NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Now, with the possibility of me losing my assets...

I SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Now, with the possibility of me losing my assets...

I SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ!!

Hey look, Shrubya just declared an emergency to use unconstitutional powers. Shocking...

Hey look, Shrubya just declared an emergency to use unconstitutional powers. Shocking...

Actually, this sounds like the power to seize.

Seizure powers have been around since the beginning of the US.

The US Marshals handles the seizure of billions in assets (money, stocks, bonds, real property, cars, boats) every year.

No trial. You're not guilty - your stuff is guilty.

Since it's property, it's guilty until proven innocent. Funny how that works.

Oh, and Constitutional.

Actually, this sounds like the power to seize.

Seizure powers have been around since the beginning of the US.

The US Marshals handles the seizure of billions in assets (money, stocks, bonds, real property, cars, boats) every year.

No trial. You're not guilty - your stuff is guilty.

Since it's property, it's guilty until proven innocent. Funny how that works.

Um...

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

SEIZURE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Oh, and Constitutional.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

It's a good thing you aren't pretending to be a lawyer anymore.

It's a good thing you aren't pretending to be a lawyer anymore.

For those of us who have never pretended to be lawyers, what's the significance of this Executive Order, and just how worried should be be?

For those of us who have never pretended to be lawyers, what's the significance of this Executive Order, and just how worried should be be?

I've looked through the order several times, and form what I can tell this is actually being added to the general list of emergency powers, rather than something that takes effect in day-to-day life.

But I'm probably wrong.

I've looked through the order several times, and form what I can tell this is actually being added to the general list of emergency powers, rather than something that takes effect in day-to-day life.

But I'm probably wrong.

I've discovered that, when it comes to this administration, one can never be too cynical.

Um...

SEIZURE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY







It's a good thing you aren't pretending to be a lawyer anymore.

So why does the "War on Drugs" get to take so much property without due process?

For those of us who have never pretended to be lawyers, what's the significance of this Executive Order, and just how worried should be be?

Busheviks will say it's critical to the survival of America and it's Freedom.
Many Conservatives will say it won't affect us much, but may question the constitutional ramifications.
Many Liberals will say it is unconstitutional, and that there are dangers of the misuse of such an Executive Order.

AP will say it's all the bourgeoise's fault.

Um...

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

SEIZURE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY


Oh yes it does. Used to work for the Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture.

I've discovered that, when it comes to this administration, one can never be too cynical.

The only way to ever read a "Royal Proclamation" is to give it the most cynical reading possible, as it might be applied by the worst administration.

I use Hillary for the worst administration, but just about any recent one will serve the purpose.

I see this as a further opportunity for the federal government to expand its power -- at our expense.

Asset Forfeiture, or seizure:

http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/07federalforfeiture/index.htm

Criminal forfeiture is an action brought as a part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant. It is an in personam (against the person) action and requires that the government indict (charge) the property used or derived from the crime along with the defendant. If the jury finds the property forfeitable, the court issues an order of forfeiture.

For forfeitures pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), as well as money laundering and obscenity statutes, there is an ancillary hearing for third parties to assert their interest in the property. Once the interests of third parties are addressed, the court issues a final forfeiture order.

Civil judicial forfeiture is an in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary.

Administrative forfeiture is an in rem action that permits the federal seizing agency to forfeit the property without judicial involvement. The authority for a seizing agency to start an administrative forfeiture action is found in the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1607. Property that can be administratively forfeited is: merchandise the importation of which is prohibited; a conveyance used to import, transport, or store a controlled substance; a monetary instrument; or other property that does not exceed $500,000 in value.

Source: A Guide to Equitable Sharing of Federally Forfeited Property for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, U.S. Department of Justice, March 1994.

Asset Forfeiture, or seizure:

http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/07federalforfeiture/index.htm

woah woah wait a minute. Do you have ANY idea what you're ACTUALLY talking about? At all? In the slightest?

You're talking about in rem jurisdiction of CIVIL trials. Which is to say that you're talking about the seizing of attached property in order to satisfy a monitary judgement in a CIVIL ACTION.

