Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091

In an unusual decision, a black Tims may get protected from DEMOCRAT government facist over-reach. (Clarence Thomas is black)

Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. The trial court sentenced him to one year of home detention and five years of probation, which included a court-supervised addiction-treatment program. The sentence also required Timbs to pay fees and costs totaling $1,203. At the time of Timbs’s arrest, the police seized his vehicle.

$1,203 << $42,000 (new)

At the time of Timbs’s arrest, the police seized his vehicle.

No report and no prior court publication shows why timbs is charged with "conspiracy to commit theft".

-------------------------------
opinion

This kind of unfair behavior by courts happens all over the country continually. As the opinion says: it was and is already illegal.

This means up to the supreme court they are making "exceptions to the rule" FOR LAWMAKERS AND COURTS who break the law.

and only, if only, you get to the supreme court might you find justice

i am not impressed with the results or court coverage, personally

the ruling did not send a chill to corrupt counties all across the US

it only ruled that the SUV be returned

it exonerated a Corrupt Government / County

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/20/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-constitutional-stand-in-indiana-suv-seizure-case/

Ginsburg was the official author of the opinion (Thomas contributed i guess)

The vote was 9-0, so don't ask which justed voted against. None did.

Timbs 9 v. Indiana 0

fx co gov has begun seizure process on me 3 or more times for one crappy vehicle, i've also had a note stuck to my car "i want 'to buy' your car" (though the car was never for sale).

I SEVERELY DOUBT the recent decision will prevent fx co from their grand theft auto aspirations

Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091

Is full of legal errors and cover-ups concerning Justice, to cover the tracks of corrupt Courts in USA.

It is certainly not true that the 14th amendment

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

DUE PROCESS means (according to many Virginia rulings), only that procedure is followed NOT that any law was followed in the ruling.

EQUAL PROTECTION would be charging Indiana with auto theft, but they DID NOT, so equal protection was not had.

LAW for 2,000 has prohibited seizing more than is owed (noting certain fees apply), and the ruling covers up that FACT.

Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.

I quote: "that hasn't stopped corrupt government in the past".

What allows them to CONTINUE breaching it is rulings that never penalize corrupt counties when they are CAUGHT doing it.

#1 innocent until proven guilty (perp was caught red handed but in this case not on a jail-able offense). however HE WAS jailed for some time (i have no idea if he posted bail). it cannot be "both". also: probably flight from a non-jailable charge is impossible, so bail posting would also be theft from Timbs.

#2 seizure: given notice, 30 days after notice if money is not given (or successfully contested in court or held by motion), seizure of possession of equal value can occur. THERE CAN BE NO SEIZURE IN ESCROW - ESCROW IS NOT ALLOWED in the USA (not without an unusual ruling saying it isn't allowed but must be done due to dependency issues). seizure can happen only after a ruling against.

#3 the penalty must fit the crime (he dealt heroin admittedly - which destroys lives and is illegal and didn't get any jail sentence apparently)

PENALTY: there is penalty for abuse of government position AND IT IS HIGHER THAN THE PENALTY OF THE POOR STEALING, FOR VERY GOOD REASONS - however the Supreme Court made not a peep about this "issue". it's not in the constitution - it's in other and very much older law books.

Indiana argued

* sovereign immunity

* civil forfeiture (an attempt to say citizens owe to co-operate with law, thus have no remedy in participating with courts to provide "law")

these are the arguments corrupt government ALWAYS use

There should be a penalty for abuse of FFXU. So many local assholes deserve long, long sentences in the matter.

