F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

a reply to: Phage

No, it shouldn't. Someone better have some damn serious charges to pull this kind of a stunt.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Evidence first. If some evidence is good enough, "extraordinary" measures can be taken to collect more.

Charges follow.

That's the way of it.

a reply to: Phage

Evidence predates charges in investigations. Charges predate presentation of evidence in the court.

Isn't there a Constitutional thing about seizure of property without due process? Where are the charges?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Isn't there a Constitutional thing about seizure of property without due process?

Is gathering evidence a seizure of property? Will the stuff seized become government property or held as evidence?


Is a warrant unconstitutional? Yikes.

originally posted by: Phage
Is gathering evidence a seizure of property?

It depends on what the evidence is and where it is located.

originally posted by: Phage
Will the stuff seized become government property or held as evidence?

Again it depends on what the evidence is and where it was located.

originally posted by: Phage
Is a warrant unconstitutional? Yikes.

If a fraud is perpetrated on the courts to obtain a search warrant then yes - its unconstitutional. It is why we have the "fruit of the poisonous tree", in addition to deprivation of rights while acting under color of law, doctrines in our legal system.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, never been abroad, never had a passport. I delivered to Canada a few times, and stood feet from the Mexican border.

Is that a confession? Sounds illegal to me.

a reply to: yuppa

Oh I get it: you don't know what you are talking about, but you've convinced yourself that you know the secrets of the universe.

You are wrong.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If a fraud is perpetrated on the courts to obtain a search warrant then yes - its unconstitutional.

Do you think that fraud was involved in obtaining the warrant against Cohen?
Upon what do you base this opinion?

Are Cohen's attorneys arguing such? Maybe he should hire you instead.

originally posted by: Phage
Do you think that fraud was involved in obtaining the warrant against Cohen?

I am not sure... In order to get a warrant to seize protected documents the bar has to be very high. The referral came from Mueller which, imo and given the circumstances so far, needs to be heavily scrutinized.

originally posted by: Phage
Upon what do you base this opinion?

My experience and training

originally posted by: Phage
Are Cohen's attorneys arguing such? Maybe he should hire you instead.

Or you could read your own post where you asked generic questions, which I answered. Nowhere did I say anything about Cohens lawyers, any legal defense strategy they might use or wanting a job.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The referral came from Mueller which, imo and given the circumstances so far, needs to be heavily scrutinized.

Do you have reason, not opinion, to believe otherwise?

My experience and training

Okay. As long as you acknowledge it is your opinion. Does your experience tell you that a passport must be stamped in every EU country?

Nowhere did I say anything about Cohens lawyers, any legal defense strategy they might use or wanting a job.

Nowhere did I claim you did. However you have made your opinion of the process quite clear.

a reply to: Phage

It is if the property is held. If I came to your house and took your computer to look at your files, would you report it as stolen (taken without permission, aka seized)?

They can charge Cohen and he will have due process. Why hasn't he been charged yet?

TheRedneck

a reply to: rnaa

What part?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If I came to your house and took your computer to look at your files, would you report it as stolen (taken without permission, aka seized)?

Yes. If you had neither the authority or warrant. The FBI had both and Cohen had no complaints about their behavior.

Why hasn't he been charged yet?

I think the colloquial term is "building a case."

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Isn't there a Constitutional thing about seizure of property without due process? Where are the charges?

TheRedneck

Isn't the Trump the first president who publicly opposed the rule of law in this land - he wants to take our rights without due process since it is taking too long and want to fill up jail cells without search warrants.

A least in this case, it is good to hear that they got the search warrant from the judges and followed due process.

a reply to: Phage

So a judge can overrule the Constitution?

Good to know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: VimanaExplorer

I hadn't heard of that. You got a link for me?

TheRedneck

Trump: Take the Guns First. Due Process Later.

If they can violate Second, what is stopping from taking away any.

Trump Just Resurrected the Ugly Practice Known as Civil Forfeiture for No Reason


He went against several of our judges, but as a citizen when government seizes our assets, we commoners have only option to go to court, which trump undermined every time. He attacked several judges, you can look it up.


Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel are still jarring to read

Then there is a constant attack on our 1st amendment going against Media, the same MSM where he is the executive producer of Celebrity Apprentice, Since he never pulled his shows and he is making money, his attack on MSM is nothing but at an attack on our 1st amendment.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So a judge can overrule the Constitution?

No.
Are search warrants unconstitutional? That sort of ties the hands of law enforcement. Don't you think?

a reply to: VimanaExplorer

The gun thing I had forgotten about (primarily because I doubt it will ever stand Judicial muster), but I had not heard about the civil forfeiture thing. I adamantly oppose civil forfeiture, for the exact reasons you specify and for the reasons I will respond to Phage below concerning.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Two amendments apply:

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V:

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.

My reading of that is that any seizure/forfeitue of private property must be accomplished upon a warrant signed by a judge, and charges must be filed within a reasonable length of time to allow the accused to represent themselves.

Do you disagree?

TheRedneck