Federal Judge Orders Justice Department To Return Over Million Dollars Taken At Traffic Stop By Nebraska Officers

220px-Joseph_F._Bataillon_District_JudgeWe have previously discussed how police are increasingly doing drug stops on pretextual grounds and seizing any money that a driver cannot explain to their satisfaction. It is called “policing for profit” and departments are able to keep much of seized money in these stops. The federal government is being forced to return over $1 million to Tara Mishra, 33, of California, who was taking her life savings as a stripper to buy her own business. That was before it was seized by Nebraska state troopers who declared that it must be drug proceeds. Even though no drugs were found and there was no basis for concluding the cash was from drug proceeds, the matter became a federal case and the Obama Administration fought her to deny her even a hearing for demanding the money back. Now U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon has ordered them to give back the money. However, this is not considered theft because police officers took the money at a traffic stop. The case is United States of America v. $1,074,900.00 in United States Currency, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11544 (D. Neb. 2013).


Mishra has been a stripper since 18 and wanted to make something better for her life. She gave the money to friends Rajesh and Marina Dheri, of Montville, N.J., to buy a nightclub with them in New Jersey — a business that she would own half of. The Dheris were in a rental car when Nebraska State Patrol Trooper Ryan Hayes pulled them over for speeding. This is an easy pretext for stops since most people travel above the speed limit on highways. As is often the case, the stop turned into a drug search and the officers asked if they could search the car. The couple consent and they found the money.

The camera system inside Trooper Hayes’ cruiser captured the Dheris’ converation as Trooper Hayes searched the vehicle. Id. ¶ 13. Mrs. Dheri asked Mr. Dheri, “What are you saying it is? Am I going to say I knew what it was or not?” Id. Mr. Dheri responded, “He asked me if there was money in the car and I said no.” Id. Mrs. Dheri later stated, “He’s going to ask you-you answer. It is not ours, it is our friends’.” Id. The Dheris also discussed the total amount of the money and stated the money was “about a million.” Id.

Trooper Hayes discovered three pieces of luggage in the vehicle’s rear cargo area. Id. ¶ 10. There were two duffel bags and one backpack. Id. In one duffel bag, there were several dryer sheets in the bottom of the bag and a drawstring bag that held three, large Ziplock baggies, each of which contained several rubber-banded bundles of money. Id. The second duffel bag contained empty Ziplock baggies and a drawstring bag that held several rubber-banded bundles of money. Id.

No drugs were found. However, a dog found traces of drugs on the money — and extremely common fact about currency in our society. A study in England founds that, like the United States, paper currency is saturated with drug residue and it is not simply money from drug areas or transactions.

I can understand the suspicion of the officer but I am confused why the Justice Department litigated the matter for years when there appears no connection to drug transactions.

The Justice Department continued to insist that it could keep the money but the court ruled “The government failed to show a substantial connection between drugs and the money” and added that “The court finds the Mishras’ story is credible.”

Bataillon ordered that Mishra receive cash or a check in the value of $1,074,000 with interest.

I am unclear of why the Justice Department gets away with dragging on such litigation without a factual basis for the allegation of a drug transaction. They put this woman through years of litigation and, even under the exceptionally generous rules and standards for seizure, could not make a case for treating the money as drug money.

Source:

ABC

48 thoughts on “Federal Judge Orders Justice Department To Return Over Million Dollars Taken At Traffic Stop By Nebraska Officers

  1. The War On Drugs claims another victim. She’s lucky it wasn’t before they reformed the law, in that case she would have to prove it wasn’t drug money, which is impossible…no one can ‘prove’ a negative.

    At least now the cops are SUPPOSED to prove that it was drug money in order to confiscate it.

    And yet again this law was passed by telling people that it was going to be used against drug dealers to get the profit out of dealing.
    And as usual it was used against ANYONE!

    Same as these “terrorist” laws….

    ANY law will be used against ANYONE, regardless of what they claim.

  2. In some jurisdictions, local law enforcement will seize vehicles and airplanes, and refuse to return them when the investigation shows the owner and/or operator was cleared of charges. Several years ago, a businessman landed at a Florida airport in his very expensive brand new twin engine airplane. He was detained, and the airplane was searched for drugs. The sheriff’s department declared the plane seized, but when the business man went back out to pick up the plane, they would not let him have it. He was told that once property is seized, it stays seized, even if no crime has been committed. Last I heard, the county never returned his million dollar airplane, and of course, insurance won’t cover seizures. I understand that is common practice in some areas, and they seem to get away with it.

