Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (6026)	7/5/2007 9:42:57 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

so then .. any one with a large sum of money should have it taken away from then .. got it .. If I'm not committing a crime, I shouldn't have to explain anything.

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (6026)	7/5/2007 9:58:41 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Respond to of 25737

There have been many cases lately, where a persons life savings has been ripped off by the current system. many cases It looks like, to me, that it'll only matter to you if it hits you also. But then it'll be to late for you. Your life savings would be gone then. But then, you'll know that you've paid for a new car for the dept.

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (6026)	7/9/2007 12:41:58 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

I remember one article of a landscaper going to FL with 30K in cash that they seized saying it was to buy drugs. He lost his money also. I personally believe once they let depts keep the seized cash that we were on our way to abuse. I don't like the seizure laws at all because the cops don't have to prove anything. With that said I have little doubt this little gal was going to buy drugs with someone else's money. Doesn't make me like the seizure law any better however.