[HN Gopher] FBI misled judge who signed warrant for seizure of $...
___________________________________________________________________
FBI misled judge who signed warrant for seizure of $86M in cash
Author : octoberfranklin
Score : 76 points
Date : 2022-09-24 21:32 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
| barneygale wrote:
| American law enforcement is a state-sponsored criminal gang.
| Here, they robbed a bank.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| It's funny... if an engineer fucks something up, s/he can be
| personally responsible for the fuckup.... doctors need personal
| malpractice insurance for their fuckups... professional drivers
| can easily go to jail if they fuck up...
|
| ...but if a government worker, paid by the taxpayers, fucks up...
| the worst that can happen is, the taxpayers have to pay for
| eventual lawsuit cost and damages to the people who got fucked by
| that worker.
|
| For something like this, atleast a few people should end up in
| jail for a long time.
| reset-password wrote:
| Right. This is nuts that this is happening in America. Lynne
| Zellhart is disgusting and people like her should be
| imprisoned.
| elcritch wrote:
| At the least the senior FBI and US Attorney's should be liable
| to be held in contempt of court. Yes they might need some
| protection in carrying out their lawful duty but lying and
| misleading the judiciary isn't lawfully carrying out those
| duties.
| system2 wrote:
| System is rigger for them. That will not happen in 1000 years.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| >if an engineer fucks something up, s/he can be personally
| responsible for the fuckup
|
| Except software engineers :)
| [deleted]
| melony wrote:
| Most SaaSes have much more lower stakes.
| Biomedical/automotive/aerospace are already covered by
| existing regulations.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| It happens not just in judiciary or criminal cases, but also in
| DMV, state permits, immigration etc.
|
| Even a typographical error or minor delays by the government
| official has asymmetric consequences for the human but no
| consequence to the officer. You can be perfect and do
| everything correctly but still fall off a cliff because some
| government officer made a typographical error.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I think what you might be suggesting is to remove prosecutorial
| immunity. There are so many cases of wrongdoing by prosecutors
| and judges, and there's really very little that can be done to
| punish them.
| jmyeet wrote:
| It's worth noting that this case wasn't a screw up. It was a
| deliberate act of deception. You may well understand this but
| "fuck up" is an ambiguous term that might allow for negligence
| or an error rather than actual malfeasance, which was the case
| here.
| heyflyguy wrote:
| I agree and though much of the outrage has some political ties
| to it, I think and assume you agree that this is a pervasive
| problem for everyone not within the ranks of a federal agency
| of some kind.
| _cs2017_ wrote:
| > Only those who wish to hide their wealth from the DEA, IRS, or
| creditors would" rent a box anonymously at U.S. Private Vaults,
| she wrote
|
| It appears this opinion was wrong: many honest people did choose
| this store instead of a bank for their safety deposit needs. I
| wonder why? I understand this question has no bearing on the
| legality of the FBI actions, but I do want to understand the
| customers' rationale.
| justinzollars wrote:
| In my lifetime one of the biggest freedoms we have lost is
| private banking. Prior to 9/11 banking was relatively private.
| What you had was your own, and secret. You could even have a
| private bank account in Switzerland. Now, if you are American
| foreign banks won't even bother dealing with you.
|
| Obviously the paranoid state, won't like the idea of a private
| safety deposit box company.
|
| I think the next leg to fall is cash itself. We will move to CBDC
| and social credit.
| didericis wrote:
| > We will move to CBDC and social credit
|
| There's something incredibly irresponsible and pathetic about
| acknowledging a course of action that seems bad/inevitable, and
| then declaring that it _will_ happen.
|
| The future is not inevitable. If you declare failure to reach a
| positive future as inevitable, you are actively working towards
| failure, not success.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Now, if you are American foreign banks won't even bother
| dealing with you.
|
| I'm living in the EU and any bank-related form I had to fill
| out ask whether I have ties to the USA. There's one for "are
| you citizen of a different country?", but the USA (and only the
| USA) is always asked for explicitly.
| kozziollek wrote:
| And non-American banks force their non-American customers to
| answer "are you happen to be American resident?". Even when
| they never did anything related to USA.
|
| Imagine if every country on Earth asked this. But of course USA
| can force other countries to do whatever it wants.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| And China has a few years head start in that direction.
|
| The US following China's lead. I'd hope that the idea alone, of
| following in China's footsteps, is enough to get the US to
| change course.
| trasz wrote:
| >The US following China's lead.
|
| Quality of life in China is constantly improving. In US it
| isn't. So no, US isn't following China's lead.
| justinzollars wrote:
| not sure why this is being downvoted. China recently
| surpassed the US in life expectancy. But suppose you do not
| trust Chinese statistics; Mexico passed US life expectancy.
| Life expectancy a good measure for right track / wrong
| track.
| didericis wrote:
| I'm not so sure about that... look at the demographic
| issues and the current banking collapse. China looks like
| it's starting a pretty precipitous decline.
|
| I hope things stabilize and people there DO keep improving,
| I have no desire to see _anywhere_ stagnate or start
| declining. But I'm also extremely aware of how much of the
| Chinese state apparatus is dedicated to lying and
| distorting public perception, and what I hear about what's
| been going on behind the scenes sounds really bad right
| now.
| bumblebritches5 wrote:
| jmyeet wrote:
| Here's the lesson I want people to take away from this: the idea
| that there is a literal interpretation of the Constitution is a
| myth.
|
| This egregious seizure is just further proof that the Fourth
| Amendment is pretty much dead. Any kind of forfeiture without
| probable cause should be a Fourth Amendment violation but yet
| civil asset forfeiture (the most egregious form of Fourth
| Amendment violation) remains legal.
|
| Probably the worst thing about this case is that the government
| has been caught in a lie and isn't backing down and they want to
| keep the contents. Any "evidence" gleaned from these contents
| should be absolutely inadmissible without prior and specific
| probable cause. There should be no allowance for "there's no
| reason why legitimate customers would use USPV instead of a
| bank".
|
| Lots of people distrust banks. Not using a bank is not evidence
| of a crime let alone probable cause.
|
| I really hope the FBI and the US attorney get their rear ends
| handed to them over this but I have doubts they ever will.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Semi related: It is interesting that these items are not
| considered the bank's property yet if I upload something to the
| cloud it is considered the cloud provider's data.
|
| Why isn't cloud data treated the same as a safety deposit box?
| buran77 wrote:
| > if I upload something to the cloud it is considered the cloud
| provider's data
|
| Is it? The cloud _stores_ your data but the provider does not
| _own_ your pictures or your PhD paper just because you uploaded
| them there. Any example of an EULA where a cloud provider
| assumes ownership of all data? Or you 're thinking of
| situations like Facebook who I believe (may be wrong or
| misremembering) has this in their EULA - content uploaded
| become theirs.
|
| On the other end of the spectrum as long as they don't know
| what's there (encryption?) it can't hurt them in the eyes of
| the law. If they can see what's there then authorities can
| still force them to act (identify the owner, remove the data,
| etc.).
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > The cloud stores your data but the provider does not own
| your pictures or your PhD paper just because you uploaded
| them there.
|
| I would assume that a bank does not regularly go rifling
| through the contents of everyone's safety deposit boxes and
| reporting items they believe are incriminating the way a
| cloud provider does.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-
| surveil...
| LadyCailin wrote:
| You agreed to terms of service that gave the data to them. That
| would be a good canary case though, have a bank provide the
| same terms of service for their physical lock boxes, and see if
| that gets struck down, despite the TOS. If so, you have a case
| to annul the digital TOS as wel.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-24 23:00 UTC)