It is now illegal to carry large amounts of cash on you - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 08-21-2006, 12:04 PM

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

Hooray for court sanctioned robbery.

still not worried about losing any of our rights? anyone? bueller?

Quote:

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.

On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.

Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.

Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.

"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."

"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.

The full text of the ruling is available in a 36k PDF file at the source link below.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...moneyseize.pdf

Plaid13 · 08-21-2006, 12:13 PM

LoL Thats just bad. If a cop or police department tried to take money from me just because there was alot of it... if i couldnt find a legal way to get it all back i think it would just be time to go on a killing spree. If the system dosnt work all the way it dosnt work at all. From what i have seen... the system dosnt work at all. The court system the law system and the prison system are all a total joke. the second i heard that killing someone by shooting them from a moving car is a lesser crime then if the car comes to a stop then you shoot them i realized its all pethetic.

Willravel · 08-21-2006, 12:20 PM

Wait, how can they do that? If something legal is confiscated for trial (presumabally to be used as evidence), then it is released upon proof of innocence. If someone ISN'T EVEN CHARGED, then the property is returned immediatally. If it isn't returned, it is theft. The thing is, the article doesn't say that the cash wasn't reutrned. This seems more a case of an overzealous police officer bringing someone in without evidence of illegal activities. The police officer should be trained better, and Mr. Gonzolez should be allowed to continue his trek with his money.

The_Jazz · 08-21-2006, 12:50 PM

Let's all remember that this decision is appealable and the Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't necessarily have the final say in the matter.

Having read the entire decision (thanks for that dk), I'm inclined more towards the government than I was after reading the internet article. Basically, the appeals court said that they don't believe the plaintiff and that his story doesn't make sense. They also point out that their disbelief is the difference between their opinion and that of the lower court. Apparently Mr. Gonzolez never produced the guy who told him that it was bad to fly with more than $10,000 cash, the guy that rented him the car, the guy who he was going to buy the truck from, or the guy who was going to help him buy the truck (interestingly enough he couldn't remember this "friend's" name). The verdict sums it up nicely with "This testimony does not inspire confidence in the innocence of the conduct." (page 7) They basically said that his story was plausible but unlikely. If you read the entire decision, you might end up with a different opinion than what the reporter would have you think initially.

Oh yeah, they also remanded it for further proceedings, meaning that they want more information and testimony from everyone involved, including Mr. Gonzolez.

And will, I don't think the cops did anything wrong here at all. The prosecutors may have (should Mr. Gonzolez prove his case), but I don't see how the cops could be blamed at all since their job ended once he was in custody.

dksuddeth · 08-21-2006, 01:37 PM

Silly me. I was taught that to get convicted, one had to have the government provide factual evidence instead of judges using 'common sense' to decide whether or not a person ought to be believed.

This ruling takes the rule of law away from justice to the defendant and places guilt or innocence in the hands of judges that use their 'gut instincts' instead of facts.

aceventura3 · 08-21-2006, 01:47 PM

This is another disturbing example of big government out of control.

It is interesting to me that the failed war on drugs has been a real threat to our civil liberties, but most us spend more time worrying about telephone calls to terrorists.

Mephisto2 · 08-21-2006, 02:05 PM

Initially I thought that this was crazy.

But then I stopped and thought about it a bit more. I realized that it's no different to the powers the CAB or Criminal Asset Bureau has in Ireland. This body was created to combat organized crime in Ireland after a well known crime reporter was murdered because of the stories she was writing. There was public outrage and the government passed several anti-organized crime steps.

The CAB has the power to seize property, assets and cash on the basis of suspicion of criminal activity. It is then incumbent on the original owner to prove they were acquired legally. This has helped address the bizarre past situations of "poor" and "unemployed" people driving around in BMW's and owning several houses. The gangsters in Ireland are now a lot more careful in flashing their money around, as it will otherwise be quickly confiscated.

It's worked well, and seems like a good idea to me.

I admit the above case is presented in such a way as to engender sympathy for Gonzolez, but if the cash is not the proceeds of crime then he should be able to prove it pretty easily.

