Guest Post by Simon Black
Each Friday we highlight a number of important, and often bizarre stories from around the world that my team and I are closely following:
Chicago police run a vehicle impound racket
Imagine dropping your car off at the local mechanic because you need to get your engine tuned up.
A few days later you come back to pick up your car, only to find out that it has been impounded by the police.
That’s what happened to one couple in Chicago.
It turned out that one of the mechanics took their car out for a joy ride. He was driving too fast, was pulled over, and arrested for driving without a license.
The police then impounded the vehicle, even though it wasn’t his.
The couple went down to the police station to get their vehicle back, but the police insisted that they pay thousands of dollars, even though they did nothing wrong.
Meanwhile, the police are charging them storage fees to keep the vehicle in the impound parking lot.
The couple managed to scrap together the money to have their vehicle released… only to find out that the police had already sold it at an auction!
This wasn’t an isolated incident either. The City of Chicago does this countless times per year, for offenses as minor as littering and playing loud music.
(Chicago brings in about $28 million per year impounding cars and running up storage fees.)
Now the Institute for Justice is helping the couple lead a class action lawsuit challenging this Civil Asset Forfeiture racket.
They argue the scheme violates due process, by forcing innocent vehicle owners to account for crimes drivers committed. Plus, holding the vehicles ransom until fines are paid is an unconstitutional seizure.
Click here for the full story.
Appeals Court diminishes the Fourth Amendment
An US federal appeals court recently ruled that when police suspect a driver of Operating While Intoxicated (OWI), officers can search the vehicle for drugs and other contraband.
This applies even if police have no reason to suspect that there are any illegal substances in the vehicle.
This may sound like a small issue, but it is another example of the Fourth Amendment being chipped away.
Police are supposed to have a very narrow latitude to search you. Everything they do must be justified by reasonable suspicion related to a specific offense.
Smelling alcohol on your breath isn’t supposed to give them carte blanche to turn your vehicle inside out.
Click here for the full story.
Should Life Insurance cover death by auto-erotic asphyxiation?
Autoerotic asphyxiation is the process of intentionally strangling yourself (or being strangled) for sexual pleasure.
The goal is to limit airflow to the brain to cause a euphoric feeling, but restore airflow before you suffocate and die.
Sometimes people go a little bit too far, and actually die in the process.
But some life insurance companies are not willing to pay out benefits for accidental deaths related to this fetish.
One widow was paid out most of her husband’s death benefits, but could not collect the extra coverage for accidental death. The insurance company said that they will not pay because the death resulted from an “intentional self-inflicted injury.”
So she sued. And the latest court ruling sided with the insurance company. But the courts have already flip-flopped twice on this one case.
Other courts have had similar disagreements, which come down to the semantic meaning of a word.
Clearly autoerotic asphyxiation is intentional and self-inflicted. But is the desired result correctly categorized as an injury? Or is an injury an undesired side effect?
Either way it will be entertaining to watch when the Supreme Court picks up the issue.
Click here for the full story.
Warren Buffett had some choice words for America’s worst corporation
We’re not the only ones who have noticed just how horrible large banks can be.
Warren Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger usually take some time at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting to offer their advice to large companies.
They said the reason Wells Fargo has faced so many scandals over the past few years is because they hire leadership from Wall Street instead of community bankers.
For years the bank provided incentives that rewarded employees for recommending investments likely to lose value, sticking customers with unnecessary products and accounts that charge unnecessary fees.
Employees even opened accounts and transferred customers’ money into them without telling the customers, all to get bonuses.
Most likely, they said, the big banks will maintain the status quo… because the short-term financial incentives of bank executives are completely misaligned with those of the customers and long-term interests of shareholders.
Click here for the full story.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Another reason not to live in the broke Liberal controlled cities.
The problem, i.e. law is nationwide. Wake up!
Give Chicago another 5 – 10 years and it will another Detroit.
In Philly, couple of winters ago, they towed a car to the impound lot. After about a month, nobody claimed the car. One of the lot employees brushed the snow off the car, opened the door – and found the owner dead, frozen. He was dead in the car for over a month.
The State will most likely sue his estate for storage for both the car and the body……and the county morgue will sue for unlawful placement of body….
