Profile

Cover photo
Jacques Dupuis
Worked at Work at living harmoniously with my Universe.
6,460 followers|1,202,175 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideosReviews

Stream

Jacques Dupuis

Shared publicly  - 
 
Thanks +Noah Plaza and +Adrian Azzopardi 

If this does not scare anyone, what will?
 
Nightmare Confirmed by the Supreme Court: You Really ARE Guilty Until Proven Innocent
 Mark Nestmann   Thank you +toto handala 
Imagine for a moment that you and your wife operate a successful business refurbishing and selling used medical equipment.

One day, you receive a letter from a federal prosecutor informing you that the business is the target of a criminal investigation. The prosecutor demands that you turn over virtually all business records to the court within seven days.

Naturally, you’re a little worried. The first thing you want to do is hire an attorney. But you don’t have cash on hand to pay the attorney, so you take out a home equity loan.

A few weeks later, there’s a knock on the door. You answer it, and two men identifying themselves as FBI agents handcuff you and place you under arrest. Two more agents barge into your home and arrest your wife. They charge you with running a money laundering operation.

After you’re carted off to jail, you ask to meet with your attorney. When he finally arrives, he has bad news. The feds think the used equipment you purchased, fixed up, and resold at a profit was stolen.

They also say you were aware that it was stolen. Because you banked the profits, they’re accusing you not only of trafficking in stolen goods, but also money laundering.

That’s just the beginning. 

Your lawyer also tells you that he can’t work for you anymore. The FBI has confiscated all the legal fees you’ve paid him. They’ve also confiscated the balance of the home equity loan you took out to aid in your criminal defense. All your other assets are frozen, too.

He informs you that he has made arrangements with the prosecutor to have a public defender appointed for you. And that money you paid for bail? It’s tainted, too.

US Marshals escort you to a federal detention facility. When you arrive, two FBI agents are waiting. They have a “plea agreement” with them. If you agree to plead guilty to one count of money laundering, they’ll go easy on you.

Yes, you’ll lose your business, your home, and every dollar you ever earned in the business. But you won’t go to jail. Otherwise, you can work with your court-appointed attorney and hope for the best.

This scenario might seem extreme and like something out of a John Grisham novel. But believe it or not, thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision (Kaley vs. US), it’s about to become much more common.

It’s a result of “criminal forfeiture” laws, which give prosecutors the right to seize any assets you own that they believe are somehow connected to a criminal offense. This occurs before any trial, much less a conviction.

Kerri Kaley, a sales rep for Ethicon, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, received outmoded or surplus devices from staff members at the medical facilities she served. With her husband Brian’s assistance, she sold the unwanted devices.

Prosecutors apparently believed the Kaleys weren’t entitled to sell the devices, although a co-defendant was acquitted after the government failed to find a single hospital that claimed to own the supposedly stolen goods.

In 2007, a federal grand jury indicted the Kaleys with conspiracy to transport stolen property and transportation of stolen property. The feds tried to seize all of the Kaleys’ assets, but they couldn’t prove the frozen funds had any connection to their alleged criminal conspiracy.

Their solution? Prosecutors added a money laundering charge, which allows the pre-trial confiscation of any asset that might have “facilitated” the criminal conduct. This gave the feds the right to seize the $500,000 the Kaleys had received in a home equity loan to pay their attorneys.

The case wound its way through the legal system until 2013, when the Supreme Court announced it would consider the case. And on February 25, it announced the result: Once you’re indicted by a grand jury, you have no right to challenge the prosecutor’s pre-trial confiscation of your assets allegedly linked to or facilitating the supposed crime.

Of course, the government doesn’t actually own the money until you’re found guilty of a crime – or you cop a plea in exchange for a reduced prison sentence. But the result is the same. You can’t use your own money to hire the best lawyer you can afford. You must accept a court-appointed lawyer who may well have never defended a forfeiture case.

Until this decision, there was one very minor exception that existed in some parts of the country. If the government wanted to seize the assets you wanted to use to hire an attorney, it had to hold a pretrial hearing on the question of the legitimacy of those funds.

But no longer. A grand jury indictment is now sufficient for the feds to throw you in prison and seize virtually everything you own.

Sure, the assets are supposed to be tainted in order for prosecutors to seize them. A grand jury must believe there is probable cause that you’re guilty of a crime, and that the assets in question were derived from that crime.
But, as an old judge in Tennessee once told me, “A grand jury in the hands of a skilled prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.”
Is this just? What happened to innocent-until-proven-guilty and the right to due process?

Big Brother would like you to believe that a grand jury indictment is enough to deprive you of everything you own. And yes, it’s nice to think that grand juries are jealous guardians of civil liberties. But if you’ve ever served on a grand jury, you know that’s not true.

The prosecutor is in complete control. Hearsay evidence is permissible, and the defendant has no right to be heard. Sure, you’ll get your day in court, but with a court-appointed lawyer.