Mr Mephisto

aceventura3 · 08-21-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I admit the above case is presented in such a way as to engender sympathy for Gonzolez, but if the cash is not the proceeds of crime then he should be able to prove it pretty easily.Mr Mephisto

Good bye to that "innocent until proven guilty" concept. If the guy was here illegally or if he had ties to middle eastern terrorist I could understand.

dksuddeth · 08-21-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I admit the above case is presented in such a way as to engender sympathy for Gonzolez, but if the cash is not the proceeds of crime then he should be able to prove it pretty easily.

Mr Mephisto

not really, at least not as easy as you would think.

say I have been saving money for years, just not in the bank. Should I be found with that money years later, i'll be suspected of drug trafficking and have no real way of showing that money rightfully belongs to me.

This is yet one more step in the slippery slope of the citizens becoming servants of the government instead of the other way around.

The_Jazz · 08-21-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

not really, at least not as easy as you would think.

say I have been saving money for years, just not in the bank. Should I be found with that money years later, i'll be suspected of drug trafficking and have no real way of showing that money rightfully belongs to me.

This is yet one more step in the slippery slope of the citizens becoming servants of the government instead of the other way around.

You have w-2 forms, right? Cancelled checks? Records showing that you're not just picking up thousands of dollars on the street? Something way to prove that you have an income that you're depositing in your National Bank of the Mattress instead of a more commonly recognized bank? Mr. Gonzales provided none of that when asked. This could certainly be a case of malpractice by his attorney, but let's start that there was no finding of guilt or innocence here. The government said "we're going to hold onto this money since it looks very suspicision (and pay you interest should you be able to prove that this isn't what it looks like) but show us how you came by it, and we'll give it back."

If you read the decision, you'll see that the court left the door open to further evidence that this is legitimately Mr. Gonzales' money. In fact, they've ordered exactly that. Currently, the court is, to again paraphrase, saying that "you know what, you and your two buddies just saying that this is money for a truck isn't good enough. Please show us some more proof." Critisize them for making a judgement decision, but saying that it's now illegal to walk around with large amounts of cash is a complete misstatement of the facts of the case. The court made no such decision, and you're welcome to walk around with any amount that you deem safe to carry. If you can prove how you got it (paycheck stubs, record of inheritance, receipts, etc.), you don't have a problem. If you can't, it is a very reasonable assumption that it's drug money. If it's not, you need more than just your two bonehead buddies to say otherwise. All Mr. Gonzales need do to get his money back is to produce more witnesses to back up his story. READ THE DECISION. This action is by no means over, and the appeals court is actually ordering that it continue so that they can get to the bottom of the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Silly me. I was taught that to get convicted, one had to have the government provide factual evidence instead of judges using 'common sense' to decide whether or not a person ought to be believed.

This ruling takes the rule of law away from justice to the defendant and places guilt or innocence in the hands of judges that use their 'gut instincts' instead of facts.

There is no conviction. There are no charges. The court (which has the power to do so, by the way) has said, to paraphrase yet a third time, "look, maybe your story is true, but you haven't proven it. Tell us more." And judges are ACTUALLY PAID TO DECIDE WHO IS LIEING AND WHO ISN'T. When it's a bench trial, like this one was, that is the role of the judge. If you serve on a jury, it's your job, but that wasn't the case here. The original judge felt that there was enough evidence to return the money, but apparently the prosecution disagreed and appealed. The appelate judges disagreed with the evidence presented. You have to admit that this was very sketchy and that Mr. Gonzales lied on multiple occassions and didn't have much to back up his story except for the two "business partners".

As far as the "gut instinct" comment, again, that is the basis of the judcial system. Both sides present their side of the case and someone, whether it is the jury or a judge, goes with their "gut instict" on which version is closest to the truth. Sorry if you don't agree - move to Cuba. I hear their judcial system is much more to your liking.

j8ear · 08-21-2006, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

....And judges are ACTUALLY PAID TO DECIDE WHO IS LIEING AND WHO ISN'T....

