:24 AM
Too bad they couldn't all go to Wal-Mart and buy the same Chinese manufactured crap as the rest of the hicks. Then, maybe, they'd look like...

http://djkonservo.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ed-hill.png?w=286&h=300

You do not have to worry about purchasing appliances like AC's since you are a rentor rather than a home owner. However, if the Frenchies had bought AC's from tim buck two, many of them would be alive today.

Good looking lady. However, she would not give an old man like you the time of day. You might find one of your whores (I mean escort services) in that category. I understand the prostitutes in NYC have reduced their prices due to the economy. Must be your lucky day.

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 07:04 AM
You do not have to worry about purchasing appliances like AC's since you are a rentor rather than a home owner. However, if the Frenchies had bought AC's from tim buck two, many of them would be alive today.

No bbq's for me! Damn. I'd been looking forward to that all my life. Why hell, I moved here just for that Sunday experience. As to the French, when you've been there, come back and talk


Good looking lady. However, she would not give an old man like you the time of day. You might find one of your whores (I mean escort services) in that category. I understand the prostitutes in NYC have reduced their prices due to the economy. Must be your lucky day.

The Breeder -- good looking :eek: ! You're kidding, right? I certainly hope she wouldn't talk to me; she might get preggers! As to the price of NYC prostitutes going down (as it were), baseless rumor.