Jump to content

Ever wonder what drives people to leave the "land of the free"?


shadow

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
Salty Dog
55 minutes ago, Mr. Mike said:

There is still lots of respect and civility in the South...go Dixie!

And inbreeding...:rofl:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Richard K

    12

  • sugbu777

    9

  • niceguycebu

    7

  • shadow

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

.....my sister just said " I am offended" ... rolled over and went back to sleep....just sayin.

Many Filipinos, and others (American included), cannot fathom why someone would want to leave the "land of milk and honey". Well, I will tell you one main reason I will never return, freedom, or rathe

My wife and I had been planning to retire here, and in 2008 we saw an opportunity to retire at age 50 to move here with my wife and son. So we packed everything we could stuff in 43 BB boxes and moved

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Salty Dog said:

And inbreeding...:rofl:

You're just jealous.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sugbu777
1 hour ago, Mr. Mike said:

.....my sister just said " I am offended" ... rolled over and went back to sleep....just sayin.

That there is some funny shit... I tell you whut.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tullioz
3 hours ago, lamoe said:

More than 50 years ago and as part of organized crime -  :tongue_01:

"2016 ends with 762 homicides; 2017 opens with fatal Uptown gunfight"

"In January 1929 there were 26 killings. Forty-two people were killed in Chicago last month, the most in January since 2002, and far worse than the city's most notorious crime era at the end of the Roaring Twenties. "

The point is America is becoming less and less civil , polite, respectful on all levels up to and including gov.

The 1970's through the mid 90's were far worse nationwide compared to what we are seeing today as far as violent crime is concerned. I think the media and having access to news 24/7 makes it seem like things are getting worse.

The 762 homicides in Chicago in 2016 were a huge spike compared to the immediate years leading up to that year, and 2016 was still high at around 675, but that doesn't represent the overall trend in Chicago since the 1970's which shows a decline in the number of murders.  If the numbers for 2018 and again in 2019 come in at around the same numbers or higher, then that would possibly mean that things are getting trending for the worse, but even then it could still just be a temporary increase. Taking a single year or even two or three out of five decades doesn't necessarily indicate a trend one way or the other. 

Between 1970 and 1981 ten of those twelve years saw more than 800 murders with 1974 having 970. In the 1990's there were three years with over 900 murders in Chicago with the most being 943 occurring in 1992. Between 1970 and 2000, not a single year in Chicago saw less than 630 murders. Since that time  9 out of the past 17 years have seen fewer than 500 murders per year. 

According to statistics across the board, America is less violent today than it was during the 70's 80's and early 90's. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
InternetTough

Tulioz----Remember that emergency services are constantly improving. Some of those who died in 1974 would have survived, though maimed, today.

But your essential point is correct, I think.



A long time ago I moved back to Canada because I had native-born Canadian citizenship. I did not want to go through the endless rude nonsense that the Department of Immigration in LA constantly offered, especially as I knew that at the end of the road, it is easier for a country to revoke acquired citizenship than it is to revoke native-born citizenship.

Edited by InternetTough
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed an order on Wednesday reversing the Obama administration's limits on civil asset forfeiture, a widely criticized practice in which law enforcement officers seize cash and property from citizens who have not been charged with crimes.

The policy change comes as a number of states -- both red and blue -- have clamped down on civil forfeiture abuses, and it will allow local police departments to circumvent state laws that restrict the practice.

"Civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels," said Sessions when he announced the order to a group of law enforcement officials. "In departments across this country, funds that were once used to take lives are now being used to save lives."RELATED

In most states and cities, police departments get to keep most or all of the money and property they seize, which has led some departments to depend on forfeitures as a critical source of funding.

Civil forfeiture has critics on both the right and the left, largely because of the low burden of proof required to seize a person’s property.

“The law doesn’t require you to be charged, much less convicted, of any crime [to have your possessions taken],” says Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that represents civil forfeiture clients. “And because it’s a civil proceeding, people are not afforded the right to counsel like they would be in a criminal proceeding.”

1. What is civil asset forfeiture?

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal tool that allows law enforcement officials to seize property that they assert has been involved in certain criminal activity. In fact, the owner of the property doesn’t even need to be guilty of a crime: Civil asset forfeiture proceedings charge the property itself with involvement in a crime. This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever having to charge you with a crime. There are many, many stories of innocent people being stripped of their money and property by law enforcement. 

