Have you ever wondered who has made the most comments on the TDOB Index? I have a list of the top five commenters in front of me. Some of them might surprise you. 

Obviously, I'm first in line, since the TDOB Index is my baby. But how many comments do you suppose I have made?

The first person to guess the number of comments I have made since the TDOB Index was created on December 11, 2011 gets a prize. The comment on December 11 where the TDOB Index first appears is Comment One. The comment that you're reading is the last one.

The first person to guess the top five commenters after me gets a prize.

Tom wins a prize for his correct answer of 311. He takes home a complete set of vintage Cheerleader magazines (including the extremely rare Issue #1) for perusal at his leisure.

In addition to being a prizewinner, Tom was the fourth most prolific commenter on the original TDOB thread. He commented 19 times. At one point, when I took a week's absence, Tom took over the reins and posted the TDOB Index himself.

Let's give Tom a hand.

The fifth most prolific commenter was Herzog. Good old Herzog. You weren't always sure what he was trying to get across, but you were sure it was something. Herzog commented 18 times.

Interview with Duluth Police Chief Gordon Ramsay and Lt. Steve Stracek, Commander of the Lake Superior Drug and Gang Task Force
 
August 22, 2012
 
Location: Chief Ramsay's office
 
Side A of tape begins mid-sentence
 
Gordon Ramsay: —so we can't talk about that specifically. Okay? But we can certainly talk about search-and-seizure law, all that stuff.
 
John Ramos: Yeah. And then, um, I understand that we can't talk about the Last Place, the case, but there are other things about the Last Place that are...
 
Ramsay: Search and seizure stuff.
 
Ramos: ...and, um, well, I mean, I do have questions. I'll just ask the questions, and then you can let me know whether they fit, or whether, you know, there's a problem there. And then, also, I have general questions. I'm working on a novel, and there's crime and punishment involved, so just to get, ah...
 
Ramsay: Okay.
 
Ramos: ...a handle on stuff like that.
 
Ramsay: Sure.
 
Ramos: And my first question is, since we've been talking about property seizures so much, what is the actual procedure for seizing, storing and keeping track of property and cash that's seized?
 
Ramsay: And Steve's our expert on this. He oversees the [obscured by surface noise].
 
Steve Stracek: Well, if you want to break it down and ask me individually. So, your first part of it was...?
 
Ramos: Okay, so my main concern is how is it kept track of, from the moment it's seized and then to the moment it's disposed of or returned? How is it kept track of?
 
Stracek: Well, there's a couple of different things that happen. One, if it's property other than currency, we would keep all those items in our evidence room. They come in, as the officers take them in, they document them in police reports. If they're taken in search warrants ________, that property would be included on our inventory return that we give to the suspect. That comes into our police department, it's placed into our evidence lockers and is kept there under lock and key, unless it's, of course, taken out for any court proceedings or, if it's returned, it's returned out of our property room. If there's, for example, firearms or grow equipment, we forfeit grow equipment, we forfeit different property. We can forfeit television sets, jewelry, gold, all kinds of different things. All those items would be retained as evidence in a criminal matter, or if it's determined by the prosecutor that they wouldn't need that as criminal evidence in the trial, that we could just proceed with the forfeiture process, we would go through the forfeiture process and ultimately, if it's real property, it would be sold or destroyed. Firearms are typically destroyed. And precious metals and ______ and those types of things would be auctioned or sold in public auction. Propertyroom.com is one of the sites that we use. We have different services for selling vehicles, for example, which are taken on forfeiture as well. The tracking, obviously, goes through our evidence processing, it comes as an intake, we have some software called BEAST which keeps track of all of our property as it comes in. Anyone who touches it, examines it, checks it out, signs for it, and it's brought back in, it's checked back into our evidence room. So we retain those, take care of them while they're in our custody, and if they're returned, they're returned to the owner or they're disposed of by law.
 
Currency, on the other hand, back several years ago our process was to keep cash as evidence, and our prosecutors at that time wanted us to keep all the currency in case it was used in a criminal trial. Because of some issues that occurred down in the metro area a few years ago with the Gang Strike Force, some of those practices were reviewed and there were some "best practices" suggestions made. And what we do now, and have been for a few years, is when currency comes in, periodically we take that currency, depending upon how much comes in—if it's several cases in a week, I'll do it once a week, if it's, ah, we don't let a lot of money build up. We bring that money in and we deposit it into a holding account, and that's through the city. We count the money, deposit it into an account, so it's no longer in currency form in our evidence lockers. So if it's, if the forfeiture goes to a point where we return the money to the owner, we have a check cut, we send that back to the owner, or we give it, depending upon what the owner asks for, we'll either mail it or we'll deliver it in hand, whatever it may be. That's given back. If it's forfeited, we do what's required by law, is a split. The law enforcement agency that originated the forfeiture gets 70 percent of the cash, 20 percent goes to the St. Louis County attorney's office, and 10 percent goes to the State of Minnesota. And my understanding is they've changed a few of these things over the years, but that 10 percent typically goes to victim/witness funds, those types of efforts. 
 
So the money that goes to the police departments can be used only in certain ways. It can't be used to pay wages or overtime or anything like that. It has to be used in training, purchase of equipment and those types of expenses. In the Drug Task Force, we use those funds exactly for that. We buy equipment. We can use it as investigative funds for when we do controlled buys or pay informants for information or services, those types of things. We use it for training, we use it for maintenance on our vehicles, those types of things. Kind of an operational cost. But we're restricted by law to not use state forfeited funds as wages or salary.
 
Federal funds, on the other hand, that are forfeited, follow a whole different path, and we don't typically have a lot of those, because most of our forfeitures are handled on the state side, but those are a little more complex.
 
Ramos: So the second raid on the Last Place, you said that was a federal matter, so they're dealing with the funds seized in that one.
 
Stracek: Correct. 
 
Ramsay: The way the stories, and the way a lot of people believe, is that the city's got that, and that...the city does not have that. That was all federal. We had three federal agencies: IRS, FDA and DEA.
 
Ramos: What was the city's function there, then? I mean, the city bus transported them, and there was city police officers...
 
Stracek: We work in partnership with a lot of different federal agencies, and it's very uncommon for a federal agency to come into a community and not work with local law enforcement, because of resources, because of knowing what's going on in those areas, those logistical things. So we work in partnership with the Feds on all drug cases that come here, but when they adopt a case, they really direct how things are going forward from that point. You know, we certainly provide support and input and expertise in certain areas, but it becomes their case and they direct the case.
 
Ramos: So as far as the funds that they seized, um, through equitable sharing, would some of that come back eventually?
 
Stracek: It could. Typically, on federal cases—and, just to qualify that, federal forfeitures typically take a lot longer to resolve. State cases, you know, usually within a year you can get these resolved, even if there's criminal matters, but sometimes federal cases go on for a long time, because they don't disburse until after conviction and sentencing, which as you probably know sometimes takes two or three years. But, yeah, there is documents that I fill out requesting portions of those federal assets that are forfeited, and they then do some formulas and analysis as to what our involvement was, and how much...basically, what our investment was in that case, and then they decide what percentage they give us. Once they do give us those funds, we're accountable for them in how we spend them. I have to put reports back in the Fed's hands as to how our forfeited assets were spent. You can use federal forfeited funds for salaries and reimbursement of overtime costs, because the laws are different on the federal side. But most commonly we use those funds for operational costs: purchases of equipment and training and travel costs for our investigators and those types of things.
 
Ramos: And then, is the Drug and Gang Task Force, do you...apart from that, do you obtain some of your funding federally, or is it all city, or...?
 
Stracek: We obtain funds that pay for a portion of our costs and salaries, and some investigative funds, through a federal grant, yes. Department of Justice grants.
 
Ramsay: Byrne grants.
 
Stracek: Byrne grants.
 
Ramsay: B-Y-R-N-E, I believe.
 
Ramos: Okay. How much property or cash would you say you forfeit in a year, or is it all over the map?
 
Stracek: It's all over the map.
 
Ramos: Like, what was it last year?
 
Stracek: You know, I could find that number. I don't have that number.
 
Ramos: I'm just curious. Is it, you know, fifty dollars? Is it a million dollars?
 
Stracek: It's not a million and it's more than fifty. You know, I would say it really depends, because the task force is almost an entity upon itself, where we're accountable for forfeitures that pertain to cases that were initiated by the task force. As opposed to...because it's a multi-jurisdictional task force—the sheriff's office, Hermantown—ah, used to be Hermantown—Superior PD and Duluth partner in this task force, and we also have associate members that come in from other agencies, so that the money has to be spent—forfeited money has to be spent—within the task force. Now, cases that involve Duluth police officers, those forfeited funds are split off of that—or, I shouldn't say split off—are segregated when they come in, and those are designated to be spent by Duluth PD. And an example would be is if an officer that's not on the task force, say, a police officer that's patrolling the Central Hillside pulls a car over, finds drugs and takes $2,000. That money would be designated for Duluth PD and part of their operating expenses, say, out of that forfeited funds, and the task force wouldn't have any stake in that. But if it's a task force case where we did a search warrant from one of our investigations, that money, by the rules of our organization, the rules of our task force, has to stay within the task force. So we spend that on our operational costs.
 
