To Protect and to Serve II

#11,905
#11,905
hog88 said:
Can you tell the story?
Click to expand...
Long story short..... Government came after my dad for something they said he did. Not only did they take the money out of all his accounts and freeze all his credit, but they also took all the money and froze the credit of the corporation that my parents ran. It took a month and an injunction by a judge to free up the company account and another year before the government gave back the company's money.The gov. lawyers had an officer at the first day of court and they took the money from his wallet and even his watch.They lost the case against my dad and while the judge did admonish the government lawyers for their tactics and even reasoning for bringing the case, it still cost my parents around 40K to fight the government.

Don't get me wrong.... It's nice that my dad was able to prove the government was in the wrong in the first place, but these people came after his wife and a corporation just because they could. The judge ruled that the last two were illegal, but it still took a year to get the money back. If my mom had not been running late on her bank deposit, the company would not have been able to keep operating until the injunction.

Now, some of our lefty friends will say "Wow, he must of been doing some really bad stuff.". He was working on a piece of land that he bought that backed up to some wetlands.
Not only did they find that he followed every stupid rule about runoff, but he actually went above what was necessary. They did however fine him for removing some tires from the wetlands. The tires were there before he bought the property so the government rules say that they could not be removed.
 
#11,906
#11,906
Sandman 423 said:
Long story short..... Government came after my dad for something they said he did. Not only did they take the money out of all his accounts and freeze all his credit, but they also took all the money and froze the credit of the corporation that my parents ran. It took a month and an injunction by a judge to free up the company account and another year before the government gave back the company's money.The gov. lawyers had an officer at the first day of court and they took the money from his wallet and even his watch.They lost the case against my dad and while the judge did admonish the government lawyers for their tactics and even reasoning for bringing the case, it still cost my parents around 40K to fight the government.

Don't get me wrong.... It's nice that my dad was able to prove the government was in the wrong in the first place, but these people came after his wife and a corporation just because they could. The judge ruled that the last two were illegal, but it still took a year to get the money back. If my mom had not been running late on her bank deposit, the company would not have been able to keep operating until the injunction.

Now, some of our lefty friends will say "Wow, he must of been doing some really bad stuff.". He was working on a piece of land that he bought that backed up to some wetlands.
Not only did they find that he followed every stupid rule about runoff, but he actually went above what was necessary. They did however fine him for removing some tires from the wetlands. The tires were there before he bought the property so the government rules say that they could not be removed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely terrible. The .gov should not have the power to seize assets or property prior to conviction. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and davethevol
#11,908
#11,908
Rickyvol77 said:
While i rarely agree with civil asset forfeiture, this isn't just some innocent dude with his weed. He and his company were laundering money as a front and several lawyers and businessmen were illegally shielding money there from the IRS
Click to expand...
Then why this?

By teaming up with the Institute for Justice, the Slatics were able to fight back and win. In May 2017, a San Diego judge ordered the district attorney to return all of the family’s money with interest. Thank you for helping this family!
Click to expand...
 
#11,909
#11,909
Rickyvol77 said:
While i rarely agree with civil asset forfeiture, this isn't just some innocent dude with his weed. He and his company were laundering money as a front and several lawyers and businessmen were illegally shielding money there from the IRS
Click to expand...
And again... What about that 5th Amendment?

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 offence 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.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#11,919
#11,919
VolFaninFla said:
Kentucky Senate votes to criminalize 'taunting' police
😧
Click to expand...
From link (bold by me):
Under the legislation, anyone who “accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response” would be guilty of a misdemeanor and face up to 90 days in jail and fines.

Garbage legislation. A R retired LEO sponsored this attack on free speech. Let's hope is fails in Ky's senate. Firstly, 'insults, taunts, or challenges'; are LEOs so emotionally immature they cannot handle being called ugly names? Secondly, 'a direct tendency to provoke a violent response', what??? Seems to me conservative-leaning folk have promoted abstinence as 100% effective; well, if the officers abstain from a violent response there will be no violent response.

Never in my life have I given a LEO any flak whatsoever. But I have been stopped by LEOs on power trips. Making those people a protected class in KY is bad juju.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, davethevol, Tyler Durden and 4 others
#11,920
#11,920
McDad said:
From link (bold by me):
Under the legislation, anyone who “accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response” would be guilty of a misdemeanor and face up to 90 days in jail and fines.

Garbage legislation. A R retired LEO sponsored this attack on free speech. Let's hope is fails in Ky's senate. Firstly, 'insults, taunts, or challenges'; are LEOs so emotionally immature they cannot handle being called ugly names? Secondly, 'a direct tendency to provoke a violent response', what??? Seems to me conservative-leaning folk have promoted abstinence as 100% effective; well, if the officers abstain from a violent response there will be no violent response.

Never in my life have I given a LEO any flak whatsoever. But I have been stopped by LEOs on power trips. Making those people a protected class in KY is bad juju.
Click to expand...
Back the blue
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyler Durden and Rasputin_Vol
#11,923
#11,923
McDad said:
Back the boo; as in boo this legislation and boo this politician.
Click to expand...
I say just boo politicians in general. Much more likely to be right

TN is trying similar things. I'm not understanding where they get the idea this is wanted
 
#11,924
#11,924
utvolpj said:
I say just boo politicians in general. Much more likely to be right

TN is trying similar things. I'm not understanding where they get the idea this is wanted
Click to expand...

The first instinct should be booing.

I think we see this kind of garbage when "the other side" swings the political pendulum too far to one side. The politicians feel compelled to use their power to move the pendulum back in their favor. These legislative efforts are side effects to the summer of protests and riots we witnessed in 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#11,925
#11,925
McDad said:
From link (bold by me):
Under the legislation, anyone who “accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response” would be guilty of a misdemeanor and face up to 90 days in jail and fines.

Garbage legislation. A R retired LEO sponsored this attack on free speech. Let's hope is fails in Ky's senate. Firstly, 'insults, taunts, or challenges'; are LEOs so emotionally immature they cannot handle being called ugly names? Secondly, 'a direct tendency to provoke a violent response', what??? Seems to me conservative-leaning folk have promoted abstinence as 100% effective; well, if the officers abstain from a violent response there will be no violent response.

Never in my life have I given a LEO any flak whatsoever. But I have been stopped by LEOs on power trips. Making those people a protected class in KY is bad juju.
Click to expand...
Left wing cancel culture: say the wrong thing and lose your livelihood
Right wing cancel culture: say the wrong thing and lose your freedom

We are getting crushed from the left and the right with all of these supposed thoughtcrimes and wrongspeak offenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, volbeast33, VolFaninFla and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top