A lawsuit.

In rem means a court can attach property of a CIVIL DEFENDANT in order to satisfy a judgement against that defendant in the lawsuit.

That has nothing, NOTHING to do with this executive order, and attached property:

1) can only be attached if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate he is significantly likely to be awarded a verdict worth at least the value of the property sought to be attached

2) can only be seized after attachment IF the defendant is found liable in a civil action

Which has nothing, not even fucking CLOSE to your inane babbling of "your property is assumed guilty until proven innocent" which contains so many errors it's hard to explain without charts.

The only way to ever read a "Royal Proclamation" is to give it the most cynical reading possible, as it might be applied by the worst administration.

I use Hillary for the worst administration, but just about any recent one will serve the purpose.

I see this as a further opportunity for the federal government to expand its power -- at our expense.

That's the reason I never understood why so many "superpatriots" were willing to cede all these extra-constitutional powers to Bush. Did they think that Bush or someone like him would be President forever? Didn't they fear those powers being held by someone with ideals antagonistic to their own? Or were they just simple-minded, the kind of people who want to put church and state together because they're so sure of their faith that they "know" God is going to put their church in charge, and not some other church?

Oh yes it does. Used to work for the Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture.

given that you obviously have no idea in the fucking slightest what "in rem" means, and how it in now way relates to this executive order, and the concept of in rem attachment is fundamental to asset forfeiture, I will have to say...

bullshit.

woah woah wait a minute. Do you have ANY idea what you're ACTUALLY talking about? At all? In the slightest?

You're talking about in rem jurisdiction of CIVIL trials. Which is to say that you're talking about the seizing of attached property in order to satisfy a monitary judgement in a CIVIL ACTION.

A lawsuit.

In rem means a court can attach property of a CIVIL DEFENDANT in order to satisfy a judgement against that defendant in the lawsuit.

That has nothing, NOTHING to do with this executive order, and attached property:

1) can only be attached if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate he is significantly likely to be awarded a verdict worth at least the value of the property sought to be attached

2) can only be seized after attachment IF the defendant is found liable in a civil action

Which has nothing, not even fucking CLOSE to your inane babbling of "your property is assumed guilty until proven innocent" which contains so many errors it's hard to explain without charts.

The administrative seizure happens all the time with the DEA.

If they can't get evidence to bust a major drug dealer, they take his car, his boat, his house, his plane.

He has to find a way to get it into court (calls his lawyer), and at that point, he has to prove that his stuff was never involved in anything suspicious.

All that DEA or FBI requires for this sort of thing is probable cause.

I know DEA guys who drive up and down the road in Florida looking at cars they want to seize to use for undercover work.

They do it all the time.

This sounds just like the administrative seizure.

Go ahead Neo, try and tell me that the government doesn't seize billions of dollars worth of assets without ever charging any PERSON.

Here you go - from PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html

The President wants to hold the money people might give to terrorists.

Ok.

We already do that shit.

Rudy Ramirez never expected to become a statistic in the War on Drugs when he set off to buy a used car, $7300 in cash at the ready, in January 2000. Ramirez, who lives in Edinburg, Texas near the border with Mexico, had spotted a listing for the used Corvette in a magazine and wanted it badly enough that he talked his brother-in-law into accompanying him on a thousand mile road trip to Missouri to make the purchase. When Ramirez was pulled over by police in Kansas City, however, the tenor of the trip changed.

"They asked if I had any money with me, and I said yes," recalls Ramirez. "I didn't think they would take it away. I had nothing to hide." But the trajectory of the rental car, and the piles of cash, suggested otherwise to police--who suspected him of trafficking drugs from the Mexican border. As Ramirez tells it, he was detained at the side of the road for hours while his car was thoroughly searched and inspected by a drug dog. "They kept asking me, `Where are the drugs?'" he recalls. "I told them they had the wrong guy."

The Drug Enforcement Agency's file on the case indicates that Ramirez gave officers confused statements about both the money and his destination, and that his extremely brief stay in a Missouri motel looked suspicious. What's more, the drug dog "alerted" on parts of the car, indicating that drugs could have been there at one time--which, since it was a rental car, may or may not have anything to do with Rudy Ramirez.

