In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by agman1999
It's not our place to question how or why they chose to travel and transact business, until it is proven that they were participating in some kind of illegal activity.
I know some folks that travel to a very large gun show in the midwest carrying approximately that much cash, in addition to a sizeable amount of firearms inventory. When you drop $5-10K each on any portion of your purchases, you have to carry a large amount of cash to do much business. A speed trap outside of Tulsa on the right Sunday afternoon could generate a whole lot of cash for the local sheriff.
Valid point there about gun purchases, but they were looking to make only one purchase - a house.
No matter, if they withdrew the money from their respective bank accounts, then they did nothing wrong. But, if they can't produce a paper trail for the money then it looks more than a little fishy.
Even if they were socking this money away for years in their mattresses, I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
Who knows? One cannot make a really good call based upon a news report. Hopefully the judge will review all the details, see the truth and do the right thing by all parties.
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
In one 1985 study done by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on the money machines in a U.S. Federal Reserve district bank, random samples of $50 and $100 bills revealed that a third to a half of all the currency tested bore traces of cocaine. Moreover, the machines themselves were often found to test positive, meaning that subsequent batches of cash fed through them would also pick up cocaine residue. Expert evidence given before a federal appeals court in 1995 showed that three out of four bills randomly examined in the Los Angeles area bore traces of the drug. In a 1997 study conducted at the Argonne National Laboratory, nearly four out of five one-dollar bills in Chicago suburbs were found to bear discernable traces of cocaine. In another study, more than 135 bills from seven U.S. cities were tested, and all but four were contaminated with traces of cocaine. These bills had been collected from restaurants, stores, and banks in cities from Milwaukee to Dallas.
What's in YOUR wallet?
That CAN'T happen here. Not in this country.
I have seen this sentiment numerous times. At first, people have a hard time believing that this kind of criminal activity could happen, not by the officers sworn to "serve and protect" citizens. Not right here in the good old USA.
Denial is the first step. People who are not TOTALLY brainwashed will investigate further. Shock follows denial, when they discover that it actually DOES happen, quite regularly as a matter of fact. Anger follows the shock, when they realize that we have allowed laws to be passed, which gives police the green light for the theft of property from "innocent" victims.
The key word here is "innocent." NO charges, NO court date. NO chance to PROVE your innocence.
NADA. Only unsubstantiated baseless accusations.
Which the police do NOT HAVE TO PROVE. (beyond any doubt, much less a shadow of a doubt)
I wouldn't have a problem with this, if the accused victims were to be CHARGED with a crime. But they are NOT being charged with ANY crime. Legal THEFT, pure and simple. Government run amuck.
Of course there will always be the brainwashed. Why did they NEED that much cash, why do you NEED to own an MINI-14, AR-15, AK, SKS, etc. What gives anyone the right to question WHY?
Lots of folks posting on this thread seem to be overlooking one very salient fact - we are basing our thoughts about this based totally on this one news report. Isn't it just possible that there are facts that we are not aware of? Were any of us there at the time? Second guessing and arm-chair quarterbacking is all this is.
Another thing - Anybody with this amount of cold hard cash should, if the money is legit, be able to easily prove how they came to have it in their possession. I know that if I had that much on me that I could show where it came from with no problem.
I agree that the mere fact that we should have to prove anything of the sort is repulsive (the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" SHOULD still mean something after all), but that seems to be indicative of the world that we live in today.
Turns MY stomach, too, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that those two will never get that money back because they won't be able to show how they acquired it. Any takers?
I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
WHAT???
I believe you are wrong.
Please show me this law.
Hopefully the judge will review all the details, see the truth and do the right thing by all parties.
There were NO charges.
There will be NO judge.
THEY have to sue, to try to get their money back.
Do you really believe that this is the way the law is supposed to work?
Well I sure hope the men were buying a home. After not being able to purchase it at the closing, it could get real exciting in the courtroom when they tell the jury. I see punitive damages for them both for being homeless cause the Feds took their money. My my, what mental anquish.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
They STOLE the money. Plain and simple.
