United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: “It’s been complete hell”: how police used a traffic stop to take $91,800 from an innocent man
Source:
Vox
URL Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli ... p-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture
Published: Dec 1, 2017
Author: German Lopez
Post Date: 2017-12-01 10:50:37 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2587
Comments: 45
Phil Parhamovich had been waiting for this moment for a long time. The 50-year-old had spent years restoring houses, cars, and musical instruments, often clocking 12-hour workdays, to save up more than $91,000. And now it was all going to pay off: He would buy a music studio in Madison, Wisconsin, where Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins recorded songs — not just fulfilling a dream of owning a monument to grunge rock, but also giving him a space to work on his own career as a musician. Then came the police stop this past March. By the time it was over, police in Wyoming would take all of Parhamovich’s money — the full $91,800. Parhamovich, who has no criminal record, was not accused of or charged with a serious crime; he only got a $25 ticket for improperly wearing his seat belt and a warning for “lane use.” But Wyoming Highway Patrol officers found and eventually seized the $91,800 in cash, as it was hidden in a speaker cabinet — by getting Parhamovich, under what he claims was duress, to sign away his interest in the money through a waiver. He has since tried to get his money back. But state law enforcement officials have rejected his pleas. Responding to a request for records related to Parhamovich’s case, state officials said they consider the cash “abandoned.” The state has even moved to forfeiture the money without notifying Parhamovich of the relevant court hearing until after it happened. The traffic stop has completely disrupted Parhamovich’s life. He managed to get a nine-month lease of the studio he wants to buy. But he’s not sure what will happen if he can’t get his money back after nine months — and the realtor said that the primary goal is to sell the property, even if it means selling it to someone else. “It’s been complete hell,” Parhamovich told me. “I don’t know too many people who put the kind of hours that I do. I don’t say that in an egotistical way at all; I was just working hard. … To just have some police officers take my money, it kills me.” According to Parhamovich and his attorneys with the advocacy group, the Institute for Justice, this is another classic example of policing for profit and the problems it causes. Police initiated the stop for a minor traffic violation, but quickly escalated it further and further until they took a man’s life savings — all to use that money for their own law enforcement purposes. We’ve seen cases like this before. Over the past several years, stories have come out of police abusing civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize and absorb private property, from cash to cars to boats, without ever charging the owner with a crime. Concerns about such abuses, including on the same highway Parhamovich drove through, led Wyoming lawmakers to enact stricter requirements for civil forfeiture in 2016. But with the use of a waiver, Parhamovich’s case shows how law enforcement can get around civil forfeiture reforms to continue policing for profit — and escalate even minor traffic stops into a situation in which a person’s entire livelihood is suddenly threatened. Parhamovich is not from Wyoming. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. But he was driving down the I-80 in Laramie County, Wyoming, on March 13 during a concert tour for his band, the Dirt Brothers. According to Parhamovich, it was during this drive — at approximately 6 pm — that an officer from the Wyoming Highway Patrol began following and then stopped him. The officer said the stop was due to Parhamovich’s improper lane and seat belt use. He asked Parhamovich to come back to his squad car, supposedly because he needed time to print out a ticket. Seeing no problem with this, Parhamovich agreed. From there, the situation escalated. “He started asking me tons of questions,” Parhamovich told me. “With just about everything I answered, he discounted [and] was acting like whatever I was saying wasn’t true.” He added, “I don’t know if you’ve ever been stopped by a very aggressive cop. They just intimidate you with their power.” At one point, the officer asked Parhamovich if he had a long list of items in his car — specific drugs, a weapon, a large amount of cash, and so on. With the way the question was phrased, Parhamovich said he was worried that answering “yes” would make things worse, since it could wrongfully imply he had illegal drugs in his car. He also became concerned, since he was questioned about cash and illegal drugs at the same time, that it was potentially against the law to carry so much cash at once. (It is not.) Police brought in a drug-sniffing dog. According to Parhamovich, an officer used a ball to lure the dog to the car and get the canine to act up — and justify a search. The officers now on the