Ramsay: Can you talk about when you can seize money and when you can't?
 
Stracek: Yeah. Well, there's kind of three different paths on how you clear forfeitures. But, basically, as long as a police officer is lawfully in a position to find, view, locate the money, it's forfeitable, as long as the officer can articulate probable cause to believe that it's proceeds of a crime, or it's in proximity to controlled substances, packaging, scales, records of distribution, evidence that shows that some or all of that currency or funds were derived from, or are related to, controlled substances. 
 
The rule in Minnesota is that, under administrative forfeiture, if you have, say, a bag of marijuana in your pocket and you have $2,000 in your pocket with the marijuana, it's forfeitable under the law. And it's presumed to be forfeitable. It doesn't have to be linked with the sale of drugs. The way the law is written was that if it's a controlled substance in proximity to cash, precious metals or stones—ah, let's see, there's more things under there, I can't think off the top of my head—manufacturing and distribution equipment, and records, it's administratively forfeitable. Up to $50,000, it's on the administrative side. So that means, at the scene, I fill out a form, administrative forfeiture form, and hand it to you. As long as the value of the cash is less than $50,000, I can serve you administratively. If you have a joint in your pocket, the way the law is written, is that that joint is enough to forfeit the cash, because it's in proximity to a controlled substance.
 
The next path is called judicial forfeiture. That applies to property or cash assets above the $50,000 mark, or if the property isn't immediately in proximity to a controlled substance. And I'll give you an example. Let's say we buy drugs from a guy that's selling drugs out of his car, and we use either an undercover police officer or an informant. And over a period of two or three weeks, we call the guy and say, you know, "We'd like to buy a half-ounce of cocaine from you. I'm at this corner. Can you meet me?" And he pulls up in his car and we do the deal in his car, and we get out, and we leave, and we do it a couple more times. We have probable cause to believe that the vehicle he's using was a tool of the crime, so the vehicle becomes forfeitable, because it's used to commit the crime, just like a firearm would be used in a bank robbery. That type of thing. The difference now is that when we seize the vehicle...let's say we decide to arrest him the next day. We arrest him and there's no drugs in the car. The statute doesn't...the administrative forfeiture statute says that drugs have to be inside the vehicle when we seize it in order for it to be forfeited administratively. However, on the other side, we have evidence that he used the vehicle on prior occasions to sell drugs out of. What we do then is we get what's called a summons and complaint from our county attorney. We seize the vehicle immediately, because we're allowed to do that to prevent them from selling it, going out and getting a lien or destroying it, or hiding it from us, so we can retain that asset. We get a summons and complaint from the county attorney, which basically is a probable cause statement that says, "Mr. Joe Drug Dealer, we believe you've been, you know, selling drugs out of this car. It's been used as an instrument of the crime. Here's your service. We're forfeiting your vehicle." And it lays out the process that they can follow to fight the forfeiture, or contest the forfeiture. They then would request a court hearing to tell a judge their side of the story, we would tell our side of the story. That's a judicial forfeiture that's done through a summons and complaint. So there's no thresholds on the amounts of drugs and that type of thing in a judicial forfeiture. Those are typically something where ____ if we seized one at $50,000, or other property that we believe is linked to either the sale or promotion of sale, or was purchased with the proceeds of drug sales. Those types of things we would seize to be forfeited, because they're ill-gotten gains, essentially.
 
The last way that we forfeit property is through a summary forfeiture, and what that is is what I said earlier: a crime that you use a firearm in. And we do a search warrant two weeks later and we find your firearm and we go through the criminal trial. The judge then would, upon our request or upon the prosecutor's request, would do a summary forfeiture that says, "This was an instrument of the crime. It's now hereby forfeited." 
 
Under the judicial forfeiture, you have to meet certain criteria and certain laws. We can't forfeit your vehicle because you're driving after revocation. There have to be certain levels, and different types of crimes, for us to do the forfeiture. They're called designated offenses, and they're basically crimes of violence, and they're listed here. And I'll let you keep this, so you can refer to it. One of the things under our definitions within the forfeiture law is that a designated offense includes weapons used in any violation of this chapter, Chapter 152 or Chapter 624. Chapter 152 are controlled substance statutes. So any part of Chapter 152 is a violation which allows forfeiture under Minnesota law. Controlled substance statutes, you can review all that. That includes everything from possession of cocaine to possession of marijuana to possession of synthetics. Anything like that, it allows for forfeiture. But this goes through the judicial process, where we have to get a summons and complaint.
 
There's many other rules within the law that allow us to take things in the interim, to determine if they're forfeitable, if they're contraband, or if they are proceeds of crime, so that we can determine if they can be forfeited. If they're contraband, we can take that and they'd be forfeited. So any drugs, anything related to the sale of drugs, and weapons used to further a drug crime. So a drug dealer carrying a gun on his person, for example, and we stop him and arrest him, he's got the gun, that gun is forfeitable under the law.
 
Ramos: It sounds like...so, any amount...basically, any amount...you used the example of one joint. With that, could you forfeit the vehicle based on that?
 
Stracek: No. Vehicles, you have to have a street value of $100 and a felony-level drug. So you would have to have cocaine or methamphetamine or anything that's a felony, and you have to have $100 worth of that substance. So, basically, a gram of powdered cocaine would fit that criteria.
 
Ramsay: A joint is a petty misdemeanor. You don't go to jail for possession of a joint.
 
Ramos: But you still could confiscate the money.
 
Ramsay: Yes.
 
Stracek: Mm-hmm. Because part of the purpose of that is that today we may not have the drug dealer with a lot of marijuana in his pocket, he may only have a small amount, but he's got $5,000 in currency that quite likely is proceeds from sale. But the way the law is written, it's not hinging upon us proving that he's selling. It's hinging upon that there's drugs here, in proximity to currency here, and it's just a feed into each other. Proximity is really the only criteria.
 
Ramos: I mean, yeah, that could be a drug dealer, and I could think of many scenarios where it wouldn't be a drug dealer. It would be a drug user. You know, a lot of people carry joints and a lot of people carry cash, and that doesn't necessarily...
 
Stracek: It's certainly possible that that's...it's all part of the way the statute's written.
 
Ramos: Yeah. Do you confiscate cash or property without filing charges? Forfeit some things without the person who loses the items ever being charged?
 
Stracek: That's happened before, yes. And that is within the law. There's no requirement, under administrative forfeiture, that someone's charged with a crime. It's a separate...under administrative forfeiture, it's a separate civil matter outside of the criminal matter. The administrative forfeiture goes on hold, as far as the hearing goes, if the person the money's taken from files their paperwork in court. The criminal matter runs separate of it.
 
Ramsay: So there is still a kind of due process. If your stuff is taken, you can file the paperwork and...
 
Stracek: Yup. And that's exactly how it works, is you're served...with any forfeiture paperwork you're served with, there is a process for you to go in conciliation court or ask for a hearing in court to basically tell the judge, "Your honor, here's my paycheck, I just cashed it, I gotta pay my rent, and, yeah, I had six ounces of marijuana in my pocket. I understand that. But this is in no way related." And judges have discretion. As much as we, the law, really doesn't allow for that _______ of discretion, they do have discretion to make those types of decisions, and they've done that. They've given money back, or they've given portions of money back to people in those hearings. There is a process to, in the court system to contest forfeitures, to challenge law enforcement's claims, and the judge takes testimony from the officers involved and from the person that the money's taken from, and they make a decision based on what they believe are the facts of the case, or if it fits the statute.
 
Ramos: So then you get 70 percent, the Duluth PD would get 70 percent of anything that comes to you, or is forfeited under that process?
 
Stracek: In the state statutes. Under the federal forfeitures, it's really dependent upon what the federal authorities would determine, what portion they think we should get.
 
Ramos: Okay.
 
Ramsay: And many times it's a tiny fraction.
 
Ramos: Well, you answered a lot of my questions without me having to ask them. Have you had a case where property was seized and held for an investigation and then voluntarily returned to the owner when it was determined that no charges were justified?
 
Stracek: Yes.
 
Ramos: Do you just do that? Or do they have to go to court to get that back?
 
Stracek: There's been circumstances where I've been called by the person that the money's been taken from, or the property's been taken, and I review the reports, determine what occurred at best, and make those decisions, and there's been times where I've returned a lot of property.
 
Ramos: So that's legal, that you could conceivably just go into the evidence room, get that property out and bring it back to the person?
 
Stracek: Well, it wouldn't be exactly that...it wouldn't be sloppy. We would follow protocol to release the property, if I were to determine, or if the county attorney were to request, that the property be returned.
 
