[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I lived CSI, and lost.
Do you know of anyone personally, who has had their rights infringed upon? I mean, do you know someone who’s phone was tapped without a judicial order? [/quote]
You remember the warrant less wireless scandal?
Where the actually had to pardon the telephone companies participating in it?
Chances are you know someone that has been under surveillance, you just do not know who it is, which is kind of the point.
[quote]orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I lived CSI, and lost.
Do you know of anyone personally, who has had their rights infringed upon? I mean, do you know someone who’s phone was tapped without a judicial order?
You remember the warrant less wireless scandal?
Where the actually had to pardon the telephone companies participating in it?
Chances are you know someone that has been under surveillance, you just do not know who it is, which is kind of the point.
[/quote]
Exactly my point, if you don’t follow due process, stuff gets thrown out of court. The bottom line is no one here has told me of a specific instance [other than the phone companies], who have had their phones tapped without a warrant, and just like I said, it gets thrown out of court. You have to understand, police are not going to risk blowing an investigation by something so foolish as performing a warrantless search. They know the evidence will get thrown out of court.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
quote me where i placed all this emphasis on the phone call. i don’t recall ever doing that… my orginal and ONLY point was that rights are infrigned under the patriot act and i listed SERVERAL cases proving my case. [/quote]
i see that you are quite worried about the phone but as i said before the phone tapping was never the focus of my point.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I lived CSI, and lost.
Do you know of anyone personally, who has had their rights infringed upon? I mean, do you know someone who’s phone was tapped without a judicial order?
You remember the warrant less wireless scandal?
Where the actually had to pardon the telephone companies participating in it?
Chances are you know someone that has been under surveillance, you just do not know who it is, which is kind of the point.
Exactly my point, if you don’t follow due process, stuff gets thrown out of court. The bottom line is no one here has told me of a specific instance [other than the phone companies], who have had their phones tapped without a warrant, and just like I said, it gets thrown out of court. You have to understand, police are not going to risk blowing an investigation by something so foolish as performing a warrantless search. They know the evidence will get thrown out of court. [/quote]
By listening to my phone calls they learn all kinds of things that they can use against me.
If they then also make a RICO case against me instead something resembling due process I am royally fucked.
And the judge will not hear one word about their warrantless searches, wiretaps and other shenanigans.
In case of the porn producers they just had to claim that porn money finances terrorism, as blatantly absurd as that is, and that they therefore had the right to go through the books of every bank where they had an account. That is actually enough to ruin a business, whether there is a trial or not.
[quote]orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I lived CSI, and lost.
Do you know of anyone personally, who has had their rights infringed upon? I mean, do you know someone who’s phone was tapped without a judicial order?
You remember the warrant less wireless scandal?
Where the actually had to pardon the telephone companies participating in it?
Chances are you know someone that has been under surveillance, you just do not know who it is, which is kind of the point.
Exactly my point, if you don’t follow due process, stuff gets thrown out of court. The bottom line is no one here has told me of a specific instance [other than the phone companies], who have had their phones tapped without a warrant, and just like I said, it gets thrown out of court. You have to understand, police are not going to risk blowing an investigation by something so foolish as performing a warrantless search. They know the evidence will get thrown out of court.
By listening to my phone calls they learn all kinds of things that they can use against me.
If they then also make a RICO case against me instead something resembling due process I am royally fucked.
And the judge will not hear one word about their warrantless searches, wiretaps and other shenanigans.
In case of the porn producers they just had to claim that porn money finances terrorism, as blatantly absurd as that is, and that they therefore had the right to go through the books of every bank where they had an account. That is actually enough to ruin a business, whether there is a trial or not.
[/quote]
Unless you are conspiring to do something illegal on the phone, then you should not worry yourself with RICO.
If your lawyer doesn’t mention that their searches failed to have warrants, you need a new lawyer. And if you keep this lawyer, you are an idiot.
If porn producers are involved in a terrorism conspiracy, then they have something to worry about. Otherwise, the entire San Fernando Valley (porn capital of the world) would be like the Middle East.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I lived CSI, and lost.
Do you know of anyone personally, who has had their rights infringed upon? I mean, do you know someone who’s phone was tapped without a judicial order?
You remember the warrant less wireless scandal?
Where the actually had to pardon the telephone companies participating in it?
Chances are you know someone that has been under surveillance, you just do not know who it is, which is kind of the point.
Exactly my point, if you don’t follow due process, stuff gets thrown out of court. The bottom line is no one here has told me of a specific instance [other than the phone companies], who have had their phones tapped without a warrant, and just like I said, it gets thrown out of court. You have to understand, police are not going to risk blowing an investigation by something so foolish as performing a warrantless search. They know the evidence will get thrown out of court.
By listening to my phone calls they learn all kinds of things that they can use against me.
If they then also make a RICO case against me instead something resembling due process I am royally fucked.
And the judge will not hear one word about their warrantless searches, wiretaps and other shenanigans.
In case of the porn producers they just had to claim that porn money finances terrorism, as blatantly absurd as that is, and that they therefore had the right to go through the books of every bank where they had an account. That is actually enough to ruin a business, whether there is a trial or not.
Unless you are conspiring to do something illegal on the phone, then you should not worry yourself with RICO.
If your lawyer doesn’t mention that their searches failed to have warrants, you need a new lawyer. And if you keep this lawyer, you are an idiot.