It is my understanding that this appeals panel decided that, a trial court, which had witnesses actually present, under oath, and cross-examined, and decided that their testimony to the validity of this completely innocent man's monetary gains were in fact legitimate, was not in fact valid, based exclusively on the transcript of this trial courts proceeding.

In other words they sided with law enforcement keeping the money they stole from this man based purely on hearsay....

Regardless of how this portion of the debate plays out....why in the world should this completely innocent man have to prove a thing to anyone. It is my understanding, and a bedrock of our entire system of jurisprudence, that any burden of proof rests with the government, not the accused....

It seems instead that since a decent sum of money is at stake for the government to take from a completely innocent man, that these principles are without merit.

DK, I suspect I am familiar with your source for this issue, and agree both whole heartedly with you and with my favorite agitator. In essence, we all, at probably every waking moment of our lives are guilty, or in the commision of, or conspiring to committ, some offense, and subject to the will of the government, for sanctions, forfietures, siezures, home invasions, executions, suspensions of constitutionally gauranteed rights, and even though the notion of MY government granting ME ~privledges~ of any sort is beyond my comprehension, the curtailing of said privledges.

~shuddering,~

-bear

samcol · 08-21-2006, 06:30 PM

This is pretty disgusting. No charges or conviction, but we're still taking your money. Remember the burden of proof is on accused not the government.

Quote:

"look, maybe your story is true, but you haven't proven it"

Sorry, that's tyranny right there. Free countries are 180 degrees from what you just said. It's supposed to be, "look maybe you're guilty of drug dealing, but we're giving you the money back because we can't prove it."

j8ear · 08-21-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

...Remember the burden of proof is on accused not the government.

....that's tyranny right there....

I like the way you think

-b-

smooth · 08-21-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Regardless of how this portion of the debate plays out....why in the world should this completely innocent man have to prove a thing to anyone. It is my understanding, and a bedrock of our entire system of jurisprudence, that any burden of proof rests with the government, not the accused....

-bear

I keep reading references to standards of proof that lead me to believe that a number of you are not making adequate distinction between civil proceedings and criminal ones.

This practice, of seizing assets, has been around for almost a decade. It's a civil proceeding, as are civil gang injunctions. My friend researches the latter, and we both see these types of proceedures as end-arounds to "flip" suspected criminals into the less protected domain of the civil court systems.

So if that means that narco-traffickers get their bling jacked and bangers can't hang at the local parks, it also means that ordinarily law abiding people need to pay particular attention to their conduct to not be swept up in a net they demanded be employed.

These public policies were reponses to a public demand during the hayday of public outcry about a (mythical) lenient criminal justice system. They were implemented over and above the objections of experts. Crime touches people in both tangible and gut level ways--and it often results in public responses that have no basis in sound responses that have been tested empirically.

Civil forfeiture, gang injunctions, 3 strikes, measure 11, mandatory minimum sentences, the new spate of anti-sex crime legislation that was until recently trumpeted as necessary and sufficient to address molestations, STEPping gang members, extending the RICO Act to gang members and drug traffickers (not to mention the empirically debunked link between traditional street gangs and narcotic trafficking) are all products of public hysteria over problems that either don't exist to the extent believed or produce much worse consequences than they hope to resolve.

BOTTOM LINE: public pressure on government to successfully prosecute drug traffickers, and failing that to at least disrupt their ability to conduct business as usual, created a situation that might possibly entangle law-abiding citizens...so don't moan about tyrannical government entities when they are merely responding to the demands of the people...

...and as someone who's been there and done "that," his story sounds like horseshit. but I don't begrudge him from trying and if he can muster up enough BS to win his money back all the power to him.

j8ear · 08-21-2006, 07:45 PM

Hey smooth, long time no read...good to see you again.

I must admit I completely agree with your analysis, particularly the typically over reaching over reaction of the system to deal with a problem (mythical or not).

While your certainly more qualified to address the civil vs. criminal issues presented, I still see this as a criminal matter.

An anology if you'll indulge me. Some states, perhaps even most states, suspend your driving "privledge" ~shuddering~ immediately upon arrest for driving under the influence. If the matter is adjudicated without a conviction your driving privledges does not remain suspended until you can prove you actually weren't driving under the influence. Do they? Is carring around large sums of cash even a "privledge" subject to suspension.