Ramos: I just guess I mean outside of a courtroom.
 
Stracek: Yeah, we have that ability to basically say, you know, "We're not gonna proceed with the court," which I would typically notify the—Tom Stanley is the forfeiture person in St. Louis County, so I would...if we had sent reports over and the paperwork on that forfeiture, and I would determine that we would want to return that item, those items, I would contact him and he would basically dismiss that case file, and we would return the property. So yeah. Not an unusual occurrence. We examine all those things. There's times where I've seen things come in that, you know, where I don't think it's to our best interests to pursue, and we give it back, so...
 
Ramsay: So as the commander of that unit, Steve reads all the reports and he assures that thresholds are met, the statute requirements are met, and he has that discretion, then, if he feels that, you know, this was done inappropriately, or we don't have enough evidence, it's going back. He has that authority as well.
 
Ramos: Okay. That's for any evidence? Vehicles, any value, it doesn't matter?
 
Stracek: Yeah, if it applies to cases that are assigned to my unit. I wouldn't make decisions...I shouldn't say that. I typically wouldn't make decisions on violent crimes or sex crimes, those types of things, because that's not my area of assignment. But there are times where we also do forfeitures for drive-by shootings, kidnappings, burglaries, robberies. We forfeit vehicles based on those crimes as well, because they're also designated offenses. So any forfeitures outside of the traffic realm, like DWIs, I would typically review those cases and determine if we should keep them or not. And if not, then I would be the one to follow...a lot of times, we will give the vehicles back that we initially will seize for forfeiture, based on, you know, my belief that we can prove that the vehicle was knowingly used to commit that crime by the owner, so...
 
Ramos: Okay. So is there any maximum length of time that you can hang onto something without any charges being filed?
 
Stracek: Well, there's time frames that we have to follow as far as serving the person. So we have a 60-day window, basically, to get them served, whether that's through the administrative process with just a form that we fill out, or finding them and serving them with a summons and complaint from the county attorney.
 
Now, the length of time we hold onto things really is not governed by anything other than the closure of the case. On the outside of the administrative forfeitures, if I don't serve you within 60 days, I have to give you the money back, or the car back. Because we're required...
 
Ramos: Serving with a charge, or...?
 
Stracek: No. Serving you with the civil paperwork. See, keep in mind that these are two different paths. Forfeiture is a civil process, separate of the criminal process. But because...on the administrative side, if they don't request a hearing in front of a judge within 45 days of being served, it becomes forfeited. It just goes through, we never hear from 'em, it's gone. 
 
Ramsay: And in the paperwork you serve them, when you initially seize that, it explains...
 
Stracek: Yeah. It gives them the contact information for the clerk of court. It has an explanation in four different languages on what you need to do to contest the forfeiture. Judicial forfeiture is still with the summons and complaint. Those we cannot close until the criminal matter is complete. So if...and here's examples that happen all the time. Let's say we have a drug dealer that we serve with a summons and complaint, and he leaves town, and he disappears for three years, and we sit on his property. If he's contested that, we have to wait until we clear up that matter in order to get the forfeiture completed. So sometimes it falls on the shoulders of the suspect disappearing, or getting continuances in their criminal trial. Sometimes people know they're guilty, and they'll put off the inevitable forever, so they'll get continuance after continuance, two years goes by before it goes to trial. Then that can cause that forfeiture to just kind of stagnate and sit there until the criminal matter is resolved. 
 
There's no requirement as far as...actually, I take that back. There are requirements that just came into effect this year that require a hearing within 180 days of service. But there are other things that allow for continuances based on the investigative progress in that case. So the hearing dates are set as far as...in the statute. But there are other things that happen sometimes that postpone the completion of the forfeiture matter, sometimes outside of our control. A lot of narcotics cases that are large-scale take a long time to investigate. I mean, I don't know if you follow any of our cases over the years, but you'll see, you know, in our press releases we talk about two-year-long investigations. That's not uncommon. Especially in federal cases, because we have such a bulk of information and evidence that we have to manage. We have to corroborate things with...we don't just go doing one buy with somebody and charge 'em. We do long-term surveillances and information-gathering, bank records and those types of things, that take a long time to analyze, if you can just about imagine. Looking at your own bank records, how long would it take someone to take one person and look at that? So very time-consuming. And the courts have allowed us to complete our investigations before we trouble ourselves with trying to resolve the financial part of this. Does that make sense?
 
Ramos: Yeah, it does. So, two years is not uncommon? Is that what you said?
 
Stracek: On federal cases, it's not uncommon. I mean, there's been...we've had people charged two to three years after cases have initiated. A lot of times these build from one or two suspects to multiple suspects that are involved in conspiracies, so the government allows us to take that...those opportunities and take the investigative time it takes to build those cases, to try to stem those large crimes. You go after the large organizations that cause the smaller things to happen in our communities.
 
Ramos: Is interest paid on seized cash when it's returned to its owner?
 
Stracek: No. And we don't gain interest on it in our account, either. It's a non-interest-bearing account. The law does allow us to do that. We don't do it.
 
Ramos: It does allow you to get interest, but you choose not to?
 
Stracek: There are some federal forfeitures, I believe that they do accrue interest as they hold that cash. But we don't do that.
 
Ramos: Okay. The recent case in the paper of the prescription drug ring that got recently prosecuted, did you forfeit a lot of property, or any property, in that case?
 
Stracek: Well, there are two of them. There was one...
 
Ramos: The prescription drug one. Not the heroin one. The one that was just in the paper.
 
Stracek: The one from September of last year.
 
Ramos: Right. Yeah.
 
Stracek: Yeah, we did.
 
Ramos: Oh, okay.
 
Stracek: We forfeited, I can't tell you the exact amount, it was thousands, and we took a few firearms on that case and several vehicles.
 
Ramos: Do you take houses?
 
Stracek: No.
 
Ramos: You don't? Ever?
 
Stracek: We don't. We haven't recently, but by law you're allowed to. It's really...those decisions typically fall in the decision of the county attorney, whether or not they're willing to take on that. Forfeiting real property, real estate, is a little bit different than forfeiting these types of items. There's more of a process. There's probably a larger burden of proof to bring forward, and our county attorney's office has declined forfeiting real estate, historically, and that's their choice to do that. Typically they're the ones that make the decision on it.
 
Now, on the federal side, that's, again, that lays in the hands of the prosecutor, to determine if they want to forfeit real estate and those types of things.
 
Ramos: Was that big crack ring...that was a federal case, wasn't it? I think the Hip-Hop Candy Shop and all that?
 
Stracek: There were several. We've had several over the years.
 
Ramos: Okay, I was thinking of that one, so...
 
Ramsay: Is that...was Redd...?
 
Stracek: Yeah, that was a drug, er, a prostitution thing.
 
Ramos: Oh, right.
 
Ramsay: Yeah, he was involved in trafficking, human trafficking.
 
Ramos: I thought he was also involved with something down on First Street, a storefront there?
 
Ramsay: He was selling. Yep. It was First West.
 
Stracek: Hot Gear, Cold Grillz.
 
Ramos: Yeah, that's the one. That was a federal case?
 
Stracek: That was a federal case, yes.
 
Ramos: Did they forfeit...they didn't forfeit the business, or...?
 
Stracek: No. And the Feds will allow us to do the forfeitures on the state side sometimes, too. They have thresholds, too, before they do the forfeiture, and sometimes they'll leave that in the hands of the state side, too. So...but it's typically their decision, on how and what they want to do.
 
Ramsay: And we work closely with them.
 
Stracek: But they basically ask us to give them what they need to do the prosecution.
 
Ramos: Okay.
 
Ramsay: And that goes...as far as talking about the cases? Whereas I would love to talk about what's going on, they say, "This is our case." They pretty much put a muzzle on locals, and say, "We'll do the talking. And if you talk, we might walk."
 
Ramos: That's just the second raid, though? The first raid was city, right? On the Last Place?
 
Ramsay: The first was city.
 
Ramos: That was a city operation, and the second one was federal. Okay. Are the police videotaping or taking pictures of people going into the Last Place on Earth?
 
Ramsay: We have.
 
Ramos: You have?
 
Ramsay: Yeah. Yep.
 
Ramos: Okay.
 
Ramsay: One of the issues that we're dealing with is...the biggest issue for me around that, obviously, is the health of young people. That they're ingesting this drug, that we have no idea what it does to them long-term. But, two, what it's done to that neighborhood. And you talk to the area businesses? Fortunately, most of the other businesses in that block are owner-occupied. But they have seen substantial decreases in business. The printing shop next door has had a 50 percent drop, $1,000-plus a day in lost revenue, because people are tired of it. I hear about it probably four or five times a day from businesses downtown, people that work downtown, saying, "When are you going to do something about this? How can this go...how can you allow this to continue to go on?" Because of the behaviors associated with the draw of that business. Those that are using the drugs, they vomit, they have other bodily losses that occur in the neighboring businesses. The pressure that the Downtown Council and Chamber are under to have something done about this by the businesses is substantial, and it's based on behavior. It's based on the behavior of those that around that business.
 