This happens ALL THE TIME.
It's reported to be a MULTI-million dollar crime spree, committed by cops.
This is becoming all to common; the cops stealing your money without due process or any evidence of crime.
88 Grand is one hell of a fine for tailgating.
This Federal law is another great example of "we are from the gub'ment and are here to help" syndrome.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Even if they were socking this money away for years in their mattresses, I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
I believe you are thinking about The Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions Act of 1970 (31 U.S.C. 1051) commonly known as "The Bank Secrecy Act" (BSA). I don't know for sure, but I think most of it has been included in the "USA Patriot Act" of 9 March 2006.
The BSA requires financial institutions within the United States to file a Currency Transaction Report (CTR) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 4789, for each transaction in currency over $10,000.
I believe that 31 U.S.C. 1051 only relates to bankers, brokers and security exchange managers, not the average citizen. I do remember that pursuant to some Omnibus Crime Bill that the interstate transportation of more than $10,000 in US currency needed to be reported, and a permit to transfer required. I'll have to do some WestLaw research on the subject.
Well every home I have sold has been recorded thru the I.R.S... what is the big deal being made by paying cash for the transaction. Cripe some classic cars sold bring more than homes. These guys might have won big in Vegas and took CASH home with them. Oh my, imagine signing documents for your winnings in Vegas and then having the Feds remove the winnings from you...
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
Well I sure hope the men were buying a home. After not being able to purchase it at the closing, it could get real exciting in the courtroom when they tell the jury. I see punitive damages for them both for being homeless cause the Feds took their money. My my, what mental anquish.
That's what you would think would happen, but in reality if they are legit it will cost them big bucks to get their money back and they will have no recourse against the government because the officers were operating within the law.
My prediction is these two guys will write it off to the cost of doing business and will never be heard of again.
a friend of mine had a similar incident, he had 10,000 cash on the way to an auction to buy antiques for his store, they took it, it took 1,500 dollars for an attorney, and they extorted 1,000 bucks by agreeing to give him his money back if he donated 1,000 to the local dare program, and save him future attorneys fee's, since it was all he had to keep his business alive, he couldn't risk it being drug out in court for six+ months
quote:Originally posted by nunn
Personally, I think a citizen should be able to do as he pleases with his own property, including carrying large amounts of cash around without having to worry about official interference.
But, that ain't the world we live in.
This morning, I watched another officer remove 10 kilos of cocaine from a Dodge minivan he had stopped for a traffic violation. The guys with the $88G that was seized? They may well have been on their way to make a score, or on their way home after selling a load.
Or, they may have been legitimately carrying a wad of cash.
Trouble is, you just can't do it, and anyone should know it. It's dumb on a number of levels. Fact is, most people carrying that much cash are up to no good, so the good people have to change their ways of doing things. I don't intend to blow up an airplane, but if I want to get on one, I have to be searched as though I do.
You don't like it, and I don't like it, but that's just the way it is.
Since it is a fact, maybe you'd provide the statistics to prove that?
Per the ususal, we're all making ASSumptions on something the MEDIA has pumped out... There is undoubtedly MORE INFO behind the scenes on this stop and seizure. Due process has NOT been thwarted or bypassed, yet we're all ready to jump to that conclusin. Come on guys, we can't live by this standard! It's no different to ASSume that these cops did something wrong than it IS to ASSume the two travelers did something wrong. That is hypocrisy at it's most flaming level.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
WHAT???
I believe you are wrong.
Please show me this law.
Hopefully the judge will review all the details, see the truth and do the right thing by all parties.
There were NO charges.
There will be NO judge.
THEY have to sue, to try to get their money back.
Do you really believe that this is the way the law is supposed to work?
The article suggests that a Federal judge will rule on the validity of the forfeiture law as it was applied in this case and on whether or not the Sheriff's Office gets to keep 75% or $66,000 of it.