    Maybe some of us could start seizing the personal property of some of the big banksters as ill gotten gains. Obviously it would not be stealing because no one is ever prosecuted for taking millions without so much as a receipt. :roll:

  3. I have a friend that worked for a police department. He was the designated forfeiture officer. After 2 years and 10 years on the force, he resigned. There was a big article in the paper why he resigned. The business forfeiture is legalized stealing…. The departments policy was once they got the money, they had no intention of giving it back. One thing I recall is tha a well to do family had a cris craft cigarette boat seized… There were drugs found on it….. A prosecutor bought it for $100.00….. That was over the line according to the designated officer….

    In this case, the right result and it took too long….

  4. Whoa, she got PAID for her stripping. A LOT of money.

    Between stories like this and the one about the bank and the dairy farmers, you just simply can’t have money in this country… They’ll take it from your bank or they’ll take it from your pocket if it’s cash.

  5. Kudos to the this judge for doing the right thing. I would have fined the Justice Department for the unlawful taking. The idea of police confiscating personal property when a crime is just alleged, is abhorrent.

  6. There are two aspects to this that favor govt and therefore make it tough to battle. The locals and feds gain from the big money that’s available to fund their slush funds, and the fed govt loves the side effect of nobody wanting to do business in cash, as that makes it easier for them to be able to track everything. And we know the voracious beast needs it’s feeding.

    This forfeiture racket is one of the biggest outrages going these days. (Of course the list is much too long, so it’s a tough choice). One of these days, maybe, we’ll take back our country by forcing a return to the constitution’s limits on the fed govt.

    In the meantime, at least we need to force our legislators to rid us of this terrible law that allows them to steal property & money without convicting the owners of a serious crime first. And getting rid of the corrupting drug war would be a good step too.

  7. Good decision. I worked a case involving strippers. An insurance company for whom I did work specialized in writing insurance for bars, including titty bars. I enjoyed the interviews but they were often difficult cases to work on for the defense. In my interview of one stripper we were trying to put into context when different incidents occurred. This was a stripper who had been a big timer. However, this woman was in the twilight of her career. She was in her mid 30’s and was preparing for another career. Being a longtime pro, Princess Leai[her real name was Polish], had a pocket calendar she used for work. On the calendar the Princess had cryptic notes of remarks about every night she worked, including the night in question. For every night she worked were numbers, 420, 580, 745, etc. I asked her what they signified. She said, “That was my tip money that night.”

    The drugs on the money should not be a surprise to anyone, as Mr. Turley stated. The government HATES cash. That’s why I love it. They treat cash like it is contraband even though it is issued by them. Use cash. Demand larger bills than $100. It bugs the shit out of our government.

  8. And, what everyone has said about the travesty of civil forfeitures. Some are righteous. Too many are not.

  9. If the opCay takes money without probable cause then fails to secure a warrant and then fails to get any criminal proceeding instituted is liable for violating the owner’s civil rights. There is an annotation under 42 United States Code Sec 1983 and I am going to look it up on this computer on WestlawDog and find it. I might report back with any Alert that I come up with.

  10. nick spinelli, I’d demand bigger bills than $100, but it’s hard enough finding somebody to take my $100 at this point, so what purpose would it really serve in the end?

    (I saw a place that won’t even take 20’s the other day – what has the country come to?)

  11. As much as we deal with cases like this I would think that I’d become inured to emotionalism about this type of abuse. As I write this though it is with a sick chill throughout my body and a rising rage controlled at my throat. Damn it all!
    This type of thing has become so common in this country with its phony “War on Drugs”, its preposterous “War on Terrorism” and the calm greeting lo those many years ago to the odious RICO Laws. All of these outrages were sold to the public as a way to punish “evildoers”, but in truth what they have managed to do is add to the destruction of our civil liberties and to the corruption of many of our law enforcement personnel. The proof is in the fact that those Banks that led to the economic disaster that this country is in were able to settle criminal cases with minor fines and the executive perpetrators kept their jobs and their perks. The truth is that the chimeric “organized crime” was always small potatoes compared to the organized looting of ourselves and our government by certain “legitimate” corporations.

    Leona Hemsley went to jail because of her big mouth and for relatively minor offenses. Martha Stewart went to jail because it amused the powers that be. Robert Downey Jr. was persecuted for essentially crimes against himself. Bernie Madoff, however, had the temerity to rip off the “big boys” and so had to be destroyed. However, William Simon lives in luxurious retirement. Jamie Dimon remains at the head of his bank. Michael Milliken got two years, retained 500 $million and is now know as a philanthropist. Alan Greenspan now admits his mistakes and the beat goes on.