scene found Parhamovich’s cash. Both worried that carrying so much money was illegal and concerned that saying it was his would seem like he lied to cops before, Parhamovich said the money was a friend’s. He declined to say who that friend was — since, in reality, the friend didn’t exist, and the cash was his own. Parhamovich said he prefers having his cash with him on hand in case opportunities present themselves to buy, for example, new instruments. He took the cash with him on his trip because he was worried about leaving it in the place he was renting back home, where maintenance workers often showed up. So he hid the cash in a speaker, which would always be near his sight and would require some effort to disassemble. But now police had found it. At this point, officers presented a waiver to Parhamovich. It stated that the signer would “desire to give this property or currency, along with any and all interests and ownership that I may have in it, to the State of Wyoming, Division of Criminal Investigation, to be used for narcotics law enforcement purposes. If the property or currency cannot be used for narcotics law enforcement purposes, I desire that the property or currency be disposed of as the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation sees fit, in accordance with law.” Given that Parhamovich was not accused of any drug-related crimes (or any serious crimes at all), it’s not clear why narcotics law enforcement funding is relevant. But it was the out that the officers offered. “Okay, we’re going to let you go as long as you sign this waiver,” Parhamovich recalled an officer saying. “I asked them a bunch of times what it was, and what happens if I don’t sign it,” Parhamovich added. “I couldn’t get a clear answer and was extremely worried. So finally I signed it and left.” With that, he lost the money he had spent several years working for — and felt the dream of purchasing a music studio begin to slip away. Parhamovich now recognizes he made a huge mistake. But he said he was, frankly, just freaking out at the time: “I definitely felt intimidated and scared and, by that time, confused. … That was the sense in my mind — that somehow I was being framed, that something weird was happening, and that maybe it was illegal to travel with that amount of money, which I hadn’t really thought of prior to that.” The panicked reaction is typical in these stops, Louis Rulli, an expert on civil forfeiture at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, told me. “When a motorist is stopped by police, there’s enormous pressure on them. They make, perhaps, poor decisions on the spot under that pressure and duress, and they’re willing to sign anything to get out of that difficult situation.” Rulli added, “People often don’t know their rights. Even when they know their rights, it’s very difficult to assert your rights in that kind of confrontation with police on the highway.” Parhamovich’s attorneys are making the same point in court: that Parhamovich didn’t know his rights, and that he was under duress when he spoke to police and signed the waiver. That should nullify his claims and the waiver — and force the state to return his money to him. The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office said it was not available to comment before this story published, explaining that Attorney General Peter Michael was traveling and no one else in the office could speak to a reporter. The Wyoming Highway Patrol and Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation did not return multiple requests for comment about Parhamovich’s case and the state’s seizure of private property during traffic stops in general. The state also did not fulfill a public records request in time for publication, including a specific request for a recording of the stop. But in letters to Parhamovich and court filings, state officials have essentially taken what happened at face value: They point out that Parhamovich said the cash wasn’t his, that he signed a waiver giving up the money, and that the “friend” the cash supposedly belongs to hasn’t turned up. So they assume the cash is abandoned and are now absorbing it for their own purposes. In one letter, John Brodie, senior assistant attorney general, wrote to Parhamovich: The State disagrees with your characterization of what transpired during the March 13, 2017, traffic stop and will not return the currency to you at this time. First and foremost, at the time of the stop, you denied having any interest in the currency, and also stated you were completely unaware it was hidden inside the portable speaker located in your vehicle. Second, your claim that the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) obtained your waiver of interest in that currency through either improper or illegal means is not accurate. Since a few days after the stop, Parhamovich began corresponding with Wyoming law enforcement officials — arguing that he signed the waiver under duress, asking for the state to return his money, and, at the very least, requesting that officials notify him if there are relevant court hearings about the cash. Upon request, he also mailed a trove of