Woman stopped for seat belt; trooper finds $1.4 million cash


PDA






Drizzt
May 22, 2003, 06:26 PM
Woman stopped for seat belt; trooper finds $1.4 million cash

By The Associated Press

(5/22/03 - SAN ANTONIO) — A state trooper who pulled over a car because the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt found three black duffel bags stuffed with $1.4 million cash.

Trooper Joe Hogue said the driver, a 59-year-old woman, as well as a 57-year-old female passenger, appeared nervous during the stop Wednesday.

Hogue said his suspicions were raised when the women, both from Laredo, gave conflicting stories on how many days they had been in San Antonio.

The women agreed to let Hogue search the vehicle, and Hogue then found the bags of money. No drugs or other illegal items were found.

Hogue said the driver told him she found the bags along the highway. But later, she told authorities she found the bags outside a convenience store.

"She could not have lifted those bags," Hogue said.

No charges have been filed against the women, but the Texas Department of Public Safety is investigating.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/52203_state_cash.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman stopped for seat belt; trooper finds $1.4 million cash" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 06:32 PM
is it too late for the rich old lady to become my sugar mama?

cordex
May 22, 2003, 06:33 PM
*shifty eyes*

"Yes ... I ... uh ... found this 1.4 million in cash. See it was ... uh ... by the ... er ... you know."

Wonder how a "This is my darshgarned retirement fund and I don't trust a bank with it!" line might have played.

Pendragon
May 22, 2003, 06:40 PM
Simply let the women go, tail them and find out who tries to kill them for losing the money.

Although that implies there is something wrong with carrying that much cash, but nobody will listen to that argument.

CZ-75
May 22, 2003, 06:47 PM
Why must you prove that the money is yours?

Scam? Sure sounds like an unlegislated tax to me.

Brian Maffei
May 22, 2003, 08:35 PM
http://images.ibsys.com/2003/0522/2222066.jpg

Here's a picture.

http://www.clickonsa.com/ant/news/stories/news-222209120030522-100528.html

hammer4nc
May 22, 2003, 08:52 PM
The driver was released, but the money? (I'm betting impounded, pending investigation). Curious that both stories omitted that key bit... Similar thing happened in NC, the driver never came back to claim the cash...

What's the current "finder's fee" for suspicious assets confiscated by local PD's?

jimpeel
May 22, 2003, 08:52 PM
... they could face money laundering charges pending an investigationIf they can't find any other excuse to confiscate that much cash, they will make something up like "That much money could only belong to (insert "a drug dealer, a money launderer, a thief"). Seizure and forfeiture is a Godsend to the authorities -- like manna from Heaven.

Actually, according to their story, they should be charged with unlawful conversion of found property to personal use; also know as theft of found property. If they truly found it, they should have turned it in and placed a claim against it if unclaimed. Even if it is claimed, there are provisions in the law of most states that a person who finds property and turns it in is entitled to a just reward. A just reward is construed by most jurisdictions as 10%.
$140,000 is quite a chunk of change for 20 minutes work.

When I lived in Longmont, CO we found a stolen sculpture (full size bronze soaring bald eagle) ditched behind a car wash. We took it to the local constabulary and turned it in and the owners sent us an open ended gift certificate for two, with no bar restriction, to the most expensive restaurant in town .

To Hell with that "Honesty is its own reward" crap. There's nothing like a free dinner.

jimpeel
May 22, 2003, 08:55 PM
One-hundred percent.

Tamara
May 22, 2003, 09:31 PM
So, uh, carrying money is against the law? :confused:

OF
May 22, 2003, 09:35 PM
Being suspicious is against the law. Living a life uncontrolled and unobserved by the man is against the law.

Being free is rapidly becoming against the law.

- Gabe

wingman
May 22, 2003, 09:49 PM
Any large of amount of cash on your person( because of the credit card
world we live in) makes you a
suspect in the eyes of the law, if
you carry large amounts of cash be
prepared to prove it's yours,
especially in south Texas.:rolleyes:

matis
May 22, 2003, 10:04 PM
Pendragon,

I will listen to that argument -- in fact I'll second that argument.


