Meeting an ATS Friend - Crossing the border from Canada to the USA - I've never been so hassled

reply to post by mblahnikluver


This is equivalent to being a witness on a stand in a court of law.

One thing that many witnesses (or a defendant) do (no matter who they are a witness for) is say TOO much. A good lawyer will instruct a witness to answer "yes", "no", "i dont know" or "i dont recall" or give the briefest amount of info. Some witness/defendants go on and on and on. Watch the Casey Anthony trial. You see it continually.

Words can and will be used against you. Less is best

While those exact answers are not good for this situation....one can just talk TOO much and set oneself up for trouble. In this case the answers were far too detailed when they did not need to be. Key words/sentences/phrases were said that raise a red flag. Things the agents are trained to pick up on. As I mentioned earlier.....all the things said were prime target for a search:

Someone mentioned above....all that was really needed to be said was "visiting a friend for lunch" "My mother's car which I use often - here are the papers"

Lying is not needed....but giving up more details than needed in this case is clearly not the way to go.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Who cares? Sue anyway. Some lawyer will work it out. Plus if the people who did it are American, it really doesn't matter where they did it.

yeah! Who cares if you are completely ignorant of the law. Just hire a lawyer and sue, just so you can clog up the courts with an ignorant, frivolous lawsuit. great idea!

reply to post by mysterioustranger


How far does it go? The papers clear, my record is clear, the space in the car is clear, my pockets and person is clear, the torn apart car is clear, the dogs gave no signs. How close was I to receiving a rectal examination?

Do you feel safer now?

This situation was born when the warriors of America faded into memory and their descendants hired mercenaries in their stead.

-GM

reply to post by greeneyedleo


The detail was extracted - The BP guard was relentless with questions - trying to catch me in a point of not knowing the answer. I wasnt writing him an essay, I was trying to go get a hamburger. I have never been squeezed for information like this before at a border. They 'really' didnt like something, I wonder if I'm flagged somehow.

reply to post by Gradius Maximus


I doubt you were 'flagged'. You gave the wrong answers and caught the guard in the wrong mood. I've been given the runaround at the border before by a pissy guard, and denied entry, only to gain entry a few hours later at another entry point by a less combative guard. It sucks, but throwing a tantrum on your part isnt going to help anything.

maybe if canada stopped letting terrorists immigrate to their country, the US canada border wouldn't need to be monitored like this.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


There is no tantrum here - just a discussion about what happened - After all, I was permitted into the USA.

This is valuable information about what we can no longer say at the border without a hassle.

By sharing we can learn how to exist in a world where security is going to continue to rise.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Its how most landmark cases happened.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Demoncreeper

 

I'm suspicious of your claims. That's a right to sue right there, and they're fools not to have.

Sue for what? Suspicious, why?

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Because people can't take apart your car without getting sued. Sueing is very easy in that case, and I think any judge could say that if we can bring a foreigner to nyc to charge him with terrorism, then we can bring an american citizen over the border and charge him with damages.

reply to post by Gorman91


There were no damages. The car was dis assembled, not destroyed, in search of "possible narcotics". They were under suspicion of running drugs from Canada to the U.S.

Neither of them have a criminal record. I guess more suspicious is their Christian names. Probably set the red flag there. Equivalent to "John" and "Jane Doe".

As someone being in and around law enforcement my entire life... I wouldn't have believed their names, and probably would have assumed they were worthy of an in depth investigation. Where I don't fault the American border guards for their suspicion, I do fault their attitudes, and lack of respect or help, from start to finish..

My uncle is a retired architectural engineer and aunt is a small business owner (sports related). They haven't a "law breaking" bone in their bodies.

reply to post by Gorman91


Can you provide any precedent for your opinion on the subject? You seem woefully unaware of how things operate at the border.

The answer to this whole fiasco is to hop out of the vehicle and GROVEL upon approaching any border or TSA checkpoint.

That way you won't have to endure the finger-waves and interrogation. It will keep us all safer if you just do it and don't make them waste their time getting to the inevitable.

Thank you

This alleged abuse of power by Border Patrol is nothing new; it's been going on for decades.

If I was border guard who was transferred to work in some hillbilly redneck spithole American town, I'd also have a power trip attitude. And if I had to demean myself on a daily basis by going through other people's dirty underwear, I would really have an attitude if I didn't find any drugs or anything else of value. Destroying people's lives for no reason is a game to these people. You're better off staying as far away from them as possible and refrain from giving your money to a country which is run by the modern day Gestapo.

This dehumanizing treatment is all because of the failed "War on Drugs". Actually, it hasn't been a complete failure, since the corrupt law enforcement, judicial and correctional apparatus has profited handsomely from these ongoing "legalized" human rights violations.

The two articles below give you an idea as to the real motives of those who are making these policies. If all this was being done for the benefit of the general public, it would not be done secretly. And of course, we have your cookie cutter double standard here, with these same laws not applying to those who are making them.

War on drugs ‘a failure,’ international panel declares

www.theglobeandmail.com...

'Flawed' border security consultations slammed

www.montrealgazette.com...

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Sounds like a perfect landmark case situation. If they sued, they'd win, simply put. It doesn't matter that the car wasn't damages. If someone came and disassembled your entire house, but nothing got broken, are you saying I couldn't sue that guy?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


You can't take apart someones stuff and run away without being sued. It's that simple. And if no one's tried to sue them for it, that's just sad and pathetic.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

You can't take apart someones stuff and run away without being sued. It's that simple. And if no one's tried to sue them for it, that's just sad and pathetic.

So, in other words, you are merely guessing that there is a potential for a lawsuit, as you are unable t reference any precedent for a similar incident.

If someone came and disassembled your entire house, but nothing got broken, are you saying I couldn't sue that guy?

Again I ask, are you familiar with the legal grey area of an international border? Because entering a foreign nation is not comparable to the rights you enjoy in your own home, as your above example implies.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


There is no precedent, hence the landmark decision potential. I really don't give a damn about international bull crap. An American took apart another American's stuff and told him to clean up. Wouldn't matter if it was in Iraq, Iran, Russia, or England. It's two citizens, and therefore an American issue. The land in question is no relevance.

reply to post by Gorman91


It would be great if you happened to be rich, or had a family member that also happened to be a liar, or a liar willing to go pro bono. Not many of us have the money to hire a liar to file suit, especially when the chips are stacked against you. Liars wrote up the rules, you can bet they have covered their ass in the fine print somewhere.

reply to post by TKDRL


I don't think you get it. The government allowed a group of its people to take a part a car and then leave it as it was. This is legal gold. How could you lose such a case? At the very least the accuser gets some money.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by TKDRL

 

The government allowed a group of its people to take a part a car and then leave it as it was. This is legal gold. How could you lose such a case? At the very least the accuser gets some money.

Doesn't sound like you have had much experience with how the legal system actually works. Justice and fairness have almost nothing to do with legal outcomes. And what are the actual, tangible damages here? Not enough certainly to get embroiled in a lawsuit against Big Brother. Walk away, lick your wounds, and consider yourself wiser for the experience is what I would recommend to anyone thus violated.