3 ms·

There more extreme cases: >Who Pays When The DEA Destroys Your Vehicle And Kills Your Employee During A Botched Sting? Hint: Not The DEA https://www.techdirt.

by akerro 7y ago

There more extreme cases: >Who Pays When The DEA Destroys Your Vehicle And Kills Your Employee During A Botched Sting? Hint: Not The DEA https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-pays-when-dea-destroys-your-vehicle-kills-your-employee-during-botched-sting-hint-not-dea.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-p...

huffmsa 7y ago
> The judge points out that Villasana also testified that he was "not aware" of any policy instructing him to notify the vehicle's owner of its potential use in a drug sting operation Ah, ignorance of the law. Fine for them, not for you. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
- hanlonGetFucked 7y ago
  With the DEA's penchant for "parallel construction" on the table, other ideas enjoy improved probability. If the DEA is often drawing upon unconstitutional sources of information to build constitutional evidence as it constructs cases against organized crime, what does it do with unconstitutional information in all other situations? Answer: whatever it wants. Hanlon's razor must be deemed dull and rusty here, since the posture and stance of the DEA reeks of malice, and parallel construction techniques certainly preclude ignorance, if not incompetence. Maybe the DEA had a clue about why a small time trucker might make for such a useful idiot. Maybe they had a clue about how to lean on someone in just the right way, to march them into suicidal danger. Maybe they knew they were going to walk away from this disaster in the making, before they even approached the guys, and they their hands would stay clean. Maybe they arrived at a decision that they couldn't bring a case against this guy, but they could definitely take his company out of the game, and they decided that they knew enough turn a blind eye to absolutely lethal moral hazards, and hobble a company they disdained. It probably smells like an extrajudicial action because it is.
appstateguy 7y ago
Reading through the article's comments there's one from "LegalBeagle" that criticizes the man's lawyer for using the wrong argument in the lawsuit, and instead should've filed the lawsuit as a violation of the 5th Amendment. Luckily he must've gotten a better lawyer, because an appeal was allowed to continue under grounds the DEA violated the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment: > Because plaintiffs have stated facts sufficient to demonstrate that the government physically deprived them of property for the duration of the controlled drug delivery operation, we hold that plaintiffs have stated a claim for a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. We therefore deny defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4467728/patty-v-united-states/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4467728/patty-v-united...

by akerro 7y ago

huffmsa 7y ago

> The judge points out that Villasana also testified that he was "not aware" of any policy instructing him to notify the vehicle's owner of its potential use in a drug sting operation Ah, ignorance of the law. Fine for them, not for you. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

hanlonGetFucked 7y ago
With the DEA's penchant for "parallel construction" on the table, other ideas enjoy improved probability. If the DEA is often drawing upon unconstitutional sources of information to build constitutional evidence as it constructs cases against organized crime, what does it do with unconstitutional information in all other situations? Answer: whatever it wants. Hanlon's razor must be deemed dull and rusty here, since the posture and stance of the DEA reeks of malice, and parallel construction techniques certainly preclude ignorance, if not incompetence. Maybe the DEA had a clue about why a small time trucker might make for such a useful idiot. Maybe they had a clue about how to lean on someone in just the right way, to march them into suicidal danger. Maybe they knew they were going to walk away from this disaster in the making, before they even approached the guys, and they their hands would stay clean. Maybe they arrived at a decision that they couldn't bring a case against this guy, but they could definitely take his company out of the game, and they decided that they knew enough turn a blind eye to absolutely lethal moral hazards, and hobble a company they disdained. It probably smells like an extrajudicial action because it is.

appstateguy 7y ago

Reading through the article's comments there's one from "LegalBeagle" that criticizes the man's lawyer for using the wrong argument in the lawsuit, and instead should've filed the lawsuit as a violation of the 5th Amendment. Luckily he must've gotten a better lawyer, because an appeal was allowed to continue under grounds the DEA violated the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment: > Because plaintiffs have stated facts sufficient to demonstrate that the government physically deprived them of property for the duration of the controlled drug delivery operation, we hold that plaintiffs have stated a claim for a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. We therefore deny defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4467728/patty-v-united-states/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4467728/patty-v-united...