What business is it of the law how much cash a person is carrying?

Money laundering is another non-crime. What it really is is trying to keep one's financial affairs private.

Here's a good plan for living off other's assets: First declare various activities to be illegal and propagandize the sheeple to get all excited about them.

Then use this as a pre-text to infringe civil rights: break down doors, kill and imprison people. tap their phones, bank accounts, emails -- set up conditions for drive-by shooting, turf-battles (you can't exactly take such disputes to court, can you?)

And then declare the profits from these activities (free-market activities, actually) -- that are obviously desired by segments of the population -- or there would be no profits -- declare these profits, to be "...ill-gotten gains."

Then use civl asset forfeiture to seize these assets whenever possible. Duck soup, eh? The money or the property is guilty, not the person, so there is very little legal defence and what there is is very expensive.


Good racket, eh?

Who really is getting ill-gotten gains?

Gives new meaning to the phrase: "highway robbery", doesn't it?


Don't get me going...........please!



Matis

Idaho
May 22, 2003, 10:36 PM
WHY do people CONSENT to searches?! :scrutiny:

I have never understood this. Even if I wasn't guilty of anything at all, I wouldn't consent. Yet every day I read about bozos, often criminal bozos, that consent to a search when they have cash/guns/drugs/illegal aliens/imaginary friends/whatever in the car that they would just as soon law enforcement didn't find out about.

Pilgrim
May 23, 2003, 12:50 AM
I have never understood this. Even if I wasn't guilty of anything at all, I wouldn't consent.

Most people give consent because they figure if they don't the officer will screw them over big time on the traffic citation.

The crooks are just stupid.

jungleman
May 23, 2003, 01:16 AM
I firmly believe that if you are going to do something dishonest that you wear your seatbelt and obey the traffic laws.
In Michigan anyway i believe that it is illegal to carry more than
$10,000 on your person.

TheeBadOne
May 23, 2003, 02:04 AM
This is a very common tactic used by drug trafficers. Hire some unsuspecting looking folks to run your money/drugs for you. For the folks it's low risk, high pay.

CZ-75
May 23, 2003, 02:41 AM
This is a very common tactic used by drug trafficers. Hire some unsuspecting looking folks to run your money/drugs for you. For the folks it's low risk, high pay.

I don't doubt this is so, but isn't the burden of proof on the LE and prosecution?

Tamara
May 23, 2003, 03:08 AM
I don't doubt this is so, but isn't the burden of proof on the LE and prosecution?

Nope, not in asset forfeiture cases.

You see, you aren't being charged with a crime; your money/property is.

Money/property is not innocent until proven guilty; it is automatically guilty if the government says it is. If you want it back, you have to sue the government to get it. If you want to sue the government to get it, you have to put up a percentage of the value of the seized property as a bond. Hard to do when, say, they've already seized all your liquid assets, neh?

CZ-75
May 23, 2003, 03:14 AM
You see, you aren't being charged with a crime; your money/property is.

Actually, I knew that. I just wanted an LEO to explain to me why it is just and we should all be proud to be Americans and live in a great country where we have laws like this to keep "evildoers" from harming us. ;)

Didn't they use 18th C. admiralty laws as a precedent to enable them to use LE as "privateers" to plunder from the citizenry and split the "loot"?

Tamara
May 23, 2003, 03:20 AM
Yup, that's where the legal precedent for asset forfeiture comes from (which in turn draws its inspiration from medieval law, when objects could be charged with crimes.) :uhoh:

Maybe we'll go back to burning heretics and dunking witches soon, too; seems like anything can be rationalized in the name of the War On (Some) Drugs... :scrutiny:

c_yeager
May 23, 2003, 04:37 AM
Maybe we'll go back to burning heretics ...

