Jump to content

Seriatim Tom

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Seriatim Tom

  1. 7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

    You need to do some reading. Addicts with a proper supply of clean drugs can have perfectly normal lives. It's not the junk that does them in, it's the ridiculous cycle of having to get drugs by any means possible that is a danger to themselves and others.

    This is exactly the kind of thing libertarians have been saying about the stupid drug war since the 1970's. Not bad for people who don't appreciate or understand a thing, right?


    On 11/28/2021 at 9:48 PM, Ishmael said:



  2. 8 hours ago, Raz'r said:
    9 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

    I suspect the Washington State legislature understands that having government inspectors barge into the homes of renters for their own good is beneficial and only nutjobs really see it as a problem, so I doubt reforms will be forthcoming.


    You're asking the party (and lawyers) of big gov't intrusion to defend your rights?

    There's more than one such party.

    On the topic issue, the party of big govt intrusion that runs Washington State is TeamD, and no, I'm not asking nor expecting them to go the nutjob way on rental inspections. People in that state who don't want government inspectors coming into their homes should just buy, not rent. If they rent, they're going to have to accept TeamD supervision inside their homes for their own good.


  3. Judge Orders Massachusetts Prisons To Stop Using 'Highly Unreliable' Drug Field Tests To Punish Inmates




    In July, several Massachusetts inmates and attorneys, represented by Justice Catalyst Law and the law firm BraunHagey & Borden, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the state Department of Corrections (DOC) uses NARK II test kits to detect synthetic cannabinoids even though those tests have an error rate so high that they're akin to "witchcraft, phrenology or simply picking a number out of a hat."

    On Tuesday, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Brian Davis issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the DOC from punishing inmates based solely on the results of unverified NARK II field tests. Davis found that the tests were "highly unreliable" and "only marginally better than a coin-flip." He ruled that the DOC's practice of placing inmates in solitary confinement and restricting access to their lawyers before those field tests were verified by outside labs "constitutes an arbitrary and unlawful interference with Plaintiffs' right to counsel, as well as their right to due process."



    Good for that judge, but it does bring up a couple of issues.

    Why are drug warriors buying a test that's "only marginally better than a coin flip" in the first place?

    Resorting to such a test in a prison means that we're losing the drug war even in prisons, leading me to conclude that "winning" it will require that we be less free than our prisoners.

  4. On 12/6/2018 at 8:17 AM, Seriatim Tom said:

    Administrative Searches and the 4th Amendment

    Sorry to report that my libertarian elk are engaged in yet another assault on the American justice system.

    Rest easy, America!

    Following Reforms, Washington Supreme Court Lets Seattle’s Invasive Inspection Law Stand



    Yesterday, the Washington State Supreme Court denied review of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Seattle law that requires tenants to submit to warrantless inspections of their homes. The lawsuit, which was brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ) on behalf of a group of Seattle renters and landlords, argued that the law was a clear violation of the Washington state constitution’s mandate that “[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”


    “Seattle treats renters who wish to protect their privacy from government-mandated inspectors as second-class citizens,” said Institute for Justice Nutjob Robert Peccola, who represented the plaintiffs. “For many Seattle residents, owning a home is not an option. For them, this law remains an invasive violation of the constitutional right to privacy. With the court’s denial, the onus is now on state lawmakers to put an end of warrantless rental inspections in every city in this state.”



    I suspect the Washington State legislature understands that having government inspectors barge into the homes of renters for their own good is beneficial and only nutjobs really see it as a problem, so I doubt reforms will be forthcoming.


  5. 3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

    With just a very few exceptions, "Libertarian" means just another RWNJwho thinks the rich should not have to pay taxes, and hates Democrats. They pat themselves on the back for being more intellectually pretentious than trumpalos, but they're eager to jump aboard the same bus.

