Sleeping in your office?

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you for making my point for me.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.

Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.

Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.

"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."

"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.[/FONT]

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

All they need to take your cash is the fact that you have it. Period.

Just in case you think drug dogs are accurate.

Grits for Breakfast: Expert: Drug dogs wrong 48% of the time

You get the same odds flipping a coin.

And what do you think you've proven here? You apparently haven't the slightest idea what due process of the law means. When all procedures follow lawful methods, then the person has received due process of the law. Violation of due process does not mean "I was charged with a crime I didn't commit." Due process means that if you're suspected of a crime, police do not violate your rights when investigating and gathering enough evidence to have probable cause for an arrest. And that when you are charged, you receive a lawful trial with all your rights intact. A violation of due process cannot occur when everything has been lawful. Due process is only violated when lawful procedures break down in favor of violating your rights, etc.

Wrong.

Due process requires that the government prove that you did something wrong before, repeat before, it takes your life, liberty, or property. If we were to take the standard applied in in the example above to its logical conclusion the government would be able to kill you just because you might have been involved in a murder, and would never actually be required to prove anything. Simply following the law is not due process if the law itself violates your rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know what, I am not going to go through this thread to see who brought up fiscal responsibility first. That is actually irrelevant because you continue to insist that it is fiscally irresponsible to sleep in an office because it prove they cannot manage their finances to provide for their own needs.

Not quite. I said that if maintaining their secondary residence really is so difficult, as has been alleged, then THAT is the sign of fiscal irresponsibility.

Why do people need to keep two homes? In fact, why does anyone even need to keep one home?

EXACTLY! We should all be allowed to move in to the Capitol building and save money. Right? One of the cornerstones of my position in this is that Congresspeople and Senators should not be afforded special consideration for what would be considered appropriate from a societal point of view. If you want to hold that whether a person provides for their own housing needs does not meaningfully reflect on their being self responsible, then even though I would disagree with that point, I would concede to you that you are not being inconsistent.



No, it's not fact, not by a long shot. I'm not trying to dictate how they spend their money, I'm simply evaluating their character traits based on observed behavior.

there have been a few people here who oppose them sleeping in their office that did not resort to attacks on their lifestyle or finances, which proves that it is actually possible to have this discussion without doing so.

I am not attacking their lifestyle or finances. I am pointing out that their behaviors are indicative of certain character traits and skills relevant to their job. If you think that this is somehow inappropriate to do, then I suggest you wake up and meet the world.

The simple fact that I am not accusing them of trying to control anyone's life disproves the rest of your post.

What? That doesn't even make any sense.

No, you are saying that because they make x amount of money they have to be responsible to your standards and maintain tow separate households regardless of any other financial obligations they may have. It does not matter one iota too you what their finacial status actually is, you think they are rich because they make more than you, and you resent that. You therefore require them to meet your standards.

 

[gekaap]

Wrong.

Due process requires that the government prove that you did something wrong before, repeat before, it takes your life, liberty, or property. If we were to take the standard applied in in the example above to its logical conclusion the government would be able to kill you just because you might have been involved in a murder, and would never actually be required to prove anything. Simply following the law is not due process if the law itself violates your rights.

So, according to you, if a man runs charging at a cop and pointing a gun at him, the government first has to take the man to court and prove he did something wrong before the cop can shoot.

Yes, following the law IS due process. Just go ask a lawyer if you have to.

 

[gekaap]

Actually, I'm saying they need to maintain a secondary residence because of the nature of their job. The amount of money they make only factors in as a preemption of any complaints that "Oh but they don't have the money/it's unreasonable to expect them to be capable of affording it."

Their other alleged financial obligations are moot in two ways. First of all, when you're in the top 3.2% of income earners, it's a pretty ridiculous thing to complain about any alleged burden of other financial obligations. We all have financial obligations, and the only ones among us who cannot meet them are the destitute or the financially irresponsible. If they cannot meet their financial obligations, to include secondary housing, they must be one of the two and they obviously aren't the first.

Second, whatever their financial obligations are, they are THEIR obligations to meet. If providing their own housing needs in order to fulfill their job is beyond their capability, then they are obviously in the wrong job. They should go home to their state of origin and find a job such that they don't need to maintain secondary housing. That is what responsible Americans do, that's how we handle our business, and I expect Congresspeople and Senators to be no less responsible for their own selves than society expects of the average American.

It does not matter one iota too you what their finacial status actually is, you think they are rich because they make more than you, and you resent that. You therefore require them to meet your standards.