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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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."
 
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:
 
"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.
 
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.
 
: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. ;)
 
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.
 
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".
 
Last edited:
All

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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
rock jock,

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:
 
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.
 
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:
 
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:
 
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: .
 
"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.
 
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.
 
Rock Jock

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top