Homeland Security took my 110 - Page 78 - Defender Source
Defender Source  

Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat

Join the Defender Source Community Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1541  
Old August 1st, 2014, 01:35 PM
Willh's Avatar
Willh
Status: Offline
Will Hedrick
Use to own NAS #96, #1778, & #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wake Forest, NC, USA
Posts: 1,196
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by rijosho View Post
Yeah Will not sure I saw much about your client here either. We were all hoping for more from the interview as part of the first real televized segment on the ongoing ordeal. I don't know about anyone else, but I got a little excited at the break before the commercials leading up to the interview as there was a picture of a Defender and a caption that said something about an excessive raid or something and one of the guys made a comment that got me excited. Then when they came back that guy wasn't the interviewer and the questions had not much to do with what I thought they'd be about (pertaining to the raid, etc.). Nothing on your client, as the interviewer steers the ship. It's nice when the news is on our side, I just wish we'd had a show better prepared - but I'm not sure any of us could expect much more from a show that runs 3 hours and covers a plethora of topics.
Josh,

Thanks for your follow-up. I can tell you that I prepared her very well for the interview, with several bullet points to hit. However, I'm taken to understand that the show did not prep her at all. The interview was very much done "on the fly".

No matter. Regardless of what everyone thinks, the interview has served its purpose. More to come on that later......
__________________
.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Please feel free to visit my website at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quote:
Willh is the F'n man! Defender of the Defenders! - Overlander
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #1542  
Old August 1st, 2014, 01:40 PM
Overlander's Avatar
Overlander
Status: Offline
mark kellgren
93' NAS 110- #234
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,514
Registry
Im glad Fox covered it, instead of MSNBC. Rachel Maddow would not be a supporter of our cause.
__________________
Mark Kellgren
KM4BOR

ISIL and al qaeda can go F*ck themselves...
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #1543  
Old August 1st, 2014, 01:41 PM
rijosho's Avatar
rijosho
Status: Offline
Joshua
1995 Black ST - Rhinolined edition
Research Assistant/Eagle Eyes
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,557
Registry
TV is certainly a great way to get the word out there - I know she said her dad would want her to fight it, and public awareness is a great place to start.
__________________
Quote:
I am talking purely from an aesthetics standpoint.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #1544  
Old August 1st, 2014, 01:44 PM
Ray_G's Avatar
Ray_G
Status: Offline
Ray Gerber
96 D1 (Coyote), 06 D3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,571
Registry
Pulling this over to here to argue about it with Jeff from the comfort of a preferred forum, my overarching point is that while we're talking about verbiage be aware that much of what is being said is inflammatory (intentionally or otherwise) and I'm not sure it will help your case-in or out of court.

Quote:
Jeff-
We can go around on this over on D90 (I'm sure we will) but let's bet honest-most people don't know what oppression is, and this specific situation doesn't equal that.

Oh, and since I do work for the gov't, I'll point out a few things:
raid = limited objective attack with a planned withdrawal (I've done a few hundred of them). In a law enforcement capacity you could substitute attack and change some words around, but the fact of the matter is that continuing to use that verbiage is inflammatory (by design).
Heavily armed 'Agents'; likewise conveys imagery of the gestapo, by design. Someone showing up on your door who has a holstered handgun doesn't equate to heavily armed. When I think of heavily armed I think of toting an M4 with an M203, a few hundred rounds of 7.62 link for the 240, some frags, thermites, and a LAAW. Once again, this doesn't equal that.
'Machine guns'; someone had an M2, MK-19, or at least an M240? Unlikely. Is it possible someone had a long gun? Yes, for the reasons described given the current state of things in this country. One need to look no further than the commentary in these threads and in the comments of the articles to understand why someone may want to have backup or a long gun just in case-how much 'come and take it' 'cold dead hands' 'molon labe' and other posturing has to be conveyed before there is a commensurate reaction?
'SWAT Team'; really? Did they isolate the objective and punch in riot control agents on a no-knock warrant at the bottom of the circadian cycle-or was it a hard hit with flashbangs on NOD's?

Or was it guys wearing some 5.11 pants because, let's face it, they were seizing a Land Rover so you know they might get dirty just trying to start/move the thing given how much they leak.

My point is the words have meaning, and aside from being tiresome, the fact is that it is blowing things out of proportion and doing a disservice to the actual situation at hand.

