• Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Deleted per staff member Virgil27

 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
It's actually a CTR for transactions over $10K.  The SAR is not something you'd fill out.  The teller would do that and ... (more)

DTASFAB (Aug. 17, 2016 @ 5:53p) |

I am something of a MS addict, and have deposited many, many thousands $ of MOs to my BofA checking account.  Never had ... (more)

tuphat (Aug. 17, 2016 @ 6:04p) |

That's because cash never enters the equation

rufflesinc (Aug. 17, 2016 @ 6:18p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

It does sound like this is rather overreaching, but don't you think most people who had tens of thousands of dollars in legitimate cash seized would pursue its return?

No, the DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records in order to focus investigative efforts on those who exhibit suspicious behavior. The seizing of cash would happen after a more thorough and rigorous legal process that requires substantive evidence of wrongdoing.

Civil forfeiture laws in this country are a disgrace.

protip: don't travel with lots of cash.

gooseman13 said:   It does sound like this is rather overreaching, but don't you think most people who had tens of thousands of dollars in legitimate cash seized would pursue its return?
  You obviously don't know how civil forfeiture works.

The bi-monthly thread complaining about civil forfeiture.

jayK said:   No, the DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records in order to focus investigative efforts on those who exhibit suspicious behavior. The seizing of cash would happen after a more thorough and rigorous legal process that requires substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
  
Like a dog who jumps on your property on command?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo



 

taxmantoo said:   
jayK said:   No, the DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records in order to focus investigative efforts on those who exhibit suspicious behavior. The seizing of cash would happen after a more thorough and rigorous legal process that requires substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
  
Like a dog who jumps on your property on command?
...
 

  
Not that I think its OK for cops to do that, but..

I'm gonna hazard a guess here that for every one 21 year old amateur constitutional law expert driving around acting like that testing cops who bend the rules that  there about 20,000 other Americans with some pot or other drugs stashed in their car who act a bit shifty, refusing to answer questions, etc during such stops.
 

Gotta love those law-and-order types who think the constitution only applies to people who suck up to cops.  Oh, wait, it does.

jerosen said:   The bi-monthly thread complaining about civil forfeiture.
  
Until organized theft dies a well deserved death, I'm available to complain every time the subject comes up.

jerosen said:   
taxmantoo said:   
jayK said:   No, the DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records in order to focus investigative efforts on those who exhibit suspicious behavior. The seizing of cash would happen after a more thorough and rigorous legal process that requires substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
  
Like a dog who jumps on your property on command?
...

  
Not that I think its OK for cops to do that, but..

I'm gonna hazard a guess here that for every one 21 year old amateur constitutional law expert driving around acting like that testing cops who bend the rules that  there about 20,000 other Americans with some pot or other drugs stashed in their car who act a bit shifty, refusing to answer questions, etc during such stops.

  you believe in the system's legitimacy.  so, when you see an injustice, you minimize it.  "oh that was just an odd exception.  idiosyncrasies generally mean there are drugs in the car."  that's WAY, WAY off.  but it's how many people think.

jayK said:   No, the DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records in order to focus investigative efforts on those who exhibit suspicious behavior. The seizing of cash would happen after a more thorough and rigorous legal process that requires substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
  laughably false.  what they need is a naive person, who happens to fit a criminal profile.  then they need the naive person to give dumb answers to intrusive questions & be dumb enough to consent to a search.  if it turns up a "weird" amount of cash, cops can (and do) snatch it.  

substantial evidence of wrongdoing is obviously not the standard police have to meet.  if they could meet that burden, the naive person would get hit with BOTH civil AND criminal penalties.

yijot said:   
jayK said:   No, the DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records in order to focus investigative efforts on those who exhibit suspicious behavior. The seizing of cash would happen after a more thorough and rigorous legal process that requires substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
  laughably false.  what they need is a naive person, who happens to fit a criminal profile.  then they need the naive person to give dumb answers to intrusive questions & be dumb enough to consent to a search.  if it turns up a "weird" amount of cash, cops can (and do) snatch it.  

substantial evidence of wrongdoing is obviously not the standard police have to meet.  if they could meet that burden, the naive person would get hit with BOTH civil AND criminal penalties.

