DEA to 22 year old Traveler: Thanks. I’ll Take That Cash

[SoonerTraveler]

DEA to 22 year old Traveler: Thanks. I’ll Take That Cash

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/05/18/dea-to-22-year-old-traveler-thanks-ill-take-that-cash/

 

[SoonerBounce13]

sad and crazy deal.

But i would guess there is already a gofundme account for him and he will be better off, monetarily, than before

 

[DenverSooner]

I wish articles like that would site some actual law. I want to know how Federal Courts have concluded this is legal. How in the world does it meet due process.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

Civil forfeiture is just one symptom of the government running over the rights of individuals. It allows law enforcement and officials of various state and federal government agencies to take property based on the SUSPICION of wrongdoing. No conviction is necessary. To get the property back, owners must engage in costly legal battles. Guilty until proven innocent, at the expense of the innocent. Welcome to America.

There has been one small victory recently. Here, the oppressor was the IRS:
http://www.ij.org/north-carolina-civil-forfeiture-release-5-14-2015

BTW, current Oklahoma law in this area apparently $ucks:
http://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-oklahoma

 

[bocabull]

If you are in possession of large amounts of cash and can't provide a W2, tax return, or verifiable source the money is illegal. Brings back memories of scarface.

"Joseph, when you a got $16,000 undeclared dollars stuffed in your backpack honey, baby, it's hard to convince the DEA you found it in a taxicab."

 

[DenverSooner]

If you are in possession of large amounts of cash and can't provide a W2, tax return, or verifiable source the money is illegal. Brings back memories of scarface.

"Joseph, when you a got $16,000 undeclared dollars stuffed in your backpack honey, baby, it's hard to convince the DEA you found it in a taxicab."

That is absurd and who decides what is large? Gifts don't require any documentation on bahalf of the recipient. Furthermore in our country the burden of proof is on the government. So we don't have to prove where we got the cash. The government may conclude it is taxable and make us prove otherwise but that is logical.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

My dad always carried large amounts of cash. I know elderly people today that carry fairly large amounts of cash all the time, $1,000 or more. They cannot provide a W-2 as they have not been employed for some years. Their cash was earned, accumulated and SAVED over their working lives. Should they be required to provide proof to some government agent? Their preference for cash over credit/debit cards is at least twofold ... desire for privacy and fear of identity theft. Plus, they just like paying in cash. They come from a generation that lived as a free people and they cannot imagine that the government might confiscate their cash, or place suspicion onto them because they prefer to make their purchases in cash.

Americans revolted against kings and the oppressive power of kings centuries ago. Regardless of age, race or sex, a free people should not worry that government agents will confiscate their cash or other property, without due process. A free people should not fear their government. A free people should not have to provide documented proof to government agents just to live their lives they way they want.

When I consider the linked story in the first post on this thread, I can visualize Nazi Germany, where some agent of the government stops passengers on a train and demands to see their papers. Is this really what we want for America? Even those of you that seem to worship at the alter of Statism, even you can surely see that this is wrong.

 

[DenverSooner]

I don't get how anyone can support these confiscations without due process. I have no problem with the government taking the money and then having to conduct a preliminary hearing where they show some evidence at a reduced evidentiary standard to keep it. Some time later the burden of proof should be on the government to prove the money was illegal obtained.

I just don't see how these laws get around the 4th and 5th Amendments.


Amendment 4

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.

Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How is it not an unreasonable seizure? How is not a violation of due process? How is there just compensation?

 

[sperry]

What do you expect out of the laughably corrupt and irreparably broken American criminal justice system?

 

[DenverSooner]

It isn't just the criminal justice system. It is all of government. Our politicians pass laws to support big corporations. Our administrative agencies right regulations to support big corporations. The decision makers are virtually incapable of admitting mistakes. For example, read the article about the convenience store owner in North Carolina linked about. The Attorney for the government told him if he contested the matter it would further their resolve to keep all of the money. Really? He should be interested in justice and as the state should encourage people to have their day in court not discourage it. It is fine to say if you contest it our position will be we keep everything but to say we have more resolve to keep it if you contest is wrong. Why would the resolve change simply based on asserting your rights.

 

[coolm]

the authorities want to justify it by saying it funds a lot of good officerin' ... but it is the prime example of a conflict of interests at work in the worst way.

True story

Task force physically chases a young man after a sting op. Man ducks inside a house while in pursuit. Police follow, catch him inside, and find weed inside THIS house. They bust the owners and take their 1980's Monte Carlo that is in the driveway as proceeds. Again, true story ... and typical. As usual I hafta engage in a legal argument over the seized property. Luckily I am in front of a judge who is NOT prior law enforcement of some type (a rarity here) and I win.

It's a horribly abused rule.

 

[DenverSooner]

How are the courts getting around due process, unlawful seizure and no compensation?

 

[bocabull]

Cash is legal tender. Federal reserve notes that belong to the U.S. Treasury.

It's not like these DEA agents just went around randomly searching people. They are professionals who know the habits, tendencies and tells of people in the drug industry. They know what routes are traveled. They target suspicious people who buy high priced last minute tickets with cash. They nailed this kid. lol @ him supposedly "saving" $16,000. I'm certain these officers asked him to provide his employment history and asked for any way to verify he had obtained it legally. They have procedures and it's simple to prove any legal source of funds.