Ramos: But we've had issues over the years of people who congregate in places. The Holiday Center comes to mind, about ten years ago or so, there was a big issue about that. But it just seems like it's because there's a lot of people in one place. It doesn't seem like there's a lot of serious crime associated, and if you're saying that these businesses lost revenue...well, if that's the issue, I would say that the Last Place probably made a lot more than to offset...if you're just talking about value of revenue per block, I mean...
 
Ramsay: Well, you're talking about people that own businesses and that have families they have to raise, and...that they're losing money.
 
Ramos: Yeah, but Jim Carlson is making money, so...he's running a business.
 
Ramsay: Right. But those other, good people in that block that are selling T-shirts and whatnot have had substantial declines in their business, because people just avoid that block.
 
Ramos: I could see that. But I just don't see the illegality of it all.
 
Ramsay: Well, I'll tell you about police calls. So, in '10, we had six police calls in that block.
 
Ramos: In what?
 
Ramsay: In 2010.
 
Ramos: Okay. 
 
Ramsay: Six police calls. Last July, of '11, we had—and these are rough numbers—70-some. This year, we had 120. That's in one month. And it's to the point now where we have to have a police officer in that immediate area, because if we don't, we get called back—to fights, for disturbing behavior, disorderly conduct, that kind of stuff. These are citizen-generated calls, and the expectation from people is, "Hey, guys. You gotta do something about this. We can't have these people throwing up in our storefronts. We can't have these guys swearing and fighting and acting this way in front of our business."
 
Ramos: And so the taking pictures and videoing customers, what's the purpose?
 
Ramsay: It's not for...it's not to...it's more to show the behavior of...and, particularly, like...so the city's doing the injunction now?
 
Ramos: The nuisance?
 
Ramsay: The nuisance. That's why we are doing that. To show, when this goes to court, what is the effect of this business and this stuff being sold on this block. So I'm glad you asked that, because it's in reference to that nuisance injunction, that shows that behavior.
 
Stracek: This isn't about people. This is about behavior of those people.
 
Ramsay: Correct. Yes.
 
Stracek: It's not singling out this guy who is here, this guy here. It's that group that are involved in conduct that's really offensive. And criminal, in some areas, to the area. So it's not about...it's just like a camera in anywhere else that we watch. You saw the article in the paper [about cameras on the Lakewalk], it's...it's...they're put up in areas where we have significant problems that people have complained about, that we're trying to address.
 
Ramos: Yeah. Are these...how many of those calls are for serious crimes? I'm not talking about loitering.
 
Ramsay: It's not loitering, it's...
 
Ramos: I'm talking about assault, robbery, things like that. Is there a lot of that that goes on around there?
 
Ramsay: We know that we've had an increase in robberies associated with that place. The behavior around Lake Place, a substantial change in the types of calls and stuff. But a lot of it is nuisance stuff, yeah. A lot of it is nuisance. But it's quality of life stuff that impacts. When we study crime and the fear of crime, it's that little nuisance stuff that worries people. And we do a survey every year, we've done it since '08 now, that studies different neighborhoods and how people feel safe. And our downtown rate, where people feel safe, is extremely low. And it's because of nuisance behavior. It's not because we have a rash of robberies or assaults or shootings. We don't have 'em. It's because of that nuisance, disorderly conduct behavior. Misdemeanor stuff.
 
Ramos: Has anybody ever talked to Jim Carlson? Would it, like...just from my perspective, if they moved that store to somewhere out of the way, that would, like, knock off half your complaints right away.
 
Ramsay: Correct. Neighboring businesses and the Downtown Council did try to do some proactive stuff. They asked if he could sell it out the back door, off Michigan, they asked a bunch of different things.
 
Ramos: They did talk to him?
 
Ramsay: They've...they went and talked to him. You bet. They're desperate. Those neighboring businesses are desperate. And I would encourage you, as part of your project, to go and talk to them. Because they will start crying, they will give you some heartfelt experiences that will really, really make you see a different side of things.
 
Ramos: I guess I see the side of it. I mean, I definitely see that side of it. It's just that it seems like really singling out one place for having a crowd in front of it, in a town that...we have crowds in front of different businesses at many different times. Grandma's Sports Garden, the first week of college. That's...to me, that's more obnoxious than the Last Place on Earth. But you don't hear a lot of...
 
Stracek: Yeah, you understand that how much resources, how many times we've sent resources to that location, too? Bars in different parts of town, to different places that have the same exact conduct? And we address it with a police presence, and we address it with enforcement, and giving people alternatives to change their behavior. This is no different. We put resources where the problem is, and that's where these resources are now.
 
Ramsay: We do threshold reports every week, find out where the police...any address that gets more than three calls a week, we review it, see what's going on, why is this happening, what are we doing about it. Any problem businesses that have what you're talking about, we're working with them, and we expect changes. And if we don't expect...if we don't see changes, and there's liquor licenses involved, or other licenses involved, we go after 'em. But what we have, in most cases, in 99 percent of the cases, John, is that the business owners and those involved want to work with us. They're, like, "Yeah, you know, I don't want this for my neighborhood. I don't want these kids, you know, doing this." Most people work with us. Overwhelmingly, people want to cooperate and make this a better place. We're not seeing that, in this case.
 
The other thing that we see is the side effect of those that use the synthetic drugs out on the street. I worked the street the first weekend in August, and on Saturday night I had two calls back to back. One was a couple kids that were stealing things from the Holiday Inn. And they were known as the kids that are always hanging around—and the guy who knew 'em, "I always see 'em outside the Last Place," he said. "They're always there. You will find them there." Got 'em on video, and sure enough, they are regulars there.
 
The second thing is get a kid that...a report that the person had fallen down a front yard, drunk. I get there, and here's a kid hanging in the bushes like this, and he looked like an animal, and he's like...and I'm standing from you to me, and he's looking right through me. And someone says, "Oh, yeah. He just had some bad synthetic stuff." And he's covered in blood, and I'm like, "I don't wanna wrestle with this guy." And I could tell, if we tried to do anything, we were gonna fight with him. So, fortunately, Fire got there, an ambulance got there, and I was able to put some cuffs on him. He had no idea what was going on. Flippin' out in the hospital, and the hospital staff said, "You know, we are seeing these all the time." And so it's taking a toll on, you know, police, fire, hospitals, and as I said, who knows what's happened in the long term with these people that are using this stuff.
 
Ramos: Yeah, I can see that, too. Um...
 
Ramsay: Marijuana? This is nothing like marijuana. I've never seen anybody that smoked marijuana act like they're, you know, covered with blood, acting like, you know, totally oblivious to what's going on. They're not...so, the drug, to call it synthetic marijuana, it's very different than marijuana. This is, it's more like, as Steve said, it's more like LSD, because you're putting stuff on a leafy substance, some chemical that we have no idea what it is. This isn't natural stuff. This is all manmade stuff. 
 
Ramos: Yeah, I understand that, too. And I actually have heard you talk...say how much worse it is than marijuana. Would you have any tolerance for the idea that legalized marijuana might help to alleviate some of these synthetic drug problems? I mean, to me, that's the only reason they're down there. Because it's legal.
 
Ramsay: Well, I think it's because it's cheaper.
 
Ramos: Well, I don't know if it's cheaper, but it's legal.
 
Ramsay: Yeah, it is cheaper. The folks that I've talked to, is that it's a lot cheaper and it gives them a high. One thing you gotta remember with addiction—and I'm fortunate, I don't suffer from it. I have a brother that does, and many friends and other people in the community do. I don't know what it's like. But addiction is a terrible thing. And what goes hand in hand with addiction, one of the worst things you can have, is availability. And we have availability of a drug that is cheap and easy to get. And that's a recipe for a disaster.
 
Stracek: Do you think that legalizing marijuana, we should legalize cocaine or methamphetamine as well?
 
Ramos: Do I think that?
 
Stracek: Is that your argument?
 
Ramos: I tend to just focus on marijuana. I guess if I had to take it to its logical conclusion, I probably would legalize the harder stuff, with some controls, but marijuana, to me, I...
 
Stracek: How would you control that, if we already can't control Ipana or Oxycontin or any of those things? How would you control anything that you can make in your garage?
 
Ramos: Well, I don't know that you would control...I mean, if you can't control it now, I don't see that it would...I don't think that it would explode in usage, the way people seem to think. That's my opinion.
 
Stracek: The reason I ask you that, John, is that we've struggled from the beginning with people to understand that we are not talking about legalizing marijuana. This stuff is not marijuana. If you look at the effects and the things that are happening to the people that are using this...
 
