Post it here

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

3/26/2011 8:48:04 AM

Don't you love it when the government creates large databases of information on citizens and then wages a private war against you, with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, or warrants, and ends up throwing you into a facility for a few years!

And people wonder why I'm completely against government citizen information databases, especially those in the hands of enforcement officials.

Quote :

"As a young man, Mr. Engle had been a serious drug addict, but after he got clean, he became an ultra-marathoner, one of the best in the world. In the fall of 2006, he and two other ultra-marathoners took on an almost unimaginable challenge: they ran across the Sahara Desert, something that had never been done before. The run took 111 days, and was documented in a film financed by Matt Damon, who served as executive producer and narrator. Mr. Engle received $30,000 for his participation. The film, “Running the Sahara,” was released in the fall of 2008. Eventually, it caught the attention of Robert W. Nordlander, a special agent for the Internal Revenue Service. As Mr. Nordlander later told the grand jury, “Being the special agent that I am, I was wondering, how does a guy train for this because most people have to work from nine to five and it’s very difficult to train for this part-time.” (He also told the grand jurors that sometimes, when he sees somebody driving a Ferrari, he’ll check to see if they make enough money to afford it. When I called Mr. Nordlander and others at the I.R.S. to ask whether this was an appropriate way to choose subjects for criminal tax investigations, my questions were met with a stone wall of silence.) Mr. Engle’s tax records showed that while his actual income was substantial, his taxable income was quite small, in part because he had a large tax-loss carry forward, due to a business deal he’d been involved in several years earlier. (Mr. Nordlander would later inform the grand jury only of his much lower taxable income, which made it seem more suspicious.) Still convinced that Mr. Engle must be hiding income, Mr. Nordlander did undercover surveillance and took “Dumpster dives” into Mr. Engle’s garbage. He mainly discovered that Mr. Engle lived modestly. In March 2009, still unsatisfied, Mr. Nordlander persuaded his superiors to send an attractive female undercover agent, Ellen Burrows, to meet Mr. Engle and see if she could get him to say something incriminating. In the course of several flirtatious encounters, she asked him about his investments."

[Edited on March 26, 2011 at 9:37 AM. Reason : /]

3/26/2011 9:37:21 AM

^ that sounds to me more like a person on a power trip than a "police state".

3/26/2011 9:48:24 AM

lets all vote for socialism, that will make things better

3/26/2011 10:08:13 AM

^^ In Chance's defense, evidence of police state activities are generally considered secrets required to Protect the Homeland™ and Keep Us Safe™.

3/26/2011 10:10:45 AM

This article does seem to suggest that the United States is a country in which there are police.

3/26/2011 10:24:36 AM

so a guy lies to get a loan, defaults on them, contributes to the housing collapse in his own individual way, and he's a good guy? is that the gist of this thread?

or is it that the lenders got away with it so he should too. since 40% of murders are never solved, should the other 60% get off too?

3/26/2011 10:50:58 AM

I took it as saying how it's bullshit that the gov't only goes after the small time shit here... they'd hate to lose their best buds in the banking and housing markets by actually holding them responsible for their actions.

I have no problem with this guy serving time for his wrongdoing, because in the end, the recession was due to multiple people/reasons, including greedy banks and people (from the CEOs of banks to crooked home buyers). I just have a problem with the way the gov't went about their business with this guy.

[Edited on March 26, 2011 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2011 10:55:41 AM

The government did go after some of the bigger fish. They just weren't able, for whatever reason, to build a strong legal case against them. There is a legitimate (it seems) argument to be made that the lack of successful prosecutions against banking executives is due to inadequate resources to pursue such cases. And it could very well be that the lack of resources is due to a nefarious relationship between financial services companies and the government agencies charged with regulating them. But that makes this a corruption/good governance issue, not a "police state" issue. The term "police state" is so overused that it hardly means anything anymore. Perhaps this is why any criticism of the world's real authoritarian regimes always returns some ridiculous moral equivalency about how the US is "just as bad."

[Edited on March 26, 2011 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ]

3/26/2011 11:18:32 AM

Don't blame me, I voted for Corporate Monarchy!

3/26/2011 12:07:23 PM

^^Yeah, I'm afraid I'm not following the "police state" part of this either.