It seems as of this current appeals court decision that it is indeed, and that the punishment can be doled out regardless of how the criminal proceeding is adjudicated!

Additionally, while I'll grant you that the story is less then unimpeachable regarding the source of the cash, the sounds and smells of 'the story' are not sufficient in my opinion for the government to keep their loot.

Of course the law and I differ on many issues.

-bear

smooth · 08-21-2006, 08:17 PM

DAMN IT! my post was erased...

here's the rundown:
hi old buddy, thanks for the welcome, nice to see you too
your analogy is correct. but yes, you do have to prove you aren't intoxicated or you're screwed. Walk the line and blow/test clean or you're through. refuse to blow in the tube and it's auto suspend--no trial necessary

I agree with you that these types of things are criminal in nature. and in case I didn't make it clear enough, my friend and I think these types of things are just end-arounds to the traditional protections afforded criminally accused. don't like it personally, but people are happy when the dope doesn't get bought and sold, and they're upset when they are confronted with the implementation of their idea that criminals should be hooked and booked without regard for their "rights" (rights? what rights? what about "victims'" rights? ...see, this isn't a new mantra)

but the direct answer to your question, I think, should be that if you are compelled to drive around with a hundred grand, packed in foil, hidden in a cooler, stuffed in a trunk of a rental car in someone ele's name, then:

a) don't lie about it to the cops
OR
b) given that you didn't follow a), don't grant the cops consent to search the car for fuck's sake

Marvelous Marv · 08-21-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If you read the decision, you'll see that the court left the door open to further evidence that this is legitimately Mr. Gonzales' money. In fact, they've ordered exactly that. Currently, the court is, to again paraphrase, saying that "you know what, you and your two buddies just saying that this is money for a truck isn't good enough. Please show us some more proof."

I didn't see where they said "please." They said "We're keeping your money until you prove you don't sell drugs." Proving a negative ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Critisize them for making a judgement decision, but saying that it's now illegal to walk around with large amounts of cash is a complete misstatement of the facts of the case. The court made no such decision, and you're welcome to walk around with any amount that you deem safe to carry. If you can prove how you got it (paycheck stubs, record of inheritance, receipts, etc.), you don't have a problem. If you can't, it is a very reasonable assumption that it's drug money.

So anyone who has what you call a large sum of money is automatically a drug suspect, unless they can provide a story that satisfies everyone? No evidence of drug activity necessary?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

There is no conviction. There are no charges.

There is no EVIDENCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As far as the "gut instinct" comment, again, that is the basis of the judcial system. Both sides present their side of the case and someone, whether it is the jury or a judge, goes with their "gut instict" on which version is closest to the truth. Sorry if you don't agree - move to Cuba. I hear their judcial system is much more to your liking.

Actually, it seems to resemble YOUR preference much more. No messy charges, convictions, or any of that other nonsense.

host · 08-21-2006, 08:32 PM

So, we get a whole thread devoted to this "taking of cash without due process", but I've seen no argument on this forum, concerning the following, which could amount to the "whole ball game", as far as how it is passed into "law".

The judge advocates of the various branches of the US military, ironically, seem more vocal about preserving the tattered remnants of individual constitutional rights, than the horror show that has morphed out of the US DOJ, and calls itself the "attorney general". An earlier poster here was talking about killing in response to the illegal seizure of money.

What then, is the correct response to attempts to make the illegal seizure of citizens, and unconstituional trials, or indefinite detention with no trial at all, the law of the land?

Quote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0804/dailyUpdate.html
Terrorism & Security
posted August 4, 2006 at 12:00 p.m.
Top military lawyers oppose Bush plan
White House proposal would dramatically expand military court powers
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Top US military lawyers, in a moment of "rare, open disagreement" with the civilian administration, told a Senate hearing this week that they do not agree with key provisions of a draft Bush administration plan for special military courts. The Washington Post reports that the military lawyers said they do not see "eye to eye with the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/02/AR2006080201652.html">senior Bush administration political appointees</a> who developed the plan and presented it to them last week." They worry that the new plan – designed to replace one struck down by the US Supreme Court – would place US servicemen and women in jeopardy around the world.

