John Rogers Home and Business Searched by the FBI

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks. I was confused on the "sealed" part.

I figured a "sealed" warrant would make sense in something like a murder case, where they had information obtained but not released to the public- that way if they didn't find it, the killer still wouldn't know they had this evidence. But, I thought that was usually the only time sealed warrants were used.....

Sounds like this guy must have some interesting photo's though

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Thanks. I was confused on the "sealed" part.

I figured a "sealed" warrant would make sense in something like a murder case, where they had information obtained but not released to the public- that way if they didn't find it, the killer still wouldn't know they had this evidence. But, I thought that was usually the only time sealed warrants were used.....

Sounds like this guy must have some interesting photo's though

Sincerely, Clayton

This is pretty common practice. Nothing odd about it to me.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

This is pretty common practice. Nothing odd about it to me.

That's scary.

Amendment Four:

"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."

So, no Law and Order episodes made me question this, just the Constitution. To be specific, the "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" part. If it is sealed, are they only describing the "things to be seized" to the judge and themselves? I always thought that was the whole purpose of arriving at a place to do the search, with warrant in hand, was to not only search, but to provide the specific reason why you are searching and what exactly you are looking for. Wouldn't you expect that, if someone showed up to search your home and business?

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Not defending or condemning this guy, I've never heard of him- just trying to understand how this "sealed" warrant is common practice?

[drcy]

..

[nolemmings]

Ah yes Clayton, Amendment Four. I remember reading something about that in law school, or maybe it was history class. Truly a beacon for the entire world. However, it became inconvenient and was gutted or "re-interpreted" in light of the Patriot Act. Now what red-blooded American can't get behind such a noble sounding piece of legislation? National security, "We're at War", "Can't let the Bastards win" and all that. Somebody lend me their fife and drum.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Ah yes Clayton, Amendment Four. I remember reading something about that in law school, or maybe it was history class. Truly a beacon for the entire world. However, it became inconvenient and was gutted or "re-interpreted" in light of the Patriot Act. Now what red-blooded American can't get behind such a noble sounding piece of legislation? National security, "We're at War", "Can't let the Bastards win" and all that. Somebody lend me their fife and drum.

LOL

Ah yes, the deceptive ol' Patriot Act. NOW it makes sense.

Fife and drum on the way....

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Ah yes Clayton, Amendment Four. I remember reading something about that in law school, or maybe it was history class. Truly a beacon for the entire world. However, it became inconvenient and was gutted or "re-interpreted" in light of the Patriot Act. Now what red-blooded American can't get behind such a noble sounding piece of legislation? National security, "We're at War", "Can't let the Bastards win" and all that. Somebody lend me their fife and drum.

Those wonderful words like "unreasonable" have to be consistently reinterpreted in light of the times, no?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

This news article seems to add a little bit more information of what was seized.

"Agents could be seen taking long cardboard boxes labeled "slugger" with contents sounding like wooden baseball bats jostling inside".

http://www.fox16.com/story/d/story/f...bkaynUTfVrtA2g

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

ah yes clayton, amendment four. I remember reading something about that in law school, or maybe it was history class. Truly a beacon for the entire world. However, it became inconvenient and was gutted or "re-interpreted" in light of the patriot act. Now what red-blooded american can't get behind such a noble sounding piece of legislation? National security, "we're at war", "can't let the bastards win" and all that. Somebody lend me their fife and drum.

++++++1,000,000

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

That's scary.

Amendment Four:

"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."

So, no Law and Order episodes made me question this, just the Constitution. To be specific, the "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" part. If it is sealed, are they only describing the "things to be seized" to the judge and themselves? I always thought that was the whole purpose of arriving at a place to do the search, with warrant in hand, was to not only search, but to provide the specific reason why you are searching and what exactly you are looking for. Wouldn't you expect that, if someone showed up to search your home and business?

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Not defending or condemning this guy, I've never heard of him- just trying to understand how this "sealed" warrant is common practice?

"Sealed" pertains to the public. Most court files are public record, you could go to the clerk's office and look at the file. However, some cases, such as juvenile cases, are sealed. This means that they are not available to the public.

As it relates to the particularity of a warrant. There is usually an affidavit explaining the officer's rationale for seeking the warrant and an address to be searched.

Ex: Home at 123 Street, New York City.

[wonkaticket]

I wonder if Peter Nash will be reporting on this...his buddy...and all....

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I wonder if Peter Nash will be reporting on this...his buddy...and all....

I gotta admit...I did pull up his website and his twitter today to see if he had mentioned it.

Nope.

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I wonder if Peter Nash will be reporting on this...his buddy...and all....

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I gotta admit...I did pull up his website and his twitter today to see if he had mentioned it.

Nope.

It's true that Peter Nash is friendly with John Rogers. Nash said in court filed papers that John Rogers had agreed to contribute $10,000 for Nash's legal fees... The NY Daily News wrote an article about it, see link below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ite...morabilia-exec

When I tried to contact John Rogers to ask him why he was giving money to Peter Nash to defend his lawsuit, John Rogers had his attorney send me a cease and desist letter not to contact him.

I have a copy of an signed affidavit from John Rogers dated July 26, 2012 that he loaned approximately $166,200 to Peter Nash. The third sentence of the affidavit states:

"During the years of 2009 and 2010 I loaned approximately $166,200 to Mr. Nash. These wire transfers were unsecured loans for which no formal loan agreements or documents were executed between Mr. Nash, myself or my companies."

My wife and I have a Judgment against Peter Nash and Roxanne Nash. As of today the Judgment including the 8.5% interest amounts to approximately $500,000. I have a bunch of collateral from Peter Nash which would help pay down the Judgment but does Peter Nash give me any provenance or try to help me sell it, no. For example I have an Ed Delahanty Trophy bat that Peter Nash gave to me as collateral on the bat it says "Presented To Edward Delahanty Four Home Runs July 13, 1896". But Peter Nash has refused to help me sell it. Nash writes volumes about baseball memorabilia and goes into extreme details on his Hauls of Shame website but refuses to write anything about the rare memorabilia that he gave me as collateral.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

"Sealed" pertains to the public.

"Sealed" in this case pertains to everyone but the government, not just the public.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by calvindog

"Sealed" in this case pertains to everyone but the government, not just the public.

Not sure what you mean. Law enforcement and the defendant would both have access to the warrant.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Not sure what you mean. Law enforcement and the defendant would both have access to the warrant.

If you read the article, the affidavits supporting the search were sealed. That means that until they are unsealed the defendant does not have access to them, just the government does.

[RichardSimon]

Seems like some here are watching too much Law & Order SVU .

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Seems like some here are watching too much Law & Order SVU .

I've never watched one episode of that show in my life-seriously.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Seems like some here are watching too much Law & Order SVU .

OK, I'll go for the cheap joke.

Richard,

Given it's both home and business, didn't you mean Law and Order SUV?

[hshrimps]

This is a very long thread. Isn't this John Rogers bought a high grade T206 Honus Wagner? Where is his Wagner now?