Ramos: Yeah.
 
Stracek: ...they're debilitating, they're going...sliding right downhill.
 
Ramos: Sure. I can believe that.
 
Stracek: You see guys smoking marijuana for twenty years and they're burnouts. These guys are burned out to nothin' in a short... in six months. So there's a difference. It's an abusive drug.
 
Ramos: Right. I understand. That's what I'm saying. If marijuana was legalized, I think that a lot of these users would go back to marijuana. Didn't I read that drug dealing is down in the city?
 
Ramsay: I don't think so. [He said this in May 2012, at a Chamber forum. -JR]
 
Ramos: Drug dealing and prostitution? And it seems to me that all that drug dealing went right down to one place, that used to be in the back alleys.
 
Ramsay: No, it's still going on.
 
Ramos: I'm sure it's still going on, but...
 
Ramsay: What I see is that I see a whole 'nother crowd in town using this stuff. Different people that, you know, I mean, everybody's got...
 
Ramos: People from out of town?
 
Ramsay: Yeah, people drive from a long distance to come here to get this stuff. He sells it so cheap. You know, he sells it for four or five dollars a gram. Your cheapest, worst marijuana, I think, is what, going for fifteen, twenty a gram?
 
Stracek: It's not even close to that.
 
Ramsay: Oh, okay.
 
Stracek: I mean, to what we're talking about here. But I just hesitate to compare this. I mean, the fact that this got started being called synthetic marijuana is such a misnomer that it's...
 
Ramos: See, it seems to me that all the people down there smoked marijuana all their lives, and then when they had an alternative that wouldn't show up on drug tests and wouldn't get them prosecuted, they all just went and started doing that instead.
 
Ramsay: I think there's two things, two things that I would suggest you do. One is you talk to the neighboring businesses. And two, you hang out there and you talk to some of these people that are using this.
 
Ramos: I've hung out down there.
 
Ramsay: Well, I have, too. And you know what? You quickly...I quickly find this is bad stuff. These people are zombies. We saw...I saw, when I was working the street here, I also did some bike patrol a couple weeks ago, and we dealt with a couple synthetic users at the Veteran's Memorial in Lake Place. And we shooed 'em out of there. And one kid was just out of it. Totally out of it. And then we rode around, we came up and we were going through, by the CHUM, and get over to 2nd Avenue West, and here comes this kid that was out of it running down the street, bleeding. "He robbed me! He robbed me!" You know? And there was an example where the wolves saw him, and they said, "There's a target. This guy is whacked out, and he probably got something." You know, he might have had a check he cashed or something, and they robbed him. And he had the crap beat out of him to boot. And that's what...so, our crime in Duluth is drug-ridden. Driven. Our property crimes almost always have a connect to drugs. You go out on the street on any given night after 10:00, you're either dealing with people that are wasted on booze or wasted on drugs, or their victims.
 
Ramos: Well, yeah. I drove a cab for ten years, so...
 
Ramsay: I've read some of your stories. I used to read it, before.
 
Ramos: Before? 
 
Ramsay: Yeah. Before this, even.
 
Ramos: Really. That surprises me. My seven-year-old wonders why you don't have a moustache, since police chiefs on TV have moustaches.
 
Ramsay: [laughs] It'd take me too long to grow it out.
 
Stracek: [laughs] Is that on your list of questions?
 
Ramos: I asked him what I should ask the police chief.
 
Ramsay: That's the '70s cops, though.
 
Ramos: In his mind, you need to have a moustache.
 
Ramsay: We do have...cops have good humor. And we have a group here, that every February they have Moustache Month. So all these guys in their 20s grow these cheesy moustaches, and I can't wait for February to be over, because they look so bad. They do.
 
Ramos: How often have the Duluth police felt the need to handcuff and background-check everyone who was present, including witnesses? I believe that happened at the last raid, handcuffed customers in the store.
 
Stracek: I can tell you that, without exception, every time we do a search warrant, in a house, anywhere.
 
Ramos: But a store? I mean...
 
Stracek: Well, we're not gonna talk about that operation for a couple reasons, one being that the federal agents that were there made operational decisions. But I can tell you that whenever we go and execute narcotics search warrants, which this was a narcotics search warrant, we handcuff, we make certain that people are not carrying weapons that can harm us. We interview, we identify, we question, we look into their background as far as warrants, probations, _____gations, those types of things. It's what we do. So it's no different...
 
Ramos: So somebody in there using the pop machine would have got treated that...you know, swept up in it all?
 
Ramsay: People stopped using the pop machine there, because I have friends that used to go there, because he sold cheap pop. No one wants to go stand in line with the people that are there, or wait in line, for...
 
Ramos: I used to work at the Reader, nearby there, and I used to use that pop machine an awful lot.
 
Ramsay: Yes.
 
Ramos: I assume that some people probably still do.
 
Ramsay: No one wants to wait in line. There's thirty or forty people...
 
[all three talking at once]
 
Ramos: You don't have to stand in line for that.
 
Ramsay: There's almost always a line.
 
Stracek: There's been occasions over the years where people have been in the wrong place at the wrong time on search warrants. It just happens. But as officers, when we go into those situations, especially when we have intelligence information or prior contacts with people that have been armed before, we operate safely, and we treat people in a certain way until we know that they are not a threat. We have to do that every day to stay alive, and that's how we operate, so....It's a tough job that we do.
 
Ramos: Oh, I don't doubt that it's a tough job.
 
Stracek: We don't trust everyone right off the get-go, because it could hurt us if we do that, so we have to be safe first.
 
Ramos: You've called this, the Last Place, "one of the biggest problems in decades" downtown. What were some of them before?
 
Ramsay: I don't know. I wasn't around, and I've been around for decades. And it looks nothing like it that's been here since I was around.
 
Ramos: How about the Kozy Bar area? Now that that's closed, has everyone just moved down a block?
 
Ramsay: You know, there's no doubt that the traffic pattern has changed. The Kozy block's nothing now. But part of it's the evolution of...you know, we used to do prostitution work down in that Kozy block. And there's not much there anymore, because of Backpages and Craigslist and...people find stuff online now, you know? You can be a little more secretive, you don't have to pick a prostitute out in public, your chances of getting caught are a little less. 
 
But I base this on community input. And when I say I talk about this numerous times a day, I'm approached numerous times a day. I'm not blowing up numbers.  
 
Ramos: Yeah, I believe that. How many calls would you say you get in a week?
 
Ramsay: It's not so much calls. It's a lot more informal stuff. You know, the business community downtown is very, very upset by it. And people that have to walk through there for business are harassed, and, you know...
 
Ramos: I hear that a lot. When I've been down there, I see that there's a crowd, I see that it is blocking the sidewalk, but I don't see a lot of ... not too much panhandling. Some. But I don't get harassed. I'm not afraid. I'm not, you know...I suppose a lot of people would be, but that's poor people versus middle-class people. Just the very sight of poor people sometimes will make people afraid.
 
Ramsay: A story I had yesterday—
 
Side A ends. Ramsay's story was about a woman who parked her car on First Avenue East and walked down the block to Tycoon's to meet friends. She was wearing a nice dress. She felt unsafe. She said some guy followed her and others made comments. She asked the employees of Tycoon's if somebody could walk her back to her car. They didn't. She had to leave while it was still light out.
 
Side B begins mid-sentence. Stracek is talking about law enforcement's ability to accurately identify banned substances.
 
Stracek: —classification. Well, this went from this big to this big. So the question about testing and identifying those substances, they are testing and identifying those substances, and there are experts that can give that testimony eventually. It's not something that's happening right now, but it will happen. I mean, it's just a matter of time till enough research and testing is there to actually substantiate that testimony. But the fact that we've converted what last year would have been considered analogs into banned substances this year, is that recognition that those are now synthetic cannabinoids. Those are listed items—the AM-2201's, all the JWH compounds, all the other stuff, they're now banned, because we looked at them, identified them, and they now fit the statute. So there are listed...the problem that I think you're describing is the confusion over the analog part of the statute, and because this was a new substance that came out, there wasn't a lot of information out about it, they only identified mostly JWH compounds as the banned substances. That is no longer. Those...the more that time goes on, the more we're able to pluck out and identify those substances, and link those to the known characteristics of what these drugs do to people. It's just now a matter of time of building that research and that understanding of what we actually have on our hands, so...what I think you're saying is that back, I think it was almost a year ago, that statement was made by the BCA...
 
Ramos: Probably, yeah.
 
Stracek: ...to today, very different things that are going on. It was recognized as a serious threat, resources were put on it, and now there's people looking at it, so...
 
Ramsay: [laughs loudly as Ramos pulls out another sheet of questions]
 
Ramos: I can keep going. I've had months to think of these.
 
Ramsay: Holy smokes, John.
 
Stracek: I'm not getting paid by the hour here.
 