The ruling PROTECTED government from grand theft auto charges via abuse of government (a serious charge)

The ruling supports that no one gets Justice unless they rise to a Court that doesn't have jurisdiction for such cases*

In effect, the ruling CONTINUES Inquisition Law in the USA**

--------------------
* the jurisdiction is foreign and congress - citizen cases are taken only optionally

** inquisition law (spanish law) allows rich families to appoint judges, and no justice unless these influential people will it. every trial is a kangaroo court of the judge asking unfair questions and self-determining the answers.

law has no meaning unless it is ENFORCED, and enforced equally (against all citizens and also government), of course

Opinion page 8. “right, in their brief in opposition, to restate the questions presented,” however, “does not give them the power to expand [those] questions.”

A TECHNICAL ISSUE GEORGE BUSH ERA GOVERNMENT CAUSED WORDPAD EDITING THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(it says any Question not printed as presented that comes into question while arguing is automatically muted. it's a programatic attack on filers. i was injured by this clause. i presented (most) all questions after my first question to defy the attack in my supreme court case filing. and it annoyed me.)

citing previous cases, lie Bajakajian, supra, at 335, who merely upheld the plain face of the law, is NOT USEFUL, neither is citing cases which denied the plain face of the law btw

citations show reasoning as to well written law (short, general, and far reaching to every extent) for a particular case. citations are only applicable when the matter in question is absolutely similar.

Bajakajian (was) attempting to leave the United States without reporting and with $345,000 in his brief case. (the charge is NOT similar. neither was the law to HOLD the money in escrow (until FBI determined if it was not counterfeit or stolen heading for terrorism, as the person was technically caught fleeing the country with it.)). Nothing of anything in the cases was legally similar to Timbs and his little heroine ring and car.

BUT IT'S COMMON AS TRASH for today's lawyers to put many unrelated citations in case law filings.

one justice added a "House of Commons" excerpt which i appreciate

however early america days of english law proved judges could allow long arguments to protect the freedom of a tenant (and that she would win despite being in the worser of position in today's law)

prior to that there was a period of FEUDAL WAR - and looking back to that period is "not fair" because it was New Interest in Justice and Courts that ended the feudal wars. (the court law done before then: was forwardly "unfair", and the courts were often not used in disputes)

in looking back to magna carta (which is french) or english law (decended from roman university law and re-legislated), one has to be careful to understand wars and politics, if the royals or dukes had "power", and whether citizens generally widely (not exceptionally) enjoyed reasoned decisions that were likely as not to favor the citizen

this is a topic i love discussing

(but the USSC justice cited a case of a duke or earl who had a huge wealth seized and recovered. the politics of such a thing that happened outside the court cannot be "simply not mentioned")

Maine, As English subjects, the colonists considered them- selves to be vested with the same fundamental rights as other Englishmen

some colonists were ruled by england, some by france, by dutch

much of it was PRIVATELY OWNED charter land

some of them were "self governed" under the charter, others ruled by governors that represented overseas governments

what they considered to be their rights" probably cannot be construed so easily

at the bottom of the Opinion is something very pertinent

(pertaining being charged with vagrancy and imprisoned for it, which modernly is no longer legal to do)

"the sum of money is more than he'd earn in his life"

YES in times with huge wage gap, a small amount of money is still more than a persons NET gain in life (infact, they may have net losses not net gains)

AND TIME, time spent requiring justice take years instead of minutes - is simply AWFUL - it's abusive and itself a legal injury

"history always favored courts and government to steal and waive off the right in court, maintaining in the future the process: take and give back if ruled against"

(meaning - all the citations tend to be cases where property was restored with no penalty upon government)

MUCH THE OPPOSITE, history shows that it is simply NOT true that government can "keep it's right to corruption" without repercussion

ISN'T THAT ALSO TRUE

the case was presented by breitbart as a "win for us government consumers"

but it is a typical decision (rarely disbursed, disbursed to picked winners), and far from a win for consumers

what areas typically have theiving police?

DEMOCRAT AREAS LIKE D.C. - famous for running Speeding and Red Light Camera that were rigged to give Tickets to non-offenders

DEMOCRAT AREAS LIKE FAIRFAX - who will jail you simply for mentioning your defense hasn't been heard