2. Why would we ever do this?

Today, civil forfeiture is intended to give law enforcement a tool they can use to go after organized crime, including drug dealers and their organizations. While its roots in the common law are deep, modern civil forfeiture is justified primarily on the grounds that it allows law enforcement to seize the assets and ill-gotten gains of these criminals, using the property and proceeds to fight against other alleged criminals. Unfortunately, civil asset forfeiture is also used by law enforcement as a way to generate revenue, and many of its targets are innocent members of the public. 

3. But don’t police target only criminals?

Unfortunately, no. There are many stories of innocent people having their property seized. For example, between 2006 and 2008, law enforcement agents in Tenaha, Texas, engaged in a systematic practice of seizing cash and property from innocent drivers with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. In Philadelphia, police seized the home of two sisters whose brother, who did not live there, showed up while trying to evade the cops. In Detroit, cops seized over a hundred cars owned by patrons of an art institute event—because the institute had failed to get a liquor license. You can be totally innocent and still be unable to stop the government from seizing your property. 

4. What if I’m innocent? Surely, innocent people can’t have their property taken.

Being innocent does not mean that a state has to return your property. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the “innocent owner” defense is not constitutionally required. Furthermore, even in states where you do have an innocent owner defense, the burden is typically on you. Your property is presumed to be guilty until you prove that you are innocent and that your property therefore should not be forfeited. In other words, you must prove (1) that you were not involved in criminal activity and (2) that you either had no knowledge that your property was being used to facilitate the commission of a crime or that you took every reasonable step under the circumstances to terminate such use. And all the while, the police retain your property. To cap it all off, the success rate for winning back property is low. Pragmatic property owners, however innocent, may reason that it is best to cut their losses rather than challenge the forfeiture in court. 

In March the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a Texas woman fighting for the return of over $200,000 in cash that the police seized from her family. Although neither Lisa Olivia Leonard nor any of her relatives were ever charged with any underlying crime connected to the cash, the state's sweeping asset forfeiture laws allowed the authorities to take the money.

The Supreme Court offered no explanation when it refused to hear Leonard v. Texas. But one member of the Court did speak up in protest. In a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear that in his view modern asset forfeiture law is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Yesterday, one of the most influential federal appellate courts in the country—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—signaled its agreement with Thomas' assessment in a notable decision in favor of an innocent couple fighting for the return of $17,900 in cash seized by the police.

As Thomas explained in Leonard v. Texas, "this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses." For one thing, "because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture." For another, this sort of police abuse disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups. "These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings," he observed. "Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home."

To make matters worse, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court's previous rulings in this area do not line up with the text of the Constitution, which "presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation." Those other doctrines, Thomas noted, impose significant checks on the government, such as heightened standards of proof, various procedural protections, and the right to a trial by jury. Civil asset forfeiture proceedings, by contrast, offer no such constitutional safeguards.

In short, Justice Thomas offered a searing indictment of modern civil asset forfeiture and called on the judiciary to start reconsidering its flawed approach.

The D.C. Circuit got the message. In its opinion yesterday in United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars in United States Currency, the D.C. Circuit repeatedly cited Thomas' Leonard v. Texas statement while ruling in favor of a New York City couple that went to court seeking the return of $17,900 in cash seized by law enforcement officials. Once again, the police took the money despite the fact that no underlying criminal charges were ever filed. But after Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland submitted a claim requesting the return of their seized money, a federal district judge ruled that they lacked standing, thus ending their case and leaving the government in possession of their cash. Describing the legal process that led to this result as "onerous, unfair, and unrealistic," the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court.

"The pair has a right to contest whether the money is subject to forfeiture," the D.C. Circuit held. "Despite the government's best efforts, this will remain an adversary proceeding." Now that their standing to bring suit has been recognized, Rodriguez and Copeland will continue their legal battle to get their money back.

Critics of civil asset forfeiture should be heartened by this ruling. Not only did it vindicate the legal standing of innocent people fighting for the return of their own money, it shows that the lower courts are starting to heed Justice Thomas' call to arms against asset forfeiture abuse.