Still, the search turned up no drugs of any kind, and the officers finally told Ramirez that he was free to go--but not before confiscating $6,000 of his money in the name of the federal war on drugs in a process known as "forfeiture." Despite check stubs that he says prove that the money came from a car accident settlement reached several months before, and bank records showing that it was withdrawn from his account just prior to the Missouri trip, Ramirez has, to this day, been unable to get his money returned. He shakes his head as he describes it. "All I want is my money back," he says.

Last year, almost a billion dollars worth of cash, cars, boats, real estate, and other property was forfeited to the federal government--most of it labeled as drug-related. And while much of this property was taken from bona fide criminals, critics of the nation's forfeiture laws say that too many innocent people have fallen through the cracks in a system that, until recently, has been far too heavily slanted in the government's favor.

This sounds just like the administrative seizure.

Go ahead Neo, try and tell me that the government doesn't seize billions of dollars worth of assets without ever charging any PERSON.

oh I never said that one needed to be CHARGEd, I said one needs due process.

Which is needed for any type of administrative seizure, at all, at any time. To seize property requires probable cause, always.

Always always always always. And if the cops do "cruise around looking for undercover cars" as you ludicrusly claim, then what happens the first time someone walks into court and says "what was your probable cause?" and the police can't point to one?

And you are PWNED, Neo Art.

Sounds like they could use this executive order to do civil forfeitures - much to your misinformed dismay.

Law dictionaries define forfeiture as "loss of some right or property as a penalty for some illegal act," and its role as a tool in the war on drugs is clear: to hit drug dealers where it hurts most...in the wallet. The forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property from people it believes to be involved in drug-related activity, and then to use that revenue to bolster the efforts of law enforcement. The concept is simple. If you use your car, plane or boat to transport drugs, you will lose your car, plane or boat. And if your cash was acquired through illegal drug sales, you will lose that cash and anything bought with it.

Forfeitures, however, can fall into two categories--criminal or civil--and due to some high-profile abuses, civil asset forfeiture has become extremely controversial. Under criminal law, the government can seize property as punishment only after its owner has been convicted of a crime, and our justice system ensures that they are considered innocent until proven guilty. But under civil law, it is the property itself--not the owner--that is charged with involvement in a crime. What's more, that property is considered "guilty" until proven innocent in court by its owner, thus turning our usual system of justice on its head.

According to a report prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee, at least 90 percent of the property that the federal government seeks to forfeit is pursued through civil asset forfeiture. And although forfeiture is intended as punishment for illegal activity, over 80% of the people whose property is seized under civil law are never even charged with a crime according to one study of over 500 federal cases by the Pittsburgh Press. For this reason, critics say, the system can run roughshod over the rights of innocent property owners--and fail to distinguish them from the guilty.

That's the reason I never understood why so many "superpatriots" were willing to cede all these extra-constitutional powers to Bush. Did they think that Bush or someone like him would be President forever? Didn't they fear those powers being held by someone with ideals antagonistic to their own? Or were they just simple-minded, the kind of people who want to put church and state together because they're so sure of their faith that they "know" God is going to put their church in charge, and not some other church?
I think the answer is simple. No one thinks ahead. I'm sure the thought is "It's fine right now, because I trust President Smith to do what he says." My objection is mostly that when we give the federal government a little more power, that's a little more power that we've lost. Pretty soon it adds up.

oh I never said that one needed to be CHARGEd, I said one needs due process.

Which is needed for any type of administrative seizure, at all, at any time. To seize property requires probable cause, always.

Always always always always. And if the cops do "cruise around looking for undercover cars" as you ludicrusly claim, then what happens the first time someone walks into court and says "what was your probable cause?" and the police can't point to one?

No court need be involved in the administrative ones.

The police usually say, "it was a pattern of suspicious drug activity".

The judges almost NEVER question it.

And you are PWNED, Neo Art.

Sounds like they could use this executive order to do civil forfeitures - much to your misinformed dismay.

ummm, you DO realize that you just said they can use executive forfeitures and then cites an article about judicial action?

