07/01/14 – Will Grigg – The Scott Horton Show

All right, you guys, welcome to the show.
It's the Scott Horton Show.
I'm Scott Horton and tonight on Liberty Chat, our first guest will be Will Grigg of the great blog Pro Libertate and then he'll be followed by Con Hallinan from Foreign Policy in Focus who wrote some good stuff that I want him to talk about with us tonight, so should be a good one.
And as more people show up, especially feel free to chime in and participate in the chat room, this chat room or that chat room, and see if I can get your questions to Will.
But now it's Will Grigg, he's the author of the book Liberty in Eclipse and the great blog freedominourtime.blogspot.com, freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
It's called Pro Libertate and mostly covers local police abuse and boy, it covers it well too.
I mean, this is just some great journalism here, Will.
I really appreciate your writing a lot.
Welcome back to the show.
Thank you.
Thank you so much and especially for your kindness.
It really means a lot to me, Scott.
Yeah, well, you deserve it.
So first of all, let's talk about this, hey, you know, it's Fourth of July weekend coming up and all of that kind of thing and you have this great article here, what published yesterday, Monday, June the 30th, The Vampire State Draws Blood.
And I wonder when I saw that headline, I wonder which of the six things that immediately come to mind that I'm thinking of is he referring to here and turned out it had to do with, you know, pulling people over on their holiday weekends because, you know, everything changed when it became the holiday weekend or something.
So anyway, tell us about these alcohol checkpoints and let me be devil's advocate a little bit and just start out with, come on, what's the big deal?
We are talking about drunken driving, which is a really crappy way to lose somebody that you love to some idiot.
It certainly is.
So come on, let the cops do what they need to do to keep us safe.
Well, what's the problem, man?
One of the biggest problems is that the social malady you're describing is rather impervious to the solutions that are being prescribed here because the way that the solutions are applied has nothing to do with discerning the actual blood alcohol content of somebody who's being detained on suspicion of driving while impaired.
The breathalyzer, like the so-called lie detector test, the lie detector was invented by the same person who created the superhero character Wonder Woman, who had a magic lasso that could supposedly make people tell the truth.
Really?
Yes, it is.
Go Google it or look it up on Wikipedia.
I mean, I know it was as make-believe as that, but I didn't realize it was the same guy.
Quid conseratio asked, what magic is this?
Exactly.
But the thing is, the breathalyzer or the intoxilizer, which is also used in wide distribution here as a supposedly infallible technology for discerning blood alcohol content, is akin to the polygraph or drug detecting dogs in terms of reliability.
Drug detecting dogs will actually detect drugs at a ratio a little bit less efficient than that of a coin toss.
The polygraph is of no evidentiary value in many jurisdictions because it's not reliable.
People who are sociopathic, of course, can beat it, and it has a wide range of variability.
The polygraph does, depending upon the competence of the operator.
Many of the people who go into polygraph examination are retired police officers who are drawing a pension and staying in the game in order to draw a salary in the second pension.
That just happened over in Nampa, Idaho, which is a town about 35 miles away from here.
The breathalyzer and intoxilizer are part of the same pseudoscience.
The breathalyzer tests the breath alcohol content, which is supposedly a rough approximation of what's going on in your bloodstream.
The 0.08 standard, which is used nationwide, is a completely arbitrary political artifact.
If you have a blood alcohol content, whether it's accurately measured or not of something higher than that, supposedly you're too intoxicated to drive.
Of course, that cutoff point was significantly north of that until very recently when a pressure group called Mothers Against Drug Driving, induced with the help of the National Highway Administration and some of the other bureaucracies, induced legislatures to reduce it so as to increase the number of people who are subject to arrest and prosecution for impaired driving.
These devices are not scientifically reliable.
In spite of their unreliability, they're considered to be definitive for the purposes of prosecution.
If you reject the invitation to incriminate yourself using one of these devices during a no refusal event, such as that which is going to be inflicted on the state of Oregon during what used to be called the Independence Day weekend, then you will be immediately subject to arrest and the suspension of a driver's license for a year and a fine because of the implied consent proviso, which is part of your application for a driver's license.
If you receive a driver's license, you're giving your consent that is a comprehensive waiver of your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment against unreasonable search and against self-incrimination.
The first thing that's going to happen is summary punishment of you for exercising rights that you cannot be required to sign away.