Waco, TX

Delmar
May 23, 2003, 05:29 AM
I believe this falls under the RICO statutes, passed by paranoid congresscum, which was designed to take the drug kings loot. Of course, like any paranoid law, unconstitutional on its face, you have to prove the money is yours or Uncle Sugar keeps it. One of those instances where your Constitutional protections mean nothing-you'll have to hire a lawyer to prove the money belongs to you so even if it is yours by rights, the lawyer is going to have his hands in it for a percentage.
If the news story is true, dems womens sound like they are up to no good, but RICO is not necessarily doing what its supposed to do and there are jurisdictions in this country using laws like this way outside the intent of the laws original meaning.
Thats why you don't give the government power in anything over and above what the Constitution originally spells out.
You can be safe or free, but not both....

matis
May 23, 2003, 10:16 AM
Delmar said:
_________________________________________________
You can be safe or free, but not both....
_________________________________________________

Yes, you can.

Absolute safety or freedom do not exist.

But you can be safe and free. Just rely on yourself and not government to guard them.


Something about hiring the fox to guard the chickens...?



Matis

Delmar
May 23, 2003, 02:00 PM
Matis,
Thats exactly what I'm talking about.

rock jock
May 23, 2003, 03:59 PM
But later, she told authorities she found the bags outside a convenience store.
If I were this idiot's drug boss, I would pop her for being so stupid. How about "Officer, my grandmother won this money in a lottery five years ago and I don't trust banks", or "This is to pay my last speeding ticket - I was driving the shuttle thru the River Walk."

Hawkman
May 23, 2003, 04:43 PM
It really didn't matter what she said. Once the occifer laid eyes on that money, it belonged to the gummint.

As Tamara says, under current asset-forfeiture laws, you have to prove that it was yours and and that you did not get it from illegal activities before you can get it back.

If you drive a nice car and the cops decide it would be a great undercover vehicle, they can seize it under the pretext that they believe it was gotten by illegal means or used for illegal purposes and its theirs. They don't have to prove anything.:uhoh: :cuss: :fire:

Erik
May 23, 2003, 06:20 PM
"Why must you prove that the money is yours?"

It's common sense, folks.

Folks honestly wealthy enough to have that kinda cash, let alone that kind of cash in their car, can easily prove it is theirs. At which point they get it back with interest.

Anyone else is a crook, and their ill-gotten gains are forfeit.

No?

Anyone know anyone who carries a million plus bucks around? Anyone? Go ahead, take some time and ask around... Call a few folks if you have to... Anyone? Of course not.

As for vehicles, houses, etc, the same applies. Honest folks can prove where the funds came from and where they went. Dishonest people cannot, and their ill-gotten gains are forfeit. Tax evaders are likely the most common offenders in this scenario.

No?

File $10,000 income tax statement for years on end and own a big house and a Ferrari? You're either funded by someone else or breaking the law. Just show where the money came from if you're honest. If not, say bye bye to your stuff. And I haven't even touched on criminal charges yet...

It is common sense.

rock jock
May 23, 2003, 06:32 PM
Tax evaders are likely the most common offenders in this scenario.
Watch it, Erik. Many criminals are in fact folk heros to some people around here. If your confused as to why its OK to be a tax thief and drug runner that gets little kids addicted and not OK to control guns, don't worry, someone will be along shortly to explain. Just to let you know, it will require a complete suspension of logic and reason, but then again, that has never stopped them.

CZ-75
May 23, 2003, 07:12 PM
:rolleyes:



Dishonest people cannot, and their ill-gotten gains are forfeit. Tax evaders are likely the most common offenders in this scenario.

Neither can people who work in cash businesses. :rolleyes:


You've been trained well. You believe everyone is guilty until proven innocent and that folks must justify their every action to the govt., instead of how it ought to be, which is vice versa.

Everyone who feels that people should have to PROVE where their property and possessions came from please raise your right hand and extend it in front of you at a 45 degree angle. ;)

hammer4nc
May 23, 2003, 07:17 PM
Erik,

I think your concept of how asset forfeiture/seizure works is a tad bit naive...do just a little research, and you'll find stories like this one: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0103/forfeiture.html

excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage.

Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor.

Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway.

Nearly four years later, she was still trying to get her money back...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When folks advance an argument based on "common sense", especially when attempting to justify powers of government, the small hairs on my neck start to stand up... Here's a question for you: Exactly where, in your "common sense" hierarchy, does the concept of financial privacy fit in? Judging from your post, not too important, but feel free to correct me.