There is no "complicated legal process" to have the assets returned from seizure. You just provide evidence the source was legal. It's easy as can be.

The track record of civil seizures is massively positive at over 96% accuracy. How often are the seized assets returned? The last 2 years it's been less than 4%.

The U.S. is not some banana republic. We're governed by the people for the people. We're as free as ever because we have rules. Good job by the DEA. Guaranteed this kid goes away as his drug dealer associates are telling him to STFU before they all go to jail.

 

[bocabull]

FYI the cash was seized on April 15. Over a month ago and still no details on how he obtained it other than he "saved" it. lol how can you save money without any proof of earning it in the first place? You can't. Good job by the DEA.

This is no different than being given a ticket for no proof of insurance. You can come to court with proof and get it dismissed. Simple process.

 

[DenverSooner]

Cash is legal tender. Federal reserve notes that belong to the U.S. Treasury.

It's not like these DEA agents just went around randomly searching people. They are professionals who know the habits, tendencies and tells of people in the drug industry. They know what routes are traveled. They target suspicious people who buy high priced last minute tickets with cash. They nailed this kid. lol @ him supposedly "saving" $16,000. I'm certain these officers asked him to provide his employment history and asked for any way to verify he had obtained it legally. They have procedures and it's simple to prove any legal source of funds.

There is no "complicated legal process" to have the assets returned from seizure. You just provide evidence the source was legal. It's easy as can be.

The track record of civil seizures is massively positive at over 96% accuracy. How often are the seized assets returned? The last 2 years it's been less than 4%.

The U.S. is not some banana republic. We're governed by the people for the people. We're as free as ever because we have rules. Good job by the DEA. Guaranteed this kid goes away as his drug dealer associates are telling him to STFU before they all go to jail.

A TRO in Austin Texas costs about 2,000 and it is an uncontested process. The other side doesn't even appear. What makes you think going to a federal court and getting your money back will be simple and inexpensive?

Also why do you think it is acceptable to shift the burden of proof. Address the three constitutional issues of seizure without a warrant, due process and no compensation?

You seem to be getting some joy in disagreeing with people but I see no logic to your positions. These statutes are problematic. Why don't we simply have forfeiture statutes for all areas of crime and take property without trials. I think you are engaged in insider trading, I am taking everything unless and until you prove you are not conducting insider trading.

 

[DenverSooner]

FYI the cash was seized on April 15. Over a month ago and still no details on how he obtained it other than he "saved" it. lol how can you save money without any proof of earning it in the first place? You can't. Good job by the DEA.

This is no different than being given a ticket for no proof of insurance. You can come to court with proof and get it dismissed. Simple process.

How do you know there is no proof he earned the funds? He said it was gifts and savings. Furthermore even if he earned it illegally shouldn't the government have to prove that rather than he prove he didn't. Let's say he got the money stealing. Does he have to self incriminate now to avoid state action. Now we have a fourth Constitutional right jeopardized.


Microsoft has been engaged in all kinds of antitrust violations, let's take everything it owns and everything all of its shareholders own and make the defendants sort it out. Antitrust violations are illegal just like selling drugs.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

FYI the cash was seized on April 15. Over a month ago and still no details on how he obtained it other than he "saved" it. lol how can you save money without any proof of earning it in the first place? You can't. Good job by the DEA.

This is no different than being given a ticket for no proof of insurance. You can come to court with proof and get it dismissed. Simple process.

sigh.

If you would have found about this story and posted it first, you would be on the other side. You are simply an easy to stop contrarian troll

 

[bocabull]

The guy had the right to remain silent, he answered their questions and gave all the red flag answers. He had the right to refuse their search, he consented and they found exactly what they were looking for. His reason for having cash was due to previous problems "depositing and withdrawing large amounts of cash from out of state banks". Who has that problem? Criminals. That's who. Who says they saved $ but can't provide any work history? Criminals. That's who.

I'm only contrarian to the anti government lunatic fringe. I live in the real world. Lol @ Traveler comparing this to Nazi Germany. What a clown. Par for the course of braindead right wing fringe lunatics. Are there chemtrails over your house? lol lol lol lol

Great job by the DEA.

 

[bocabull]

I think you are engaged in insider trading, I am taking everything unless and until you prove you are not conducting insider trading.

If I bought 1,000 put options of a company where my next door neighbor was CFO the day before earnings were released. And they missed badly and the stock got crushed making me millions. I can guarantee you I would be flagged and receive a call from SEC enforcement. If I spoke with them and told them I just had a hunch and could provide no detailed research on the position they would freeze my account. And rightly so.

Wake up and get in the real world people. Good lord you are up in arms about this calling it Nazi Germany but tanks are literally rolling through Ferguson Missouri and it's no big deal. Oklahoma and Texas are in the stone ages tasering people and executing them with untested drug concoctions and it's no big deal.

Bottom line the Federal government is very well run, state and local governments of red states are a disaster because they reflect the idiot citizens.

 

[coolm]

statute allows it. authorities use it. frequently. no one questions it enough.