You DO realize that executive and judicial branches ARE different, right?

The problem here is you don't know what in hell you are talking about, and you continue to say things that just...don't really mean what you say it means.

And by the way, uncidted internet article written by...some guy, apparently, is not much of a source

Hyde must have been talking about you, Neo.

Henry Hyde has called stories like these "Kafkaesque," and recalls that when he first learned of the nation's civil forfeiture practices, he considered them "more appropriate for the Soviet Union than the United States." What's more, he's said, "People take their due process rights for granted...they have no idea that these laws exist."

No court need be involved in the administrative ones.

Then why did you just cite something about civil actions which is a judicial activity?

The police usually say, "it was a pattern of suspicious drug activity".

The judges almost NEVER question it.

suuuuure they don't, are we back in the make believe world where you are a lawyer?

ummm, you DO realize that you just said they can use executive forfeitures and then cites an article about judicial action?

You DO realize that executive and judicial branches ARE different, right?

The problem here is you don't know what in hell you are talking about, and you continue to say things that just...don't really mean what you say it means.

And by the way, uncidted internet article written by...some guy, apparently, is not much of a source

Sources are for sissy liberals. A die hard conservative remakes the world to his liking!

Legally, executive orders have absolutely no authority over citizens, merely over the employees of the executive branch.

If this order were to be used against a private citizen it could be contested in court.

Then why did you just cite something about civil actions which is a judicial activity?

suuuuure they don't, are we back in the make believe world where you are a lawyer?


You've never been involved in one.

In order to contest a civil one, you need to post a 10% bond. Between this and the lawyer's fees, it's usually not worth it. You lose the bond if you lose the case.

80% go uncontested, because it's not worth it.

Oh, and now Frontline, the documentary show for PBS, is suddenly a suspect source?

Legally, executive orders have absolutely no authority over citizens, merely over the employees of the executive branch.

If this order were to be used against a private citizen it could be contested in court.

The employees of the executive branch do civil and administrative forfeitures every day.

You could contest it in court for the civil one. For the administrative one, you can't get into court most of the time. You have to ask that branch's internal affairs to investigate it.

And how often do they say they've done a bad thing?

Oh yes it does. Used to work for the Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture.
Is it just me or is this getting fucking absurd?

person: "Listen, they cannot make a wall-paper that tastes like snozz berries."
DK: "Yes they can, I used to be an Oompa Loompa."
person: "An oompa loompa? What the fuck? And snozz berries arn't even real!"
DK: "Are so, I worked as a truck driver on a snozz berry farm."

Is it just me or is this getting fucking absurd?

person: "Listen, they cannot make a wall-paper that tastes like snozz berries."
DK: "Yes they can, I used to be an Oompa Loompa."
person: "An oompa loompa? What the fuck? And snozz berries arn't even real!"
DK: "Are so, I worked as a truck driver on a snozz berry farm."

Um, how come your person doesn't know oompa loompas aren't real?

I noticed today he's never been with a man and never been attracted to a man. Interesting how that changes with the wind. You know what would be more fun? If he stopped CLAIMING expertise and started proving he knows what he's talking about by not posting judicial powers to demonstrate executive powers.

woah woah wait a minute. Do you have ANY idea what you're ACTUALLY talking about? At all? In the slightest?

You're talking about in rem jurisdiction of CIVIL trials. Which is to say that you're talking about the seizing of attached property in order to satisfy a monitary judgement in a CIVIL ACTION.

A lawsuit.

In rem means a court can attach property of a CIVIL DEFENDANT in order to satisfy a judgement against that defendant in the lawsuit.

That has nothing, NOTHING to do with this executive order, and attached property:

1) can only be attached if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate he is significantly likely to be awarded a verdict worth at least the value of the property sought to be attached

2) can only be seized after attachment IF the defendant is found liable in a civil action

Which has nothing, not even fucking CLOSE to your inane babbling of "your property is assumed guilty until proven innocent" which contains so many errors it's hard to explain without charts.