Ramos: I'm not getting paid at all. I read that you once impersonated a drunk person passed out on the street as part of a sting operation. Is that true?
 
Ramsay: Yep.
 
Ramos: You still do that?
 
Ramsay: No, I haven't done it, but I was...I think I was, like, seven for nine.
 
Ramos: For getting somebody? Trying to roll you?
 
Ramsay: Yeah. But was also sixteen years ago, and I looked like a college kid. Or a high-schooler, maybe.
 
Ramos: Has any other business been declared a nuisance? Public nuisance? I don't recall any.
 
Ramsay: You know what, I did a little research on my own, because, as I said, the public pressure to do something about this has been substantial. So I just Googled the state statute for that, and case law, and there was a story, and it was something about...it was a suburb of the Cities, and it was some time ago, where there was a horse farm, and they allowed horseback riding, and they were disturbing the neighbors, and, you know, causing all kinds of problems for neighbors, the horseback riding. And the city brought an injunction against that business to abate that problem that was bothering the neighbors, and they went to...and I think why I found it was because it went up the chain and through the court of appeals, and I believe the city was found to have a say in, you know, this is not good for our neighborhood, it's causing problems.
 
Ramos: Nothing in Duluth, though.
 
Ramsay: Not in my time here.
 
Ramos: And the reason for it is because it's blocking the sidewalk. I think that was what was listed in the paper.
 
Ramsay: Well, that's one of them. Blocking the sidewalk, though, John, is really one of the minor, minor, minor issues. If it was strictly...I would take just blocking the sidewalk any day. You know, if it was the guy playing a trombone, trying to make a few bucks, or even a band blocking the sidewalk, but it's not just...it's the behavior associated with that.
 
Stracek: Have you read that statute that talks about the public nuisances?
 
Ramos: No.
 
Stracek: There's pieces of it that _______________.
 
Ramos: I mean, I read it, yeah, I've read what's on the—
 
Stracek: There's pieces of it that apply across the board in the statute that...
 
Ramsay: And that's one of the...that applies. Blocking the sidewalk is one of the criteria.
 
Ramos: Okay. Um, the county attorney's office has the responsibility to prosecute gross misdemeanors. Why wasn't the county prosecutor present at Carlson's court hearing? I thought that the county was pursuing this, and now it seems like the city is.
 
Ramsay: On the forfeiture deal?
 
Ramos: Right. Well, the last court appearance. Yeah, it was. Yeah.
 
Stracek: It's probably not anything we should talk about right now.
 
Ramsay: Yeah.
 
Stracek: He sued the city.
 
Ramos: Oh, yeah. Has there been any court appearances other than him suing the city? Like, regarding his investigation? Has there been any?
 
Ramsay: Not yet.
 
Ramos: Okay. It's been eleven months.
 
Ramsay: Well, remember, though, we talked about the...this is a big case.
 
Ramos: Yeah.
 

Answer to the pop quiz: When CNN reporters tracked down the district attorney of Tenaha, Texas, she was playing guitar at a firefighter fundraiser.

No winners.

TDOB Index, September 22, 2012: 367

The second most prolific commenter on the original TDOB thread was Emmadogs. Always ready with an encouraging word when things looked bleak, between Dec. 28, 2011 and Sept. 15, 2012, Emmadogs made 27 comments.

TDOB Index, September 23, 2012: 368

The number one commenter on the original TDOB Index, after me, was ...(flourish of trumpets)...

ADAM!

(pause for hootenanny dancing)

The man of a thousand links, Adam commented 30 times.

The top 5 original TDOB Index commenters:

Adam  30
Emmadogs  27
Baci  24
Tom  19
Herzog  18

Nobody guessed this, despite my stretching the game out for three days and dropping four of the five names beforehand. It's so sad, that somebody missed out on the prize.

TDOB Index, September 24, 2012: 369

The mayor has ended his long silence on the Last Place on Earth and come out swinging. He really believes that someone is paying me off for my advocacy. I guess I can see his point. After all, how could one person in 80,000 have a contrary view, unless he were being paid off?

The mayor would be amazed to know how easily I took up this cause. It was a given, like breathing. My plan seemed cute at the time, one comment a day, and not that hard. It still seems that way.

TDOB Index, September 25, 2012: 370

I don't want to downplay medical issues with synthetic drugs. I know they exist. But from my own personal observation, I haven't seen anything to suggest that synthetics are a whole lot worse than alcohol. That's not saying they're good, but unless they're worse than alcohol, which is widely accepted, I see no reason for an uproar. We hear the same claims--even exactly the same words--during every drug panic.

In a weird way, all the references to Carlson's rottenness and sliminess strengthen me in my own position. The Constitution says all Americans, no matter how awful they are, or how vile their reputations, are entitled to its protections. The more dirt that is thrown at Carlson, the more I can pat myself on the back for staying true to American principles. Even he has rights! Or he's supposed to. It's pretty amazing.

I'm told that the Fox 21 news team asked Randall Tigue whether he and Carlson were paying me for my services. The mayor's wild accusations are making me famous. Or they would, if that clip ever got on the air.

Sorry, Adam. There are no prizes for commenting, only attaboys.

You had 30 comments. Attaboy!

TDOB Index, September 26, 2012: 371

Apparently Jim Carlson told Fox 21 that the only person he ever gave money to was Don Ness, for Ness's election campaign.

TDOB Index, September 27, 2012: 372

Since the Last Place on Earth has been raided twice, once by Duluth police and once by the Feds, I would like to clarify the conditions by which the TDOB Index will end.

The TDOB Index was created after the first raid; therefore, if the city presses charges against Jim Carlson, or if the property seized in the first raid is returned, the TDOB Index will end.

The TDOB Index is not affected by the federal case. The TDOB Index will not end if the Feds file charges, nor will it end if property from the second raid is returned. Perhaps the federal case could be tracked by a second TDOB, but one is plenty for me. I'm not trying to start a franchise.

TDOB Index, September 28, 2012: 373

I'm not getting paid by Jim Carlson, but I am hoping for a spot in his Cabinet when he's elected president.

TDOB Index, September 29, 2012: 374

Well, the police have now been holding onto Jim Carlson's stuff for 378 days without filing charges. Carlson has filed his own suits against the city, attempting to get his property back, but the actual case against him (if there is one) has yet to see a courtroom.

The mayor approves, because he thinks Carlson is bad.

TDOB Index, October 3, 2012: 378

It's strange to me that I'm considered some kind of fringe character for protesting against the ability of the police to take a citizen's property and never return it. 

How could I not protest something like that? How could everybody not?

TDOB Index, October 7, 2012: 382

I don't think people are too tired. Duluth can be a pretty active town on some issues. I think it's more a matter of people not wanting to stick up for somebody they don't like.

Of course, this is exactly why we have a Constitution: to protect the rights of those who are disliked. Once a precedent is set that we can ignore the rights of one person, because they are especially heinous, it becomes that much easier to ignore the rights of other people in the future.

The things that are considered heinous change over time, as cultural and community standards change. At one time, eating at a white lunch counter was considered heinous if you were black. Today, selling synthetic drugs is considered heinous. Tomorrow, the heinous thing could be...well, anything. 

Let's imagine a future where some charismatic fascist becomes president and convinces the American people that criticizing the military is a heinous act. Because the precedent of extra-legal punishment exists, it would be entirely possible for the authorities to seize people's cash and property simply for having an anti-military sign in their yard, or for publishing a letter to the editor critical of the military. 

Far-fetched? Not at all. Once the precedent of extra-legal punishment has been established, it can be employed against anything. If you don't have to charge people with a crime, you can just take their stuff and hold it forever, for any reason whatsoever.

The mayor is a smart guy. I'm surprised he doesn't understand this.

TDOB Index, October 8, 2012: 383

I've already responded to Dr. Howard's comment, but I suppose I can go over it again.

I'm not an apologist for synthetic drugs, but neither do I think they're the nightmarish horror many people portray them as. Every new drug that gains a foothold in society gets the same hysterical reception. Anecdotes are useful, up to a point, but they're not evidence. For every horror-story anecdote about synthetic drugs, I can respond with an anecdote about somebody who used synthetic drugs and had a good time. My anecdote is no less valid than yours. They cancel each other out.

As I stated before, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that synthetics are worse than alcohol. I'm sure that plenty of alcohol users, like the synthetic drug user mentioned by Dr. Howard, have checked into mental health clinics with "suicidal and homicidal ideation." That doesn't mean I want society to crack down on alcohol sellers by any means necessary. 

To say that I support Jim Carlson at all costs is incorrect. As those who are paying attention know, the TDOB Index will end if Carlson is charged with a crime. I would be satisfied with that happening, because then the case would go into the courts and Carlson would have a chance to prove his innocence. As things stand now, Carlson is being punished, but he is not being allowed to prove his innocence. That's the weird punitive limbo we enter when we go outside the Constitution. 

It's vigilante justice, and it's wrong.

