←back to thread

989 points heavyset_go | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.226s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.45261951[source]
For whatever it's worth, the Reddit story here says that the federal courts used "fraudulent warrants to jail my husband again". Maybe! The other side of that story, via PACER, is a detailed parole violation warrant (you can hear the marshal refer to it in the video); the violations in that warrant:

1. Admitting to using cannabis during supervised release

2. Failing to make scheduled restitution payments and to cooperate with the financial investigation that sets restitution payment amounts.

3. Falling out of contact with his probation officer, who attempted home visits to find him.

4. Opening several new lines of credit.

5. Using an unauthorized iPhone (all his Internet devices apparently have keyloggers as a condition of his release).

These read like kind of standard parole terms? I don't know what the hell happened to get him into this situation in the first place, though.

replies(13): >>45261987 #>>45262004 #>>45262031 #>>45262032 #>>45262053 #>>45262096 #>>45262107 #>>45262359 #>>45262427 #>>45262489 #>>45262691 #>>45263190 #>>45263322 #
nerdponx ◴[] No.45262427[source]
The funny thing about rights is that you have them even if you've done other bad things. The thinking on display here ("the guy was a criminal anyway") is the primary slippery slope to tyranny that we have seen in the past 100 years.

Seems like he was legally eligible to be arrested for a variety of reasons. The FBI is still not allowed to use fraudulent warrants to that end. The rule of law is no such thing unless it applies to everyone equally.

replies(2): >>45262949 #>>45263266 #
tptacek ◴[] No.45262949[source]
Help me understand where you're seeing the "fraud" here? The warrant I'm reading is off PACER. It was very definitely approved by a judge.
replies(1): >>45266540 #
1. nerdponx ◴[] No.45266540[source]
You're right, and you aren't the only one correct me on this.

I was responding to the implication that it's OK for him to be arrested regardless of how, because he did bad and criminal things. The premise of the article being false (i.e. the warrants are fine) wasn't mentioned in the post I responded to.