    - DSK

    So how did the only Libertarian to ever serve in Congress vote on Trump's impeachment again? I forgot.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Nice! said:
    18 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

    But public possession and/or use of something has little to do with whether it's legal to possess it on private property. In case you missed it, the big controversy right now about guns is whether or not it should be legal to continue to possess guns that were legally purchased.

    No it isn't. That's a fake story told to you by disingenuous people who want you to be outraged because the libs are going to take your guys. Stop it with that.

    I'll stop it the day after grabbers stop proposing exactly what I described in my state, a day that can't come a moment too soon.

    Until then, the controversy about whether it should be legal to continue to possess our battlefield .22's and other weapons of war will continue, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

  7. 8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

    You did need your vehicle title in order to sell your truck in FLA. There were doubtlessly some forms and taxes involved as well. There is no 'farm truck' exception. Now if you don't believe that I have a bridge I can let you have for not much bitcoin.


    Selling it for cash to a neighbor wouldn't be legal without a title transfer, it's true. Still doesn't make possessing it a felony.

    Since you're here and wanting to talk cars and guns, maybe you can clear up a post you made a while back?


    On 9/18/2020 at 12:32 PM, Olsonist said:

    It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

    That's not how auto liability works, of course, but you were trying to make some kind of point and I just can't figure out what it might have been. Something about gun owner liability for the actions of criminals, I guess, but it's not clear. Please explain.

  8. 1 hour ago, Point Break said:

    Let’s see……some guy with multiple owies of varying seriousness……..a raft floating somewhere in the pool and a extended lift on its side at the bottom of the pool. As I walked in on the 911 call, this would be the classic “can you explain to me how this happened?”

    Actually writing a book is a lot less fun and more work than it sounds so I won't join the chorus of voices begging for that, but have to ask: did you ever find anything that interesting at the bottom of a pool?

  9. 1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

    In order to keep Tom from invoking his farm truck exception (which is a shitty representative of the situation), please remember to specify vehicles used on roads.

    But public possession and/or use of something has little to do with whether it's legal to possess it on private property. In case you missed it, the big controversy right now about guns is whether or not it should be legal to continue to possess guns that were legally purchased.

  10. 52 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

    A previously registered but currently un-registerable firearm left in a field on a farm, and allowed to rust in to the dirt is comparable to the farm truck.

    Not really. Something like that can get the field owner a felony conviction. Leave an unregisterable truck in the same field and it's not a crime at all.

  11. 56 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

    So, if he said vehicles are required to be registered, licensed and insured to drive on public roads, you wouldn't be able to draw that comparison.  Got it.

    Correct, but since the post I was responding to said:

    23 hours ago, Nice! said:

    every car must be registered with the government, which tracks who owns it at any given time for the life of the car

    your line of questioning seems irrelevant. No one else was going to point out that the statement was false, so I did.

    48 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

    Tom, did you have a certificate of vehicle title for that there farm truck of yours?

    Yes, and I used it to sell it, not that that was necessary. If a neighbor had wanted it as a farm truck for life, he might well have not cared about getting a title, but I could still possess it, I could still sell it, and he could still possess it, with or without a title.

    But since you're here and wanting to compare cars to guns, maybe you can clear up a post you made a while back?


    On 9/18/2020 at 12:32 PM, Olsonist said:

    It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

    That's not how auto liability works, of course, but you were trying to make some kind of point and I just can't figure out what it might have been. Something about gun owner liability for the actions of criminals, I guess, but it's not clear. Please explain.

  12. 2 hours ago, Marcjsmith said:

    not sure if this shoudl go here or somewhere else.... my asshole is puckering..

    In the absence of a LONFW thread, this one will have to do.

    NO F'IN WAY, especially not with another person aboard with me.

  13. 37 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

    I am sure you see the previously, and no longer, registered farm truck as a great comparison.

    Yes, that's why I used my awesome mind control powers to cause Nice! to bring up the comparison so I could reply.

  14. 26 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

    Do you drive that farm truck on roads?

    I used to when it was registered and insured then quit when we let the registration expire.

