ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/22/2018 11:35 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.537 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/28/2007 01:10 AM ID: 64535 Permalink   

Guilty Until Proven Innocent: DEA Robs Man of Nearly $24,000

 

The ACLU is suing the DEA on behalf of Anastasio Prieto, a truck driver who had $23,700 of his own money seized by DEA agents at a weigh station in New Mexico. Prieto does not like banks, and customarily carries his savings as cash.

Border Patrol agents used dogs to search his truck but found no evidence of illegal substances. Officers took his money regardless and turned it over to DEA agents who said he’d need to prove it didn't come from illegal drug sales to get it back.

The ACLU lawsuit states that mere possession of nearly $23,700 does not establish probable cause. New Mexico’s ACLU Executive Director said, "The government took Mr. Prieto’s money as surely as if he had been robbed on a street corner at night."

 
  Source: www.chron.com  
    WebReporter: ManilaRyce Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  22 Comments
  
  Yay for the Government.  
 
Robin Hood anyone...?
 
  by: Ahab   08/28/2007 01:22 AM     
  @Ahab  
 
how can you compare this to robin hood, he stole from the rich and gave to the poor.


i don't like banks either... i have two bank accounts i use them strictly to deposit money, rarely ever to hold it.

with banks your money can be gone tomorrow just because the government says so... if you don't believe so look up history... same applies from storing precious metals too.


as for innocent till proven guilty, this doesn't apply to the US legally anymore, only formally, all such rights can be suspended upon suspicion now...

lets all thank bush and his band of "freedom fighters" for keeping us all "free". the only freedom fighting the bush admin has ever done is fight our freedom and i say our because he's virtually affected the freedom of 1/3 of the world or more... certianly including canada.
 
  by: havoc666     08/28/2007 01:36 AM     
  @havoc666  
 
I don't like Bush that much either, but this has nothing to do with him in any way shape or form, the DEA has done this ever since the "War on Drugs" started decades ago. If you want to end the war on drugs get more people to vote for Ron Paul. Or else face the fact that the US government steals money from citizens to fund stripping the rights of said citizens. Such as telling them what substances they can partake of, or how old a girl has to be, while paying for the efforts to oppress them with their own tax dollars.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     08/28/2007 01:49 AM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  
 
ron paul wants to privatize the government, has a horrible environmental voting record, and thinks america ought to be a christian nation. your time is better spent with gravel or kucinich who will also end the war on drugs.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     08/28/2007 01:56 AM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  
 
well if you re-read what i said you'll see how bush has a role in the enabling of this... HE put forth the framework that enable this to happen.. the bill of rights doesn't even technically exist anymore... its just a show and tell deal that the local law enforcement follows as a formality.. suspicion is all it takes to have your right revoked now... that does most certianly have to do with bush.
 
  by: havoc666     08/28/2007 02:17 AM     
  @Manila  
 
You should really look into Ron Paul and not just make assumptions based off of news clips. Why do you think the media is trying to ignore him while the general population is slowly embracing him?
 
  by: johnjohnjohn   08/28/2007 04:37 AM     
  @johnjohnjohn  
 
news clips? those are a bit hard for me to come by seeing as how i don't have a tv. i have done my research, and everything i've said was true. if you'd like to correct me i'm more than ready to engage in a real debate. you haven't done anything but prove you're the one without the facts.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     08/28/2007 06:42 AM     
  @Manila  
 
I've got to say from what I've seen of Ron Paul, he is about the only classic republican running.

He's about the only one that I have any respect for. The rest are sound bites on repeat: Islamic terror, terror in the middle east, terror in your own backyard...

Next verse, same as the first.

The new wave of republicans are pretty much bush cardboard cutouts.

The only one taking a complete opposite stance is Ron. Wants to restore the constitution back since bush tore into it, remove income tax, the IRS, Homeland security, and he believes in no entangling alliances or world policing. He believes Democracy isn't found by dictating foreign policy to other countries through the barrel of a gun, it's setting an example back home, live prosperously, cut gov spending, get our country out of debit. If your system of gov sets a positive example the rest of the world will take notice and they will follow.

