Plime is now in read-only mode and will remain as an archive of old plime activity.
This means you cannot login, post a comment or news post, edit your profile, etc.
 Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process
Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process
Evidence points to a teenager making bomb threats. Warrants are issued. Surprisingly they did not take mom's assurances that her son is innocent. He is arrested and charged so he is placed in jail awaiting his day in court. Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process? picked by 2manyusernames 2 years ago
tags patriot bomb threats lundeby
 quote edit #1 

  comments (12)  share edit history (0)
< 1 >
48
 2manyuse...
2 years ago
I am confused. I can easily imagine someone abusing the Patriot Act. I assume some have had due process denied and had civil rights trashed on. I am not defending the Patriot Act and would even say that it is probably poorly written without sufficient protections for the innocent or the presumed innocent. However I am at a lost to understand which of his rights were stripped.

They have evidence.
Mom claims it is part of a frame job.
Could be true. May not be true. A court decides that or a prosecutor can decide that it is and decline pressing charges.

They had a warrant.
Mom was upset because she insisted her son is innocent and was angry because the officers were armed and she doesn't believe in guns.
Okay, again, maybe he is innocent. The mom has to realize that police rarely accept a mother's assurances that her son is an angel.

He has been charged with a crime and is in jail awaiting trial or possibly a bail hearing no mention of that was made one way or the other.
Again, that is all permissible under the law long before the Patriot Act.


Can someone please explain how his rights are being abused in this case?
quote #2
41
 Moe
2 years ago
« 2manyusernames :Can someone please explain how his rights are being abused in this case?
I didn't see anything in the article that made me think they were being abused. Of course we don't know the whole story. All we know for sure is that someone made a bomb threat over the phone, and it was traced to that house and they have reason to suspect that it was the kid who did it.

Oh, and that and his mommy says he is a good boy.

Is he guilty? Who knows? That's what due process will (hopefully) figure out.

But yea, the mom is a raving doodie head.
quote #3
41
 dollylla...
2 years ago
« 2manyusernames : I am confused. I can easily imagine someone abusing the Patriot Act. I assume some have had due process denied and had civil rights trashed on. I am not defending the Patriot Act and would even say that it is probably poorly written without sufficient protections for the innocent or the presumed innocent. However I am at a lost to understand which of his rights were stripped.

They have evidence.
Mom claims it is part of a frame job.
Could be true. May not be true. A court decides that or a prosecutor can decide that it is and decline pressing charges.

They had a warrant.
Mom was upset because she insisted her son is innocent and was angry because the officers were armed and she doesn't believe in guns.
Okay, again, maybe he is innocent. The mom has to realize that police rarely accept a mother's assurances that her son is an angel.

He has been charged with a crime and is in jail awaiting trial or possibly a bail hearing no mention of that was made one way or the other.
Again, that is all permissible under the law long before the Patriot Act.


Can someone please explain how his rights are being abused in this case?
Um, no. Under the Patriot Act a person can be held without trial indefinitely. INDEFINITELY. That is (and always has been) one of the major problems with the Patriot Act.
quote #4
17
 stinkobi...
2 years ago
If I don't believe it, it's NOT real! La la la la.
quote #5
About Plime
Plime is an editable wiki community where users can add and edit weird and interesting links. Users earn karma when other users vote on their actions. The more karma you have, the more power you have at Plime.

48
 2manyuse...
2 years ago
« dollyllama : Um, no. Under the Patriot Act a person can be held without trial indefinitely. INDEFINITELY. That is (and always has been) one of the major problems with the Patriot Act.
Yes, that would and is a major problem. I would like to know often and in what circumstances that clause has been utilized

He was arrested in February. The article is dated April 29th. That is not even close to an unusual amount of time to be in jail awaiting trial so I assume it isn't a case of him being held indefinitely. At least I pray that it is not.

I hope there will be an update to this article sometime soon.

Also is a gag order standard practice?
quote #6
30
 lynxears
2 years ago
« 2manyusernames : 
Also is a gag order standard practice?
From what I understand, no, it isn't. Arrests and court proceedings are public record... unless the arrest is under the Patriot Act for terrorism.
The gag order was the only bit that raised an eyebrow for me. Generally they are reserved for hot-button items (sexual assaults, high-profile murders, huge things), the idea being exposure in the press will poison a jury unduly.
quote #7
8
 amcumbe1
2 years ago
The authorities are spot-on.