 

Edited by Salty Dog
Fixed Formating
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a rude awakening.  I like the P's but find I am more comfortable in the us and have thought that when I need to be showered and wiped I will head for the PI's. 

I had a TPI or mini stroke the other night, no drain bamage or any other issues.  The Dr's are very insistent if it happens again I MUST get to an emergency room within 30 minutes.  From where I was planning on living I think the closest emergency room will be Ormac or Taclobahn both 2 hours away and I am not sure of the quality of ER service at them.

I am not afraid of dying,  I am terrified of ending up in a disabled condition due to lack of care.   I cannot think of a worse end to life.  So will be contemplating my plan's. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tullioz said:

According to statistics across the board, America is less violent today than it was during the 70's 80's and early 90's. 

Do you count gang fighting as murders?? I'd say they're fair fights, like duels, unrelated to common citizens who are now target of terrorist attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
smokey

In california there eas an employee charged with dui while riding a bike to work he worked at the post office in torrance california

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jester said:

From where I was planning on living I think the closest emergency room will be Ormac or Taclobahn both 2 hours away and I am not sure of the quality of ER service at them.

Don't worry about the quality of medical care once you get to the hospital. The ambulance ride will probably kill you.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ex231 said:

Don't worry about the quality of medical care once you get to the hospital. The ambulance ride will probably kill you.

Ambulance, this is out in the boonies,  I will end up strapped to the roof of a bus:pacifier:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
USMC-Retired

You cut and paste a bunch of gibberish about asset forfeiture as I said it has been around over a 100 years just because you suddenly learned about it or experinced it does not change that fact.  So if you have some new information that shows it a new thing.  Great if not my statement stands.  

 

4 hours ago, Daddy said:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed an order on Wednesday reversing the Obama administration's limits on civil asset forfeiture, a widely criticized practice in which law enforcement officers seize cash and property from citizens who have not been charged with crimes.

The policy change comes as a number of states -- both red and blue -- have clamped down on civil forfeiture abuses, and it will allow local police departments to circumvent state laws that restrict the practice.

"Civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels," said Sessions when he announced the order to a group of law enforcement officials. "In departments across this country, funds that were once used to take lives are now being used to save lives."

In most states and cities, police departments get to keep most or all of the money and property they seize, which has led some departments to depend on forfeitures as a critical source of funding.

Civil forfeiture has critics on both the right and the left, largely because of the low burden of proof required to seize a person’s property.

“The law doesn’t require you to be charged, much less convicted, of any crime [to have your possessions taken],” says Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that represents civil forfeiture clients. “And because it’s a civil proceeding, people are not afforded the right to counsel like they would be in a criminal proceeding.”

1. What is civil asset forfeiture?

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal tool that allows law enforcement officials to seize property that they assert has been involved in certain criminal activity. In fact, the owner of the property doesn’t even need to be guilty of a crime: Civil asset forfeiture proceedings charge the property itself with involvement in a crime. This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever having to charge you with a crime. There are many, many stories of innocent people being stripped of their money and property by law enforcement. 

2. Why would we ever do this?

Today, civil forfeiture is intended to give law enforcement a tool they can use to go after organized crime, including drug dealers and their organizations. While its roots in the common law are deep, modern civil forfeiture is justified primarily on the grounds that it allows law enforcement to seize the assets and ill-gotten gains of these criminals, using the property and proceeds to fight against other alleged criminals. Unfortunately, civil asset forfeiture is also used by law enforcement as a way to generate revenue, and many of its targets are innocent members of the public. 

3. But don’t police target only criminals?

Unfortunately, no. There are many stories of innocent people having their property seized. For example, between 2006 and 2008, law enforcement agents in Tenaha, Texas, engaged in a systematic practice of seizing cash and property from innocent drivers with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. In Philadelphia, police seized the home of two sisters whose brother, who did not live there, showed up while trying to evade the cops. In Detroit, cops seized over a hundred cars owned by patrons of an art institute event—because the institute had failed to get a liquor license. You can be totally innocent and still be unable to stop the government from seizing your property. 