3/26/2011 12:34:52 PM

Quote :

"They just weren't able, for whatever reason, to build a strong legal case against them. "

I don't think that's what it was. The rich people have lawyers and money, and it seems that if the gov. can extract millions of dollars, they're okay with letting the people get off without punishment.

If i could be part of the ruination of the country and only get off with paying maybe 10-25% of my net worth, I would do it. That's what happened in this case.

3/26/2011 1:02:11 PM

Quote :

"If i could be part of the ruination of the country and only get off with paying maybe 10-25% of my net worth, I would do it."

moron, noooooooooo! You're one of the good guys!!!

3/26/2011 1:40:31 PM

Quote :

"And it could very well be that the lack of resources is due to a nefarious relationship between financial services companies and the government agencies charged with regulating them. But that makes this a corruption/good governance issue, not a "police state" issue."

This, pretty much. I talk a lot about how our system is rotten to the core and how the banking/monetary system is built on fraud. This isn't just some bullshit conspiracy theory I concocted. When you look at how banking actually functions, how banks can create money and charge you interest on it, and how certain banks can borrow money from the Fed for basically nothing and then flip it over to make money, it's entirely immoral and destructive, but it's perfectly legal. There are so many high level officials and executives that deserve to be thrown in jail permanently for the damage they've done, but it won't happen, unless the people wake up and stop buying into this two party dog and pony show.

We do live in a police state, though. As long as we're throwing people in jail "to protect them from themselves," I'll continue using that phrase. It's such a joke to hear people talking about this being a free country.

3/26/2011 2:11:05 PM

3/26/2011 2:12:51 PM

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita
Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita (most recent) by country

# 1 United States: 715 per 100,000 people

3/26/2011 2:43:39 PM

Our drug laws, as Draconian and wrong-headed as they may be, are not so much meant to protect people from themselves as they are meant to protect society from the harmful effects that are caused by mind-altering substances. Whether those threats are real or imagined, or simply exaggerated, is a legitimate question. But the laws meant to protect against them, and the enforcement of those laws, is not evidence of a police state, at least under any historically appropriate definition of the term.

If this were a police state, you would not be allowed to post such accusations without the threat of federal agents promptly whisking you off to an indefinite prison term for "threatening the peace" or some such nonsense. That's what happens in police states.

[Edited on March 26, 2011 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2011 3:28:10 PM

Yeah, dude. Can't have pot users destroying the moral fabric of society, or anything.

From Wikipedia:

Quote :

"The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive."

3/26/2011 5:35:29 PM

And by Wikipedia's definition, what's been described in this thread as evidence of a police state is hardly that.

3/27/2011 9:05:05 AM

Quote :

"so a guy lies to get a loan, defaults on them, contributes to the housing collapse in his own individual way, and he's a good guy? is that the gist of this thread?"

Read the entire piece, not just what is quote boxed.

Quote :

"or is it that the lenders got away with it so he should too."

Neither of them should get away with it if they in fact committed crimes.

Quote :

"The term "police state" is so overused that it hardly means anything anymore. Perhaps this is why any criticism of the world's real authoritarian regimes always returns some ridiculous moral equivalency about how the US is "just as bad.""

These are two separate topics. I don't literally believe we live in a de facto Police State. However, many elements present in a police state are there. And criticism of real authoritarian regimes always becoming a moral equivalence argument only happens on the damn internet.

Quote :

" as they are meant to protect society from the harmful effects that are caused by mind-altering substances."

Can you show proof of this? Politicians on the record making statements as such?

3/27/2011 11:15:33 AM

I learned today that possession of a gun permit or concealed carry permit is considered the same as a violent criminal history and can be used to to issue a no-knock warrant against you rather than traditional method of serving you papers.

3/27/2011 1:03:21 PM

Wait until you shoot at the police in your own home while they're executing one of those no knock warrants.

3/27/2011 2:06:49 PM

I think the police should use calling cards. The officers would leave a business card with your door servant requesting the pleasure of your company. You could then order your errand servant to drop off your personal card at the police station, indicating that a visit from the police would not be unwelcome. If, however, you return your calling card to them in an envelope, the constables would know that a personal meeting is undesired and drop the whole matter in the interests of proper etiquette.