"The United States should be an example to the world, sir," Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, judge advocate general of the Army, told Sen. Russell Feingold (D) of Wisconsin at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "Reciprocity is something that weighs heavily in all of the discussions that we are undertaking as we develop the process and rules for the commissions, and that's the exact reason, sir. The treatment of soldiers who will be captured on future battlefields is of paramount concern."

The Post also reports that the <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/PostHamdan.Bush.Draft.pdf">draft plan</a> would give military courts the right to try people who are not connected with the Taliban and Al Qaeda and who are not "directly involved with acts of international terrorism." The new plan would allow the Secretary of Defense <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html">"to add crimes at will</a> to those under the military court's jurisdiction."

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

The military lawyers also objected to the provision that would allow a judge to give classified evidence to a defendant's military lawyers, but not to the defendant himself, and to the provision that evidence obtained the admission of evidence obtained under coercive interrogations. "Sir, I don't believe that a statement that is obtained under coercive – under torture, certainly, and under coercive measures should be admissible," [Maj. Gen. Black] told Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

The Associated Press reports that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1154602541302090.xml&coll=2">held the administration's "hard line"</a> when he appeared in front of a Senate panel later in the day.

"We must not share with captured terrorists the highly sensitive intelligence that may be relevant to military commission proceedings," Gonzales told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Gonzales said detainee legislation also should permit hearsay and coerced testimony, if deemed "reliable" by a judge. These approaches are not permitted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, which is used for military courts-martial.

United Press International reports that Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060803-095342-6333r.htm">took exception</a> to Mr. Gonzalez's comments about the use of coercive evidence. "I think that if you practice illegal, inhumane treatment and allow that to be admissible in court, [said McCain] that would be a radical departure from any practice that this nation" has used before.

Gonzalez also confirmed a Washington Post story that the White House plans to include language in the final form of the law that would "protect service personnel and civilians from domestic war-crimes prosecutions for any violations of the international laws of war that are committed under administration policies that have been withdrawn or ruled illegal."

An editorial in the ContraCosta Times of California argues that the plan would pose <a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/15196748.htm">a direct threat to the liberty of Americans</a> in ways that go beyond concerns about wiretapping phones or tracing phone calls.

Legal experts say [the plan] could authorize the military to detain indefinitely US citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks. Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force judge advocate, went even further. He said the broad definition of enemy combatant could include US citizens who are loosely suspected of terrorist ties. Such a person would lose all the rights of a civilian court ...

Any detention bill must be far more narrowly drawn to include only enemy combatants who are caught on a battlefield during armed conflict. Even they should be subject to proper military justice. No law should pose a threat to anyone in this country who might be suspected of being tied to a terror group. We trust that there are enough patriots in Congress to kill a measure that insults all freedom-loving Americans.

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206672,00.html

.....Military lawyers testifying before the panel agreed with Specter that Congress should make clear who should be tried by military commission. They also said coerced statements should not be admissible in court.......

Quote:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11
Aug 3, 12:00 PM EDT

Gonzales Pushes Lenient Hearsay Rules

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer

........Gonzales said detainee legislation also should permit hearsay and coerced testimony, if deemed "reliable" by a judge. These approaches are not permitted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, which is used for military courts-martial.

The administration's plans have sounded alarms in the military's legal corps and on Capitol Hill, who say the UCMJ is a tried-and-true body of law that is well-regarded around the world.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning, prior to Gonzales' remarks, the services' judge advocates general - their top uniformed legal officers - said they would not support passing a law that would bar defendants from accessing evidence, which is considered a fundamental right in civilian and military courts.

GOP senators who have been negotiating a final legislative proposal with the administration said they, too, were unconvinced the administration's position was sound.

"We haven't reached a final decision on how we're going to handle it," but it is important to have "this statute be able to survive any subsequent federal court review process," said Sen. John W. Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said he opposes withholding evidence because of the dangerous precedent it sets.