The city continued its efforts to declare the Last Place on Earth a public nuisance today, filing an injunction against the shop in Minnesota's Sixth District Court. As part of the filing, city attorneys included surveillance footage of an assault that occurred outside the Last Place on August 28. The News Tribune has posted the video on their website.

Now, I'm no fan of assaults, but if an assault happening outside of a business qualifies the business as a public nuisance, every bar in town is guilty. It's just another example of the Duluth Double Standard. 

Bars good, head shops bad. Liquor awesome, synthetic drugs horrible. Middle-class people sweet, poor people repulsive. And so on.

Why can't we just legalize weed already?

TDOB Index, October 11, 2012: 386 

Rod Raymond recently asked the public for suggestions as to what they would like to see done with the Endion Station building, which Raymond purchased. Given the building's proximity to Lake Place Park, I would suggest a viewing platform with metered telescopes, so tourists can watch Last Place on Earth customers from afar and shiver in vicarious delight.

TDOB Index, October 13, 2012: 388

Thread Declared Officially Bothersome.

While it is obvious to anyone with a grain of sense that Jim Carlson's constitutional rights are being violated, it occurs to me that I don't really know the full extent of the violations. Let's get out the U.S. Constitution and read through it together, shall we?

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

By slapping the Last Place on Earth with a nuisance injunction, the city is denying the right of peaceable assembly to Carlson's customers—and I would argue that the assemblies at Carlson's place are at least as peaceable as those that happen on the corner of Lake and Superior during antiwar protests, or at every major intersection on Election Day. If Last Place customers shouted and waved at traffic the way those assemblies do, the SWAT team would be called in. That doesn't make them any less protected.

Amendment II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Although Carlson has not been charged with any crime, police confiscated his gun collection during their first raid. Twenty-eight firearms, worth many thousands of dollars, were seized. Several more guns were seized in the second raid.

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

During their first raid on the Last Place, police seized many items not listed on the warrant, including the aforementioned gun collection.

During the second raid, Last Place customers were detained and background-checked merely for being in the store, a clear violation of their right to be secure in their "persons, papers and effects."

Amendment V. No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Carlson has been deprived of property without due process of law—twice. The entire apparatus of civil forfeiture, which allows police agencies to take citizens' property and use it for agency purposes, often without charging out crimes, violates Amendment V. 

Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

"Speedy trial"? "Informed of the nature and cause of the accusation"? Carlson hasn't been charged with a crime, 390 days after the raid. "Confronted with the witnesses against him"? Because there is no charge, there are no witnesses for Carlson to confront. And yet his property is still being held.

Amendment VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I would say that keeping someone's property for 390 days without filing charges is a bit unusual.

So there you have it. In their treatment of Jim Carlson, the city and the police have violated six of the ten constitutional amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. 

Not bad, eh?

TDOB Index, October 15, 2012: 390

The Distress Of Baci.

The Delightfulness Of Baci.

As I contemplate the incredible perseverance and dedication I have shown in keeping the TDOB Index alive for so long, it occurs to me that I will probably be honored for my activism at some point. Obviously, I don't need or expect such recognition--the warm internal glow that comes from doing the right thing is all the reward I ask for--but a small, tasteful ceremony where city leaders present me with a bouquet of flowers and a small plaque would certainly be appropriate.

Undoubtedly, the mayor is working on this as I speak. 

TDOB Index, October 17, 2012: 392

I think that erecting marble statues of myself at the various entrances to town, perhaps with small inscriptions praising my humility, would also be fitting.

TDOB Index, October 18, 2012: 393

The thing that astonishes me is that so many people, including the mainstream media and city leadership, approve of this treatment of Jim Carlson. The mayor's attack on Carlson was so unexpected and out of character that I'm still amazed by it. I know that many of the mayor's biggest supporters and campaign contributors are downtown businesspeople and community pillars who despise what Carlson is doing, but for the leader of a city to condone what amounts to vigilante justice against a citizen is so against what America stands for that I still have trouble believing it happened. And the mayor didn't even stop with his original post. He kept commenting throughout the thread, vilifying Carlson even more.

I haven't always agreed with Don, but I frequently have. Even when I didn't, I respected his judgment and decision-making. When he was silent on the Last Place on Earth issue, I assumed he had his reasons, probably political, but I didn't think that he hated Jim Carlson, and I certainly didn't think that he would publicly abuse him like he did. Apparently, if Don considers a citizen to be really, really bad, that citizen can kiss their rights goodbye. Call it the Clayton-Jackson-McGhie model of leadership.

I just can't view the mayor like I used to. If I'm ever in the audience when he makes a remark about the wonderfulness of American freedom, I am going to laugh and laugh.

TDOB Index, October 19, 2012: 394

Here's a tasty little something the mayor can try the next time he's holding up the bar at Tycoons. Don't forget the orange flower water!



TDOB Index, October 20, 2012: 395

Tenaciously Defending Oddball Businesses.

TDOB Index, October 22, 2012: 397

Somebody should take David Ross aside and gently explain to him that court hearings are not the same as city council meetings. What works in one place may not work in the other. The court isn't political. 

In my experience, judges are quite protective of their courtrooms. Instead of convincing Judge Floerke of their point of view, Mr. Ross and his "shoulder to shoulder" goofballs might just piss the judge off. When they stand up, he might tell them to sit their asses down. He could even clear the courtroom.

Talk about shenanigans. I'm tempted to march around outside the courthouse with a "Carlson For President" sign, just to irritate people. Plus, I'd probably get on TV.

Say...!

TDOB Index, October 25, 2012: 400

Less than two weeks to go before Jim Carlson is swept into the White House on a wave of grassroots enthusiasm.

TDOB Index, October 28, 2012: 403

I don't want to seem chronologically obsessed, but it has been three months since the Feds pulled off their $3 million raid of the Last Place on Earth. Do you think they'll file charges soon, or...?

TDOB Index, October 30, 2012: 405

I hope President Carlson has fireside chats.

TDOB Index, October 31, 2012: 406

It's quite amazing to see the energy that Carlson has brought to his campaign. All the fresh-faced young volunteers working the phones, all the activists fanning out into the neighborhoods with pamphlets to spread Carlson's message, reflect the hope and vigor and vision of Jim Carlson himself. 

TDOB Index, November 2, 2012: 408

With polling stations only open for another hour or so, analysts are predicting a runaway victory for Jim Carlson. Carlson himself, reached at campaign headquarters, said he feels high and mighty.

TDOB Index, November 6, 2012: 412

My photographer is baked enough already.

Well, the big court hearing has come and gone. Nothing momentous happened with regard to the nuisance injunction. Judge Floerke delayed his decision until a future date.

I wasn't able to attend the hearing, but the DNT's story says the courtroom was packed——not only with David Ross and members of the business community, but also with Jim Carlson supporters. I have to admit I was surprised. It takes a lot to energize the poor, but apparently they are getting energized. 

I have a question for those people who constantly disparage and insult synthetic drug users as irresponsible addicts: Is packing a courtroom behavior that you normally associate with drug-addled burnouts? 

My guess is that they're getting annoyed that the mayor doesn't think they have rights.

TDOB Index, November 9, 2012: 415

Is my spam filter off?

If you listen to some people, like the mayor, it's almost impossible to go by the Last Place on Earth these days without being "harassed." I find that odd, because I have been by there many, many times and I have never been harassed. I've been asked for change once or twice, but only once or twice. Nobody has ever "groped" me.

It's my feeling that the claims of harassment are being grossly exaggerated. In the minds of many middle-class people, the mere sight of poor people gathered on the sidewalk to buy drugs is proof that they're harassing everyone who goes by. If they say hello to somebody, that's harassment. If they're drunk--even if they don't do anything--that is also, somehow, harassment.

I'm sorry that the presence of poor people causes surrounding businesses to suffer. But that's not illegal, and it's not the poor people's fault. It's the fault of everyone who's too afraid to go near them. If the city passed an ordinance against being chickenshit, they could ticket all the decent citizens who won't even get out of their cars for fear of interacting with a different class.

I realize that my experience may not be representative, because I'm a big tough guy who people might be less likely to mess with. Nevertheless, my observation of the LPOE block leads me to believe that much of the alleged harassment occurs only in people's minds.

Try this experiment (if you dare!): Stroll up and down the Last Place on Earth block ten times and record every interaction you have with people. Report your results here. If you promise to be honest, I promise to accept them.

Secondhand anecdotes are inadmissible.

TDOB Index, November 12, 2012: 418

Good morning!

My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.

                                Proverbs 4:20

Lunchtime!