They don't even need any of that.  Simple refusal to answer questions, even when done calmly and politely, is enough to warrant "suspicion," the threshold for which is barely measurable, but is enough to justify bringing in a slave dog to jump around on command.  The more excited the dog behaves, the more likely it is that a judge will rule the subsequent unauthorized search to be admissible.  The more clear it is that the person being detained is determined to exercise his or her rights, the higher the dog will jump.

As a vegan who despises the slavery of using animals for any reason, including their unpaid labor, I find employing a canine for nefarious purposes and then hiding behind that canine's inability to walk into a courtroom and articulate in English why he or she was jumping around so much is a reprehensible way to railroad American citizens, whether they're guilty of a crime or not.  The constitution is supposed to protect people from unreasonable searches, even when they're in the act of committing a crime, as long as that crime is undetectable.  The baseline for what types of searches are "reasonable" as opposed to "unreasonable" has been shifting as society has gradually moved away from social mores in which average people are granted the benefit of the doubt as a matter of routine and are presumed innocent until proven guilty as a matter of constitutionality.  Those days are long since gone, and they're not coming back.  As a society, we are far worse off for it.

Mickie3 will be redding this post in 5, 4, 3, 2.....

jerosen said:   
taxmantoo said:   
jayK said:   No, the DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records in order to focus investigative efforts on those who exhibit suspicious behavior. The seizing of cash would happen after a more thorough and rigorous legal process that requires substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
  
Like a dog who jumps on your property on command?
...

  
Not that I think its OK for cops to do that, but..

I'm gonna hazard a guess here that for every one 21 year old amateur constitutional law expert driving around acting like that testing cops who bend the rules that  there about 20,000 other Americans with some pot or other drugs stashed in their car who act a bit shifty, refusing to answer questions, etc during such stops.

  
It doesn't matter if there is a 20 to 1 ratio. It can be 1000 to 1. The cop has to follow the law. In the DUI stop, not once was the driver asked if he had been drinking. He didn't seem to have been drinking either. The cop abused his power, plain and simple. He needs to be trained, and if this behavior continues, fired.

The problem is that some police officers confuse a citizen that knows their right with a criminal. Why is it wrong for a law abiding citizen to know the law? Heck, don't you need to know the law to be a law abiding citizen in the first place?! Yes, most people prefer to give up their right and comply to avoid all the crap you would have to go otherwise. But the thing is that you shouldn't have to go through all the BS if these police officers did their job right. Good for the man in the video for standing up for his rights. Notice how the cop turned the camera away once he saw it (the other officer blinded it with his flashlight). I hope they both got in trouble for this illegal car search.

Civil forfeiture laws are the main reason I don't charge $20k to my credit card at the casino on cruise ships anymore. Damn you police for screwing with my credit card rewards.

DTASFAB said:   
As a vegan who despises the slavery of using animals for any reason, including their unpaid labor,  
 

So, how would you propose we pay the drug dogs?  They provide us services, we provide them food and shelter.  The same symbiotic relationship you have with your gut flora. 

cestmoi123 said:   
DTASFAB said:   
As a vegan who despises the slavery of using animals for any reason, including their unpaid labor,  

So, how would you propose we pay the drug dogs?  They provide us services, we provide them food and shelter.  The same symbiotic relationship you have with your gut flora. 

  Don't use dogs at all, period.

DTASFAB said:   
cestmoi123 said:   
DTASFAB said:   
As a vegan who despises the slavery of using animals for any reason, including their unpaid labor,  

So, how would you propose we pay the drug dogs?  They provide us services, we provide them food and shelter.  The same symbiotic relationship you have with your gut flora. 

  Don't use dogs at all, period.

  Why not?  Are you implying that the use of these dogs is inhumane in some way?  Are they treated poorly?

ChinaRider said:   
DTASFAB said:   
cestmoi123 said:   
DTASFAB said:   
As a vegan who despises the slavery of using animals for any reason, including their unpaid labor,  

So, how would you propose we pay the drug dogs?  They provide us services, we provide them food and shelter.  The same symbiotic relationship you have with your gut flora. 