"If the only way we can try this terrorist is to disclose classified information, and we can't share it with the accused, I would argue, <b>don't do the trial. Just keep them.</b> Because it could come back to haunt us," said Graham, R-S.C.........

Read the last sentence again...Sen. Graham sez,
<h3>"don't do the trial. Just keep them"....</h3>

Mephisto2 · 08-21-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

not really, at least not as easy as you would think.

say I have been saving money for years, just not in the bank. Should I be found with that money years later, i'll be suspected of drug trafficking and have no real way of showing that money rightfully belongs to me.

Absolutely not.

You simply show that you were employed. If you had a salary of say $50,000 over ten years, and you had a suitcase full of $1,000,000 then something is amiss. If you had a suitcase full of... say, $60,000 then you could be OK; its entirely possible you saved $1,000 a month for five years.

Quote:

This is yet one more step in the slippery slope of the citizens becoming servants of the government instead of the other way around.

Well, to be honest, I'm in two minds. If it's just a judge deciding this on their own, then I would have a problem with it. If it's due process, following established legislation enacted by the elected representatives of the people (ie, Parliament or Congress in the US I believe), then I have no problem with it.

Mr Mephisto

dksuddeth · 08-22-2006, 04:14 AM

seems that there are two schools of thought with this process. There are those who remember that the justice system is supposed to be 'innocent until proven guilty' with the burden of proof upon the government and there are those who seem quite comfortable with placing their trust and faith in a government that considers all parties guilty until they can prove they aren't.

I hate to sound like Michael Moore, but 'dude, wheres my country?'

nobody should HAVE to prove that they came by their money legitimately. It should ALWAYS have to be proven by the government that you got it illegally. Forcing the individual to prove their innocence is allowing the government to be lackadaisical in their duties and providing them with more power over YOU.

samcol · 08-22-2006, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

nobody should HAVE to prove that they came by their money legitimately. It should ALWAYS have to be proven by the government that you got it illegally. Forcing the individual to prove their innocence is allowing the government to be lackadaisical in their duties and providing them with more power over YOU.

That's exactly right. It doesn't matter if this guy got it through drug trafficking or not. A government that is willing to subvert the basic principal of 'innocent until proven guilty" is far more dangerous to society than a drug dealer.

smooth · 08-22-2006, 05:35 AM

well, it's nice that you feel that way. but unfortunately very few others seem to. BUT, it just puzzles me that you "discover" these little tidbits from time to time and post them as new developments. I just wish you'd do some legwork before posting inflammatory headers and day to day proceedings as if they are revelations. I just personally think it would help your case if you'd do some rudimentary research and post something along the lines of:

hey tfp, I've been looking at the development of asset seizure legislation and it's expansion to encroach upon what I view as fundamental protections of citizen property. I realize the current legislation, enacted almost a decade ago, was spurred by public sentiment to do something, anything, about narcotics trafficking, but it just doesn't seem to balance this notion of rights of citizens versus ability to apprehend criminals and/or circumvent their behavior for me.

and then propose what you would do in place of asset forfeiture to address the reality that it's more often than not difficult (some might argue even impossible) to adequately stop narcotic crime under a more traditional understanding of how the justice system should work.

if you thought this out more extensively, my hope would be that you would begin to form consistent opinions across the board. and by that I mean I would like to see you examine your thoughts regarding "victims rights" vs. those of the accused and stuffs like that. I'm not downing you, I just think I'd be more interested in the conversation if it went along these lines.

in any case, I dug this up for you and figured that, given your interest in the history of things, you'd like to know the roots of the 2000 reform act that these forfeitures currently operate under:

Quote:

Civil Forfeiture’s Dubious Legal Pedigree

How did such laws come to be viewed as compatible with the Constitution’s guarantees of due process and a fair trial?