4. What if I’m innocent? Surely, innocent people can’t have their property taken.

Being innocent does not mean that a state has to return your property. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the “innocent owner” defense is not constitutionally required. Furthermore, even in states where you do have an innocent owner defense, the burden is typically on you. Your property is presumed to be guilty until you prove that you are innocent and that your property therefore should not be forfeited. In other words, you must prove (1) that you were not involved in criminal activity and (2) that you either had no knowledge that your property was being used to facilitate the commission of a crime or that you took every reasonable step under the circumstances to terminate such use. And all the while, the police retain your property. To cap it all off, the success rate for winning back property is low. Pragmatic property owners, however innocent, may reason that it is best to cut their losses rather than challenge the forfeiture in court. 

In March the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a Texas woman fighting for the return of over $200,000 in cash that the police seized from her family. Although neither Lisa Olivia Leonard nor any of her relatives were ever charged with any underlying crime connected to the cash, the state's sweeping asset forfeiture laws allowed the authorities to take the money.

The Supreme Court offered no explanation when it refused to hear Leonard v. Texas. But one member of the Court did speak up in protest. In a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear that in his view modern asset forfeiture law is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Yesterday, one of the most influential federal appellate courts in the country—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—signaled its agreement with Thomas' assessment in a notable decision in favor of an innocent couple fighting for the return of $17,900 in cash seized by the police.

As Thomas explained in Leonard v. Texas, "this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses." For one thing, "because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture." For another, this sort of police abuse disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups. "These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings," he observed. "Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home."

 

To make matters worse, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court's previous rulings in this area do not line up with the text of the Constitution, which "presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation." Those other doctrines, Thomas noted, impose significant checks on the government, such as heightened standards of proof, various procedural protections, and the right to a trial by jury. Civil asset forfeiture proceedings, by contrast, offer no such constitutional safeguards.

In short, Justice Thomas offered a searing indictment of modern civil asset forfeiture and called on the judiciary to start reconsidering its flawed approach.

The D.C. Circuit got the message. In its opinion yesterday in United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars in United States Currency, the D.C. Circuit repeatedly cited Thomas' Leonard v. Texas statement while ruling in favor of a New York City couple that went to court seeking the return of $17,900 in cash seized by law enforcement officials. Once again, the police took the money despite the fact that no underlying criminal charges were ever filed. But after Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland submitted a claim requesting the return of their seized money, a federal district judge ruled that they lacked standing, thus ending their case and leaving the government in possession of their cash. Describing the legal process that led to this result as "onerous, unfair, and unrealistic," the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court.

"The pair has a right to contest whether the money is subject to forfeiture," the D.C. Circuit held. "Despite the government's best efforts, this will remain an adversary proceeding." Now that their standing to bring suit has been recognized, Rodriguez and Copeland will continue their legal battle to get their money back.

Critics of civil asset forfeiture should be heartened by this ruling. Not only did it vindicate the legal standing of innocent people fighting for the return of their own money, it shows that the lower courts are starting to heed Justice Thomas' call to arms against asset forfeiture abuse.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
sugbu777
5 hours ago, Jester said:

I just had a rude awakening.  I like the P's but find I am more comfortable in the us and have thought that when I need to be showered and wiped I will head for the PI's. 

I had a TPI or mini stroke the other night, no drain bamage or any other issues.  The Dr's are very insistent if it happens again I MUST get to an emergency room within 30 minutes.  From where I was planning on living I think the closest emergency room will be Ormac or Taclobahn both 2 hours away and I am not sure of the quality of ER service at them.

I am not afraid of dying,  I am terrified of ending up in a disabled condition due to lack of care.   I cannot think of a worse end to life.  So will be contemplating my plan's. 

 

My plan was also to retire in the Philippines, but similar circumstances have forced me to rethink. In fact, I just got out of the hospital (ICU) earlier this week. I have decided to remain living part time in Guam and part time in Philippines. I have my health care here in Guam just a few miles down the road at Naval Hospital and it costs me nothing as I am retired military. We have essentially a PI lifestyle here in southern Guam, but the added comfort of being on U.S. soil. 

I am sad that I will not be able to fully enjoy the beautiful home my wife has made for us in Cebu, but hey, you gotta adapt to the circumstances. 

I do not plan to ever go back to the US mainland to live. I am happy on this side of the date line.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..