That's a completely un-American construct, that concept of implied consent, which by the way is the same principle that allows TSA people to grope us as we're boarding an airplane by purchasing a ticket we've given our implied consent to sexual molestation at an airport.
In addition to facing the possibility or the likelihood of the revocation of your driver's license and the effective revocation of your right to travel, in our Oregon during a no refusal weekend, they'll detain you and then they will receive a rubber-stamped warrant from judges and prosecutors who will probably give this all of a picosecond's attention when they receive an email or faxed application from a police officer to be taken to the roadside or to a jail or to a medical facility and then being subjected to a forced blood draw.
In some states, as I point out in this article, Utah, here in Idaho we have a couple of departments that do this.
Texas, of course, in Arizona, police officers who are not medical professionals, they're not healthcare professionals although they're given rudimentary first aid training, are authorized to do blood draws themselves.
There was a piece I wrote a couple of years ago about a program in Nampa that involves what I call flibato cops or vampire cops and the cop who is the federally funded and federally trained supervisor of this pilot program, the Nampa Police Department, said that every time he has an encounter with the public he finds himself looking at their veins and thinking I would really like to stick that and find out what's going on in this person's blood stream.
That's the sort of thought that comes to the mind unbidden once you've been given authorization to do this to people.
Yeah.
Hey, to a man with a skateboard, everything's a curb.
I guess so.
Of course, if you have a hammer as your only weapon or your only implement, then every problem is a nail.
These people, of course, are human hammers and they look upon us as nails.
That, by the way, is the biggest problem with government law enforcement.
Their primary mission, despite their advertised intent of protecting and serving, is neither to protect nor to serve, but to control.
They define the roles not in terms of what they should do to help us, but rather what they're authorized to do to us.
There's a natural adversarial posture here on the part of people who are given political and social permission to exercise authority over others.
When you have an event of this sort taking place, it's time for Independence Day weekend.
Of course, the rationale here is that people will be out partying and consuming alcoholic libations, and that this will increase the danger of traveling on the roads during that event.
This is time for Independence Day.
The propaganda refrain that you're getting from the government of the state of Oregon is we should celebrate the founding of our country by taking part in this public spirited exercise that is the No Refusal Weekend.
That has a real East German savor to it.
I start out this article by referring to something that happened about 30 years ago.
There was a public service announcement in East Germany proudly informing the world that East Germany had set a record for blood donations, and they mentioned by way of the passing afterthought most of the people involved were volunteers, which means that they've been volunteered by somebody else.
Those, of course, who held out were very thoughtfully volunteered by the public functionaries who presumed to own them.
Of course, in East Germany, the government could be very insistent anyway.
The whole system, Scott, the way that the system of driver's licensure is established really is an East German proposition.
By receiving a license to exercise our innate right to travel, what we're being told is we'll be volunteered for all kinds of impositions upon us.
That means that at any time of a police officer's choosing, they can pull us over and comprehensively strip us of any protection of our rights.
It's a little like what you saw in ancient Sparta when you had the Kryptaya, which was the secret police, from time to time announcing that they were going to war against the Halots, and the Halots were slaves.
They were people who existed at the sufferings of their supposed betters in that totalitarian society.
Any citizen who gets into a car, gets behind the wheel of an automobile, and drives on one of these government-established conveyances is a Halot on wheels.
We're subject to the whims of any uniformed functionary into whose line of vision we happen to travel.
It is the most dangerous thing most of us are going to do.
First of all, driving, and I don't want to understate the risks here or the tragedy that descends upon our country because of irresponsible driving.
It's not merely intoxicated driving.
Intoxicated driving is a horrible and irresponsible thing to do.
Intoxicated driving is not particularly public-spirited.
People who inflict injury on the property or persons of others because of their irresponsibility are committing a horrible crime or a very grave tort, depending on the level of the offense and the motive of the offender.
One of the things I want to impress is that in addition to the dangers inherent in this mode of travel, which is statistically far more dangerous than flying, for instance, we find ourselves increasingly at risk because of the impudence and the aggression of law enforcement personnel.
And it's not just because of checkpoints of this kind or seatbelt checkpoints or other routine, East German-style garrison state initiatives like this.
It's also because from coast to coast, police officers and police agencies are looking upon traffic stops as a source of revenue through asset forfeiture.
And that's something that is particularly of interest to me, living in Idaho, which is a state wedged between Colorado and Washington, not immediately between Colorado and Washington, but most of the freeways that run from Washington to Colorado were two states which have largely decriminalized the recreational use of marijuana.