3/27/2011 2:14:51 PM

Have you ever read Anna Karenina?

3/27/2011 2:17:51 PM

I find that Tolstoy lacked brevity. He really just needed a good editor.

3/27/2011 2:23:44 PM

Massive police resources are spent to put a man in jail whose crime was a technicality on his mortgage loan. He didn't have the monthly-income he stated on the loan, though his annual income was equal to the aggregate monthly income. The mortgage broker not receive the same punishment, despite the fact that he was aware of the fraud, and, in fact, encouraged it.

It's ridiculous. Not really evidence of a "Police State", but of the poor judgement and/or callousness of federal prosecutors.

3/27/2011 2:36:04 PM

^

3/27/2011 3:35:33 PM

Quote :

"Not really evidence of a "Police State", but of the poor judgement and/or callousness of federal prosecutors. "

To be honest, the jury was the one that convicted him and they are the ones that screwed up. But I don't quite understand how poor judgement and callousness leading to this type of outcome isn't evidence of a police state? If you think that some guy took out some liar loans but don't have the procedures or the status quo to do what they did, then poor judgement and callousness means nothing. They baited him with a chick wearing a wire. As far as fish in the pond go, this guy is the egg of a brim and yet he felt the full weight of the system.

3/27/2011 4:24:06 PM

I'm confused. So some IRS guy got suspicious, and went snooping. When his tax records checked out, why did the IRS have any authority to continue further? Were his loans federally backed or something? I get that he committed fraud on his mortgage, but isn't that up to the bank / lender to push for prosecution?

3/27/2011 4:33:40 PM

actually, it's not even clear that he committed fraud on his mortgage. There article claims that it appears the guy's signature was forged on the loan that would have been "fraudulent." Not only that, the guy who processed the "fraudulent loan" was convicted of mortgage fraud, himself, and got a reduced sentence for testifying against Engle. you do the math. That's absurd reasonable doubt right there

[Edited on March 27, 2011 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

3/27/2011 5:10:26 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars

3/28/2011 6:27:01 PM

The police, district attorney and judge all work for the same employer. The same guy signs all of their checks. They all have the same motivation. We, the public, don't care what they do as long as they keep the undesirables out of our hair.

It should be no surprise that when you allow the executive branch to appoint judges they all work for the same political goal.

It's kinda funny when they (very rarely) fight though. Here's an example where the police try to have a judge arrested when he refuses to sign a warrant they want.
http://apublicdefender.com/2011/03/25/state-police-want-to-arrest-judge-who-refused-to-sign-arrest-warrant/


[Edited on March 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2011 7:30:14 PM

^^ I can't imagine that would hold up. having been effectively employed by one of the parties in the suit is grounds for immediate recusal.

3/28/2011 9:10:37 PM

Who's going to make her recuse herself? The only people that can investigate are the Obama administration, and they are taking a very tough stance on file sharing. Like making it a criminal felony:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper.pdf

3/28/2011 9:25:13 PM

we have this thing called "an appeals process." The whole case will be thrown out on appeal almost instantly because an RIAA lobbyist was the fucking judge. This isn't that hard to figure out

3/28/2011 9:42:52 PM

Appeals only work if the next court level DECIDES to hear it. It's turtles all the way down.

3/28/2011 10:44:55 PM

true. but this case seems like one that would be hard to ignore. again, someone who was once on the payroll of one of the parties involved is the judge?

3/28/2011 10:49:01 PM

Move along citizen...

3/28/2011 10:52:47 PM

Quote :

"but this case seems like one that would be hard to ignore. again, someone who was once on the payroll of one of the parties involved is the judge?"

I didn't read the entire thread, but I do believe they mention one point where she worked for the RIAA...which isn't the company that could bring suit because they don't own the trademarks and music. So technically as the law is written, she doesn't have to recuse herself.

And it isn't so much that an appeals process is available...fortunately we have one. The problem is it isn't a very equitable system. On one side you have either very powerful companies or a very powerful United States and on the other hand you have some 35k a year middle classer getting slapped with million dollar lawsuits...OVER SOME FUCKING MUSIC.