As for the $10,000, I only said that "I believe that there is a Federal law...". Now that you've piqued my interest, I shall endeavor to find out if such a law exists.
I think that there is much more to this incident than the article claims. Truthfully, we have to hear about much more before we can get an accurate picture of what actually transpired.
I find it curious - strange? fishy? - that two men from out of town are travelling to Atalnta from Texas via new Jersey in a car (rental?) with $88,000 cold hard cash and NO guns are mentioned as having been found on their person or in their car.
All those out there in GB-land, raise your hand if you'd drive from New Jersey to Atlanta with $88,000 of YOUR cash UNARMED.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
WHAT???
I believe you are wrong.
Please show me this law.
Hopefully the judge will review all the details, see the truth and do the right thing by all parties.
There were NO charges.
There will be NO judge.
THEY have to sue, to try to get their money back.
Do you really believe that this is the way the law is supposed to work?
The article suggests that a Federal judge will rule on the validity of the forfeiture law as it was applied in this case and on whether or not the Sheriff's Office gets to keep 75% or $66,000 of it.
As for the $10,000, I only said that "I believe that there is a Federal law...". Now that you've piqued my interest, I shall endeavor to find out if such a law exists.
I think that there is much more to this incident than the article claims. Truthfully, we have to hear about much more before we can get an accurate picture of what actually transpired.
I find it curious - strange? fishy? - that two men from out of town are travelling to Atalnta from Texas via new Jersey in a car (rental?) with $88,000 cold hard cash and NO guns are mentioned as having been found on their person or in their car.
All those out there in GB-land, raise your hand if you'd drive from New Jersey to Atlanta with $88,000 of YOUR cash UNARMED.
Heck no. I'd have a car full of illegal aliens. Once they get stopped, produce no documentation and no license, they get to drive away unhindered by silly laws. The cops would never dream to search the car.
This cash seizure problem is growing by leaps and bounds. Police departments do not really have a reason to NOT claim it is drug cash. If they lose in court no big deal; bust the next guy with cash and win that one. The PROPERTY is arrested. The property owner has to PROVE it is his obtained from legal means. Many people lose thousands of dollars every year to this scam.
Asset forfeiture laws are way out of line. IMHO, if there is no probable cause to connect property to illegal activity, there should be "hands off", period.
"Arresting" property/money should have to meet the same standard as arresting a person, i.e. probable cause.
This kind of activity has become commonplace in law enforcement and it is indeed a "Gestapo Tactic" in my eyes.
Everytime an unjustifiable example of asset forfeiture comes up, I am sickened and embarrassed. Sometimes we in policing are our own worst enemies.[V]
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
WHAT???
I believe you are wrong.
Please show me this law.
Pickenup, I stand humble and corrected. You are right, I was wrong. I could not find any such law and a friend who is a banker corrected me. Mea culpa.....[:)]
Comments
It's not our place to question how or why they chose to travel and transact business, until it is proven that they were participating in some kind of illegal activity.
I know some folks that travel to a very large gun show in the midwest carrying approximately that much cash, in addition to a sizeable amount of firearms inventory. When you drop $5-10K each on any portion of your purchases, you have to carry a large amount of cash to do much business. A speed trap outside of Tulsa on the right Sunday afternoon could generate a whole lot of cash for the local sheriff.
Valid point there about gun purchases, but they were looking to make only one purchase - a house.
No matter, if they withdrew the money from their respective bank accounts, then they did nothing wrong. But, if they can't produce a paper trail for the money then it looks more than a little fishy.
Even if they were socking this money away for years in their mattresses, I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
Who knows? One cannot make a really good call based upon a news report. Hopefully the judge will review all the details, see the truth and do the right thing by all parties.