Most of the travel that would take place between those two states at some point or another is going to go through Idaho.
And right next to us is Oregon, a state which has decriminalized medical marijuana.
And I'm literally on the border.
I'm three and a half miles away from the border with Oregon.
And so the state police here in Idaho and the Payette County Sheriff's Office and the Payette City Police and the Fruitland City Police and all the other agencies that are part of the High Desert Drug Enforcement Task Force are doing land office business, stopping people coming out of Ontario, Oregon on whatever pretext they can contrive and then tossing their vehicles in search of contraband or something that they can describe as being involved in the narcotics trade, because that gives them the right, supposedly, to confiscate in the name of asset forfeiture.
And this is a huge profit source, a huge revenue stream for all of these agencies.
And that's typical of what's going on across the country.
They're instructed, most police officers in post academies and in other training seminars and other forms of on-the-job training, to build every traffic stop.
In other words, if you're stopping somebody for a busted taillight or a brake light that's not working or some other technical violation of what the government is going to call a law, for instance, a window that's shaded a bit too dark, that's something that's going on in Oregon quite a bit now.
Then once you have somebody captive at roadside, see if you can build that stop into something that will yield either a prosecutable offense or some kind of a rationale for asset forfeiture.
And so it's a very dangerous thing.
And it just makes my mind boggle that we're, in some sense, descended from the same group of colonial refractories who were willing to go to war against the most powerful empire on the planet at the time over a claim to but not exercised right on the part of Parliament to tax the colonies.
And yet we have routinely across this country, we have all kinds of checkpoints that are established on roads, and we have no refusal initiatives in which the government claims the right to siphon away our bodily fluids against our will in order to obtain self-incriminating evidence because we've supposedly given them permission to do so.
I don't think that our colonial forebears would recognize what we've become.
Yeah, well, and, you know, I'm interested, Will, in the shape of the law as it used to be as far as the right of people to travel.
I remember there was a speech that Jonathan Turley gave in 2008 at the Future Freedom Foundation Conference Restoring the Republic.
And he went through, you know, because he, you know how Turley is.
He's got chapter and verse on every court case, right?
He's going through and he's talking about how, you know, all of the different little precedents were set over the years, degrading, you know, even the idea to the point where it's now, as you describe it, even the idea that you have any kind of sovereign right to go about your business on on public property at all, basically, as long as you're on a sidewalk or in a car on a public road or anything like that, then, as you say, having that license, they interpret as a as permission to then get around all the laws.
But if I remember the speech right, all this has happened since Nixon or some since FDR, at least.
And it wasn't always this way.
And mostly it was in the name of drug prohibition, enforcement of drug prohibition that, well, you know, the public need overrode what was formerly considered a sacred right to travel, you know, unmolested by the state.
Well, that's what most things that begins with progressivism and it started about a century ago.
And a lot of it has to do with the way that alcohol prohibition morphed seamlessly into narcotics prohibition.
You can actually see where many people who when the Volstead Act was repealed and the relevant amendment was taken off the books, they were no longer employed in alcohol prohibition and they started to thump the tub for banning marijuana.
That happened with Henry.
There's a Harry or Henry Anslinger who went on to head the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Harry, I think, Harry Anslinger.
Yeah, of course, deliriously racist and thoroughly contemptible human being.
And he'd been involved in alcohol prohibition.
So once that dried up, he went laterally into the effort to bring about marijuana prohibition.
That all started really back in the FDR era in the late 1930s.
You saw the prohibitive taxes being imposed on cannabis and hemp and that, of course, prefigured what Nixon would later do.
And in the interval in 1961, we had this charming enactment by the United Nations called the Single Statute on Narcotics.
And one of the things that many progressives don't understand where they're seeing the pay and the praise to the United Nations is that the United Nations really is a major player in the whole drug war, because that grows out of this 1961 enactment by the United Nations.
And just recently, when Colorado and Washington succumbed to a fit of relative good sense regarding marijuana, they were lectured to by some functioner at the U.N. about how these laws were invalid because they defied our supposed international obligations under that 1961 U.N. treaty.
And of course, 10 years later, Nixon, for reasons of perfectly cynical political positioning, decided that he was going to set the hard hats off against the long hairs by declaring war on drugs.
But really, alcohol prohibition was the first major federal initiative in law enforcement in this country.