financial documents — which his lawyers also showed to me — proving he’s made well more than $91,800 in the past several years from restoring houses, cars, and instruments. Yet Wyoming officials have moved forward with absorbing the cash for themselves. State officials even held a court hearing without notifying Parhamovich of it — even though he repeatedly asked to be kept in the loop, and even though a state filing in the case acknowledged Parhamovich as “a contested owner of the $91,800.00.” Rulli, of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, was blunt in his assessment of Parhamovich’s case: “This is an indication of serious abuse.” Parhamovich may not be the only victim of this scheme. Based on public record requests, the state has at least two slightly different forms for the kind of waiver that Parhamovich signed — one for the Wyoming Highway Patrol and one for the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. The state also has a form used to notify people that their property was taken through a more conventional forfeiture process (instead of a waiver in which the owner gives up interest in the property). “He’s got a waiver on the spot,” Rulli said. “What does that tell you? There’s strategic thinking in advance to get police to use these waivers.” Parhamovich also isn’t the only person to lose large amounts of cash to police on the I-80 in Wyoming. In November 2013, police seized $470,000 in cash from Robert Miller of Illinois. Miller was pulled over for speeding but faced no criminal charges. The state still has not returned the money, claiming it’s associated with illicit drug trafficking. Miller disputes the claim and is continuing to challenge the forfeiture in court, according to his attorney and court filings. Stephen Klein, a lobbyist for the Wyoming Liberty Group, has tracked other cases in the state in which police took thousands of dollars from people without charging them for a crime. In one case, a man from Florida lost $17,000 in cash and a .44 caliber pistol; he wasn’t charged with a crime. In another, police pulled over three men traveling from North Carolina to Oregon and seized $7,000 in cash — again, without any criminal charges. Unlike Parhamovich’s story, these cases typically did not involve a waiver; they were usually standard civil forfeiture cases, in which police can simply seize the property without filing criminal charges. To do this under civil forfeiture, police only need probable cause to believe the property is linked to criminal activity, typically drug trafficking. Police can then absorb the value of this property — be it cash, cars, guns, or something else — as profit: either through state programs or under a federal program known as “equitable sharing” that lets local and state police get up to 80 percent of the value of what they seize as money for their departments, no waiver required. Still, the other cases and Parhamovich’s follow a similar pattern: Police stop a traveler and take valuable property. “These traffic stops become extended stops in which cash is seized from motorists without any evidence of a crime, without any connection to drug activity,” Rulli said. “It’s the kind of abuse that led the [former] Attorney General Eric Holder to make some reforms. But those have been dialed back by the current attorney general, [Jeff Sessions].” It’s not just Wyoming. Michael Sallah, Robert O’Harrow, and Steven Rich uncovered several instances for the Washington Post in which people were pulled over while driving with cash and had their money taken despite little to no proof of a crime. The suspects in these cases were only able to get their property back after lengthy, costly court battles in which they showed they weren’t guilty of anything. One small Texas town, Tenaha, even used waivers to get drivers to give up private property, echoing Parhamovich’s experience. As one man from Tennessee who was forced to give up jewelry and $8,500 in cash told CNN in 2009, “I was five, six hundred miles from home. I was petrified.” Law enforcement officials argue that civil forfeiture is necessary to swiftly take property from criminals who would otherwise use it for nefarious purposes. But police also have a personal incentive to seize so much cash and property: The proceeds, or at least most of them, often go back to police departments. “This is policing for profit,” Rulli said. The law “creates a perverse financial incentive for exactly these kinds of abuses.” It’s potential abuses of civil forfeiture that also led Wyoming to enact reforms in 2016. The changes require law enforcement to show to a judge within 30 days of a seizure that they had probable cause, and increase the burden of proof to forfeiture property from “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.” Klein told me that based on his research into Wyoming’s civil forfeitures, most are likely justified, involving the seizure of property that does seem to be linked to illegal activity and criminal charges. But if that’s the case, he said, it seems there would be little to no harm in requiring the state to file criminal charges — and carry out criminal forfeiture, instead of civil