But I'm a jackbooted thug, right?
r-
Ray
The only thing I'd add in for the context of this thread is the commentary about civil liberty infringement; civil liberties in a narrow sense could cover property but I think we'd all agree that's not the primary context. When it does go into property it means that property is denied arbitrarily without due process; the fact that Will is getting people their trucks back actually illustrates this isn't true (since there clearly is a due process).

All that being said, I wish Will the best and am awed by his generosity. My comments are meant to be provocative as someone who has spent a lot of time in the interagency just to add another point of view.
r
Ray
Reply With Quote
  #1545  
Old August 1st, 2014, 01:52 PM
jafir's Avatar
jafir
Status: Offline
Jafir Elkurd
Flaky Green 198something ex-mod 90
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Centerton, AR
Posts: 1,579
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray_G View Post
the fact that Will is getting people their trucks back actually illustrates this isn't true (since there clearly is a due process).
I disagree. I feel the government is using smoke and mirrors to get around the intent of the constitution. Normally the way things work is innocent until proven guilty. In these cases, they seem to be using the same rules they use for civil forfeiture, where they charge the PROPERTY with a crime, and since it's property it doesn't have the same rights as a person, so you have to PROVE that the property isn't guilty. I'm sure the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
Reply With Quote
  #1546  
Old August 1st, 2014, 02:13 PM
meatblanket's Avatar
meatblanket
Status: Offline
Mike Simpson
1955 86 1986 ExMOD 110
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Golden CO USA
Posts: 541
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray_G View Post
the fact that Will is getting people their trucks back actually illustrates this isn't true (since there clearly is a due process).
Keep in mind that these property owners were deprived of their vehicles before being given any opportunity to be heard. These were licensed and titled vehicles. The owners have not been accused of any crime.

Seizure without notice is generally accepted practice in cases involving criminals caught in the act or who represent a danger to the public, or in the case of ordinary contraband. For some reason the government in this case has not grasped that distinction, which is why this action comes across as heavy handed.

To further complicate matters, over 10% of the vehicles taken in this fashion were taken by mistake, and have been returned to their owners.

"Seize first and ask questions later" is appropriate for drug smugglers, but not here.
Reply With Quote
  #1547  
Old August 1st, 2014, 02:20 PM
dave_lucas
Status: Offline
Dave Lucas
None
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CO USA
Posts: 2,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatblanket View Post

"Seize first and ask questions later" is appropriate for drug smugglers, but not here.
Maybe they figured out the addictive properties of these defenders that cause us all to act like crackheads?
Reply With Quote
  #1548  
Old August 1st, 2014, 02:21 PM
Ray_G's Avatar
Ray_G
Status: Offline
Ray Gerber
96 D1 (Coyote), 06 D3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,571
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by jafir View Post
I disagree. I feel the government is using smoke and mirrors to get around the intent of the constitution. Normally the way things work is innocent until proven guilty. In these cases, they seem to be using the same rules they use for civil forfeiture, where they charge the PROPERTY with a crime, and since it's property it doesn't have the same rights as a person, so you have to PROVE that the property isn't guilty. I'm sure the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
Perhaps, but your interpretation is narrow too and doesn't necessarily take into account the Founding Fathers (who so many claim to know the intent of) actually establishing the Customs Administration (1789) to enforce their Constitutional powers to regulate commerce; so if you look at this as an extension of a (criminal) investigation related to interstate commerce it still isn't the absence of due process-nor is it the same as civil forfeiture akin to drug enforcement.

I'll go further and state I'd bet we are not seeing the whole picture here, some of that is deliberate on the side of the gov't, some in the best interests of our colleagues who want their property back and hopefully will get it through Will's efforts.
Reply With Quote
  #1549  
Old August 1st, 2014, 02:32 PM
don's Avatar
don
Status: Online
Don Bunnell
'86 110 3dr ST
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rumson, NJ
Posts: 4,142
Registry
Will - just watch the YouTube clip and thought she did a good job. You could tell that she was thinking her answers over and I could only imagine how tough it is to do the interview without any prep.