Explain how what you've posted above jives with this:

"Administrative forfeiture is an in rem action that permits the federal seizing agency to forfeit the property without judicial involvement. The authority for a seizing agency to start an administrative forfeiture action is found in the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1607. Property that can be administratively forfeited is: merchandise the importation of which is prohibited; a conveyance used to import, transport, or store a controlled substance; a monetary instrument; or other property that does not exceed $500,000 in value."

?

Is it just me or is this getting fucking absurd?

person: "Listen, they cannot make a wall-paper that tastes like snozz berries."
DK: "Yes they can, I used to be an Oompa Loompa."
person: "An oompa loompa? What the fuck? And snozz berries arn't even real!"
DK: "Are so, I worked as a truck driver on a snozz berry farm."

How does RO's timeline go now? Military, college, law school, lawyer...?

How does RO's timeline go now? Military, college, law school, lawyer...?Remember, though, it's not just one person behind that account. It's five.

So he can actually claim several different occupations. That's why occasionally Remote Observer seems almost liberally reasonable, while most of the time he's jackass. Seems one of the five is either turning, or was already that way to begin with.

PBS Frontline Documentary:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html

Law dictionaries define forfeiture as "loss of some right or property as a penalty for some illegal act," and its role as a tool in the war on drugs is clear: to hit drug dealers where it hurts most...in the wallet. The forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property from people it believes to be involved in drug-related activity, and then to use that revenue to bolster the efforts of law enforcement. The concept is simple. If you use your car, plane or boat to transport drugs, you will lose your car, plane or boat. And if your cash was acquired through illegal drug sales, you will lose that cash and anything bought with it.

Forfeitures, however, can fall into two categories--criminal or civil--and due to some high-profile abuses, civil asset forfeiture has become extremely controversial. Under criminal law, the government can seize property as punishment only after its owner has been convicted of a crime, and our justice system ensures that they are considered innocent until proven guilty. But under civil law, it is the property itself--not the owner--that is charged with involvement in a crime. What's more, that property is considered "guilty" until proven innocent in court by its owner, thus turning our usual system of justice on its head.


Neo art:
"
Which has nothing, not even fucking CLOSE to your inane babbling of "your property is assumed guilty until proven innocent"

neo, where did you go to law school, and why does PBS Frontline disagree with your ideas about American law?

Please answer those two questions.

Please answer those two questions.

certainly, but allow me to do it in reverse order?


and why does PBS Frontline disagree with your ideas about American law?

Because if "PBS Frontline" actually used a lawyer to write its documentary, it would have realized that in there is no concept of GUILT in a CIVIL ACTION.

Thus the concept of any standard being "guilty until proven innocent" when we are discussing CIVIL SEIZURE is, as I have stated, bullshit, because civil proceedings do not use guilt as a legal standard.

The standard for CIVIL SEIZURE is, was, and has always been..probable cause.

There is no presumption of GUILT in any sense of the word, in a CIVIL action, administrative or judicial.

neo, where did you go to law school,

Harvard University School of Law, Cambridge MA. Law School Class of 2002.

Explain how what you've posted above jives with this:

"Administrative forfeiture is an in rem action that permits the federal seizing agency to forfeit the property without judicial involvement. The authority for a seizing agency to start an administrative forfeiture action is found in the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1607. Property that can be administratively forfeited is: merchandise the importation of which is prohibited; a conveyance used to import, transport, or store a controlled substance; a monetary instrument; or other property that does not exceed $500,000 in value."

?

Because as RO posted, with included emphasis:

Civil judicial forfeiture is an in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary.

Given that the bolded part is discussing JUDICIAL forfeiture and not ADMINISTRATIVE forfeiture, and the fact that he felt it necessary to bold for emphasis to substantiate his point a part about the legal setup for JUDICIAL forfeiture, while at the same time talking about an EXECUTIVE order, which, by definition, does not fit within the framework of a JUDICIAL forfeiture.

In other words, he founds something about judicial forfeitures and saw fit to bold it for emphasis as if it supported his argument in a discussion about executive orders, when, obviously, since those are two different things, it did not.