forfeiture — to seize and absorb property. “Wyoming isn’t really abusing the process the way it’s abused in some other states,” Klein said. “But that also means, what’s the problem with criminal forfeiture? You’re actually pursuing these guys with crimes. So why not get the conviction and then take their assets?” The waiver that Parhamovich was led to sign, however, offers a way around even reforms requiring criminal charges or convictions: The form explicitly states that it’s not part of a typical forfeiture procedure, and that the property’s owner is effectively gifting it for “narcotics law enforcement purposes.” Rulli said that this, too, follows a familiar pattern: As states have passed reforms on civil forfeiture, police have looked for ways around the new reforms to seize large amounts of cash. One popular method is to use the federal forfeiture program; since it’s allowed under federal law, it’s outside the purview of most state reforms and creates a loophole for state and local police. “We will see efforts — because so much money is at stake — to try to bypass state reforms that are intended to protect local citizens,” Rulli predicted. It’s possible for people to get their property back in these cases. But as Parhamovich’s story shows, it can take time and money. It’s already been more than eight months since he lost his money to police. And now he’s not sure if he’ll be able to get it back before his lease is up — at which point, he may lose the opportunity to buy the music studio he has long wanted to own. Parhamovich spoke to me from Smart Studios, where Nirvana once recorded and which he hopes to eventually buy. With the help of the Institute for Justice, this month he is beginning to fight to get his money back in court. But time is ticking. “There’s no guarantee at the end of the nine months,” he said. The owner of the studio “could find a new buyer.” Jon Reske, the realtor for the building, told me that he’s aware of Parhamovich’s situation and has tried to give him some leeway, but the ultimate goal of the building’s investors is to sell the property. If it doesn’t look like Parhamovich can buy the studio at the end of the nine months, Reske said, there are other interested buyers. “If we were to extend the lease, [Parhamovich] would have to show concrete evidence that he can close the deal,” Reske said. Otherwise, the studio will likely go to someone else. The encounter with police left Parhamovich shaken for some time. He said that prior to the stop, he felt psychologically healthy. After, things changed: “For about two months after that happened, I was looking over my back. I was worried. I was scared. I just felt like something bad was going to happen to me at every turn — because it was so unexpected and so out of left field.” Parhamovich said that he currently spends as much as 14 hours a day working on his music. He hopes to soon launch an electronic music project, Star Monster, and already DJs when possible. His goal is to obtain management by the end of the year and start getting more gigs. By itself, Smart Studios is useful for that. “It’s been helping my career out, because people know what it is,” Parhamovich said. It took a long road for Parhamovich to get to this point. He was in other bands. He once worked for the Cleveland Browns and NFL Europe, making videos for them to make some money. He spent years working independently on other projects, from music to selling houses. This year was supposed to begin a new chapter in his life, with the launch of his electronic music career. “Now is the time where I’m just finally feeling good enough about it — like it’s a good enough product — that I can put it out there and it will be successful,” Parhamovich said. That is, if the police get out of his way. The money was supposed to go toward buying a legendary music studio. Now his dreams are on hold.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9760135/phillip_parhamovich_IJ2_0177.jpg)
A very expensive traffic stop
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9786151/back_of_Phil_s_minivan.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9759967/Phil_Parhamovich.png)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9760435/GettyImages_144070687.jpg)
Policing for profit
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9760017/waivers.png)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9760151/phillip_parhamovich_IJ2_0243.jpg)
Dreams on hold
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9760183/phillip_parhamovich_IJ2_0323.jpg)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-4) not displayed.
.
.
.
#5. To: misterwhite (#1)
Mister asshole again.
It's ludicrous how cops and prosecutors can claim that an inanimate object like cash or a house can be guilty of committing a crime. It's routine, rubber stamped crime by governments dating back thousands of years. You got that right. Suffolk County DA Used $3.3 Million In Asset Forfeitures To Fund Massive Public Employee "Bonuses" That's his story and he's sticking to it. So, does he put this "hard-earned money" in a bank? Nahhhhh. He drives to Wyoming with it hidden in a speaker. Don't we all, huh?
