Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (337874)	7/4/2007 11:14:19 AM
From: Giordano Bruno	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Unlike the SEC the British subprime focal point concerns their less than fortunate citizens as opposed to bag holders. ``Consumers in the subprime market are vulnerable people who may have high debts or a bad credit history. It's therefore important that they are properly assessed and advised. We will not hesitate to take action where we find bad practice.' bloomberg.com

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (337874)	7/4/2007 12:33:13 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Michigan Supreme Court: Motorist forfeited money despite illegal search 7/3/2007, 5:51 p.m. EDT The Associated Press LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the appeal of a motorist who had to forfeit nearly $181,000 that was found in a backpack during a traffic stop, even though the money was seized illegally. The court ruled 4-3 that Van Buren County prosecutors could seize the money, upholding decisions by a circuit judge and the Michigan Court of Appeals. Forfeiture is the loss of property due to breaking a law. Tamika Smith, who was stopped by a Michigan State Police trooper, lost the money when a judge ruled prosecutors presented enough other evidence to show it was intended to buy illicit drugs. The evidence of the money had been suppressed because the trooper's search of her trunk was nonconsensual. Justice Elizabeth Weaver wrote in the majority opinion that the totality of circumstances — including Smith having a large sum of cash despite reporting a meager income and the stop being made along a known drug corridor — backed up earlier rulings. She was joined by Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, Maura Corrigan and Robert Young Jr. Stephen Markman, Michael Cavanagh and Marilyn Kelly dissented. Markman accused the majority of redefining the law to avoid the necessary consequences of suppressing evidence. He said the fact that a person is low-income and driving in a rental car along Interstate 94 between Detroit and Chicago can describe innocent behavior and is not enough to support forfeiting the money. © 2007 Associated Press --------------------------------------------------------------- Things that make you wanna puke ..... As far as property goes .. people in the US now have to prove that they should have the property they are holding. Otherwise the cops get to keep everything they find. The cash is being held by the cops that committed the illegal search. They are being rewarded for breaking the law.