People who casually toss out comments about so-called lifestyle audits, or forensic accounting investigations, have never been through them.

CZ-75
May 23, 2003, 07:24 PM
it will require a complete suspension of logic and reason

So THAT is what "law and order" toadies call it? ;) Silly me, I always thought polly-parroting the standard hackneyed shibboleths was just the opposite of using logic and reason.

The only thing that beggars logic and reason is how the govt. arrogated itself the obligation to check how and when you acqured your property and that they suspend due process in these matters.

As to persons who object to paying taxes and drug dealers being heroes, you're oversimplifying things.

These people are criminals because of some arbitrary and contrived justifications behind the statues which they are violating. No children ever became "hooked" on drugs until there was a (artificially created, mind you) financial incentive to do so. Legalized drugs don't sell themselves and certainly don't force school kids to get high. Considering how many schoolkids admit to using currently illegal drugs, I hardly see an increase in users were they legalized.

Your arguments on taxation, based on that prior thead, are merely collectivism, where you argue that we should all share equally in the misery and anyone who finds an out is a "criminal".

jimpeel
May 23, 2003, 09:53 PM
To keep abreast of the Seizure and Forfeiture laws, go to: http://www.fear.org (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights).

Remember, every S&F law in the country contains the same phraseology: "... even that no person shall have been charged with or convicted of a crime" or like wording.

This means that evebn if you are arrested for, say, drug dealing they can still keep your property on the basis of suspicion. The property has no "rights" is their premise for the taking and as such gleans no protection under the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Also, every S&F law in the nation includes the five following as the property to be seized:

Cash
Drugs
Vehicles
Real Property
Firearms

Four of the five are perfectly legal.

You can also read about victim stories at: http://www.fear.org/victim.html

Read about the most famous S&F case here -- Donald Scott opf Malibu, CA shot and killed in his own home by forfeiture police:
http://www.fear.org/scott15.html

Also, they show you all of the current laws that are tied to S&F like the Patriot and USA acts, among other things at: http://www.fear.org/menuidx2.html

redhead
May 24, 2003, 12:00 PM
Neal Boortz was talking about loss of freedom and a police state yesterday afternoon. He related a tale of a man who gets additional income to support his family by selling landscaping plants on weekends. Here's what he would do: He'd take a plane to the city where he bought the plants, rent a truck, buy the plants, drive back to the city where he lived, sell the plants and turn in the truck. Problem? He used cash. He'd buy a one-way ticket at the airport, had no luggage since he was driving back the same day. He carried cash to rent the truck and buy the plants. Well, ticket agent turns him in because he paid cash for a one-way ticket and had no luggage. Oh, the horror! He was detained and searched. He had $7,000 with him for the truck rental and inventory purchase. Cash confiscated, and he was sent on his way. He will likely never see that cash again.

Foolish to carry so much cash, you say? Maybe, from the standpoint of loss or theft, but we shouldn't have to worry about the government confiscating it, should we? Just how much freedom do we have left, anyway?

TheeBadOne
May 24, 2003, 12:23 PM
redhead; I assume this guy didn't claim his extra income on tax day to the IRS?
:confused:

redhead
May 24, 2003, 12:30 PM
I have no idea whether or not he declared his income to the IRS. What does that have to do with his cash being seized at the airport by the police? It was seized simply because he had it and the powers that be have decided that carrying cash is prima facie evidence of criminal activity. If he isn't declaring his income, that's another matter. I doubt that there was an allegation at the time of tax evasion. The issue here is asset seizure without due process. I understand that some courts have ruled that passage of a law simply ALLOWING asset seizure constitues due process.

rock jock
May 24, 2003, 12:37 PM
So THAT is what "law and order" toadies call it?
Yeah, rule of law is such a drag, isn't it? That's why dictators loathe to live by laws.

hammer, when I start seeing these stories from a source a little bit less biased than the LP website, I'll give them some credence. As it is, they are no more believable than what comes out of the DU.