And wiretapping came out of the prohibition era, the seminal 1926 ruling on wiretapping in the Supreme Court.
The dissent, I think, is the one that gave us that wonderful admonitory phrase about how government is the great teacher, when it abets lawlessness.
But of course, rather, when it acts lawlessly, it abets lawlessness on the part of the public at large.
And many of the things that we see in terms of the federalization of law enforcement and impositions being made on the right to travel came out of the effort to suppress bootlegging during the prohibition era.
And of course, at the same time, you had the major municipal machines and county governments that were making a killing off of prohibition.
Quite literally, they were in alliance with politically protected people who were manufacturing and marketing spiritist liquors.
And that's one of the main sources of municipal corruption then, and it's one of the main sources of municipal and state corruption today.
And in the meantime, you have this steady stream of rulings and exceptions that are being made on what had been considered the sacrosanct right of free people or minding their own business to travel, which is something that goes back to 1215 and Runnymede and the Magna Carta.
It's actually in the Magna Carta about the unfettered right of people to travel.
And if you really want to get metahistorical about this, you can actually go back to the earliest documents dealing with this affliction called government and see how taxes and tolls actually grew out of the habit of rulers in the Near East to send forth emissaries.
When somebody would find himself traveling across lands that were claimed by a ruler, the ruler's emissaries would go out and confront them and then tap their shield in a gesture of ritual challenge to battle.
And that's actually where we get the phrase taxation from.
It was a challenge to either pay the fee or you do single combat or multiple combat against the emissary or emissaries of what a ruler claimed that property.
And so really, if you're taking a look at the way things operate today, it's not all that different.
It's really a throwback to an era of preliterate barbarism when you have police officers who are conducting themselves in much the same fashion that those emissaries of ancient and long forgotten and deservedly forgotten monarchs behaved.
But it's something that is a complete reproach to what America was supposed to be.
And it's the downside of the dark side of the natural coefficient of that standard status refrain when libertarians or anarchists start talking about privatizing human society and trying to or trying to organize our efforts on the basis of commerce and cooperation rather than licensed coercion.
They'll say, well, who will build the roads?
Well, the roads will get built.
But the question is that the state doesn't own and operate the roads.
And how are the roads going to be used to regiment the rest of us?
That's what they're really thinking, I would wager.
And if they're not thinking that that's something that should be explained to them and some of them might think that's a perfectly acceptable state of affairs, I'm hoping a few of them would be more reasonable.
But I don't know.
We got to the point now where people just take this as given rather than looking upon it and being appalled.
Right.
Well, you know, yeah, it's kind of like just with the SWAT raids on an unlimited basis all the time.
Is this radicalizing the population of America against the government or is it just restraining the American people that that's right.
That's what Bill Hicks used to say.
That's why they show you that show cops in the first place so that, you know, the state will always win.
They will bust your house down and they will come for you.
And so don't stick your neck out too far there, pal.
You know, and they show you they show the cops beating up on drunken rednecks all night.
But that's not really who the message is aimed at.
You know?
Yeah.
Bill Hicks was something of a seer.
I really miss him.
And his insights, of course, are deathless.
It's unfortunate that he was not.
I wish he were still among us in the flesh.
I do think that one of the things that's happened with this incessant fusillade of propaganda of the cop genre is that there's a large segment of the population.
What I find really interesting is that in my experience, that segment includes people who are sort of dissolute, misreputable, that take vicarious pleasure in watching people on the receiving end of state authorized violence.
But it is radicalizing a certain segment of the policy, the polity rather.
There are people who still have the moral equivalent of a gag reflex, and when they see something like that happen, they're seized upon by irresistible disgust.
And one of the things that I'm hoping will happen as a result of what happened in Habersham County with Baby Boo Boo is that finally there's going to be at least a plurality of the public that's going to look at that and say, what kind of a country we become when police can kick in the door of a dwelling at 3 a.m.and hurl a flashbang grenade into the living space, let alone the fact that they threw it into a bassinet and then grievously wounded this baby and then immediately moved to cover up their crime by impeding access on the part of the parents to the child, lying to the parents about the condition of the child.
And here we are several weeks after this atrocity and not a single syllable of sympathy has been expressed, let alone remorse to these parents.
This child has been permanently disfigured by what happened here.
There are people throughout the country and, of course, around the world who, when they're made aware of this, their immediate reflex is to say that simply isn't right.