Burn the impound lots,these are for most part privately hired orcs for the govt.,they want govt. theft on their list of services,treat em as such and trash the companies with city contracts vehicles,trust me,I know you will not be the first!
So, this guy wants insurance to pay out for auto-erotic asphyxiation. That would be easy to fake. Nope. Do not agree with that.
years ago when i was in the life business a case was just getting started & i left the company soon after so i don’t know how it turned out but a gal went to the emer rm w/an asthma attack–
the resident on duty apparently did not treat her correctly & she died,and the family won a malpractice award–
just as i was leaving the company a letter came in from the family’s atty demanding the accidental death portion of the life policy–we had already paid the natural death part but had rejected the accidental death claim because she had not died of an injury–
i’ve always wondered how that case turned out–
Liberal vs. Conservative
Left vs right
Democrat vs Republican
All of the above has absolutely ZERO to do with civil asset and forfeiture laws. Why? Because both democrats and republicans FULLY support CAF, i.e. theft laws. Not one more or less than the other.
As a matter of fact, Trump himself FULLY supports this practice of theft. He has not come out once and condemned this state sanctioned theft. But he has come out publicly and supported it. Continue this exercise;
“We’ll Destroy His Career”: Trump On Senator Who Wants Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform (Video)
Earlier today, President Trump offered to “destroy” the career of a state senator who introduced legislation that a Texas sheriff doesn’t like.
From CNBC:
During a White House listening session with law enforcement, Rockwall County Sheriff Harold Eavenson brought up a state senator who introduced a bill requiring that a suspect be convicted before their assets can be seized, an action he opposed. Efforts to stop the practice of seizing assets before conviction have received bipartisan support in the state.
Federal cops are now officially raking in more “assets” than burglars in this country do.
Listen carefully to what Trump says in this video.
While Eavenson did not provide Trump with any names, The Dallas Morning News reported that two Texas senators have offered legislation this year to require conviction before a person’s assets can be seized (which is a GOOD thing, because as stated above, civil asset forfeiture is a racket and violates Constitutional rights):
Sen. Konni Burton, a Republican who often pushes civil-liberties legislation to protect personal information and property, was a fierce critic of Trump during the campaign. She and Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, a McAllen Democrat, have formed an unlikely team pushing this asset forfeiture legislation.
Hinojosa said he didn’t believe he was the target of Eavenson’s comments. But he said he wasn’t concerned about Trump’s promise to wreak havoc on a senator’s career.
“I don’t know the sheriff,” Hinojosa said. “Quite frankly, I don’t pay much attention to what Trump says anymore.”
Several other senators have also supported this change in the past, including two civil-libertarian Republicans: Bob Hall, whose district includes Rockwall County, and Don Huffines of Dallas.
Eavenson said he didn’t take Trump’s offer seriously:
“He was just being emphatic that he did not agree with that senator’s position.
“I’m not into assassinating his character,” he added about the unnamed senator.
While I agree that Trump was probably joking about destroying the unnamed senator’s career, something else he said during this conversation is deeply concerning:
Sheriff: “A state senator in Texas was talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we can receive that forfeiture money.”
Trump: “Can you believe that?”
Can we believe what, Mr. Trump? That some – actually, many – people are against law enforcement officials stealing assets from people who are merely suspected of committing a crime but have not been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing?
If you still don’t fully understand why civil asset forfeiture presents a huge threat to personal property and due process rights, check out the Institute for Justice’s in-depth report on the racket.
During today’s listening session, Trump had this to say about curbing the practice:
“I’d like to look into that. There’s no reason for that.”
Reuters elaborates:
In 2016, a group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill, which did not become law, that would have required the government to do more to show that seized property was connected to a crime. Critics have said suspects have few avenues to challenge the seizures and that forfeiture laws were sometimes abused. Police in some cases seize property from people who are never charged or convicted.
I wonder if Trump actually understands what civil asset forfeiture IS.
After all, he did select Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, and he is a strong supporter of the practice. Sessions has a history of opposing any reform.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/well-destroy-his-career-trump-on-senator-who-wants-civil-asset-forfeiture-reform-video_022017