See? It's not even his money. Can we move on?
$91K is approximately $4,000 in real money. The Dollar itself is worth $.04, so it is no surprise that people can have a stash approaching that amount just from working. Family members with their own business concerns would commonly keep $25K in a sock drawer. By commonly, I mean at all times. One such person actually paid for a new car with coins and single dollars collected and kept in empty coffee cans. I myself keep all money on hand, as this guys money was safe in his speaker, mine would be where I place mine. That is because I am my own security and will use deadly force before I am robbed.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
I don't like civil asset forfeiture. I'm not making a blanket statement attacking the police or anything like it. But the guy lied to the police. The article tells us why he decided to do that, but the bottom line, to me, is that he lied to the police. He made a false official statement to the police. Why? If he had said to the cop, when asked if he had a large amount of money: "Yes. I am travelling to Seattle to buy a music studio, and I have $91,000 hidden in a speaker in my car." The police would have looked and seen it, and what they found would correspond to what he said. When the money was found, he lied again: "It's not mine." When people lie, twice, and are "musicians" who look like him, carrying big wads of cash, that looks like drug money. The key is the lies. If he had told the truth, the cop would have found nothing surprising when he looked. Now, if the cop was corrupt then maybe he wouldn't have been on his way anyway. But if the cop was clean he would have been, and that would have been that. Then, when caught in the lie - the cop found the money - the guy lies AGAIN. Our country functions on honesty: people make contracts and keep them without enforcement, the tax code depends on most people telling the truth. When people lie to the authorities, that right there isn't just suspicious, it's obstruction of an investigation. But that's not the point. It's not a little detail that he lied to the cops. People don't have the right to lie to the authorities. To lie to the authorities is ITSELF an offense, and in the grand scheme of things, a quite serious one. (To be clear, in the moral universe, lying is a mortal sin that will get you thrown into hell by God at final judgment.) Speeding is a little thing. Smoking marijuana is a little thing. Being a drug mule is a big thing. And lying to the authorities is a big thing. We impeached a President over it, and are on the verge of prosecuting a former general over it. This guy suffered this civil forfeiture because he lied twice to the investigating officer, not because the cops are rabid and insane. If somebody lies to me, I distrust him immediately and dig further. It's what people do, and they're right to do it. In this case, I certainly hope that the guy gets his money back, because it looks as though he earned it honestly, and really is trying to open up a music studio, etc. But the doubt remains in my mind even now: He looks dodgy, he "worked his ass off"...doing what? He sort of fits the profile of some guy selling drugs. He had a huge amount of money hidden. AND HE LIED TO THE COPS TWICE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE MONEY AND WHO IT BELONGED TO. The author of the article did a disservice to people. The real moral here is: don't lie to the cops. I feel sorry for him and hope he gets his money back, and if I were the judge I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt, but I DON'T feel sorry for him for having had to go through a lot of trouble: he lied repeatedly to the cops and he got caught. He, and everybody else, needs to have it pounded into their heads: DO NOT LIE. If you lie, and get caught, it will be much worse than if you told the truth.
Jeremiad, that is all well. But the crucial point is: if they police stopped you and you had your money in your car, would you lie to them about it? And if you risked lying to them because you were afraid they'd be crooked and take it, and they looked and caught you with your money, would you come clean, or would you double down on the lie and claim it was somebody else's?
Do you really think they would have said "okay, because you told us plainly you have this money in your car, you can keep it. Thanks for being honest and up front. Have a nice day" ...? No way in hell. So yes, people have a **definite** motive to lie to the police. A few things should be remembered: 1) Cops lie to people all the time. 2) Cops don't believe anything anyone says, perhaps in part because they are themselves accustomed to lying (see #1). 3) Traffic stops are very intimidating for average people to endure. Plain and simple, people are afraid of the police. 4) Telling someone in this position that if they, right on the roadside, sign away all rights to their money that they will be let go is extortion & compelling them to sign under duress, which does indeed qualify as coersion and nullify the validity of the signature. At least when other people do it. Every bill of cash reads "This note is legal tender...". That is pursuant to Federal law and should be legal cause enough to let people keep it. .... This is one example of why bitcoin is attractive as an alternative store of wealth and continuing to explode in price.