In pre-Civil War America, as under English common law, civil forfeiture proceedings were used only to enforce customs laws and admiralty laws against piracy. Because criminal convictions of smugglers and pirates who were outside the jurisdiction of domestic courts were unlikely, the government cleverly devised the legal fiction of in rem civil suits, by which it could sue things rather than their owners. This allowed it to confiscate and liquidate smuggled goods, pirate loot or suspect ships without the burden of having to prove the criminal intent of a ship’s owner. And since the suits were civil rather than criminal, they were held to be exempt from the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

The scope of civil forfeiture widened significantly during the Civil War with passage of the 1861 Confiscation Acts, which authorized the seizure of property owned by Confederates and their abettors. Challenged on constitutional grounds, the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Acts’ suspension of due process was a legitimate exercise of war power.

Encouraged by the Court, Congress soon expanded civil forfeiture to enforce revenue provisions unrelated to traditional civil forfeiture concerns. In the precedent-setting case Dobbins’s Distillery v. United States (1877), the Court upheld the civil forfeiture of a distillery for liquor-tax violations, arguing that any “conviction of the wrongdoer must be obtained, if at all, in another and wholly independent proceeding.” Thus, the Court established that any kind of property - personal or real - is subject to civil forfeiture so long as the government labels its enforcement actions “civil” rather than “criminal.”

An entire century passed before the Court stepped completely through the doorway it had entered in the Confiscation Act cases and Dobbins’s. In Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (1974), the Court dropped the presumption-of-innocence principle and placed the burden of proof on the defendant, thus encouraging Congress to write the controversial civil forfeiture provisions in the 1988 Drug Act.

-- http://www.independent.org/publicati...e=summary&id=3

The_Dunedan · 08-22-2006, 07:25 AM

That's the thing. Assett Forfeture has been around for about twenty years now; Republicrat administrations have been cheering it on the whole time. The BATF&E was quite notorious for it, as were the State PD's of several southern states plus MA IIRC.

And no, you can't generally get the money/car/house back. People have lost multi-million-dollar properties and been told that their house had been convicted of a crime and was therefore being confiscated. The nominal excuse these days is "drug crime;"
"Only a drug dealer would carry this much cash! I'm keeping it, this car, and we'll be sending people to Posess your house."
And since over 80% of all currency in the US is contaminated with traces of Cocaine, all the Ossifer has to do is bring a dog and BANG! Instant proof it's drug money.

dksuddeth · 08-22-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

well, it's nice that you feel that way. but unfortunately very few others seem to. BUT, it just puzzles me that you "discover" these little tidbits from time to time and post them as new developments. I just wish you'd do some legwork before posting inflammatory headers and day to day proceedings as if they are revelations. I just personally think it would help your case if you'd do some rudimentary research and post something along the lines of:

hey tfp, I've been looking at the development of asset seizure legislation and it's expansion to encroach upon what I view as fundamental protections of citizen property. I realize the current legislation, enacted almost a decade ago, was spurred by public sentiment to do something, anything, about narcotics trafficking, but it just doesn't seem to balance this notion of rights of citizens versus ability to apprehend criminals and/or circumvent their behavior for me.

and then propose what you would do in place of asset forfeiture to address the reality that it's more often than not difficult (some might argue even impossible) to adequately stop narcotic crime under a more traditional understanding of how the justice system should work.

if you thought this out more extensively, my hope would be that you would begin to form consistent opinions across the board. and by that I mean I would like to see you examine your thoughts regarding "victims rights" vs. those of the accused and stuffs like that. I'm not downing you, I just think I'd be more interested in the conversation if it went along these lines.

in any case, I dug this up for you and figured that, given your interest in the history of things, you'd like to know the roots of the 2000 reform act that these forfeitures currently operate under:

-- http://www.independent.org/publicati...e=summary&id=3

Smooth, I thank you for your input and your legwork. While my inflammatory postings and revelations seem less interesting to you, as well as others, they are interesting to at least a few people here. Now, that's not to say that I don't care how you perceive my postings or thoughts, but I don't post on here to attract just your interest, merely to express my thoughts and opinions on the matter. My postings aren't 'revelations', although they come accross that way, but I feel that by letting some of these continuing abridgements of civil rights slide step by step, then people will look at these cases and say 'eh, just another forfeiture case, no big deal'. This does nothing but turn the heat up on the slowly cooking frog. I want to snap people out of the mind set that things have precedence and therefore must be constitutional.

smooth · 08-22-2006, 10:06 AM

well, by all means, carry on then...

however, when you title something like "it is now..." that is, surprise, framing your position as a discovery, a revelation of something new. something that didn't exist before.