And of course, they're waiting to be talked into believing or pretending that they believe that it's right.
That's the job of the major media, is to try to reconcile the inscrutable ways of the divine government to those of us who are ruled by our supposed betters.
I mean, the statist media is engaged in what ancient theologians used to call a theodicy, which was the effort to direct, to reconcile God's ways to man in order to tell people, be comfortable with some of the theological mysteries that were unpleasant and dark and somewhat unsettling.
That's really the role of the people who call themselves journalists for the most part, is that the high priest of the cult of the state.
And I'm gratified to see the CNN of all the unlikely media outlets had a pretty good interview with Mr.
Mrs.
F.
Asenova, the father, the mother and father, respectively, of this child.
And it was entirely sympathetic to them.
And it didn't reflect very well at all on Joey Terrell, the sheriff of Habersham County, and his merry band of maniacal jackboots.
And that's the sort of coverage that's probably going to have, I think, a healthy influence, the margin here, because there's just no way you can justify this when they're kicking in the door at three in the morning.
What's the first thing people think?
Oh, they're going after a hostage taker.
They're going after a barricaded gunman.
They're taking down somebody who's actually a menace to the rest of the city.
Well, no, they were going after somebody who had allegedly sold a small amount of not only marijuana, some amount of a controlled substance to a police informant who was probably a career criminal looking for a downward departure.
And when they got there, they couldn't find the drugs and they couldn't find the suspect.
And leaving aside the fact that this is being waged as most of the 100 plus SWAT raids every day in this country are waged in pursuit of catching somebody who's involved in a nonviolent offense.
It's a 3 a.m.door kick, for God's sake.
3 a.m.
That doesn't happen in Iran, I don't think.
I don't think that happens in Cuba anymore.
So is in Afghanistan under the American Delta Force.
There you go.
That's the only analogy I can think of.
Maybe in Egypt, under under the military dictatorship, you'd have a broad parallel to what's going on right now in the Soyuz, the American Soyuz, or those places where the armed the armed emissaries of official benevolence called the U.S. military are kicking in doors and painting targets for drone strikes and things of that sort.
You'd find a broad parallel to what's going on in places like Habersham County.
But this is happening more than 100 times a day in this country.
There are not 100 bank robberies or urban terrorist events or embedded gunmen, entrenched gunmen, barricaded suspects.
You don't have that happening 100 times a day in this country.
The violent crime rate.
Not even 100 times a year.
Yeah, exactly.
The violent crime rate in this country has gone down precipitously over the last 20 or 30 years, pari passu, with the militarization of law enforcement.
Well, and you know what they say about that Atlanta squad is that, you know, they actually don't have any rules about when they use the SWAT team, that kind of thing.
And I think that's the case a lot of times.
And it's just like you say in the article about the drawing blood is that a lot of this stuff is just made up by the cops at the time.
But then there's no accountability whatsoever.
They all have the pass of so-called qualified immunity.
I don't know what's qualified about it.
Seems like it's unqualified immunity.
And so but what no accountability means then in practice is there are no rules for them to even follow in the first place.
They just get to do what they want.
Yeah, it's actually something of an insult to compare SWAT teams to special forces operations teams overseas because the latter actually have rules of engagement.
The former do not.
As far as I can tell, if you're part of the U.S. SWAT team, you've been trained by the special forces at some point or people who are connected to the special forces.
You're equipped by the Pentagon, but you're not subject to the uniform code of military justice and you're not subject to rules of engagement, which means that if you tick off a sufficient number of boxes on a checklist called a threat matrix and you decide that you have to go operational and you kick in the door and you terrorize people who are perfectly innocent or you burn a kid.
And I know of at least three or four instances where you've had these SWAT raids after midnight or before the dawn that have resulted in children being burned.
You know, when you do these things, then because there are no rules, all that is necessary that you invoke standard practices and procedures in the department.
And then you make ritual utterance of this incantatory phrase qualified immunity and then you cannot be held responsible.
And that's the game that Joey Terrell is playing in Aberdeen County.
And it's interesting because before this even got out, before news of what happened at that house even hit the Internet or hit the newspapers or the TV broadcasts, Sheriff Terrell had said, I've already spoken with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
I've already spoken with Internal Affairs.
We've already investigated.
There's nothing more to see here.
We have to move on.
This happened within hours.
I mean, within hours, they already had the cover story out that already exonerated the people who carried out this 3 a.m.raid and then all these other horrible things.