I personally know a lady very well who upon returning home from a short stay in the hospital following a mini stroke, brought a number of neatly aluminum foil wrapped packages and placed them on the kitchen table in front of her husband and her son. She told her husband that she wanted him to “take care of these now.” She said that she decided while she was in the hospital that it would be terrible if she died and he donated her clothes to charity without checking the pockets of her coats in the closets to “find these in there.” The wonderfully charming lady was born into old school European heritage and operated in the tradition of being very frugal in spending and diligently saving in the old fashioned way….hiding cash at home. So, each time she could save one hundred dollars in small bills and change over a 50 year period, she would take that to the bank and exchange the amount for a crisp new one hundred bill….bring the new bill home and place it within her neatly wrapped stash. After placing the packages on the dining room table that evening, the lady smiled….then turned and went to her bedroom to sleep. When the husband and son unwrapped the various stacks of aluminum foil, together they counted ninety five thousand dollars in crisp new one hundred dollar bills. This all happened 10 years ago … So, you are correct….people can legitimately accumulate over ninety thousand dollars. Unfortunately, most unfortunately, It is how and what they do with it these days and time can sometimes cause them problems. So, I don’t know if Phil Parhamovich came by his $91,800 legitimately or illegitimately. I do know that Deckard posts so damned many yellow journalism stories proven later to be biased that I simply don’t either disbelieve or either put faith and credence in any of the articles he posts. There is never enough information in the articles to authenticate the story and arrive at a logically fair conclusion. The stories are mostly always one sided with incomplete details to bias thinking. Deckard, the asshole, has two sole purposes in life. He is here on earth to promote hatred for cops and hatred for any form of government. Phil Parhamovich looks to be a nice guy, judging from the pictures, and I hope facts come out that he did nothing wrong and a lawyer gets all his money returned plus interest. BTW, the husband of the lady in my story deposited the money she had saved in a mutual fund for her which she felt safe in. This all happened, as I said, ten years ago….and since that time, the lady has again accumulated another nine thousand and six hundred dollars to date. Proving, old habits are hard to change….especially good ones.
It isn't against the law to lie to liars.
As I always say, when you carry a lot of cash, NEVER mention it on the phone or Internet. This is how they KNEW he had it with him.
As I always say, when you carry a lot of cash, NEVER mention it on the phone or Internet. This is how they KNEW he had it with him.
As I always say, when you carry a lot of cash, NEVER mention it on the phone or Internet. This is how they KNEW he had it with him.
Post of the day. Eat a buffet of dicks liar. I post articles about corrupt, bad cops and corrupt criminal government actions and policies. He [Deckard] is here on earth to promote hatred for cops and hatred for any form of government. I post articles about corrupt, bad cops and corrupt criminal government actions and policies. Correction….you saturate LF with your constant posting of literary corrupted bad articles biased to make unproven charges against cops and government actions of which you disapprove for all to appear to be capital offenses. This is done maliciously by you without due process or any chance to hear the other side of the alleged situation. I am not a homo and even if I were queer….I would never want your sloppy seconds.
Your abject worship of all things cop, your submissive authority fetish and sheep-like devotion to fed.gov do not allow you to see anything other the lies you have been spoon-fed by the MSM and official government pronouncements. Simply put - you are exactly the kind of unquestioning, brainwashed slave the State wants. You're the perfect NWO stooge. Still not correct. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin and (he says) he was going to buy a music studio in Madison, Wisconsin. He was driving in Wyoming because he was The guy is a drug trafficker, using his "concert tour" as a mechanism to deliver the drugs hidden in the concert equipment around the country. This time he got caught. It's called the cost of doing business. He should STFU.