    Funny thing about it: letting the registration expire while continuing to possess it did NOT make me eligible for a felony conviction. It was totally legal. All the support for treating guns like cars dries up when that comes up, though.

  15. 7 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

    The dad and possibly mom should go to jail in the Oxford shooting.


    Dad and possibly mom will likely be indicted by the end of the week.  The prosecutor is considering manslaughter charges...good.  Your gun, your responsibility.

    I'd like to know what, if anything, they were doing to restrict/supervise access. Based on the kid's social media posts, not enough and they should have known it seems the likely answer. Unless we learn something to contradict that conclusion, I agree with you that one or both of them should face charges.

  16. The Supreme Court May Elevate the Second Amendment Above the First




    Critically, and missed in the wider discourse around the case, Paul Clement, the attorney for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, opened the door to resolving the case by looking at the Court’s past First Amendment jurisprudence and applying it to gun rights. Contrary to what Clement argued, though, framing the guns case through a First Amendment lens reveals that the Court has drawn clear and workable lines that augur for common sense regulations. If the Supreme Court were to hold gun owners to the same standards it holds people seeking to take part in protected speech and assembly, New York’s current restrictions on concealed carry would actually survive in some modified form. If that doesn’t happen, then the Court’s conservatives would be elevating the status of the Second Amendment above First Amendment protections for the first time ever.


    this does not mean that lawmakers are free to do as they please in restricting firearms in public. If the Second Amendment is going to be treated like the First Amendment, government restrictions on the carrying of firearms must be tailored to prevent discrimination and arbitrary decision-making. While local governments may require speakers to obtain permits to hold events in public forums, those permitting decisions must be based upon, “narrow, objective, and definite standards” and “related to the proper regulation of public places.” In other words, permits may not be denied for reasons unrelated to the enjoyment of the public forum. The clearest rule under these circumstances, is that the government’s decisions cannot be based upon the content of the speaker’s message.


    Even when restrictions upon firearms are not discriminatory, but are for the legitimate purpose of protecting public safety, such laws must still be narrow, objective, and based upon clear standards. When it comes to speech, this requirement ensures that the permitting authority cannot use the permit as a means of censoring constitutionally protected speech. According to the Court, “the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is unconstitutional…” The same should be true for firearms, and, arguably, this is where New York’s law fails. The requirement that applicants must show “proper cause” may be insufficiently clear and objective, allowing officials to exercise an unconstitutional amount of discretion.



    Arguably? That's where it completely fails.

    The NYC public defenders and black legal aid lawyers mentioned above summed it up this way:


    In New York City, where we practice, the licensing structure allocates total and unilateral discretion to the NYPD to decide whose firearm possession is lawful and whose is a “violent felony.” It charges hefty fees, disproportionately burdening indigent people. And it results in a wildly disparate allocation of licenses, unsurprisingly favoring people who are associated with the police. No part of this gatekeeping structure is consonant with a fundamental constitutional right.

    But I guess I should be, and am, glad that he's willing to acknowledge that some aspect of gun control might actually go too far. As for his overall argument of treating the amendments of the bill of rights in similar ways, I'm a long time fan of that. And Favre.

  17. On 5/21/2021 at 10:03 AM, badlatitude said:

    Other than embarrassing his employer, what was inappropriate about Chris Cuomo offering his brother advice?

    There are new answers to your question.




    On Monday, New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose investigation into sexual-harassment complaints against the Democratic governor precipitated his August resignation, released new documents that show how Chris mixed his roles as brother and broadcaster. The documents show that he was engaged in passing information to a top aide to the governor, Melissa DeRosa, as his brother’s team scrambled to respond to accusations. “I have a lead on the wedding girl,” he texted DeRosa, referring to a woman who complained that Andrew had made an unwanted advance at a wedding.