In one 1985 study done by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on the money machines in a U.S. Federal Reserve district bank, random samples of $50 and $100 bills revealed that a third to a half of all the currency tested bore traces of cocaine. Moreover, the machines themselves were often found to test positive, meaning that subsequent batches of cash fed through them would also pick up cocaine residue. Expert evidence given before a federal appeals court in 1995 showed that three out of four bills randomly examined in the Los Angeles area bore traces of the drug. In a 1997 study conducted at the Argonne National Laboratory, nearly four out of five one-dollar bills in Chicago suburbs were found to bear discernable traces of cocaine. In another study, more than 135 bills from seven U.S. cities were tested, and all but four were contaminated with traces of cocaine. These bills had been collected from restaurants, stores, and banks in cities from Milwaukee to Dallas.
What's in YOUR wallet?
That CAN'T happen here. Not in this country.
I have seen this sentiment numerous times. At first, people have a hard time believing that this kind of criminal activity could happen, not by the officers sworn to "serve and protect" citizens. Not right here in the good old USA.
Denial is the first step. People who are not TOTALLY brainwashed will investigate further. Shock follows denial, when they discover that it actually DOES happen, quite regularly as a matter of fact. Anger follows the shock, when they realize that we have allowed laws to be passed, which gives police the green light for the theft of property from "innocent" victims.
The key word here is "innocent." NO charges, NO court date. NO chance to PROVE your innocence.
NADA. Only unsubstantiated baseless accusations.
Which the police do NOT HAVE TO PROVE. (beyond any doubt, much less a shadow of a doubt)
I wouldn't have a problem with this, if the accused victims were to be CHARGED with a crime. But they are NOT being charged with ANY crime. Legal THEFT, pure and simple. Government run amuck.
Of course there will always be the brainwashed. Why did they NEED that much cash, why do you NEED to own an MINI-14, AR-15, AK, SKS, etc. What gives anyone the right to question WHY?
Here are some more to think about -
Lots of folks posting on this thread seem to be overlooking one very salient fact - we are basing our thoughts about this based totally on this one news report. Isn't it just possible that there are facts that we are not aware of? Were any of us there at the time? Second guessing and arm-chair quarterbacking is all this is.
Another thing - Anybody with this amount of cold hard cash should, if the money is legit, be able to easily prove how they came to have it in their possession. I know that if I had that much on me that I could show where it came from with no problem.
I agree that the mere fact that we should have to prove anything of the sort is repulsive (the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" SHOULD still mean something after all), but that seems to be indicative of the world that we live in today.
Turns MY stomach, too, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that those two will never get that money back because they won't be able to show how they acquired it. Any takers?
I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
WHAT???
I believe you are wrong.
Please show me this law.
Hopefully the judge will review all the details, see the truth and do the right thing by all parties.
There were NO charges.
There will be NO judge.
THEY have to sue, to try to get their money back.
Do you really believe that this is the way the law is supposed to work?
They STOLE the money. Plain and simple.
This happens ALL THE TIME.
It's reported to be a MULTI-million dollar crime spree, committed by cops.
This is becoming all to common; the cops stealing your money without due process or any evidence of crime.
88 Grand is one hell of a fine for tailgating.
This Federal law is another great example of "we are from the gub'ment and are here to help" syndrome.
Even if they were socking this money away for years in their mattresses, I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
I believe you are thinking about The Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions Act of 1970 (31 U.S.C. 1051) commonly known as "The Bank Secrecy Act" (BSA). I don't know for sure, but I think most of it has been included in the "USA Patriot Act" of 9 March 2006.
The BSA requires financial institutions within the United States to file a Currency Transaction Report (CTR) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 4789, for each transaction in currency over $10,000.
Well I sure hope the men were buying a home. After not being able to purchase it at the closing, it could get real exciting in the courtroom when they tell the jury. I see punitive damages for them both for being homeless cause the Feds took their money. My my, what mental anquish.
That's what you would think would happen, but in reality if they are legit it will cost them big bucks to get their money back and they will have no recourse against the government because the officers were operating within the law.
My prediction is these two guys will write it off to the cost of doing business and will never be heard of again.
Personally, I think a citizen should be able to do as he pleases with his own property, including carrying large amounts of cash around without having to worry about official interference.