That pink shirt is unforgivable.
quote #8
41
 dollylla...
2 years ago
« 2manyusernames:Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process

Evidence points to a teenager making bomb threats. Warrants are issued. Surprisingly they did not take mom's assurances that her son is innocent. He is arrested and charged so he is placed in jail awaiting his day in court. Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process?
I've read this twice now and I don't see evidence of the teen making the bomb threats, nothing in this article states there's evidence. Someone claiming you did something is not evidence, it's not even close to evidence.

We do not throw people in jail because of an accusation, there has to be evidence to back it up unless you're arrested under the Patriot Act. That evidence isn't necessary. Like it or not, this is due process. In the simplest terms (I asked an attorney to define this for me in the simplest terms) due process is "fairness by the law, under the law." So, your neighbor can accuse you of crapping on their lawn but the police can't arrest you without evidence. This is where "innocent until proven guilty" comes in. We wouldn't arrest someone and hold them unless there was some evidence to indicate the danger exists.

The Patriot Act does away with that, indefinitely. You know, like the people in Guantanamo. They aren't tried because they don't have to try them. They aren't tried because the evidence isn't enough to support a case beyond reasonable doubt. Which means you have to suspend belief to find for the prosecution.

I'm not defending terrorists, maybe those guys in Guantanamo really need to be locked up, evidence or not. In that case I'm willing to err on the side of my government's best decision but I will not err on the government's side when it involves a 16 year old kid.

Putting the mother's hysteria aside, there are 2 congressmen, a Dem and a Pub who think the authorities may have overstepped their bounds. I can't glean much from the sound bite they are quoted as saying but I get the sense that they know something.

Suppose this kid did make the calls as a moronic prank and I'll assume, for a moment, that the government wasn't just arbitrarily listening into this kid's internet calls, (i.e., spying on US Citizen without just cause). Maybe the government made a mistake and if so, should just man up and let the kid go, I'm sure he's had enough of a scare by now to regret his actions.

However, if there's some evidence against this kid it needs to be exposed to the daylight and this kid's due process restored as we expect to happen to ANY American citizen.
quote #9
48
 2manyuse...
2 years ago
« dollyllama : I've read this twice now and I don't see evidence of the teen making the bomb threats, nothing in this article states there's evidence. Someone claiming you did something is not evidence, it's not even close to evidence.
This part heavily implies there is evidence and they were told what sort of evidence they had:

Lundeby told the officers that someone had hacked into her son's IP address and was using it to make crank calls connected through the Internet, making it look like the calls had originated from her home when they did not.
There appears to be evidence. There appears to be an IP history. It wouldn't take an eavesdropping on a US citizen to obtain this. It would merely take an order to track down where the call came from after it was received.

The mother is claiming that the evidence was forged by a hacker. Not beyond the realm of possibility. Neither is a kid pulling what he thought would be a cool prank. Nor is a kid really wanting to set a bomb (although I'd say that is the least likely scenario).

I would assume it would be clear very quickly if the threat (assuming he did it) was a legitimate threat or just a kid trying to act tough. If the latter, I agree, he's had enough of a scare and should be let off with quite a bit of community service - provided he man's up and admits it.

Obviously if it the evidence was the work of a hacker, we can only hope that such an event is provable.


« dollyllama
Putting the mother's hysteria aside, there are 2 congressmen, a Dem and a Pub who think the authorities may have overstepped their bounds. I can't glean much from the sound bite they are quoted as saying but I get the sense that they know something.
No, there isn't.
In a bi-partisan effort, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., last month introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives a bill that would narrow subpoena power in a provision of the Patriot Act, called the National Security Letters, to curb what some consider to be abuse of power by federal law enforcement officers.
The two representatives in question have no connection to this case. They are mentioned because of the bill put forth that would cut down some of the power of the patriot act, would add some checks and balances to it. Good bill, but they didn't propose it for the kid. They didn't even speak with anyone involved. The kid's mom has spoken with her elected representatives who told her there is nothing they can do.

I assume this is the sound bite you mentioned:
Boyce said the Patriot Act was written with good intentions, but he said he believes it has gone too far in some cases. Lundeby's might be one of them, he said.
It comes from a defense attorney, not the representatives and is non-committal. Nothing there. A defense attorney would likely say similar things about any case.