I just hope it isn't against the law to post to assholes.
It was posted today in the Sun Sentinel that a jury found Boynton Beach police officer Mike Brown guilty of using excessive in the beating of an unarmed man who was a passenger in a car that led police on a high-speed chase. I have no problem with that conviction and uphold it as the rule of law because the police officer was formally charged under a law with a prosecutor, defense attorney, judge and jury all performing their civic duties. The problem I do have with you and your TFTP yellow journalism shit is that you unilaterally act in defiance tp solely perform the duties as a prosecutor, judge and jury all rolled into one to charge and convict cop(s) in a yellow journalism article based only on second-hand hearsay testimony while you never give, or let anyone get to hear, testimony from the accused or his defense attorney. You know this is true and you should realize that this is a gross miscarriage of justice to present prejudiced misinformation simply to find someone guilty in the court of public opinion. So, I will not defend a cop found guilty but I will defend with all my might the right of a cop to have any charge against him made in a court of law and to be tried by a judge and jury. It is the American way under the our jurisprudence system. Your way is to make an arbitrary charge and try to take it to the public to arouse the sentiment and form some type of “virtual mob mentality” with everyone yelling in unison “hang the guilty bastard” before anyone even knows or can determine what really happened. And fortunately for you, you find a few ignorant assholes of your same mental capacity who will agree with you here on LF and join in to sing the same old chorus every time. You are grossly unfair in your presentations and the fact that you cannot understand this does not bring condemnation from me….it brings out my deepest sympathy towards for your warped view on life There …
Never even mention it to your mama. Women gosspip. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Some people like to exchange their old wrinkled money for newer denominations.
True...that is a good possibility.
Yep so he is I nocent.
There is never enough information in these articles for me to decide guilt or innocence. I said in an earlier post that I hope he gets his money back with interest. But he was stupid….and being stupid isn’t against the law. Otherwise….hondope would be sent up the river for life. Gotta go now and watch Blue Bloods. Tom Stelleck always needs my help every Friday night … Good Night.
And like all busted drug dealers, he went public about it. He should have put it in bitcoin. No more asset forfeiture then.
You and I both, would be career felons. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
being stupid isn’t against the law And you take full advantage of the Tard Loophole!
Yes, she would talk on phone and they would know were cash will be.
Your mindset is wrong for an American. In America,it is innocent until proven guilty. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You and I both, would be career felons. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح You are what you eat. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
O.j. is guilty of murder. The wetback is also guilty of killing Kate in Sanfransicko.
Then call me a pussy. You dick. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
All true. Hopefully, the long haired hippie pot smoking libtard defense attorney, suffers from... what goes around, comes around, to his family.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Thanks for the oversized photos. Now I can see them from MARS.
Can I infer the point you are trying to make is that even if a jury found them innocent they are still guilty,and we should form vigilante posse's and string them up? Do you REALLY want to live in a nation like that? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
N You made up what I want to do. Pure fiction. They are guilty of murder. Sure under our legal system they beat the charge. They are still guilty though.
Nope. JURIES or JUDGES decide guilt or innocence. You and I might THINK someone is guilty,but that doesn't mean they have been proven to be guilty. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No they do their best to deliver a true verdict. They get it wrong sometimes. If someone murders someone they are still guilty of the crime even if the jury says not guilty. I'm not saying we should change our system, it is good when practiced honestly. But it certainly doesn't find every guilty person. Also if a jury says guilty and you didn't really do it you aren't truly guilty. Just guilty under the law. A difference. guilt·y Èailt/Submit adjective culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing.