  At approximately twenty past four p.m. they arrived at the Red Swan Hotel and entered the premises, unnoticed, by the window of the maids' private bed-room on the ground floor. They made no noise in their passage and disturbed no dust of the dust that lay about the carpets. Quickly they repaired to a small room adjoining Miss Lamont's bedroom where the good lady was lying in, and deftly stacked the papered wallsteads with the colourful wealth of their offerings and their fine gifts--their golden sheaves of ripened barley, firkins of curdy cheese, berries and acorns and crimson yams, melons and marrows and mellowed mast, variholed sponges of crisp-edged honey and oaten breads, earthenware jars of whey-thick sack and porcelain pots of lathery lager, sorrels and short-bread and coarse-grained cake, cucumbers cold and downy straw-laced cradles of elderberry wine poured out in sea-green egg-cups and urn-shaped tubs of molasses crushed and crucibled with the lush brown-heavy scum of pulped mellifluous mushrooms, an exhaustive harvesting of the teeming earth, by God.

Flann O'Brien, At Swim-Two-Birds (1939)

Marijuana, the Devil's Flower.

Certainly I will count it. That's harassment.

For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

Acts 4:20

Duluth police celebrated the 422nd day of confiscation by marching in the Christmas City of the North Parade, chanting anti-LPOE slogans and firing Jim Carlson's confiscated weapons into the air.

TDOB Index, November 16, 2012: 422

At this point, you could tell me that the TDOB Index will eventually reach 500, or 1,000, or 2,000, or pretty much anything at all, and I wouldn't have trouble believing it. 

The message that the whole situation sends to the police is that it doesn't matter if people are guilty or not, because the police are free to take their stuff regardless. If the person is sufficiently disliked by the middle-class and well-to-do, the police will even be praised for robbing them.

You can't beat that, eh?

So, to recap: The investigation into Jim Carlson has so far gone through the following steps:

(1) The police took all his stuff.

We patiently wait for something else to happen.

TDOB Index, November 18, 2012: 424

"It was a rare occurrence for business owners and operators to unite and stand in solidarity in opposition to a local business."

I guess in a town where police officers rob people, it stands to reason that the Chamber of Commerce would oppose business.

TDOB Index, November 20, 2012: 426

Today is the fourteen-month anniversary of the first raid on the Last Place on Earth. 

When I informed my wife of this, she said, "I can't believe you know that, but you don't know how many months we've been married."

Imagine her surprise when I shot back with the correct answer: 103. In your face, woman!

This kind of conversation is not unusual in the Ramos household.

TDOB Index, November 21, 2012: 427

Even if Jim Carlson prevails in court and gets his stuff back, the laws that abused him will remain in full force. 

Do you have $100 and a joint in your pocket? The police can take your money and not charge you with anything. Do you think this fine system gives the police any incentive to pocket the money themselves?

Nothing will change on a systemic level until the vast majority of drug laws are declared unconstitutional. I hope I see the day.

TDOB Index, November 23, 2012: 429

In explaining the Last Place on Earth situation to out-of-towners, as I occasionally do, I am amazed at how often they casually accept the mistreatment of Jim Carlson as okay because of the type of business he runs. Just like Duluth!

I always considered the Constitution to be a useful and valuable document, but I am becoming more and more awestruck at just how visionary it is. It forces people to go against their own human nature and accord rights to all. 

That's awesome, man. Now if only we could get 21st-century Americans to follow the revolutionary principles that established their nation.

TDOB Index, November 25, 2012: 431

Jim Carlson is not the only person whose civil rights are being violated by the city. The Bentleyville preachers are also having their First Amendment rights violated. The police have orders to escort the preachers off the premises of Bentleyville if they try to preach. The city has designated a small area of a nearby parking lot as a "free speech zone" for people who want to exercise free speech.

I know that Bentleyville is a much-beloved feature of Duluth, but I don't think it's curmudgeonly to point out that Bentleyville completely takes over and monopolizes an entire public park for months on end. While Bentleyville is at Bayfront, you can't sled or walk or fly a kite or freely roam the park during the day, and now the city wants to ban the exercise of free speech as well. That really ticks me off.

It's like there's this really narrow scope of acceptable, unthreatening, totally mainstream behavior that the city will tolerate, and anything that falls outside that scope gets stomped on, no matter what civil rights have to be violated in the process. It's like city leadership wants to turn Duluth into a charming Never-Neverland where nobody ever has to grow up or look at anything ugly or uncomfortable or overly passionate.

"Free speech zone," my ass. Every square inch of public property is my free speech zone. I support Jim Carlson, and I support the Bentleyville preachers, and I oppose the city's ridiculous, unconstitutional attempts to sanitize my life. 

TDOB Index, November 27, 2012: 433

The budgets don't report actual number of hours worked, but I used this website (there are others) to convert the dollar amounts from my table above to 2012 dollars.

YEAR  POLICE OT COSTS (IN 2012 DOLLARS)

2004  448,684

2005  883,580

2006  744,995

2007  560,528

2008  617,882

2009  673,383

2010  903,958

2011  1,063,242  

The trend is still as I described above: steadily rising OT costs since 2007. 

Coincidentally or not, Chief Ramsay took over as police chief in November 2006. There was a large drop in OT costs during Chief Ramsay's first year on the job from the year before. Since then, they have only gone up.

TDOB Index, November 28, 2012: 434

My mistake. I guess the moderators pulled your comment down because it was too harmless. In my opinion, they should have grounded you for a week.

I know my view has detractors. They include the mayor, the city council, the Duluth News Tribune, all the TV stations and 95 percent of Duluth's population. I find it puzzling that you can get so mad about one guy saying stuff, when the odds are so overwhelmingly against me. Nevertheless, it comforts me to know my perfectly framed arguments and rapier wit do have an effect on the public dialogue.

My loved ones have never told me to back off my crusade. I'm not sure where you got that. And it's hardly a crusade. It's a comment a day. If the city decided to obey the Constitution and file charges against Carlson (or return his property) the TDOB Index would go away altogether.

But, apparently, asking the city to follow the Constitution is asking too much. It's easier to just...you know...not follow it.

The situation you describe is very troubling, Emmadogs, and indicates just how comfortable the police have become with punishing people who haven't committed crimes. It's those damn drug laws; they basically let law enforcement do whatever they want in the name of fighting drugs.

One thing that I've mentioned before, but I think bears repeating, is that all the strongarm tactics that have been brought to bear against Jim Carlson -- the stormtrooper raids, the confiscation of bank accounts, the armed detention of innocent bystanders -- have not solved the problem. Four months after the last raid, the Last Place on Earth is still busily selling incense.

My question is this: If we're going to trample all over the Constitution and accomplish nothing, why don't we obey the Constitution and accomplish nothing instead? It would be a lot easier on everybody.

TDOB Index, December 1, 2012: 437

The Zetas are unlike other Mexican crime groups. Their founders were deserters from the Mexican military's elite special forces, recruited in the late nineteen-nineties as bodyguards and enforcers for the leader of the then formidable Gulf cartel. The cartel paid many times what the military did. The Zetas' numbers grew. Trained as paratroopers and intelligence operatives, they introduced a paramilitary element to narcotrafficking, outgunning police units. They ambushed the Army. They seized plazas and drug routes from other cartels, with an efficiency and a brutality not seen before. Beheadings became their signature, along with castrations with genitals stuffed in mouths and corpses with a "Z" carved into the flesh. Their ranks swelled with infusions from a notorious Guatemalan counter-insurgency unit, the Kaibiles. [...] The Zetas, who are estimated to have more than ten thousand fighters, control virtually the entire east coast of Mexico, and have laid claim to several of the busiest cargo crossing points on the U.S. border, including Matamoros, Reynosa, and Nuevo Laredo.

The New Yorker, July 2, 2012

TDOB Index, December 2, 2012: 438

The crowds of happy people lighting joints under Seattle's Space Needle early Thursday morning with nary a police officer in sight bespoke the new reality: Marijuana is legal under Washington state law. [...]

In dealing with marijuana, the Seattle police department told its 1,300 officers on Wednesday, just before legalization took hold, that until further notice they shall not issue citations for public marijuana use.

Officers will be advising people not to smoke in public, police spokesman Jonah Spangenthal-Lee wrote on the SPD blotter. "The police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a 'Lord of the Rings' marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to."

He offered a catchy new directive referring to the film "The Big Lebowski," popular with many marijuana fans: "The Dude abides, and says, 'Take it inside!'"

The Huffington Post, Dec. 6, 2012

TDOB Index, December 6, 2012: 442

We're two-thirds of the way to Hell Day. I wonder what will happen then?

TDOB Index, December 8, 2012: 444

So 446 days have gone by since the police raided the Last Place on Earth and seized all of Jim Carlson's cash and property, but they still haven't charged him with anything. Maybe they misplaced their citation book.

TDOB Index, December 10, 2012: 446

When the city holds a banquet to honor my activism, I wouldn't object to being showered with rose petals as I enter the room. Just an FYI to staff.

TDOB Index, December 12, 2012: 448

I guess the dates of the indictment include the first raid. Hooray!

Final result: The police held Carlson's property for 454 days before charges were filed.