If I had to bet, I would say there is a decent chance he is guilty. If I had to bet, I would say the kid wasn't a real threat, that the bomb threat was nothing that many other kids have done in the past as a prank - getting out of a test at school is the cliche reason in some novels/stories.

As I said, if he did do it and it was just a prank, give him many many hours of community service (perhaps some sort of fine, but let's waive that or reduce it if the family can't afford one. Don't want to see a family suffer severe financial hardship due to an ill thought-out prank.) and let the kid (and his mother) chalk it off as a lesson learned.
quote #10
18
 Hypersap...
2 years ago
"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution,"
No it doesn't. No US law can supersede the Constitution. But that doesn't prevent the Government from acting as if it did.

Boyce said the Patriot Act was written with good intentions
I do not believe that the Patriot Act was written with good intentions. I believe that certain factions within the Government saw 9/11 as their chance for a power grab.
quote #11
41
 dollylla...
2 years ago
« 2manyusernames:This part heavily implies there is evidence and they were told what sort of evidence they had:

There appears to be evidence. There appears to be an IP history. It wouldn't take an eavesdropping on a US citizen to obtain this. It would merely take an order to track down where the call came from after it was received.

The mother is claiming that the evidence was forged by a hacker. Not beyond the realm of possibility. Neither is a kid pulling what he thought would be a cool prank. Nor is a kid really wanting to set a bomb (although I'd say that is the least likely scenario).
Sorry, but that's not evidence by law. It's heresay at best. You need to research the law a bit here (though I'm sure it qualifies under the Patriot Act because it's the murkiest Act ever).

I would assume it would be clear very quickly if the threat (assuming he did it) was a legitimate threat or just a kid trying to act tough. If the latter, I agree, he's had enough of a scare and should be let off with quite a bit of community service - provided he man's up and admits it.
Not a good assumption. Lots and lots of innocent people have been thrown in jail. Besides, the law is not based on assumptions or gut feelings, it's based on fact.

Obviously if it the evidence was the work of a hacker, we can only hope that such an event is provable.


No, there isn't.


The two representatives in question have no connection to this case. They are mentioned because of the bill put forth that would cut down some of the power of the patriot act, would add some checks and balances to it. Good bill, but they didn't propose it for the kid. They didn't even speak with anyone involved. The kid's mom has spoken with her elected representatives who told her there is nothing they can do.
You're correct, I read it wrong.

I assume this is the sound bite you mentioned:

It comes from a defense attorney, not the representatives and is non-committal. Nothing there. A defense attorney would likely say similar things about any case.

If I had to bet, I would say there is a decent chance he is guilty. If I had to bet, I would say the kid wasn't a real threat, that the bomb threat was nothing that many other kids have done in the past as a prank - getting out of a test at school is the cliche reason in some novels/stories.
He has the right to Due Process. He is innocent until proven guilty. Anything short of that is just giving the government too much power and I will never agree they have that right when it comes to the citizens of this country.

As I said, if he did do it and it was just a prank, give him many many hours of community service (perhaps some sort of fine, but let's waive that or reduce it if the family can't afford one. Don't want to see a family suffer severe financial hardship due to an ill thought-out prank.) and let the kid (and his mother) chalk it off as a lesson learned.
Either way, he needs his due process restored. Period.
quote #12
48
 2manyuse...
2 years ago
« dollyllama:Sorry, but that's not evidence by law. It's heresay at best. You need to research the law a bit here (though I'm sure it qualifies under the Patriot Act because it's the murkiest Act ever).
But it is evidence. It isn't proof but it is evidence. Evidence can get you arrested. You need proof for a conviction.

Records show that the call was made from his computer. That is more than heresay, but doesn't qualify as proof not by a long shot.

However even heresay is enough to get you arrested. Hell many people have been convicted on nothing more than heresay.

« dollyllama
Not a good assumption. Lots and lots of innocent people have been thrown in jail. Besides, the law is not based on assumptions or gut feelings, it's based on fact.
What I was saying had nothing to do with his innocence or convicting someone on gut feelings. I was saying that by going through the items seized and by investigating it should be clear if he was a legitimate threat or if the threat was a prank. The assumption was that he was guilty. The assumption was made just for the sake of pointing out that even if he did do it, he may not be a danger. I was trying to point out that a real threat and a prank threat are two different things and are in fact two different crimes with different penalties.


There is more information on this that I am about to post
quote #13
+ add a comment
< 1 >