No question about that. If someone murders someone they are still guilty of the crime even if the jury says not guilty. I agree in a moral and ethical sense,but in a legal sense they are neither guilty nor not-guilty. They are a suspect or former suspect. ONLY a judge or a jury can issue a LEGAL finding of "not guilty". This is important because under our system of law,once a judge or a jury has found a defendant to be "not guilty",they can NOT be charged with that particular crime again,even if they confess in a newspaper ad. On the other hand,if a jury comes to the conclusion they can't reach a guilty OR a not guilty decision,the courts are free to try the defendant again if they can develop new evidence. These seemingly minor distinctions are very important if we want to keep our legal system fair and balanced. Now,having said all this,I,PERSONALLY am not as forgiving as the legal system is,and freely admit this means that I can be put on trial for any actions I may take against some weasel that slid through on a technicality. I am fine with this because actions have consequences ,even my own. Nobody but me forces me to do anything. For a legal system and society to be fair and just,it HAS to operate this way. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#6. To: Pinguinite (#3)
Civil Asset forfeiture is anything but civil.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#7. To: Deckard (#4)
The 50-year-old had spent years restoring houses, cars, and musical instruments, often clocking 12-hour workdays, to save up more than $91,000.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#5)
The officers now on the scene found Parhamovich’s cash. Both worried that carrying so much money was illegal and concerned that saying it was his would seem like he lied to cops before, Parhamovich said the money was a friend’s.
#9. To: Deckard (#0)
#10. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
#11. To: jeremiad (#9)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
If he had said to the cop, when asked if he had a large amount of money: "Yes. I am travelling to Seattle to buy a music studio, and I have $91,000 hidden in a speaker in my car." The police would have looked and seen it, and what they found would correspond to what he said.
#13. To: jeremiad, Deckard, A K A Stone (#9)
(Edited)
… it is no surprise that people can have a stash approaching that amount just from working.
So, true….from working or from saving.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
#15. To: Deckard, Gatlin, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#0)
#16. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, sneakypete (#15)
#17. To: Pinguinite, jeremiad (#16)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#14)
It isn't against the law to lie to liars.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#19. To: Gatlin (#13)
He is here on earth to promote hatred for cops and hatred for any form of government.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#20. To: Deckard (#19)
(Edited)
Eat a buffet of dicks liar.
#21. To: Gatlin (#20)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
If he had said to the cop, when asked if he had a large amount of money: "Yes. I am travelling to Seattle to buy a music studio, and I have $91,000 hidden in a speaker in my car."
delivering drugs doing a concert tour. He had $91,000 hidden in a speaker in his car because (he says) he didn't want to leave it in his apartment back in Madison, Wisconsin and he obviously never heard of banks.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#14)
It isn't against the law to lie to liars.
#24. To: Deckard (#21)
… worship of all things cop …
Not true and I will prove to you why.
#25. To: misterwhite (#7)
… spent years … to save up more than $91,000 …
Check the serial numbers on the bills for issue dates …
#26. To: A Pole (#15)
As I always say, when you carry a lot of cash, NEVER mention it on the phone or Internet. This is how they KNEW he had it with him.
#27. To: Gatlin (#25)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)
#29. To: Gatlin (#28)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
(Edited)
Yep so he is I nocent.
#31. To: misterwhite (#22)
The guy is a drug trafficker, using his "concert tour" as a mechanism to deliver the drugs hidden in the concert equipment around the country.
#32. To: misterwhite (#23)
I just hope it isn't against the law to post to assholes.
#33. To: Gatlin, tater tot, Tard Loophole (#30)
#34. To: sneakypete (#26)
Never even mention it to your mama. Women gossip.
#35. To: Gatlin (#30)
There is never enough information in these articles for me to decide guilt or innocence.
#36. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite (#32)
I just hope it isn't against the law to post to assholes.
#37. To: sneakypete (#35)
#38. To: sneakypete (#36)
You are what you eat.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#37)
#40. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
#41. To: A K A Stone (#37)
O.j. is guilty of murder. The wetback is also guilty of killing Kate in Sanfransicko.
#42. To: sneakypete (#41)
#43. To: A K A Stone (#42)
They are guilty of murder. Sure under our legal system they beat the charge. They are still guilty though.
#44. To: sneakypete (#43)
Nope. JURIES or JUDGES decide guilt or innocence.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#44)
No they do their best to deliver a true verdict. They get it wrong sometimes.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]