He wants us out of Iraq immediately.

I'm not a fan of the republican party of the past 7 years. It's been hipocracy at it's finest. Ron Paul has been a fresh breath of air.

Does he have all the answers through privatization, I don't think so. The utopia he paints with privatizing everything is not one I see as being good for healthcare nor Social Security.

But he is a no bullshit candidate and I hope he makes the republican ticket over his bush clone peers.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   08/28/2007 07:22 AM     
  Ron Paul  
 
I don't usually push the republican agenda, but Ron isn't a typical bushman republican.

For anyone curious about what Ron is about can view this youtube vid: http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   08/28/2007 07:25 AM     
  @havoc666  
 
Actually, re-read the history of the drug war. Seizing money or other goods like this has been going on since at least the early 80's.

For example, I saw a story on NBC in the 90's about a woman whose car was seized by local police in Louisiana on suspicion of being purchased with drug money.

Or the case of Donald Scott in 1992 in Southern California, where 5 agencies raided a mans home, killing him before siezing it. And no drugs were found.

The difference is in the cases I mentioned, the victims are Caucasian, not Hispanic.
 
  by: Major-General   08/28/2007 07:59 AM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
Yes yes, I know all about Ron Paul. How is any of what you said contrary to what I've said? I never claimed Paul was a Bushie. He is indeed the best Republican candidate, but that's not saying much. I hope he does get the Republican nomination, but we'd be taking a step back domestically if he won the presidency. Privatization is what got us where we are now. Plus, his stances on abortion, global warming, and gay rights are nothing to wave a banner for.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     08/28/2007 08:34 AM     
  @ManilaRyce  
 
Yes, I certainly agree the hands off gov stance on medical/tech research, environment, healthcare, elderly care fall off the map with Ron.

But refreshing to hear his common sense approach among all the other nut job republicans.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   08/28/2007 09:06 AM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
i agree, and i do respect paul more than any other republican. i'd also vote for him over MOST democrats. the exceptions are kucinich and gravel. I think either one of those candidates is better than paul. i refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore, and though paul isn't as great an evil as clinton or giuliani, he's still not getting my vote because he simply doesn't represent me or the majority of americans.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     08/28/2007 10:35 AM     
  @havoc  
 
The DEA (and other agencies) have been able to seize "suspicious" assets for more than two decades now. They've seized any number of innocent people's cash, homes, cars, boat, planes, etc. In many cases those assets are totally lost to the victim, having to sell them to pay the legal fees to 1) defend themselves against charges and 2) fight to get the assets back.

This has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the War on Drugs fiasco.

Article from 1993:

http://www.fff.org/...
 
  by: Dedolito     08/28/2007 02:55 PM     
  i hope  
 
that this man makes at LEAST one million in lawsuits. I hate pointless lawsuits....unless they are directed at the government when they are screwing the innocent
 
  by: darkrom666   08/28/2007 03:23 PM     
  @darkroom  
 
No government official will be out a dime if this man wins a million dollar lawsuit against the government. I will. Every tax payer will. I don’t want this man winning a dime against the government because I will have to pay it. I want this man to sue the DEA agents and the cops personally that took his money for civil rights violations and possibly charge them with grand larceny and lock them up. If they can’t behave and obey they law, we have a place just for them, prison. Welcome to the Retarded Straights of Amerika.