Are you ready to take your chances before a jury, or will you sign the plea agreement? That’s a stark choice you don’t want to face, but unfortunately, thanks to the Supreme Court, many more defendants will soon face this dilemma.

By Mark Nestmann, HumansAreFree.com;

About author: Mark Nestmann is a journalist with more than 20 years of investigative experience and is a charter member of The Sovereign Society Council of Experts. He has authored over a dozen books and many additional reports on wealth preservation, privacy and offshore investing. Mark serves as president of his own international consulting firm, The Nestmann Group, Ltd.
1
 
Water=Life. All three organizations better stay out of it. :-(
 
ALERT! World Bank Wants to Privatize Earth's Drinking Water!
1

Jacques Dupuis

Shared publicly  - 
 
This cartoon was inspired by some stupid remarks by both Kathleen Sebelius and Harry Reid. Sebelius first. Naw...ladies first...
4
Claudia Smith's profile photo
 
Full benefit. Memory. We the people tax payers.

Jacques Dupuis

Shared publicly  - 
 
Loves it...  :-))  Karma it surely is.
 
This is the definition of irony or karma.
2
Claudia Smith's profile photo
 
In  and Under control yep.

Jacques Dupuis

Shared publicly  - 
 
Government has overstepped its bound with the people.  That is the story who is not been told by the MSM.
 
Via Jerry Dudley
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG: There have been many people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their...
4
2
Patty Garza's profile photoR Graves's profile photoJacques Dupuis's profile photoJay Kilborn's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Jay Kilborn
Correct. Another good reason to re-share and re-share all over the place.  :-))

Jacques Dupuis

Shared publicly  - 
15
Graham Rique's profile photoBob Clark's profile photoBuster McNamara's profile photoJacques Dupuis's profile photo
6 comments
 
All I can think of is the "Hungarian Dictionary" XD
Have them in circles
6,460 people
Lance Martin's profile photo
Joe Castro's profile photo

Jacques Dupuis

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Every child should know where his/her food comes from and how it is grown. #organic  
1

Jacques Dupuis

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Democratic Hypocrisy !!!
20
4
Rosepher Catervas's profile photoJeffrey Raskin's profile photoAdrian Azzopardi's profile photoMark Boyd's profile photo
18 comments
 
Those are interesting facts. I never knew that republicans were the party that supported such worthy causes and the democrats didn't. 
 
Long, however very informative and open.

Thanks +Finnian Cornelison 
 
Not only did I share something showing that The USA is not a Democracy or a Republic, it is an Oligarchy - but, watch this, below

Russia, is a democracy
Watch how, and this happens every year, he spends 4 hours with his people, he doesn't even have a prepared speech, he doesn't SPEAK - he answers, he came in straight to questions, 4 hours of being grilled, by the Crimeans, by Ukrainians, and by Russians

He even was asked by the the leader of the Service Men, that were working that night in Kiev, that under orders of the previous President were not allowed to shoot back, and lost lives in his unit, and he asked "Why he was not allowed, and doesn't Putin think of the previous president as a Traitor"

Putin answered him, clear, and concise and honestly - and told him and I paraphrase

"In Russia we have a saying, the hat of the Tsar is heavy, and it is, nobody that has not lead knows how heavy it can be, and I know him (ex Ukraine President) well, and all decisions he has made, right or wrong, were for the betterment of his people - I spoke to him, both during and after this crisis and he told me and let me tell you now, he told me this - "I worried and worried about sending my troops with an order to shoot, or to only keep peace, but I finally had to send them, even if it would hurt, to NOT shoot - as I could NOT give an order for Ukrainian people to shoot on their own people"

"SO say what you will about him" Putin continued  "but be careful in calling a person a Traitor - you yourself had to do what you had to do, you kept your orders sir, and lost men, and you have my respect and everyone here for that, and as you can see, even if he had given orders differently the end result would not have been different, except you would not be here to question me - I respect you"

Wow - Obama ever done this? 
1

Jacques Dupuis

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ Participates In IRS Scandal Cover-up --Cummings declined to appear on FOX
By Jennifer Burke, Apr. 16, 2014, Tpnn.com As if we need further evidence that the liberal lamestream media do not actually practice journalism, but rather serve as a mouthpiece for the Democrat Party, just look at what happened, or what failed to happen, w...
5
Adam K's profile photoJacques Dupuis's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Adam K
Yes, and should be ask the question from journalists.
People
Have them in circles
6,460 people
Lance Martin's profile photo
Joe Castro's profile photo
Work
Employment
  • Work at living harmoniously with my Universe.
    2013
Story
Tagline
After 49 years of smoking, I stopped doing so on January 04, 2011 - With the help of Electronic Cigarette, I am now happily Vaping.
Links
Congratulations on joining Google+ :-)) Thanks.
Public - a month ago
reviewed a month ago
1 review
Map
Map
Map