    As Leonard Cohen sings:

    Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
    Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows that the war is over
    Everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed
    The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
    That’s how it goes
    Everybody knows

    Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
    Everybody knows that the captain lied
    Everybody got this broken feeling
    Like their father or their dog just died

    Everybody talking to their pockets
    Everybody wants a box of chocolates
    And a long stem rose
    Everybody knows

    Thanks for your attention, I had to get it out and I feel better now.

  12. There is no “right” civil forfeiture. It is stealing by state sanction, consistent with their “American values.”

  13. “As is often the case, the stop turned into a drug search . . . .”

    End the war on drugs. Begin the restoration of civil liberties.

  14. This type of abuse by law enforcement is not rare. It happens in state and federal jurisdictions all the time. Many clients cannot afford counsel to contest these seizures and they go unchallenged. Kudos to the good judge!

  15. I am proud of that Judge telling the offices to give the money back to that woman. Police are thieves. They are legalized thieves engaging in thievery Jesus drove people like that out of the temple.

  16. I am proud of that Judge telling the officers to give the money back to that woman. Police are thieves. They are legalized thieves engaging in thievery Jesus drove people like that out of the temple.

  17. Jude, If we had larger bills then changing a hundred would be much easier because cash would have adjusted to inflation and folks would feel more @ ease using cash. I believe we should simply have $1k, $500, and then our current denominations except for pennies for chrissake! Most people will continue to use debit/credit cards for ease and safety. But, if given better options w/ cash, I think more folks will use it. We cash folks know how to use it as leverage. Who doesn’t love being paid cash and who isn’t willing to negotiate a lower price for receiving cash? Hardly anyone. I had an econ professor in 1972 predict that our govt. would steer us toward a cashless economy, where everything could be traced. 1972! The professor came from Cal Berkley, had photos of himself and Angela Davis. We called him “Professor Radical Ray.” A couple decades ago I came to realize just how intelligent he was.

  18. Don’t say anything when asked about having money. Not one word. Don’t consent to a search. The did everything wrong with this encounter with the police.

  19. I have written a couple replies to this post of varying lengths and umbrage. But it all seemed too much.

    It comes to this: Are we now in fact a lawless society? Have we, or are we close to actually tipping into that state where the institutions of justice and law enforcement are now the last places we could go to for justice and legal protection?

    I know it is not a complete romp yet. But it seems we are well on the way to where incidences like this one are not just outliers and anecdotal, but are becoming the norm. Not that every encounter with the police or the “justice” system will/must end in this sort of thing… But it could. And there is no way to know if the next encounter will.

    This applies to the petty to the consequential. In my experience I know when I see a police car I have no confidence that I wont be pulled over on some made up thing and cited for some made up reason. (I am not doing anything wrong…it is just that I expect, that at any moment it may be my turn to be accosted. Like a fish wary of the shark when it shows up not knowing if it is hungry or just passing thru.)

    It is that level of caprice that this article speaks of, and that I experience.

    That feeling seems to be the very definition of lawlessness at the practical level.

    Yes? No?

    That this judge did this justice is a good thing in this case. It seems to me however it is like pulling one weed in a field of weeds. And how long did it take? and at what cost to the victims? And how strange to be talking about citizens as victims anyway….

    I’d love to be put in my place by some good examples and arguments why I am over reacting.

    Proposition: We are not a lawless society drifting into a totalitarian state.

    Michael

  20. @frankmascagniiii

    This type of abuse by law enforcement is not rare. It happens in state and federal jurisdictions all the time. Many clients cannot afford counsel to contest these seizures and they go unchallenged. Kudos to the good judge!

    Yes kudos. But are you not, in this comment making the point that we are now in a place of systemic decline. Ie, why are kudos appropriate?

    Your point about it being common and also irresistible by “common” clients seems to me to be the essential violation of all : that we cannot , in fact, expect justice from our justice system. That it takes some extra special circumstance, perseverance and/ or luck to obtain justice.

    From my early “civics” lessons I remember one of the essential qualities of a functioning justice system was that it was predictable, knowable — something you could count on.

    From the scriptures I learned that when the judges were corrupt it was the most dire of circumstances in the fate of a nation; there was no recourse or appeal.

    So kudos indeed for this event…But is it predictable, or ad hoc? Can we learn anything judicial about this case more than that in this one this one judge did the right thing?

