Thread. Have you ever heard of "civil asset forfeiture"? You're never going to think about the police the same way again. (1)
A few years ago, when I was at the public defender's office, my very poor clients kept telling me the same story: they would be walking down the street and DC police would stop them, search them at gunpoint, tell them to open their wallets, and take all the cash they had. (2)
The wildest part? The DC police would then send them a letter saying that, if they wanted to challenge the police taking of their cash, they would need to pay either $250 or 10% of the amount taken, whichever was more! (3)
So, if police took $10 or $20 from someone, the person would need to pay $250 to even have the right to challenge the cops in court. If you couldn't pay, the cops kept your money. (4)
If you challenged them in court, you'd have to prove that your property was *not* somehow connected to a crime. Think about how hard that is. (5)
If you still wanted to challenge the DC police, they'd send a lawyer to litigate an entire civil asset forfeiture case against you, and you aren't entitled to a lawyer if you're poor because the cops call it a civil case not a criminal case. You have to fight them alone. (6)
Sure enough, when I examined the DC records, the cops had taken cash from thousands of people, almost entirely Black people. They'd also taken hundreds of cars from people, mostly older women of color. I couldn't find a single example of a person successfully challenging it. (7)
A lot of the time, cops were taking $5 and $30 from extremely poor people who were struggling to meet the basic necessities of life for their children, like buying food and diapers and shoes. (7)
In most places, there is no need for the cops to arrest you with civil forfeiture. There's no need for a conviction. They can just allege that your property is connected to a crime and take it. Then they can keep most of it for fancy weapons and corrupt travel junkets. (8)
To understand the scope of this problem, you should know that cops take more money from people in civil asset forfeiture than all burglaries combined in the U.S. (9) washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2…
The cops at the local, state, and federal levels across the country have taken almost $70 billion in civil forfeiture in the past 20 years! (10) ij.org/press-release/…
When cops ask you for more funding, remember that only 4% of all cop time is spent on what they call "violent crime." Next time they ask for money, remember the kafkaesque abuses at every U.S. police department and ask if cops actually care about safety for everyone. (end)
THREAD. Last year, we filed landmark lawsuits on behalf of children in Michigan alleging a conspiracy between sheriffs + private equity-owned companies to end family jail visits for millions of kids across the U.S. as part of a scheme to make more $$ on phone/video calls.
Several days ago, a second Michigan sheriff has announced that this ban on visits is wrong and destructive, and that they will be ending it. Hundreds of sheriffs are still doing this--do you know what's going on in your community? facebook.com/SheriffAlyshia…
You can watch a video from NBC News explaining what's going on across the country:
THREAD. Every day I get to work with amazing people from all walks of life who are dedicating their lives to fighting government repression and corporate predation. They do it strategically and relentlessly. The incompetence and grifting of political elites makes a mockery of it.
For years, Jeffries and leading Democrats pushed an agenda of mass economic plunder, health insurance profiteering, prisons, militarism, genocide, identity politics, jingoism, and ecological ruin. It's why he can't say anything meaningful with credibility in this fascist moment.
The crisis is as acute as it has been in my lifetime. People of goodwill and influence must jettison leaders like this from public life. We need to organize and demand people who can put forward a simple, popular plan of widespread human flourishing and resistance to cruelty.
THREAD. The time has come for more people to be talking about how the news media manipulates coverage of public polling. The New York Times's latest coverage of polling about Trump is unethical and dangerous.
The New York Times recently published an alarming article purporting to tell its elite liberal readers that "Trump's Policies" are widely popular.
Specifically, the headline and key parts of the article made the bold (and worrying) claim that most people in the U.S. wanted Trump to deport "everyone living in the U.S. without authorization."
THREAD. A very grave problem, across New York Times news stories of almost every subject, is the brazen stupidity and credulity of the reporting. Here is the paper's primary response to Trump's absurd push to designate drug cartels as "terrorist" groups:
First, no reasonable observer of modern U.S. politics or history could conclude that the U.S. has ever been serious about "defeating" terrorist groups or drug distribution organizations. In fact, the U.S. has been the world's most significant state sponsor of each.
That's not the point of either its selective and laughably contradictory weaponization and construction of the term "terrorist" or its comically disastrous "War on Drugs." I wrote about the latter at length, explaining why all of this is propaganda: equalityalec.substack.com/p/the-big-dece…
Not a single word in unanimous Supreme Court opinion mentioned the primary reason TikTok ban passed. The real reason was content-based, triggering a legal standard that would have struck it down. Very interesting dynamics on why TikTok decided not to press its strongest argument.
Leaders in both parties were extremely clear that it was motivated by the view that TikTok was making young people too pro-Palestine and genocide-aware. Now, of course, both parties are sounding very different after Gaza was destroyed and the news is talking about a ceasefire.
For many reasons, TikTok does not want to be seen as a place that spreads left ideas. Would be really interesting to learn more about who made the decision not to press the strongest legal arguments and how much the lawyers explained to the decision makers.
THREAD. It's important for all people of good will to understand the Laken Riley Act before the Senate votes on it tomorrow. It’s unconstitutional. It’s horrific in every word and clause. But there is a deeper, more imminent violence lurking beneath its hate-filled text.
First the background. The Laken Riley Act is unprecedented in modern U.S. history. It requires federal DHS bureaucracy to build billions in new infrastructure to cage any undocumented person *even accused* of petty theft, shoplifting, or several other property crimes.
A key aspect of the law is people are rounded up and put into mass caging facilities (built and usually run for profit) for a mere *accusation.* A person (even a child) need not be convicted, and they are taken from their families and jobs and churches and schools immediately.