  Don't use dogs at all, period.

  Why not?  Are you implying that the use of these dogs is inhumane in some way?  Are they treated poorly?

  The issue is not treatment, but use.  You wouldn't think slavery is ok as long as the slaves are allowed to live in the same house with their masters.  No matter how well the masters treat their slaves, slavery is still wrong.

DTASFAB said:   
ChinaRider said:   
DTASFAB said:     Don't use dogs at all, period.
 

  Why not?  Are you implying that the use of these dogs is inhumane in some way?  Are they treated poorly?

  The issue is not treatment, but use.  You wouldn't think slavery is ok as long as the slaves are allowed to live in the same house with their masters.  No matter how well the masters treat their slaves, slavery is still wrong.

  Do you own any pets?  How is that any different?  If you own a pet, how exactly has that pet conveyed to you that they are 100% okay with you keeping them under your care?  I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree...

ChinaRider said:   
DTASFAB said:   
ChinaRider said:   
DTASFAB said:     Don't use dogs at all, period.
  Why not?  Are you implying that the use of these dogs is inhumane in some way?  Are they treated poorly?

  The issue is not treatment, but use.  You wouldn't think slavery is ok as long as the slaves are allowed to live in the same house with their masters.  No matter how well the masters treat their slaves, slavery is still wrong.

  Do you own any pets?  How is that any different?  If you own a pet, how exactly has that pet conveyed to you that they are 100% okay with you keeping them under your care?  I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree...

  Breeding pets is exactly the same as breeding drug dogs.  Rescuing a domesticated animal in need of a home is 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticat...
Gary Francione said: There is nothing “natural” about domesticated animals. They are creatures that we have created through selective breeding and confinement. To the extent that they have undomesticated relatives living in nature, we should certainly seek to protect those nonhumans first and foremost for their own sake and secondarily for the purposes of biological diversity. But our protection of presently existing domesticated nonhumans is not necessary for any sort of biological diversity.
.........
Unlike human children, who, except in unusual cases, will become independent and functioning members of human society, domestic animals are neither part of the nonhuman world nor fully part of our world. They remain forever in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them. We have bred them to be compliant and servile, or to have characteristics that are actually harmful to them but are pleasing to us. We may make them happy in one sense, but the relationship can never be “natural” or “normal.” They do not belong stuck in our world irrespective of how well we treat them.
.........
We regard the dogs who live with us as refugees of sorts, and although we enjoy caring for them, it is clear that humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a world in which they simply do not fit.

You didn't answer the question... Do you have any pets of any kind?

ChinaRider said:   You didn't answer the question... Do you have any pets of any kind?
  no, but what difference does it make, as long as they're rescued and not bred by me or my agent?

DTASFAB said:   
ChinaRider said:   You didn't answer the question... Do you have any pets of any kind?
  no, but what difference does it make, as long as they're rescued and not bred by me or my agent?

  I was going to drop it, but since you asked, you are implying that drug dogs are slaves.  I am implying that any dog (or any pet for that matter) that you keep in your care could be considered a slave, as you have no idea if they agree with your control over them.

At least you aren't a hypocrite. 

I have several pets.  I believe they are all happy in my care but I don't know that for sure, so what's to say they aren't 'slaves,' as you put it?  My personal opinion is that the drug dogs are likely treated much, much better than the average dog.  I fail to see how they are 'slaves' any more than any other pet that is owned (controlled) by a human.  Lord knows I've seen enough dogs in deplorable conditions to believe that they would be happier as drug dogs who are well taken care of.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree...

ChinaRider said:   
DTASFAB said:   
ChinaRider said:   You didn't answer the question... Do you have any pets of any kind?
  no, but what difference does it make, as long as they're rescued and not bred by me or my agent?

  I was going to drop it, but since you asked, you are implying that drug dogs are slaves.  I am implying that any dog (or any pet for that matter) that you keep in your care could be considered a slave, as you have no idea if they agree with your control over them.

At least you aren't a hypocrite. 

