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 (6108)	7/9/2007 2:29:32 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

As I said I have little doubt this little thing was off to buy drugs with someone else's money. But as I also said the police being able to seize without proving anything makes me nervous at best. I'll try to find the article on the landscaper because I truly felt this guy was getting shafted. Of course it was some years ago and I have no idea where, but I'll see what I can find. Edit: I think this may be the story I remembered. As Bob Barr (R-Ga.) put it, "In many jurisdictions, it has become a monetary tail wagging the law enforcement dog." Testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Willie Jones of Nashville, TN, gave an example of this abuse. Engaged in the landscaping business, Mr. Jones planned to buy a shrubbery in Houston, TX. Nurseries prefer cash from out-of-town buyers, so Mr. Jones planned to go there with $9,000 in cash. Officers detained him at the airport: suspicious of the large amount of cash, they accused him of being involved in drug-related activities. They eventually let him go, but they kept the money, and refused to even give him a receipt for it. Because he did not have 10% of the money seized to put up as a bond, he could not afford to challenge the seizure in the usual way. Disturbed by this and other similar stories of excess, the House members voted to approve H.R. 1658 to curb this abuse. The Clinton administration said that the bill would have a negative impact on the war on drugs. The House soundly rejected an administration-favored alternative, however -- supporters of H.R. 1658 said the alternative bill would expand the federal power, not narrow it. law.cornell.edu

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (6108)	7/9/2007 2:34:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

"If someone can make a solid case that mere possession of cash automatically leads to seizure along with little or no recourse in the courts...." Depends entirely on what you mean by 'no recourse in the courts'! You see, the federal laws regarding property have been changed to REVERSE America's traditional 'presumption of innocence'. Now... under federal rules (and many States have altered their local laws to synchronize with the feds), assets are seized under a legal presumption of automatic guilt. It is up to the person who's assets are seized to go to the courts and prove the 'innocence' of their property (to ever regain the seized property). If the feds wish to contest the matter (and, of course, since they directly benefit from the seizure, they always do...) it can take a very long time, and be exceedingly expensive to fight against the resources of the federal government in court... for as long as that may take. 'Presumption of Innocence'? Out the window. (Just one more of the legal protections against an over-weaning government, left to us by our founders, that have been trashed in recent years....)

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (6108)	7/9/2007 2:51:01 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

This may be out of date now, but I doubt it. A few years ago, federal agents would get Civil Service bonuses directly related to the value of the confiscations they made. Money and property confiscated would be directly added to their agency's/bureau's budgets, and the individual agents would get performance awards based on those amounts. Which, to me, is no different than outright robbery. Looking at things from the Gov't's point of view, cash is a bad thing. It feeds underground economies and is difficult to trace. The Gov't would much rather people use tracable means of transferring money, like checks and credit cards so they can check up on people. Ergo, large amounts of cash are a "bad" thing, and guilt is presumed regardless of the source or intended destination of the cash. Ever wonder why they don't print bills in large denominations anymore? As a side note, the metal strips in the new notes will set off an airport metal detector if there are enough bills on a person's body.