    As an aside it would be interesting to review the body of this judges decisions to see what sort of underlying jurisprudence he functions from.

    I hope this provokes some replies. I really am trying to find the part of the tree that is not rotten, and hoping our Liberty Tree still has some stuff in it at the core after all….

  21. clarification re: ?Yes kudos. But are you not, in this comment making the point that we are now in a place of systemic decline. Ie, why are kudos appropriate?”

    What I meant to imply was that we don’t praise people for doing what they are supposed to do. And we don’t go out of our way to laud people for not doing bad things.

    If a judge does justly shall we then throw a party? Well, if it that uncommon that it stands out then yes. But then, isnt that itself indicative of something?

    That’s what I meant by appropriate. Maybe should have said necessary.

  22. @Jerome 1,

    Don’t say anything when asked about having money. Not one word. Don’t consent to a search. The did everything wrong with this encounter with the police.

    Your comment reminds me of good advice when being engaged by the Mexican police.
    That you can offer it in the context of America seems to have some indicative meaning.

  23. I had one time where I arrested a guy at a weekend long outdoor music festival who had a Triscuit cracker box full of ecstacy, marijuana, and several large bindles of cocaine on him. I charged him with Possession with Intent to Deliver.

    After a searched his wallet incident to arrest just as I was booking him he had about $400.00 in cash on him. I didn’t do a seizure notification but checked the cash into evidence.

    A week afterward one of the evidence clerks wrote a nastygram to me saying I had to do a seizure notice on him and told me to write one up for the money. I wrote back to her that I could not articulate with a degree of certainty that I felt there was significant enough nexus to conclude the $400 was proceeds from drug sales when the person was staying three days at a music festival where all the attractions, food, camping, lodging etc was paid in cash and a reasonable person is likely to carry that amount of money to pay for lodging and sundry expenses. It was possible so it was checked into evidence for the court to decide if it was proceeds of a felony or not, I didn’t have enough proof at the time of arrest to conclude it was drug proceeds, so I left it to the judge to determine if it was or not. She didn’t like my answer and it went back and forth. My supervisor agreed with me but I had to argue my point to the senior administration of the department because the evidence clerk would not let it go. (Even though she was totally wrong in her belief she was the judge in the matter she couldn’t accept that a deputy had more say in the matter than she did)

    So, from that point on unless in some future arrest I made if it was totally obvious the money / items was drug proceeds, I just ignored it and didn’t mention it in the report. It wasn’t worth the headache of arguing about it.

  24. The police “are the law”. Forfeiture is just another way they abuse the citizens. They can steal cash, cars, jewelry or even a motel. We are all at risk. Being innocent is no defense once the government has you!

  25. @Darren, I would be interested in your take/reaction to the post, and in particular the sentiments expressed by “Justice Holmes”.
    As a police officer do you feel this way?
    Is this how it looks to you from your seat?

    Michael

  26. Michael.

    Just for disclosure purposes I retured from the LE profession last year but I still keep tabs on it somewhat.

    As for the judge’s ruling I entirely agree with it. In my opinion forfeiture laws are often abused, though one could say it is not always the police that does the abusing, it is the system that is often the abuser and the police are often following the law, though there are many examples, especially where it is taken advantage of.

    I generally agree with forfeiture laws where the proceeds obtained from a felony are subject to confiscation. An example is where someone makes 100 grand from smuggling cocaine into the country. I don’t have a problem with that because the money was obtained from felonious activity.

    I have a big problem where someone’s home is seized because they sold a gram of cocaine inside the house to someone and the authorities claim the house was used in the commission of a felony and therefore it is seized as an instrumentality. The reason for my objection is the standard fine for this crime is $5,000 and the state goes beyond this and confiscates a $200,000 house as a penalty. That is not equal justice in my book because one person who sells the same coke on a public street gets $5,000 fine and someone who does the same thing in their house gets punished for $205,000.

    A third example is the case where the million dollars was basically stolen from someone because of a supposition on behalf of the state. That is because someone was carrying a million dollars in the car, they must be up to no good. That does not cut it in my view. It is not illegal to possess a million dollars in cash.

    The problem is often the burden of proof is upon the defendant to prove the money was not proceeds of a felony or drug sales. Some states have procedures where a senior police official in the department where the seizure took place presides over the hearing. That is a complete conflict of interest in my view but unfortunately Washington’s supreme court ruled that this was “due process.” I don’t know why they felt that way but they do.