    “When asked, I would reach out to sources, other journalists, to see if they had heard of anybody else coming out,” Chris explained in an interview with the attorney general’s office. He said he had only been seeking info about whether other complaints against his brother were forthcoming, not trying to dig up dirt on accusers. “I would never do oppo research on anybody alleging anything like this. I’m not in the oppo research business.”


    The new revelations demonstrate more serious errors of judgment. When Chris Cuomo simply offered advice to staff members, he failed to observe the rules CNN had set for his private behavior. But by gathering information from “sources” and passing it to his brother’s staff, Cuomo committed the more egregious step of directly mixing the journalistic work of calling sources and gathering information with his personal, familial commitments. He was wise not to go further into the realm of “oppo research,” but he still went far beyond the bounds of propriety.


    (Chris Cuomo has faced his own allegations of sexual harassment. A former colleague at ABC wrote in a New York Times column in September that he had groped her in 2005. Cuomo acknowledged and apologized at the time of the incident and again when the column was published.)



    What is it about New Yorkers and grabbing 'em by the pussy?


  18. In eviction ripple news, One of the Country's Last Eviction Moratoriums Is Struck Down



    Boston politicians are fighting to retain one of the country's last remaining eviction bans in the face of a waning pandemic and an adverse court ruling. Newly elected Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has vowed to contest a state judge's ruling, which found that the city's moratorium was an abuse of its emergency powers.


    BPHC argued in response to their lawsuit that its own eviction moratorium was necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and was therefore justified by state public health laws that gave it the power to craft "reasonable public health regulations" to combat communicable diseases.

    In a Monday decision, Housing Court Judge Irene Bagdoian firmly rejected this argument, saying that nothing in the statutes cited by BPHC would suggest that an eviction moratorium that overrides state landlord-tenant law was "reasonable."

    "This court perceives great mischief in allowing a municipality or one of its agencies to exceed its powers," wrote Bagdoian.


    Boston's sweeping ban was one of the last of its kind.

    It's also one of the few local moratoriums to be successfully challenged in court. Judges have generally given local and state governments wide latitude to impose whatever limits on evictions they see fit during the pandemic.

    These moratoriums have been justified as necessary to prevent a "wave" of evictions during the pandemic. That fear was always overblown, and wave has failed to materialize almost anywhere eviction bans have been allowed to lapse.

    The policies have, however, put an incredible amount of hardship on a limited number of landlords, who have effectively been forced to provide free housing for unscrupulous, and in a few cases dangerous, tenants.



    Jeff and Cliff have both shared their troubles with the moratoriums.

    Having to evict someone is a disaster for a landlord, not something anyone is yearning to do. It never got close for me. The worst pandemic effect that I've seen has been otherwise good tenants being a bit late, nothing that would make me want to lose them, let alone evict them. I'm sending another year renewal to one of those today. Another is month-to-month so I could get rid of her any time, but I haven't and won't.

    We happen to have two of the "limited number" of landlords affected here on the forum, but the "tsunami" turning out to be a ripple really isn't a big surprise to me. Landlording discussions online focus on the problems, of course, but there's a pervasive desire to work things out to keep tenants if possible, or do a "cash for keys" arrangement or something if they really have to go.



  19. 20 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:
    5 hours ago, Burning Man said:


    guns don't whisper to their owners to go out and commit Redrum.  

    Just saying.

    Like that bottle of bourbon doesn't whisper "drink me" to an alcoholic eh?

    Well, OK, how are gun owners like alcoholics?

  20. Watch Drug War Looters In Action



    Police pulled over Lara near Reno on February 19. After he consented to a search, the officers discovered nearly $90,000 in bundled cash in Lara's backpack. Although Lara was not arrested or charged with a crime, the officers claimed the money was drug trafficking proceeds and seized through a practice known as civil asset forfeiture.

    The government has since agreed to return Lara's money, and on Tuesday, the Institute for Justice, a nutjob-leaning public interest law firm, released body camera footage of the February 19 traffic stop, calling it a "rare glimpse into an abuse of power that thousands of innocent Americans experience each year."