TheeBadOne
May 24, 2003, 12:50 PM
I have no idea whether or not he declared his income to the IRS. What does that have to do with his cash being seized at the airport by the police?
redhead, what I meant by that is if he claimed his income it shouldn't be a big deal to prove it and get his money back. That's all.

Tamara
May 24, 2003, 12:56 PM
hammer, when I start seeing these stories from a source a little bit less biased than the LP website,

Donald Scott:

http://www.fear.org/scott.html

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/Scott.htm

http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa012400a.htm

More where that came from.

Ethel Hylton:

http://www.ccops.org/alert20001026.html

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/99-00/cnlootingofamerica30dec0.shtml

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp

More where that came from.


"When I start seeing these stories about gun control from places a little less biased than the NRA/JPFO/GOA websites..." :rolleyes:

redhead
May 24, 2003, 12:56 PM
Oh, sorry. Please accept my apology. I guess I'm testy this morning. My husband is giving me a wide berth. I have a bad cold, and my head hurts. I have read in other instances where cash is seized that it is very difficult to get it back, and that people have had to go to court to do it, and even then there is no guarantee of getting your property back. I just think it is reprehensible when people get property seized without being convicted of any crime.

redhead
May 24, 2003, 01:01 PM
Tamara, thanks for the links. I think. I already am not feeling well this morning, and it is just horrifying to read about the absolute gutting of our constitutional rights. I have been readin "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayak, and "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder. And then I tuned into to Neil Boortz's show yesterday afternoon. Ye Gods. No wonder I'm sick today. :uhoh:

TheeBadOne
May 24, 2003, 01:05 PM
redhead; no biggie, and I hope you feel better soon.

CZ-75
May 24, 2003, 01:07 PM
Yeah, rule of law is such a drag, isn't it?

The Nazis operated under "rule of law" too - their rule was law. :rolleyes:


That's why dictators loathe to live by laws.

On the contrary, they twist the law to suit their ends. Rather like how obscure admiralty laws can be turned into justification for asset forfeiture. :rolleyes:

CZ-75
May 24, 2003, 01:10 PM
and I hope you feel better soon.

I hope so too, but considering the hollow justification behind asset forfeiture and the massive infringment on rights it represents, I doubt it.

Makes me want to :barf: .

rock jock
May 24, 2003, 06:02 PM
"When I start seeing these stories about gun control from places a little less biased than the NRA/JPFO/GOA websites..."
So what's the rolleyes for? Because I wasn't willing to believe everything I read from a biased source? You gave links to some individual cases and these warrant attention. Ha-ha, "warrant", get it?

The Nazis operated under "rule of law" too
Actually, they didn't. Their leaders had laws unto themselves.

Azrael256
May 24, 2003, 06:57 PM
From The Tyrrany Of Good Intentions :Murphy gave the example of a police department that set up roadblocks and relieved motorists of their cash on the grounds that there was probable cause that sums in excess of $100 indicated an intention to buy or sell drugs.
One such victim was Selena Washington. She was stopped while driving on I-95 in Florida. She had $19,000 from a home insurance settlement for hurricane damage and was on her way to purchase constructions materials to repair her home. The police officer seized her $19,000 on the presumption that it was drug money and drove off without even taking her name.
Even with proof that it was insurance money, she was only able to recover $14,000. Proof doesn't matter. Your money or not, they'll steal it.
Ok, so we get the idea? Now, here's the disturbingly amusing part: This displacement of the protective mechanisms of criminal procedure is anathema to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. That is why when some British law enforcement officers, covetous of U.S. asset forfeiture powers, pushed for a similar law, the British government in 1986 rejected out of hand this "draconian power" that is "out of sorts with anything we have hitherto done." Even the Brits think we're crazy.

jimpeel
May 25, 2003, 02:40 AM
The guy at the airport that Readhead cited, Willie Jones (See Story Below), was detailed on "60 Minutes" after that happened. The show had one of their producers, who was also black, go to the counter at the same airport and buy a round-trip ticket to the same destination. Within several moinutes, the police showed up and began questioning him. They asked him if he had and "large sums of cash" on him. He responded by asking what would comprise a "large sum of cash" and they said "anything over $1,000."