How does RO's timeline go now? Military, college, law school, lawyer...?

And apparently a self proclaimed amateur porn star, of sorts.

Man, he has a long list of shit that I'm sure isn't real.

Someone's been snackin'
http://www.pantherhouse.com/newshelton/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/aspack4crack.jpg

*googles 'fifth amendement'*

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You know, not everyone can care to keep a track of your little "amendments" (apparently to that less than modern constitution) and what they say, let alone know them simply by number... so it would have been nice with an explanation in the OP so one can have a clue at what the hell you're talking about.

/regrets the googling retrospectively, anyway.

*googles 'fifth amendement'*

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You know, not everyone can care to keep a track of your little "amendments" (apparently to that less than modern constitution) and what they say, let alone know them simply by number... so it would have been nice with an explanation in the OP so one can have a clue at what the hell you're talking about.

/regrets the googling retrospectively, anyway.


Why? Only applies to Americans, and they should know the first ten atleast. I'd hope.

Why?

Because it would save many people some time by not having them have to google terms in a post to decipher it to see if they might be interested in a discussion. Also, because it's a courtesy to remember this is an international forum once in a while...

Only applies to Americans, and they should know the first ten atleast. I'd hope.

How is one to know it "only applies to Americans [sic!]" (and it doesn't, since issues of due process are hardly unique to the USA, and are in fact much more interesting that way) if one has no clue as to what is being referred to?

People are up in arms about the seizure bit, but did anyone bother to notice that it has to be a violent crime that is committed / knowingly supported (with the intent of destabilizing Iraq or the Iraq government)?

.................

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Now, with the possibility of me losing my assets...

I SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ!!

He can give himself the power to fly, but it won't keep him from busting his ass if he jumps off the top of the White House. :p

It's a good thing you aren't pretending to be a lawyer anymore.

Used to work for the Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture.

Is it just me or is this getting fucking absurd?

person: "Listen, they cannot make a wall-paper that tastes like snozz berries."
DK: "Yes they can, I used to be an Oompa Loompa."
person: "An oompa loompa? What the fuck? And snozz berries arn't even real!"
DK: "Are so, I worked as a truck driver on a snozz berry farm."

Perhaps he could save us all some time by telling us who he hasn't worked for? :p

Did they think that Bush or someone like him would be President forever?

Since when has a fundie, be it religious or neo-fascist, ever thought long term?

Besides, good money says they're betting on Bush declaring some national emergency in 2008, nullifying the vote and suspending the supreme court. Busheviks hail the new move to "secure the future of America"

2 months later, King George II is crowned. The average American displays some outrage. Then goes back to watching American Idol with mumbled "It's to make us safer"

I might be a tad bit cynical.

Is it just me or is this getting fucking absurd?

person: "Listen, they cannot make a wall-paper that tastes like snozz berries."
DK: "Yes they can, I used to be an Oompa Loompa."
person: "An oompa loompa? What the fuck? And snozz berries arn't even real!"
DK: "Are so, I worked as a truck driver on a snozz berry farm."

Could be, but it would go down as the most boring thing anyone's ever lied about - working for the office of Asset Forfeiture? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy! :p

No offense intended to all the lawyers out there, of course. I'm sure filing mountains of paperwork is rewarding in its own way. ;)

That's the reason I never understood why so many "superpatriots" were willing to cede all these extra-constitutional powers to Bush.

Or in the case of those of us who separate the two, the Office of the President. That worries me.

Since when has a fundie, be it religious or neo-fascist, ever thought long term?

Besides, good money says they're betting on Bush declaring some national emergency in 2008, nullifying the vote and suspending the supreme court. Busheviks hail the new move to "secure the future of America"

2 months later, King George II is crowned. The average American displays some outrage. Then goes back to watching American Idol with mumbled "It's to make us safer"

I might be a tad bit cynical.

A tad? :p

I read it basicly no protesting or else your a terrorist

I read it basicly no protesting or else your a terrorist

Protesting has nothing to do with the 5th amendment.

A tad? :p

Just a tad.

Perhaps he could save us all some time by telling us who he hasn't worked for? :p

Jesus?