If porn producers are involved in a terrorism conspiracy, then they have something to worry about. Otherwise, the entire San Fernando Valley (porn capital of the world) would be like the Middle East. [/quote]
“Something illegal” these days involves online gambling, prostitution or even splitting large sums before transferring them.
Hey, if they can prove in a RICO case that it is somewhat likely that you have done something illegal and it involved a telephone, CC or your bank account you face stiff minimum sentences.
Which is why over 90% of all people plea bargain, not because they are all guilty.
So I do not know in what kind of wonderland you live in where such powers are never abused or where judges can right wrongs they never even hear about but hist9ory has shown that such powers spiral out of control each and every time.
Plus, if they shut down your business you “may have nothing to fear if you are not involved with terrorism” but you are sleeping under a bridge anyway.
Some people actually fear that.
Just wondering how the above last page or so is related to a third party, or for that matter Republican/Democrat or American “left”/“right” differences that had been claimed?
If everyone saying it recognizes that it isn’t, then fine, total diversions will occur of course.
But if there’s an intended subtext of relevance, I disagree. The above problems are no less and will remain no less under Obama/Pelosi/Reid, and are just as much a product of those Democrats who, among Democrats, are further on the left as they are of Republicans of any stripe.
The possible exception where there could be relevance would be if it is intended to be relevant to a third party, with the idea that the third party would differ from both Democrats and Republicans with regard to the respects discussed. That never was said though and my impression was that instead these were complaints, rather than constructive suggestions for a third party. But perhaps that is what was meant?
[quote]orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I lived CSI, and lost.
Do you know of anyone personally, who has had their rights infringed upon? I mean, do you know someone who’s phone was tapped without a judicial order?
You remember the warrant less wireless scandal?
Where the actually had to pardon the telephone companies participating in it?
Chances are you know someone that has been under surveillance, you just do not know who it is, which is kind of the point.
Exactly my point, if you don’t follow due process, stuff gets thrown out of court. The bottom line is no one here has told me of a specific instance [other than the phone companies], who have had their phones tapped without a warrant, and just like I said, it gets thrown out of court. You have to understand, police are not going to risk blowing an investigation by something so foolish as performing a warrantless search. They know the evidence will get thrown out of court.
By listening to my phone calls they learn all kinds of things that they can use against me.
If they then also make a RICO case against me instead something resembling due process I am royally fucked.
And the judge will not hear one word about their warrantless searches, wiretaps and other shenanigans.
In case of the porn producers they just had to claim that porn money finances terrorism, as blatantly absurd as that is, and that they therefore had the right to go through the books of every bank where they had an account. That is actually enough to ruin a business, whether there is a trial or not.
Unless you are conspiring to do something illegal on the phone, then you should not worry yourself with RICO.
If your lawyer doesn’t mention that their searches failed to have warrants, you need a new lawyer. And if you keep this lawyer, you are an idiot.
If porn producers are involved in a terrorism conspiracy, then they have something to worry about. Otherwise, the entire San Fernando Valley (porn capital of the world) would be like the Middle East.
“Something illegal” these days involves online gambling, prostitution or even splitting large sums before transferring them.
Hey, if they can prove in a RICO case that it is somewhat likely that you have done something illegal and it involved a telephone, CC or your bank account you face stiff minimum sentences.
Which is why over 90% of all people plea bargain, not because they are all guilty.
So I do not know in what kind of wonderland you live in where such powers are never abused or where judges can right wrongs they never even hear about but hist9ory has shown that such powers spiral out of control each and every time.
Plus, if they shut down your business you “may have nothing to fear if you are not involved with terrorism” but you are sleeping under a bridge anyway.
Some people actually fear that.
[/quote]
If you actually talk about illegal activity on the phone in direct words, then you are an idiot and should be locked up for sheer stupidity. If you use CC and not pure cash, fake names and addresses, you should not enter the illegal business altogether. This is why people (who think like you) get caught. Were you planning on using your very own credit card to buy something illegal? Rookie mistake.
You are correct on why people plead out, they threaten you with very long sentences. The Feds got smart on crime, or fighting crime. You see, back in the day, guys used to just take their sentence and do their time. The old prison rule was that if you got caught and took the fall without snitching, the organization would take care of you and your family while you were away. The Feds realized quickly that small sentences didn’t work at opening up conspiracies, including your beloved RICO. So instead of getting threatened with 5 yrs, the Feds threw 20 and 30 yrs at you. People saw that spending what could be 1/3 of your life behind bars was not so appealing, and with Reagan’s passing of Federal Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines (which were ruled unconstitutional in 2005), they made you plead out. They threaten you with 20-30, and you plead out at 5-10 yrs. So you saw the beginning of serious cooperation with the government, with Confidential Informants, Controlled Buys, Wire Taps, etc.
Proving a RICO case is not nearly as easy as you think. How many RICO cases have you even heard of that were both prosecuted and upheld? I swear they should abolish CSI and Law and Order for this reason alone. Do you know how many loopholes there are to have RICO thrown out? It may be one of the hardest things to prove, seeing how if you are innocent of one part of the conspiracy, you can put doubt upon your involvement in the whole conpiracy.
You don’t go to trial because you don’t want to go to prison, you go to trial when you think you can win your case.
The wonderland I live in is reality, as I stood in Federal Court fighting for my life dealing with a drug conspiracy charge. And because I fought hard, I was able to get every single bit of evidence thrown out due to lack of due process. The only thing I could not beat was testimony against me. You see, when you deal with it in real life, you learn your “honorary” law degree.