When they found out who he was, they beat a hot retreat as the cameras watched. I have this segment on videotape so I am knowledgeable of that which I speak.

I also have an original copy of the report on the investigation of the death of Donald Scott which was also detailed on "Dateline NBC", "ABC News" (L.A.) and "60 Minutes". The D.A. of Ventura County stated unequivocally that the death of Donald Scott was predicated on the desire of the authorities to seize the land that comprised Scott's "Trail's End Ranch". They had even gotten appraisals of the land and that was included in the report. Scott's ranch lies between the Santa Monica Mountain Reserve and the Coastel Reserve and the authorities wanted to get that land to join the two.

The L.A.P.D and L.A.S.O. wanted to sell the land to the state and take the money for their departments.

By the way: the reason for the investigation into Scott? His wife, Frances Plantt was spending $100 bills on Rodeo Drive. Quite the unusual activity for a millionaire's wife doncha think?

In Nashville, Tenn., Willie Jones has no doubt that police still use a profile based on race.

Jones, owner of a landscaping service, thought the ticket agent at the American Airlines counter in Nashville Metro Airport reacted strangely when he paid cash Feb. 27 for his round-trip ticket to Houston.

``She said no one ever paid in cash anymore and she'd have to go in the back and check on what to do,'' Jones says.

What Jones didn't know is that in Nashville -- as in other airports -- many airport employees double as paid informers for the police.

The Drug Enforcement Administration usually pays them 10 percent of any money seized, says Capt. Judy Bawcum, head of the Nashville police division that runs the airport unit.

Jones got his ticket. Ten minutes later, as he waited for his plane, two drug team members stopped him.

``They flashed their badges and asked if I was carrying drugs or a large amount of money. I told them I didn't have anything to do with drugs, but I had money on me to go buy some plants for my business,'' Jones says.

They searched his overnight bag and found nothing. They patted him down and felt a bulge. Jones pulled out a black plastic wallet hidden under his shirt. It held $9,600.

``I explained that I was going to Houston to order some shrubbery for my nursery. I do it twice a year and pay cash because that's the way the growers want it,'' says the father of three girls.

The drug agents took his money.

``They said I was going to buy drugs with it, that their dog sniffed it and said it had drugs on it,'' Jones says. He never saw the dog.

NOTE: Even the government estimates that 92% of all money in circulation is tainted with traces of Cocaine due to contamination of counting machines at the Federal Reserve. -- jimpeel

The officers didn't arrest Jones, but they kept the money. They wrote, ``Unspecified amount of U.S. currency.''

Jones says losing the money almost put him out of business.

``That was to buy my stock. I'm known for having a good selection of unusual plants. That's why I go South twice a year to buy them. Now I've got to do it piecemeal, run out after I'm paid for a job and buy plants for the next one,'' he says.

Jones has receipts for three years showing that each fall and spring he buys plants from nurseries in other states.

``I just don't understand the government. I don't smoke. I don't drink. I don't wear gold chains and jewelry, and I don't get into trouble with the police,'' he says. ``I didn't know it was against the law for a 42-year-old black man to have money in his pocket.''

Tennessee police records confirm that the only charge ever filed a was for drag racing 15 years ago.

``DEA says I have to pay $900, 10 percent of the money they took from me, just to have the right to try to get it back,'' Jones says.

NOTE:While it was true at the time of this incident -- that a person whose property had been seized must put up a cash bond of 10% of the value of the goods seized prior to a hearing -- that portion of the law has since been repealed. -- jimpeel

His lawyer, E.E. ``Bo'' Edwards filled out government forms documenting that his client couldn't afford the $900 bond.

``If I'm going to feed my children, I need my truck, and the only way I can get that $900 is to sell it,'' Jones says.

It's been more than five months, and the only thing Jones has received from DEA are letters saying that his application to proceed without paying the $900 bond was deficient. ``But they never told us what those deficiencies were,'' says Edwards.