Interesting that we as citizens are no longer allowed to carry cash. I wonder when that law went into effect? Anyone here live through the depression? If you had your money in the bank when the crash hit and the “bank holiday” started, it was all gone. You had what was in your pocket and that was it. How much cash do you have on hand? Your credit cards will be worthless pieces of plastic. How are you going to survive when the banks close? I would say the government is setting up “we the people” to take the ultimate fall and all for the benefit of the super rich. I am not happy about this. I feel the same way about Home Land Security and FEMA. It is illegal to have a working outhouse and in most places hand pumps. When the terrorists set off an EMP and kill the power grid how are we going to get water? You can only survive about 7 days without water. How are we going to flush the toilet? How is the government going to supply us with these very basics? They aren’t and they don’t care. They have deliberately deprived us of basic survival needs through regulation and laws and have no plan in effect to cover these needs. We are at the mercy of big city complete idiots that know nothing about survival. That can be easily seen in the Katrina disaster. Do you really believe the system has been fixed? Call your senator and ask them where you are supposed to poop when the water no longer runs and the lights go out for good. Are we all supposed to grab hand tools and build an outhouse out of the tree in the front yard? Do you have any hand tools? I would like to see a mass poop mailing to the congress by everyone in the US and keep sending it till they get off their asses and address the problems of REAL SURVIVAL.
 
  by: Valkyrie123     08/28/2007 05:04 PM     
  @Valk  
 
Hiya - Out of curiosity, have you (or has anyone else) seen Zeitgeist ?

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/...

Best to download it as a torrent (It's a legal download btw)

Great for the conspiracy crowd and at the very least, interesting.
 
  by: WWarrior     08/28/2007 05:24 PM     
  @major general & dedolito  
 
"@havoc666
Actually, re-read the history of the drug war. Seizing money or other goods like this has been going on since at least the early 80's.

For example, I saw a story on NBC in the 90's about a woman whose car was seized by local police in Louisiana on suspicion of being purchased with drug money.

Or the case of Donald Scott in 1992 in Southern California, where 5 agencies raided a mans home, killing him before siezing it. And no drugs were found.

The difference is in the cases I mentioned, the victims are Caucasian, not Hispanic."

what so hard to understand about what i said... am i speaking in tongues on your end of the internet?

the bush admin has laid the framework for suspension of people most fundamental rights, INCLUDING innocent until proven guily, due process and the like infact only 1 of the 10 parts of the bill of right technically still applies you can still shelter soldiers... big whoop.

i'm not saying the bush admin caused this only that they laid framework (or further framework) that make this action "legal" despite being extremely unconstitutional.

i'm sorry if people are misundrstanding me, i thought my comments were quite blunt.
 
  by: havoc666     08/28/2007 06:04 PM     
  @havok  
 
"they laid framework (or further framework) that make this action "legal" despite being extremely unconstitutional"

But they didn't, that's what we're trying to tell you. The framework that made this case legal was laid in the 1980s. Bush's admin might have done other things that have erroded freedoms and right here, but none of that touches this case.

The framework was in place before Bush came into office. Nothing that's been done since 2000 has made the actions of the DEA in this case any more or less legal.
 
  by: Dedolito     08/28/2007 06:54 PM     
  Will the DEA never cease?  
 
I had a friend who purchased an airplane that was confiscated by the DEA. After he flew it out of Arizona, he was nabbed by the DEA at his next stop in Utah, beacuase as they stated "he was running drugs". They had him under surveillance since his departure from the DEA compound in Arizona. No drugs were found on the aircraft. They merely stated that he had drugs, or was intending to procure & transport drugs. The aircraft was impounded and sold at auction - again.
Nice money making scheme that the DEA has got going...
 
  by: Zpravodajec     08/28/2007 07:11 PM     
  @Manilla..  
 
"he's still not getting my vote because he simply doesn't represent me or the majority of americans."

So you are in the majority of Americans, that enjoys not being able to afford helath care, likes paying 1/3 of your salery to the IRS and support the war in Iraq? Because Ron Paul is against all these things, so I find it hard to believe any otther canidate is willing to demolish the IRS...

AS far as the two canidates you mentioned, I have never heard of them, but will do some research on them.
 
  by: RAD     08/28/2007 08:25 PM     
  @rad  
 
yes, please do some research on the candidates i mentioned before you make assumptions as to what my positions are. as far as health care goes, kucinich is the only candidate who wants to give americans universal not-for-profit coverage. paul does not think health care is a basic human right and does not support the bill.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     08/28/2007 09:29 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com