    Where I worked things were not that bad as far as seizures went but some places are very aggressive on it. But it is entrenched in many areas and it is going to be hard to change. Plus most of the public has no sympathy for felons or drug dealers so they are not lobbying politicians to change the law and make it more fair. It’s probably the reason it has lasted as long as it has.

    Just my two cents.

  27. eminent domain at its nastiest best i do remember a couple years back i read a story on this blog about the cops who seized a couples hotel the hotel had been in their family for many many years passed down well the cops decided that the owners had to know that some years back people they were renting to was selling drugs and because of that the cops had the right to seize their hotel. ive been trying to find out more information on that story but for the life of me i now cant remember the names or the town had we not been so distracted by the phoniness of the billionaires we might have recognized what they were doing and we would have begun the fight back then. but that was the whole purpose of keeping us distracted, of keeping racial hatred going, and all the rest.

  28. Turley wonders why the Justice Dept sought to drag out litigation for “years”. The arrest was March 2012. Years?

    His source, ABC, says the judge ordered Nebraska to return the funds – not the “feds”.

    Of course ABC, like a lot of journalism today, may have gotten the facts wrong. And unfortunately, I haven’t been successful in accessing the court case, but I am wondering how the money went from Nebraska to the feds. It is my understanding that the local authorities keep what they seize.

    Can somebody look at the case and post what they find?

  29. Well if “Judge orders Justice Dept to return funds” is the NEBRASKA justice department the statement is accurate. Just don’t won’t you folks to think Obama and Holder are personally holding the money.

    Look, policing for profit stinks, but so does “coloring” a story.

    Then there is this

    Addendum: The Institute for Justice notes that “Nebraska is one of only three states that holds the government to the highest possible legal standard of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings, requiring law enforcement to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That probably explains why the cops in this case pursued forfeiture under federal law, which offers weaker protections for innocent owners. Banning such federal “adoption” is another reform that would help curtail forfeiture abuses, as would funneling forfeiture proceeds into the general fund rather than the coffers of police departments and prosecutors’ offices.

    Also, some time was spent by Tara filing for a change of venue and also a more complicated issue of standing (feds being tricky here) because Tara was not in the car when the stop was made.

    But to be clear, this was a Nebraska seizure – the Justice Dept. does not have her money.

    Also, she DID pay taxes on the money and was able to document that it was kept in safety deposit box in a bank.

  30. BTW The judge’s decision was delivered 15 MONTHS from the seizure.

    Turley made the point three different times about the feds “taking years”.

    I don’t know….I might consider it a minor miracle that it only took 15 months while dealing with the cops from Brownbeckistan.

  31. I don’t know….I might consider it a minor miracle that it only took 15 months while dealing with the cops from Brownbeckistan.

    The problem is that it took any time at all.
    Or, to say it differently, that it happened at all.

    Strange that the comments seem only to focus on this instance and not ponder the larger context/meaning.

    O/Scribe offered another chilling example of the airplane seizure.

    The sheriff’s department declared the plane seized, but when the business man went back out to pick up the plane, they would not let him have it. He was told that once property is seized, it stays seized, even if no crime has been committed.

    I reiterate the question… In what sense, in any context or Point of View, is this sort of happening Justice?

    And if it is not, how is it possible to not declare unequivocally that our country is now no longer a Just place to live, no longer a country governed by Law. As our mythology would have it.

    Seems we should start the conversations from some solid factual basis if there is to be any healing, redemption, or, in the words of Allysa above

    End the war on drugs. Begin the restoration of civil liberties.

    Can the restoration begin without clarity on this and related points?

  32. Michael – it is not justice and I said it stinks. But It is the law. And I think it has been on the books pre-Obama and Holder. Once it landed in federal court as NEBRASKA requested, could the DOJ refuse the case?

    My argument is with our “reporter” and his inaccurate reporting -. Inaccurate reporting that hammers the Obama administration. It seems deliberate since all 500000 google hits report that the judge ordered NEBRASKA `to return the $1M. Now why would Turley make such a mistake?

    And why would Turley mistake 15 months for “years”? He makes it sound like “Bleak House”.

    Are we getting a measure of propaganda?

    I read five or six posts by Turley everyday and I expect Turley to present the facts accurately – as you stated; “a solid factual base”. Then we can go on to discuss our opinions. But facts must come first.

  33. I agree with your core assertion : Facts must come first. So, while agreeing with you on the point, I am not as certain it is a deal breaker to the larger point of not only the article, but also my and others more substantive derivative comments.