I also think having her on was a great move. She showed the range of people this has effected. Much better having her on TV than a Defender Source regular with a Warn winch hat covered in 90wt and a Lucas Prince of Darkness t-shirt sidetracking the interview about how a TD5 is cleaner than the 2.5NA and should be allowed in.
Reply With Quote
  #1550  
Old August 1st, 2014, 02:52 PM
Viton's Avatar
Viton
Status: Offline
Deaf Ember
Smart 4x4
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: La
Posts: 1,190
The other stages of grief are bound to emerge at at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #1551  
Old August 1st, 2014, 03:13 PM
meatblanket's Avatar
meatblanket
Status: Offline
Mike Simpson
1955 86 1986 ExMOD 110
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Golden CO USA
Posts: 541
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray_G View Post
Perhaps, but your interpretation is narrow too and doesn't necessarily take into account the Founding Fathers (who so many claim to know the intent of) actually establishing the Customs Administration (1789) to enforce their Constitutional powers to regulate commerce; so if you look at this as an extension of a (criminal) investigation related to interstate commerce it still isn't the absence of due process-nor is it the same as civil forfeiture akin to drug enforcement.
The legal documents clearly state that the vehicles are contraband and therefore subject to forfeiture. Nowhere does it state that the vehicles are relevant evidence in a criminal investigation.

The distinction is important because evidence sometimes gets returned to the owner once it is no longer needed.
Reply With Quote
  #1552  
Old August 1st, 2014, 03:21 PM
Ray_G's Avatar
Ray_G
Status: Offline
Ray Gerber
96 D1 (Coyote), 06 D3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,571
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatblanket View Post
The legal documents clearly state that the vehicles are contraband and therefore subject to forfeiture. Nowhere does it state that the vehicles are relevant evidence in a criminal investigation.

The distinction is important because evidence sometimes gets returned to the owner once it is no longer needed.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but shouldn't we state that the legal documents that have been made public directly in association with the seizures state that; do you think this case is solely limited to the violation of the 25yr rule? If so, why is there an apparent common denominator?

Or put another way, from someone far more involved:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyboyUpstate View Post
I just got back from a meeting with 2 Homeland Security Agents. They were fine men, felt bad for me and obviously are just doing their job.

They say that the entire case revolves around Aaron Richardet illegally importing Land Rover Defenders. They asked me a bunch of questions about him, but I am the 3rd owner (?) of the vehicle and had nothing to do with the importing.

They also say they are working directly with Land Rover and that's how they know my truck is a 2000 and not a 1983. It is clearly not a 2000.

They tell me my only recourse to get the truck back is to file a claim with the courts in North Carolina proving that I am the owner of the truck, that I know that it's a 1983, and that I didn't know anything about illegal importation.

I feel as though my truck is in the crossfire here because of some other unscrupulous things that this guy had done
Reply With Quote
  #1553  
Old August 1st, 2014, 03:36 PM
Abu Buckwheat
Status: Offline
Malcolm
2005 Defender 110 TD5 Station
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mideast-Africa-Albany
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by leastonce View Post
WTF do you expect from FOX???

OK I kept my mouth shut when it was posted that it would be on Fox but I was a guest analyst on Fox for two years out of Washington and a frequent guest on Fox and Friends, at least 5-10 segments in NY ... they are the three most STUPID people on the planet. and Brian Kilmeade is head smacking stupid!


The owner was fine explaining what happened to her but this issue was NOT about the EPA but an agency Jihad by the Ministry of Silly Walks.

However, I am surprised that they didn't ask how it feels now that these seized Jeeps and the Jeep factory they are built in are going to be exported to China by the government. WTF isn't each segment is supposed to end with "Thanks, Obammar!"


I think getting WIll or Doug onto ABC news or a segment on NBC would be better. In fact a Youtube video on a site like Jalopnik is often used by producers to get stories.
Reply With Quote
  #1554  
Old August 1st, 2014, 03:49 PM
Rocky's Avatar
Rocky
Status: Offline
Chris
72 + D1 drivetrain
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colonies
Posts: 7,979
Ray:
I don't think you are going to get an answer to your question. Those involved in this matter legally want to protect themselves and their clients and talking specifics is not something the lawyers should do when the case is ongoing.
My hope for those who have gotten their vehicles back is that the Feds now consider their vehicles as legally being above reproach.
Reply With Quote
  #1555  
Old August 1st, 2014, 03:58 PM
meatblanket's Avatar
meatblanket
Status: Offline
Mike Simpson
1955 86 1986 ExMOD 110
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Golden CO USA
Posts: 541
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray_G View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but shouldn't we state that the legal documents that have been made public directly in association with the seizures state that; do you think this case is solely limited to the violation of the 25yr rule? If so, why is there an apparent common denominator?

Or put another way, from someone far more involved:
Yes, there are two components to this:

1) The government has seized contraband that is subject to forfeiture, and
2) Although not mentioned in the legal documents, the contraband will also be used as evidence in a criminal investigation and potential prosecution (thus the common thread).

