(Today in absurd video. Russian cops making some woman do nipple prints in addition to finger prints. Seriously. You just can’t make this stuff up.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 15:27:00 UTC
(Today in absurd video. Russian cops making some woman do nipple prints in addition to finger prints. Seriously. You just can’t make this stuff up.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 15:27:00 UTC
SUPREME COURT, 9 TO 0, BANS POLICE FROM ASSET FORFEITURE.
But up to 1/3 of police funding is from seizing assets.
It doesn’t go far enough. It prohibits the egregious violations of the past. But it needs to prohibit it entirely. Either pay from the general fund or forget it.
With police departments funded from seizures, fines, and tickets we have nothing but licensed corruption by organizations rather than individuals.
I prefer the shakedowns I got in ukraine and russia thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-22 14:15:00 UTC

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52396299_10157005490022264_6528642313336389632_o_10157005490012264.jpg Via David GermanNick HeywoodThis is what happens when you misbehave when you’re out.
I thought we talked about this?!?!
This happens way too often! :)Feb 23, 2019, 2:51 AMVia David German

Source date (UTC): 2019-02-22 10:55:00 UTC
How much of this bs would disappear if we returned to judicial duelling?
That’s why I want to return to judicial duelling.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 17:58:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098643157456105472
Won’t work. Nothing new to be said that hasn’t been. People need negative political power (courts).
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 16:11:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098616260877795331
Reply addressees: @I_Vae_Victis_I @NewRightAmerica @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098612748093657088
IN REPLY TO:
@I_Vae_Victis_I
It would be a fascinating YT discussion w/@NewRightAmerica and @curtdoolittle regarding Douglas’, E. Pound’s, et al. Social Credit within/or related to the Commons. How about hosting this, @JFGariepy?
I would definitely add some relevant superchats.
https://t.co/mAJ1f6Nkht ✨
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098612748093657088
DON’T BE CHILDREN: She was preserving her option to influence the debate, by avoiding a he-said/she-said argument, and retaining focus on the human tragedy of war. Power is what it is in this world. No amount of ‘shallow honesty’ will fix it.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 14:52:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098596288172576769
Reply addressees: @sarahabed84 @TulsiGabbard
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098391826791391233
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098391826791391233
How much of this bs would disappear if we returned to judicial duelling?
That’s why I want to return to judicial duelling.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 12:58:00 UTC
“We” requires some way to get 350M people under control. That’s why.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 00:09:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098373993235656706
Reply addressees: @werkraum14 @WorMartiN @NotCarKing @ReiMurasame
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098368296968167425
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098368296968167425
TIP: American law not only seeks (a) restitution, and (b) punishment to disincentivize the actor, but (c) prevention to provide disincentive would be imitators. In the court’s eye, the 250m is compensation for willingness to prosecute, and prevention (warning) to others.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 20:39:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098321262357696512
Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098284715126259713
IN REPLY TO:
@BobMurphyEcon
If I say I think $250 million is a ludicrous amount, but I still think what happened to this kid is a travesty, I’m pretty sure every other person on Earth will hate my guts. https://t.co/Ek1nP93KfC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098284715126259713
[L]et’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose. So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive. I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz. So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense. So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding. Cheers.