    Maybe it was a brain fart? Maybe an unchecked fact that could be easily fixed.
    So … lets give some benefit of the doubt… assume JT makes the correction to your point…

    Now… what do we have? I think the larger issues then re-present themselves in exactly the same language and questions as noted above.

    Can we have that discussion?

  34. @JustA~ here is the offending sentence as far as I can tell

    They put this woman through years of litigation ….

    What if he said “They put this woman through nearly two years of litigation…” or “…over a year of litigation”
    does that make it ok?

    And then… my question stands: Can we have the real discussion?

  35. I can understand the suspicion of the officer but I am confused why the Justice Department litigated the matter for years when there appears no connection to drug transactions.

    The Justice Department continued to insist that it could keep the money but the court ruled “The government failed to show a substantial connection between drugs and the money” and added that “The court finds the Mishras’ story is credible.”

    Bataillon ordered that Mishra receive cash or a check in the value of $1,074,000 with interest.

    I am unclear of why the Justice Department gets away with dragging on such litigation without a factual basis for the allegation of a drug transaction. They put this woman through years of litigation and, even under the exceptionally generous rules and standards for seizure, could not make a case for treating the money as drug money.
    ********************************************************************

    Micheal Here’s a fun test… how many references can you find to “dragging through litagation”, “put this woman through years of litigation”, and “JD litigated the matter for years”?

  36. Michael Part Two of Test

    “The Justice Department continued to insist that it could keep the money”

    Using your reading skills – who does “it” refer to in the above Turley quote?
    (Please note NEBRASKA has not appeared once in those paragraphs.)
    *****************************************************************************
    As I continue this excercise, I grow even more disgusted.

  37. Michael

    Bottom line. Words mean something. What is Turley doing here?

    I don’t want to talk about the phu*king law. We agree about it, the dogs, and lousey cops.

    I want to talk about a piece of crap writing.

  38. Fair enough. Stipulated. Bad, crap writing. (Though you only seem to be exercised about this point. Is it all crap? the entire piece? Or even the basic exposure of the incident?)

    Its seems a small point to be upset about the distinction of “Years” vs 1 year and a bit. and miss what seems to me to be the salient point : that it happened at all.

    Not just the laws, but the underlying corruption and “war on the citizen” nature of the laws.

    What , from your POV, am I missing?

    Are you just upset with JT for misstating a point of fact? Once that is corrected, then what do you think?

  39. Continuing, and in response to yours:

    > Micheal Here’s a fun test… how many references can you find to “dragging through litagation”, “put this woman through years of litigation”, and “JD litigated the matter for years”?

    You have them accounted for more or less. What is the point? What does it matter if there is one, or a hundred?
    Hard to tell what your argument is.

    > Bottom line. Words mean something. What is Turley doing here?

    I don’t know. What do you think he is doing? Do you think he was slipping a fast one by us? Do you think it matters as to the main point of the piece? Does it actually change the point of the post? And if yes, then please explicate. Because as it comes across now it seems you’re a bit pissed off about a pretty minor point.

    Words do indeed mean something. And so do ideas and complex thoughts. Shouldn’t confuse one with the other.

    > I don’t want to talk about the phu*king law. We agree about it, the dogs, and lousey cops.

    What is the point then if we are not talking about exposing an example of government abuse in the particular instance and then, as I take it, as an indication of the state of the state – per my posts above and in other places.

    > I want to talk about a piece of crap writing.

    So do it. Make a point more essential than “he said years when it was only 15months”

  40. Michael

    I believe this piece was deliberatly written to embarrass the DOJ and the Obama administration – an administration that he holds in great contempt. Turley’s very first words and the headline of the piece is a piece of crap.

    How many times do I have to say it? Justice did not have the money. The Judge did not make Justice return the $1M. Nebraska had to turn over the money. Turley makes that mistake TWICE. (See test 2 {which you left unanswered}). TWICE is not a brain fart. TWICE is deliberate.

    There were THREE occasions of moaning about the YEARS it was taking to get the money returned. That is not a brain fart. That is deliberate.

    Turley left out two other court decisions in this case which also delayed the decision. One would think those filings would be important to a reknown professor of law. But not so important for someone who was writing a hit piece.

    This is a VERY good court decision. But to me, the much more important issue is that Turley has written a sloppy, deliberately misleading, uncorrected, piece of crap for political purposes. There is much discussion in these parts about integrity and principle. Turley has some ‘splaiin’ to do.

Comments are closed.