    The Washington Post first reported in September on Lara's case after the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit on Lara's behalf against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), where his money had been sitting for more than six months since that traffic stop.


    With no probable cause to seize the cash, a Nevada Highway Patrol sergeant who arrived on the scene ordered a drug-sniffing dog to be brought in. The dog alerted on the cash, and the officers announced that they would be seizing it as probable drug proceeds.

    Civil liberties organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute for Justice say that cases like Lara's show how police use civil forfeiture to seize property on flimsy suspicions. The owners, who are never charged with a crime, then bear the burden of going to court to prove their innocence, or rather the innocence of their property, to be precise.

    "Carrying around cash is not a crime," Wesley Hottot, a senior nutjob at the Institute for Justice, said in a press release. "Stephen did nothing wrong. He isn't charged with any crime and the government isn't even willing to defend this seizure in court. Innocent people shouldn't lose their property like this. 


    It was only after Lara sued the DEA for blowing its deadline to either give him his cash back or file a forfeiture case against it in federal court, and only after The Washington Post post reported on his case, that the government agreed to return his money. Lara is still pursuing lawsuits against the DEA and the Nevada Highway Patrol.



    Mr. Lara didn't know this kind of thing could happen to him in America, possibly because most people pay no attention to the kind of nutjobs who speak about these kinds of things.

    Now he knows.


  21. 5 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

    Like that bottle of bourbon doesn't whisper "drink me" to an alcoholic eh?

    If you assume all gun owners have some kind of addiction, perhaps. Is everyone who owns a bottle of booze an alcoholic?

  22. New York City Is Funding America's First Official Safe Injection Site for Drug Users




    New York City will not be running the consumption centers. Instead, the two nonprofits who currently run the needle injection programs have joined up to form an organization named OnPoint NYC, which will also run the safe consumption sites. These nonprofits receive city funding.


    Safe consumption sites (also called safe injection sites) have been operating in Canada and Australia for years. While New York City will be the first U.S. city to offer these services, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia also have plans in the works. All of these cities have seen increasing rates of public use of injected drugs such as heroin, as well as high rates of overdoses and overdose deaths. New York City reported more than 2,000 drug overdose deaths in 2020. The United States as a whole has also seen a record number of overdose deaths—more than 93,000 for 2020.

    Given such numbers, safe consumption sites are a necessary and long-overdue harm reduction measure, properly focused on keeping drug users alive rather than on waging a punitive and failed drug war. The American Medical Association supports the use of safe consumption sites, noting earlier this year that not a single overdose death has been reported in the 120 safe consumption sites operating elsewhere in the world. That is precisely because health professionals at those sites are prepared to respond to emergencies.

    Unfortunately, U.S. drug laws have made it difficult to open similar sites here. Section 856 of the federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to knowingly allow a space to be used for the purpose of consuming drugs. This law was crafted in 1986 to shut down so-called "crack houses," but when Philadelphia allowed nonprofit Safehouse to open a safe consumption site in that city in 2019, U.S. Attorney William McSwain of the Eastern District of Philadelphia invoked federal law to stop the site from opening. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially took Safehouse's side and said the text of Section 856 did not forbid city-approved, medically monitored consumption sites. But that ruling was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which held that federal law did prohibit sites like the one operated by Safehouse. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. The Safehouse site has not opened.

    So while New York City is now funding safe injection sites (incoming mayor Eric Adams is on the record supporting them) there's still the question of what the federal government might do in response. The New York Times reports that while the Biden administration has taken a position in support of harm reduction methods to prevent drug deaths, it has not endorsed safe injection sites. New York City Health Commissioner Dave Chokshi told the Times that the city has had "productive conversations" with the Biden administration and believes the federal government won't attempt to interfere.


    I haven't read it but suspect that the 3rd Circuit actually got the legally correct result, if not the right one in my view. The law itself is pretty short and clear.


  • Create New...