3/29/2011 7:16:08 AM

Quote :

"I didn't read the entire thread, but I do believe they mention one point where she worked for the RIAA...which isn't the company that could bring suit because they don't own the trademarks and music."

No, but that organization is made up of and run by the companies that own the trademarks and music. there is very little difference between the two.

3/29/2011 11:21:56 AM

How to survive in any country: Don't rock the boat.

4/1/2011 11:06:22 AM

ReasonTV (libertarians): Radley Balko on the 3 Worst Cases of Police Abuse in 2011

Due to the violence depicted and discussed in this video, viewer discretion is advised.

The 1991 beating of Rodney King by the Los Angeles Police Department, which came to light after being caught on video by a citizen trying out a video camera, ushered in a new age of transparency and openness when it comes to law enforcement.

Since then, sound and vision from any number of sources - including cell-phone cams and pocket recorders, not to mention footage shot by police themselves - have captured law enforcement in action in a wide range of circumstances. Sometimes, the footage exonerates the police and sometimes it incriminates them. Always, though, we as citizens gain from having a better sense of how law enforcement operates, even (or especially) when what we see is hugely disturbing.

Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie talked with Reason columnist Radley Balko, proprietor of The Agitator and a long-time student of the increasing militarization of police. We asked Balko to talk about he thinks are the three most-schocking videos of police abuse that have come to light so far in 2011.

Ironically, Balko notes that widespread video of police at work gives rise to the misimpression that such violent abuse is on the rise while police are almost certainly more respectful of civil liberties than they were 50 or 60 years ago. He argues that it's precisely because citizens and watchdogs (including many with the law enforcement community) have more tools at their disposal to ferret out abuse that better practices are being employed.

Approximately 5.30 minutes. Shot and edited by Josh Swain, with camera assists by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVf-iintxio

contains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcxqyp2wOzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx6iSZMlRMM

4/1/2011 11:32:45 AM

Quote :

"Balko notes that widespread video of police at work gives rise to the misimpression that such violent abuse is on the rise while police are almost certainly more respectful of civil liberties than they were 50 or 60 years ago. He argues that it's precisely because citizens and watchdogs (including many with the law enforcement community) have more tools at their disposal to ferret out abuse that better practices are being employed. "

I fully agree with this statement.

4/1/2011 11:34:24 AM

The right to record a police encounter, or any encounter not covered by business NDAs, should be a human right held in higher regard than gun rights.

And I support gun rights. It's in our F-ing bill of rights. But the people who wrote it only had the information of their time. If they had known about recording tech and the internet now, they would have included that. If you have any concept of considering the motivations and human rights philosophy behind the founding fathers, then this should be the top priority human rights issue in the US.

4/1/2011 11:42:30 AM

Not only should recording any and all police encounters be legal (that's a no brainer), but police should be required to have an audio/video recording device on their person at all times.

4/1/2011 12:15:32 PM

Quote :

"Balko notes that widespread video of police at work gives rise to the misimpression that such violent abuse is on the rise while police are almost certainly more respectful of civil liberties than they were 50 or 60 years ago. He argues that it's precisely because citizens and watchdogs (including many with the law enforcement community) have more tools at their disposal to ferret out abuse that better practices are being employed."

And bingo was his name-o.

4/1/2011 12:26:19 PM

Quote :

"Not only should recording any and all police encounters be legal (that's a no brainer)"

Is this no-brainer currently legal?

4/1/2011 1:11:53 PM

Here is a terrific example.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704425804576220383673608952.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

This man is being prosecuted for counterfeiting when he didn't counterfeit American money. His "crime" was doing something that the Federal Government didn't like because it helps expose their sham.

How can you be illegally prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit? This legitimate businessman is being held as a political prisoner of the US.

4/3/2011 2:14:36 AM

Judge Prescribes "Indefinite Detention", locks up girl for 10 years over $100 in bad checks, much of it in solitary confinement. Everyone in the town is afraid of her, even local newspapers. Local sheriff refuses to release incriminating public records to the media.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/sites/default/files/transcript_430.pdf

[Edited on April 3, 2011 at 7:52 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2011 7:48:02 AM

Quote :

"Is this no-brainer currently legal?"

It is legal in NC, as long as you don't interfere with an officer carrying out there lawful duties.

4/3/2011 10:34:05 AM