Nobody here is in a position to know what the criminal investigation might involve. It could be limited to falsification of import documents, or it might go beyond that.
Reply With Quote
  #1556  
Old August 1st, 2014, 04:07 PM
Ray_G's Avatar
Ray_G
Status: Offline
Ray Gerber
96 D1 (Coyote), 06 D3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,571
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
Ray:
I don't think you are going to get an answer to your question. Those involved in this matter legally want to protect themselves and their clients and talking specifics is not something the lawyers should do when the case is ongoing.
My hope for those who have gotten their vehicles back is that the Feds now consider their vehicles as legally being above reproach.
Concur, I don't think I'm going to get an answer-not that I'm really looking for one. I was merely pointing out this isn't a witch hunt for 110/90's on a widespread basis-it stems from something else and is fairly focused in that regard. That all adds context to the discussion regarding civil liberties, overstepping of government bounds, and the way people are describing government tyranny and the like.
r-
Ray
Reply With Quote
  #1557  
Old August 1st, 2014, 04:13 PM
meatblanket's Avatar
meatblanket
Status: Offline
Mike Simpson
1955 86 1986 ExMOD 110
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Golden CO USA
Posts: 541
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
My hope for those who have gotten their vehicles back is that the Feds now consider their vehicles as legally being above reproach.


Most people probably felt that way when their vehicle cleared customs.
Reply With Quote
  #1558  
Old August 1st, 2014, 04:25 PM
sonoronos's Avatar
sonoronos
Status: Online
Ed
None
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 4,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by jafir View Post
Normally the way things work is innocent until proven guilty.
Presumption of innocence is not being violated here. Presumption of innocence just means that you aren't guilty until you have been sentenced in a criminal court. You can be as innocent as bambi and the legal system can still drag you through enormous amounts of pain and suffering, seize whatever they want as evidence, and violate your privacy in all sorts of ways, until the very moment where they say, "ok, you're definitely not guilty."

Quote:
Originally Posted by jafir View Post
where they charge the PROPERTY with a crime, and since it's property it doesn't have the same rights as a person, so you have to PROVE that the property isn't guilty. I'm sure the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
It's not possible for property to be charged with a crime. There's no such thing and that's not what's going on here.
Reply With Quote
  #1559  
Old August 1st, 2014, 04:32 PM
Nomar's Avatar
Nomar
Status: Offline
Jeff B
RR HNTR,RR LWB Tdi
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Central,Virginia
Posts: 3,956
Registry
I didnt think the Fox story was that bad.
Thanks for posting the video---I dont have cable tv.
The interviewer seemed to think it was ridiculous of DHS to be seizing Land Rovers!

Also, I'm not throwing Aaron under the bus yet.
Wait for the rest of the facts to come out.



.
__________________


Real Rovers have round headlights!
Rent my
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
Just a few miles from 4x4 access!
Reply With Quote
  #1560  
Old August 1st, 2014, 04:40 PM
Ray_G's Avatar
Ray_G
Status: Offline
Ray Gerber
96 D1 (Coyote), 06 D3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,571
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSBriggs View Post
You like those words/arguments: Liberty/tyranny etc, as you bring them up, introduce them into the conversation often.
You my friend are a champion for FREEDOM. (allow me to suggest a new avatar for you)



With regard to a which hunt, I believe there is. There are special inspections and a 'task force' if you will that is in direct contact with JLRNA. That alone is above and beyond average behavior. The bigger question I have, is how many trucks were denied entry at the port based on bad info from JLRNA? Is there any recourse for those owners?

-Jeff
I was seriously considering a GTT avatar. That's true Freedom, Patriotism, and America-afterall Pedro's ancestors came over in the initial wave of those coming to subjugate the natives.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat

Tags
110, ecu

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Took the plunge, now have lots o questions! GreenRover Defender Technical Discussions 8 June 11th, 2010 06:50 PM
It took 2 months... CDN90 Misc. Chit-Chat 12 December 19th, 2009 08:47 AM
Random photo I took today but the D110 snuck in! ORover Misc. Chit-Chat 3 December 17th, 2007 01:05 PM
Took 10 years... G37 Infiniti norros Misc. Chit-Chat 3 September 10th, 2007 10:43 AM
I took the plunge and bought a D90! Now.... jaherring Defender Technical Discussions 21 August 5th, 2004 01:14 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Copyright