But, that ain't the world we live in.
This morning, I watched another officer remove 10 kilos of cocaine from a Dodge minivan he had stopped for a traffic violation. The guys with the $88G that was seized? They may well have been on their way to make a score, or on their way home after selling a load.
Or, they may have been legitimately carrying a wad of cash.
Trouble is, you just can't do it, and anyone should know it. It's dumb on a number of levels. Fact is, most people carrying that much cash are up to no good, so the good people have to change their ways of doing things. I don't intend to blow up an airplane, but if I want to get on one, I have to be searched as though I do.
You don't like it, and I don't like it, but that's just the way it is.
Since it is a fact, maybe you'd provide the statistics to prove that?
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
WHAT???
I believe you are wrong.
Please show me this law.
Hopefully the judge will review all the details, see the truth and do the right thing by all parties.
There were NO charges.
There will be NO judge.
THEY have to sue, to try to get their money back.
Do you really believe that this is the way the law is supposed to work?
The article suggests that a Federal judge will rule on the validity of the forfeiture law as it was applied in this case and on whether or not the Sheriff's Office gets to keep 75% or $66,000 of it.
As for the $10,000, I only said that "I believe that there is a Federal law...". Now that you've piqued my interest, I shall endeavor to find out if such a law exists.
I think that there is much more to this incident than the article claims. Truthfully, we have to hear about much more before we can get an accurate picture of what actually transpired.
I find it curious - strange? fishy? - that two men from out of town are travelling to Atalnta from Texas via new Jersey in a car (rental?) with $88,000 cold hard cash and NO guns are mentioned as having been found on their person or in their car.
All those out there in GB-land, raise your hand if you'd drive from New Jersey to Atlanta with $88,000 of YOUR cash UNARMED.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
WHAT???
I believe you are wrong.
Please show me this law.
Hopefully the judge will review all the details, see the truth and do the right thing by all parties.
There were NO charges.
There will be NO judge.
THEY have to sue, to try to get their money back.
Do you really believe that this is the way the law is supposed to work?
The article suggests that a Federal judge will rule on the validity of the forfeiture law as it was applied in this case and on whether or not the Sheriff's Office gets to keep 75% or $66,000 of it.
As for the $10,000, I only said that "I believe that there is a Federal law...". Now that you've piqued my interest, I shall endeavor to find out if such a law exists.
I think that there is much more to this incident than the article claims. Truthfully, we have to hear about much more before we can get an accurate picture of what actually transpired.
I find it curious - strange? fishy? - that two men from out of town are travelling to Atalnta from Texas via new Jersey in a car (rental?) with $88,000 cold hard cash and NO guns are mentioned as having been found on their person or in their car.
All those out there in GB-land, raise your hand if you'd drive from New Jersey to Atlanta with $88,000 of YOUR cash UNARMED.
Heck no. I'd have a car full of illegal aliens. Once they get stopped, produce no documentation and no license, they get to drive away unhindered by silly laws. The cops would never dream to search the car.
This cash seizure problem is growing by leaps and bounds. Police departments do not really have a reason to NOT claim it is drug cash. If they lose in court no big deal; bust the next guy with cash and win that one. The PROPERTY is arrested. The property owner has to PROVE it is his obtained from legal means. Many people lose thousands of dollars every year to this scam.
"Arresting" property/money should have to meet the same standard as arresting a person, i.e. probable cause.
This kind of activity has become commonplace in law enforcement and it is indeed a "Gestapo Tactic" in my eyes.
Everytime an unjustifiable example of asset forfeiture comes up, I am sickened and embarrassed. Sometimes we in policing are our own worst enemies.[V]
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
I believe that there is a Federal law prohibiting an individual from having more than $10,000 cash in his or her home at any time.
WHAT???
I believe you are wrong.
Please show me this law.
Pickenup, I stand humble and corrected. You are right, I was wrong. I could not find any such law and a friend who is a banker corrected me. Mea culpa.....[:)]