Jones is nearly resigned to losing the money. ``I don't think I'll ever get it back. But I think the only reason they thought I was a drug dealer was because I'm black, and that bothers me.''

It also bothers his lawyer.

``Of course he was stopped because he was black. No cop in his right mind would try that with a white businessman. These seizure laws give law enforcement a license to hunt, and the target of choice for many cops is those they believe are least cable of protecting themselves: blacks, Hispanics and poor whites,'' Edwards says.

CZ-75
May 25, 2003, 03:44 AM
Actually, they didn't.

Under the Enabling Act, the will of the Fuehrer was law. The only check was that it needed to be renewed by the Reichstag, henceforth a single-partyentity that was merely an organ of the Nazi party. Real effective.

CZ-75
May 25, 2003, 03:52 AM
Of course he was stopped because he was black. No cop in his right mind would try that with a white businessman.

Don't be so sure. Were the white businessman quite wealthy and lawyered up, then yes, they wouldn't. A white small businessman would probably only get slightly better treatment or greater benefit of the doubt.

redhead
May 25, 2003, 10:51 AM
jimpeel: Thanks for the details. I was just going from memory of what Boortz was citing, and didn't have a ton of details. Now I feel sicker than ever. What an outrage. :fire: Boortz's program was giving examples of such things, and then asking if he thought we weren't living in a police state. Well, if we aren't, we're close. There are the banking laws: if your banking activity changes, such as an unusual deposit after a steady pattern (unusual only because it isn't in your pattern), then thee bank is expected to contact the government - I'm not sure what branch, I can't recall. Now, what the ???? is that all about? Suppose I'm going to buy a house, and cash in a mutual fund, and deposit the check. Why is that the government's business? Why should I have to make account for myself?

I quite frequently pay cash for things - groceries, stuff at the farmer's market, the gun show. And I don't buy guns at the gun show - I'll buy coins, cleaning supplies, ammo. I pay cash, so I'll have over $100 cash on me. Whose business is that? The government's, apparently.

Pick up a copy of "A Nation of Cowards" and read the essay "Walter Mitty's Second Amendment".

Did I just rant? Somebody stop me before I rant again.

geekWithA.45
May 25, 2003, 01:05 PM
We're in deep poo, people.

Between asset forfeiture laws (HR 666, no less! :what: ), emminent domain, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism,

The government has the legal tools to literally Do Whatever The Hell It Wants, and so far, on a small scale, it has done just that.

It can make your property disappear.

It can make YOU disappear.

And because it can do that, it can instill fear into the citizenry, and make them toe the line, which makes your Freedom disappear.

What else is there?

The concept of restraint on the mechanisms of governance to prevent abuse against the individual isn't eroded, it is gone.


I don't like this conclusion, so someone please argue me out of it.


Post Scriptum:

The fact that I was able to post this indicates that all is not lost, and that it hasn't gotten that far. The fact that some part of me was afraid to hit send is telling me that all is not right in the Republic.

Yep, me, an American, speaking in America, fears that these words will be used against me by my government. Not good.

CZ-75
May 25, 2003, 02:42 PM
I still wonder if someone is still going to argue that dictators are afraid of laws? :rolleyes:

Nothing to be afraid of when you have a willing and ignorant legislature to abet you in passing exactly the ones you want. :cuss:

standingbear
May 26, 2003, 01:05 PM
that IS alot of money.i cant imagine having over 1000 bucks in even my bank acct let alone a car((lol)i have found money before.found a bunch of 20s and 10s scattered along a back round driving home one night.it was around 500 bucks.i thought it was fake so i turned it all in.got it back eventually(after almost 2 years) though i had to gripe to get it.if nobody claims it,the ol ladies should get it all back too.why should one have to prove its theirs.if its not fake or there hasnt been any crime committed(drugs and cash),it should have been left to the ol ladies.

jimpeel
May 26, 2003, 10:53 PM
Money is power; and power belongs to the anointed. The minions don't know how to handle it; so it is up to the government to take it from them lest they harm themselves.

Thank God they are there to protect us from ourselves.

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman stopped for seat belt; trooper finds $1.4 million cash" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!