I have several pets.  I believe they are all happy in my care but I don't know that for sure, so what's to say they aren't 'slaves,' as you put it?  My personal opinion is that the drug dogs are likely treated much, much better than the average dog.  I fail to see how they are 'slaves' any more than any other pet that is owned (controlled) by a human.  Lord knows I've seen enough dogs in deplorable conditions to believe that they would be happier as drug dogs who are well taken care of.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree...

We can't disagree until you understand the complex intricacies of the issue, and I'm not convinced that you do.

When a human opens a home to a homeless "refugee" domesticated animal for the sake of improving that animal's quality of life, it's not slavery.  The animal is more of a beneficiary than a pet.  The primary purpose of the animal's presence in the home is not to serve the human.

When a human buys a "pet" at a "pet store" for the purpose of USING that animal for companionship/entertainment, etc., it's different.

The latter is a form of exploitation while the former is a form of charity.  The type of treatment the animal experiences in either case is not a factor in determining which of these categories is applicable in any given situation.

Leave it to the vegan to derail this thread completely.

DTASFAB said:   
  How do you tell who is a vegan at a dinner party?





They'll tell you.

vnuts21 said:   
DTASFAB said:   
 

  How do you tell who is a vegan at a dinner party?





They'll tell you.

  
A vegan, a crossfitter and an athiest walk into a bar? How did I know? They told everybody within two minutes.

Getting back to the topic though, I think the problem is that there is far too much moral hazard and inappropriate incentives for civil forfeiture.  Because this money is now part of the budget (according to the article): =14px“They count on this as part of the budget,” said  Louis Weiss =14px, a former supervisor of the DEA group assigned to  Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport =14px. “Basically, you’ve got to feed the monster.” 

=14pxAs with most problems in this country, the problem is the government.  I'm ok with the concept of civil forfeiture, but the idea that they can confiscate cash and send somebody on their way with no suspicion of wrongdoing is unacceptable, especially when the agents are doing things like buying top end margarita machines with the money.

 

I love it when my true friends reveal themselves.

BTW, there was nothing implicit about my assertion that drug dogs are slaves.

Federal agents like these are a massive constitutional threat.

They are stealing money to fund their program...."have to feed the monster" the former agent says. This leads to a perpetual cycle of criminal action.

DTASFAB said:   ...When a human buys a "pet" at a "pet store" for the purpose of USING that animal for companionship/entertainment, etc., it's different.

The latter is a form of exploitation while the former is a form of charity.  The type of treatment the animal experiences in either case is not a factor in determining which of these categories is applicable in any given situation.
 

If my kid brought rat in pet store will you consider it slavery or rescue?
According to your logic it would be explanation according to my kid logic it would be saving rat's life.

svap said:   
DTASFAB said:   ...When a human buys a "pet" at a "pet store" for the purpose of USING that animal for companionship/entertainment, etc., it's different.

The latter is a form of exploitation while the former is a form of charity.  The type of treatment the animal experiences in either case is not a factor in determining which of these categories is applicable in any given situation.

If my kid brought rat in pet store will you consider it slavery or rescue?
According to your logic it would be explanation according to my kid logic it would be saving rat's life.

  What?

vnuts21 said:   Leave it to the vegan to derail this thread completely.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8



rufflesinc said:   protip: don't travel with lots of cash.
  Until laws and practices change, that is -- unfortunately -- good advice.  Same goes for prepaid cards, blank MOs, etc.

And, it can never be said too often or stressed too much: never consent to a police search, never answer police questions (politely decline).

Re:  the seizure of $44k from the Amtrak couple, described in the article --

Read the linked complaint.  Assuming the guy's story is true, the owner of the cash made an incredibly bad choice of whom to use as a courier.  If I lost $44k of someone's money, in this situation, I would be kinda scared of retribution.

It is bad but to be honest people should not be traveling around with vast sums of money in their physical possession. Why? Not to avoid government oversight of the financial system but rather if people started regularly carrying around large sums of cash crime would skyrocket.

This thread says a lot about contemporary American sociology.

DTASFAB said:   This thread says a lot about contemporary American sociology.
  

and paranoia.



 

Skipping 92 Messages...
tuphat said:   I am something of a MS addict, and have deposited many, many thousands $ of MOs to my BofA checking account.  Never had any problems at all.
  That's because cash never enters the equation



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017