Nationwide, the 2007 foreclosure rate was 79% over the 2006 rate.

In Texas, though, the 2007 rate was 4.6% LOWER than the 2006 rate. Less speculative real estate price runups –> fewer folks overstretching to buy a modest home –> fewer folks in fuck-you ARMs –> fewer folks getting screwed now –> fewer folks in foreclosure. Score.

One defense a small party has against a huge corporate SLAPP suit (or any bogus suit, particularly in this age of over-reaching copyright claims) is the publicize the legal bullying, and the first step has traditionally been to share the ill-considered and legally bogus cease-and-desist letters with the Internet at large, so that everyone can see what fucktards Big Company X is being.

Large corporate interests would prefer their bullying not be so widely known, so they’ve been working to try to find a way to keep it all quiet, inspired no doubt by the whole national security letter bullshit promulgated by the Bush administration. One particularly absurd argument is that the letters are copyrighted material, and that unauthorized distribution is an infringement on that copyright. This ought not even pass the risibility test, but, sadly, some judge has actually bought the argument.

If this ruling stands, the implications for free speech in America are dire indeed.

Of the many fine restaurants with the Heathen Seal of Approval, one of our personal favorites is the DC-area tapas (no, not topless) joint Jaleo, named for the striking Sargent painting hanging in (but thankfully not stolen from) the Isabella Gardner museum in Boston (small pic at right; the real deal is more than 7 feet tall and 11 feet long; go see it). Their food is fantastic, but their sangria is out of this world.

They’ve had enough success, even, that Jaleo has locations outside the District, in Bethesda and — and this is where the trouble comes in — in Virginia. As it turns out, Virginia still has post-prohibition-era laws that make it illegal to mix hard liquor and beer or wine, which means the sangria in the Virginia locations is, well, a crappy approximation of the real thing. People have noticed this bullshit law, and there’s an effort to change it, but the real shocker is that there apparently some goatfuckers in the Virginia legislature who think the law’s fine the way it is.

At least it’s not Mississippi.

A Nebraska deputy pulled seized $69,000 during a routine traffic stop during which the driver was neither arrested nor ticketed.

Investigators don’t know if they will be able to connect the money to a drug operation, [Sheriff Tim] Hanson said, but the important work already has been done.

“The big thing is he grabbed 69 (thousand dollars) and took it away from them,” Hanson said of the money seized. “That’s going right straight to the heart of the matter.”

No, Tim, the heart of the matter is that you just stole money without any judicial oversight, finding of guilt, or other evidence. The heart of the matter is that you presumed a large amount of cash was illicit with no other indicators that was the case. The heart of the matter is that you’re making it de facto illegal to have a bunch of cash, unless the owner can prove the money is legit. That’s a long-ass way from “innocent until proven guilty,” don’t you think?

The heart of the matter is that asset forfeiture rules allow so-called law enforcement agencies to profit by confiscating what they want from suspects without trial or recourse. The heart of the matter, Timmy boy, is that people like you and your jackbooted deputy are causing far more harm to our nation than the drugs you claim you’re so zealously fighting.

(Via Radley.)

…and hello to waaay more police misconduct. At least, that’s the way Radley Balko reads the upcoming Supreme Court ruling. The case, involving a Virginia man stopped for speeding who was found to be driving on a suspended license:

Virginia law bars police from making arrests for misdemeanor traffic offenses. In this case, the cops illegally arrested the guy, then forced him to take them back to his hotel room. There they searched him, and found some crack in his pocket, for which he was arrested and convicted.

The Virginia Supreme court threw out the conviction, explaining that evidence obtained from a search following an illegal arrest can’t be used at trial. The state of Virginia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. From the tone of the questioning this week, it looks as if the Roberts court is prepared to rule for the state–that evidence seized in searches resulting from illegal arrests should be admissible at trial. Which means the court is well on its way to either overturning the Exclusionary Rule, or limiting it to the point where it’s basically useless. Virginia’s attorney general was asked if, consistent with this case, someone could be (illegally arrested) for jaywalking, then have his home searched pursuant to that illegal arrest, then have the evidence found in the search used against him at trial. He said yes.

Previous court rulings have held that evidence gleaned from illegal searches must be excluded at trial, on the grounds that no other set of rules is likely to produce sufficient motivation for police to act properly. Segments of the Court, particularly Scalia, have disagreed, and seem poised to do so again. Balko continues:

I’ve argued that while the Exclusionary Rule isn’t perfect, it’s necessary, because it’s really the only effective deterrent to Fourth Amendment abuses. History has shown us that bad cops in fact aren’t properly disciplined by their departments or by prosecutors. The doctrine of qualified immunity and the tendency of judges, jurors, and police administrators to show deference to police, victims of illegal searches and excessive police tactics rarely if ever recover any damages–if their case is fortunate enough to even get by summary judgement.

Which brings me back to the Virginia case argued before the Court this week. The state of Virginia and the U.S. government (siding with Virginia against the Fourth Amendment) once again brought up the argument that disciplining and firing police officers who perform unlawful searches is a better remedy than the Exclusionary Rule.

That raised the question: What happened to the police who performed the illegal search in this particular case? NPR found the answer (listen to the tail-end of the audio). Not only were they not disciplined, one of the officers was named his city’s “Cop of the Year”–the same year he took part in the illegal search.

THIS is the kind of court we get when you fuckers vote GOP. Stop it.

Security Guru Bruce Schneier has a couple winners this week:

• What do Chicago-fire era public fire alarm boxes and modern-day geiger counter regulations in NYC have in common? At the time of the Chicago fire, the public boxes were kept locked to prevent false alarms; as a consequence, the first alarm wasn’t pulled until the fire was already raging out of control. Today, in NYC, it’s against the law for private citizens to own or use chemical, biological, or radiological hazard for precisely the same reason. If there was a lesson learned in Chicago, it’s clearly been forgotten by the NYC authorities.

• Bruce runs his network naked: “Whenever I talk or write about my own security setup, the one thing that surprises people — and attracts the most criticism — is the fact that I run an open wireless network at home. There’s no password. There’s no encryption. Anyone with wireless capability who can see my network can use it to access the internet.” Read more.