But for instance, one of the things that was made clear by the interview on CNN is that when the baby was hit by the flashbang grenade, one of the older siblings was screaming at the police.
You're killing him.
Stop it.
You're killing him.
You had a witness there.
It's amazing he survived.
The father was thrown down and zip tied.
And in the course of that assault, he suffered a severe injury to his rotator cuff.
I'm dealing with one of those self-inflicted, as it turns out right now.
And I can sympathize.
It's a horrible injury.
But he was being suffocated while his child was suffering probably second or third degree burns.
This happened in America, for heaven's sake.
You know, 3 a.m.door kick.
What kind of a country is it when we talk about a 3 a.m.knock on the door?
These bastards don't even knock anymore.
They just kick in the door and start throwing flashbang grenades.
Yeah, well, you know, you and I have talked many times about how Waco was really could be marked as a pretty important dividing line here where the American people, at least, you know, when it counted, cheered for it.
Didn't really think twice about it till later on.
And that was kind of the test.
There's that great clip in the movie Rules of Engagement where the guy from the ATF says, hey, listen, the days of cops in three piece suits knocking on a door to serve a warrant of any kind is over because everyone out there is David Koresh just trying to kill us.
And so that's where we stand is in between you and the David Koresh of the world, which is everyone in every town, every every recipient of every warrant, which, as ACLU lady pointed out on my other show the other day, we're talking someone who's the subject of a search warrant.
That is the absolute lowest threshold of evidence, not even really on them, but just saying that, judge, we have probable cause to believe we will find evidence of a crime.
So to use a paramilitary, just call them a military force on something that is not even doesn't even amount to an accusation that, you know, a person necessarily is guilty of anything, just or not necessarily someone who's at the place that they're searching or etc.
Like that.
So it seems, you know, so far out of proportion and yet, you know, I don't know.
Oh, and then I was going to say, but did you see that Jim Cavanaugh, who was the head of the ATF at the time, is he was on MSNBC the other day talking about the ACLU report and saying, yeah, you know, this is a bit out of control.
And those guys should have done some better surveillance of the house first and all of that, talking about in specifically the case of the burnt baby in Atlanta.
Well, Jim Cavanaugh is a very useful barometer of just how bad things have gotten, and quite frankly, rather than pronouncing on any subject for the edification of the public, he should be building homes for the poor, otherwise working out the penance that he deserved for his role in what happened and sort of the primordial example of what we're discussing here.
And one of the things I want to emphasize when you're talking about a search warrant, that's, of course, a phrase which for most people has a certain authoritative ring to it.
I've read hundreds and hundreds of search warrant applications over the last several years.
Most of the material in the search warrants that is cited as probable cause doesn't even reach the threshold of gossip, quite frankly.
And what happens is that these are considered to be self-ratifying documents in the same way that when the FBI issues a national security letter to go through your personal history online or elsewhere, this is a self-written search warrant, like the writs of assistance from the 1760s and 1770s.
Not many people understand why the writs of assistance were issued.
That was one of the major complaints by the colonial rebels against the British administration for America was these self-written, self-executing search warrants that allow the redcoats, the equivalent of the police, to search any building and seize anything of value and arrest anybody on any contrived justification they could offer.
The reason they were issuing these writs of assistance was because of smuggling.
In other words, bootlegging or what's going on right now with respect to the war on drugs.
It's the same fight.
It's the same set of assumptions being followed by people who are enforcing the will of a distant, unaccountable government.
But it is so inevitably worse today.
I'm way over time here and I got to let you go.
But first, let me ask you real quick, if you have an opinion off the top of your head here, which U.S. state is the worst on civil forfeiture?
Right now, probably Tennessee or Georgia.
One of those two.
Tennessee or Georgia.
OK, good.
That was a question in the chat room that I should have got to earlier, but didn't.
But Georgia has gone parabolic with respect to asset forfeiture and their procedures are completely opaque.
There you go.
Well, and listen, anybody wants to know everything about this stuff, just go and look at Pro Libertate.
It's Will's great blog.
It's freedom in our time dot blogspot dot com.
And he's as good a writer as he is an interview, too.
So go and check it out.
Freedom in our time dot blogspot dot com.
And thank you very much for your time on the show tonight.
Will.
Thank you so much, Scott.
You take care.
And we'll be right back, everybody, with Con Hallinan on the war in just a minute.