The standard isn’t ‘proven illegal’, it’s ‘proven legitimate’ — those aren’t the same bar. The court doesn’t need to prove the money is dirty to block it, the defense needs to prove it’s legitimate. Unverified anonymous internet donations fail that test not because they’re criminal but because they’re unverifiable. Seizure is a separate legal action with a completely different evidentiary standard.

The procedure is codified in state law with defined standards, not made up on the spot. Bond rulings in Tennessee can be challenged through higher courts, so the ‘no appeal’ claim doesn’t hold up either.

And if you think bail is an unjust wealth-based system, the crowdfunding situation illustrates that perfectly: his supporters are collectively buying his freedom, which is exactly what bail abolitionists object to. That’s an argument for the judge’s skepticism, not against it.

Here are the facts: Tennessee explicitly authorizes courts to conduct bond source hearings to prevent defendants from using the proceeds of illegal activity to secure their release. These hearings are required by state law for any bond set at $75,000 or higher — Eatherly’s $1 million bond clears that threshold by a significant margin, making this procedure entirely standard and not specific to his case. The burden lies completely on the party seeking to post the bond. Whoever is paying must prove that the money is derived from legitimate sources rather than illegal activities. Defense attorneys generally have to present bank statements, pay stubs, tax returns, or other financial records to satisfy the judge. If the judge is not satisfied with the legitimacy of the funds, the defendant will not be allowed to post bond and will remain in custody, regardless of whether they have the physical cash on hand.

it absolutely can! there’s Bypass Paywalls Clean developed by magnolia1234. the reason you don’t see them shared often is that they’re repeatedly taken down from official extension stores like the Chrome Web Store and Firefox Add-ons, and platforms like GitHub, due to legal and political pressure from publishers, which pushes them to increasingly obscure and/or questionable hosting platforms that most normal users wouldn’t touch - case in point, Bypass Paywalls Clean itself is currently hosted on GitFlic, a Russian code hosting platform, as it’s been pushed outside the reach of Western legal frameworks

soft paywalls are enforced by JavaScript running in your browser - the server sends the full article content regardless, and then the JavaScript checks if you’re a subscriber and hides or blocks it if not. when archive.today or a self-hosted tool like ArchiveBox fetches the page, it gets the full content directly from the server before any of that JavaScript enforcement runs. the server doesn’t know or care whether you’re a subscriber, it just responds to the request

the archiving mechanism itself is what bypasses paywalls. it archives by fetching pages server-side before client-side JavaScript enforces paywalls

they do exist: http://archivebox.io/

no, archive.today (and similar services like the Wayback Machine) work by fetching the page directly through their own servers, essentially acting as a headless browser that renders the page and saves a snapshot. the archive service itself makes the HTTP request, executes JavaScript, and captures the resulting document object model - no subscriber involvement required

an identity verification system that’s tied to Ukraine’s national government databases and uses taxpayer IDs, national ID numbers, and official digital signatures

actual data in the article:

1. direct crime statistics: 80% drop in burglaries, 66% drop in property crime overall, FBI data showing 2023-2024 had the sharpest single-year decline on record

2. academic citation: a 2021 paper that “directly links the startling drop in burglary to security improvements”

3. specific numbers: Chicago went from 50,000 burglaries to much lower levels

not to be rude, but this in no way encapsulates the main points in the article.

actual reasons given are:

• better physical security (locks, lighting, alarms, controlled building entry)
• surveillance technology (doorbell cameras, building cameras, smartphones)
• less profitable theft (cheaper electronics, tracking devices, decline of cash)
• higher perceived risk of getting caught

“The bottom line is that we changed our environment in a way that made burglary and robbery harder to pull off, less profitable, and more likely to fail.“

deleted by creator

deleted by creator