I do find it a bummer that you don't really care about my interest level because I feel and have been told by a fair number of members that my participation is interesting and desired. you might have been one of those people in a galaxy far far away.

why the hell am I going into this with you...
it's taken me all night to catch up on the bullshit that's been fuming around this site while I've been gone and I merely meant to reply that I only wish I had read those before this one so I could have spared myself the waste of time of attempting to participate and actually give you a constructive example of how I would have framed the issue myself--and in my opinion, would have generated a higher level of discussion than your typical beef with people who don't agree with you that we aren't worried enough about the state of our nation...on the basis that you just found out about something you view as an erosion of rights that a number of us have known about for some time.

Ustwo · 08-22-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Hooray for court sanctioned robbery.

Oh I thought this would be about the IRS

That article seems very biased in its writing. Reading that I thought the whole thing was insane but I never trust one story as the truth. Jazz's posts sort of summed up what I thought was going on.

It seems that the money is most likely drug related. No one, even a Mexican (and there is implied racism here on the part of the article) is stupid enough to think you should travel with 120k in cash to buy a truck.

Now the question is do you have the right to carry around large sums you can not account for? Being mostly libertarian in viewpoint I'd say yes, but since no one really has money, we just get to barrow it from the government, they may as well set rules on what you can carry as well.

I don't like it, but as long as we have decided that we can take money from some people to give to other people a national policy, I can't see this being over turned.

Deltona Couple · 08-22-2006, 10:20 AM

I am begining to ask "what next?" I mean from here, it seems like the next thing you know, If I am heading down to the gun range, but only have my pistol, and a box of amunition, then a police officer pulling me over might have me arrested because I MIGHT be heading out to commit a crime with my pistol, since I lacked having targets in my car. Then an overconcerned Judge may ask me, what range I was going to:
"I am headed to Rick's gun range"
And did Rick know you were coming?
"Well, no, I didn't call for an apointment"
Then how do I know you were actually headed to a range, and not to a bank or other place to commit a crime?
"Because I told you?"
Not good enough! *raps gavel* Take away the pistol, and sentence him to 2 years for the possibility that he MIGHT have been headed to commit a crime!

I see us heading this direction....Anybody ever seen "Minority Report"?

(OK, I know its a little far fetched, but if you look at history, all it takes is the first step, then things get CRAZY!)

j8ear · 08-22-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I want to snap people out of the mind set that things have precedence and therefore must be constitutional.

I'd like to piggy back on this notion if I may. It seems, especially recently with two SCOTUS confirmation hearings and lots of talk about the principle of stare decisis (latin for: to stand by that which is decided) that this gets lost in some some mythical reverence for a principle for no other reason that it is written in Latin???

I submit, purely from observation, that because of the principle of stare decisis, that there is no issue which would not be decided in favor of the government or in favor of curtailing the people's rights.

Here are some notable exceptions:

1. Interstate commerce can include activity which is neither interstate or commercial in nature.

2. Public purpose for need of imminent domain reasoning can include the redistribution of property from one private entity to another private entity based on the reasoning that the larger tax revenues possibly generated by the new private entity is a public purpose.

3. The notion of "compelling government interest" (even when claimed on the flimsiest of evidence) seems to trump every constitutionally gauranteed right.

4. Political speech can be curtailed simply because the people attempt to hold elected incumbants accountable.

Essentially I believe that no matter what the constitution gaurantees, if this interfere's with the government's ability to do what ever it wants, those gaurantees are tossed aside.

Smooth, you are right, we get the government we deserve as we vote for who it contains. Unfortunately for us, the foolish decisions we have made, the excpetions we have permitted and the unaccountability we have created, are in my opinion beyond reversal. Particularly since the very people we have elected, have done many things not in the interest of the people they serve, but in their own egotistical self preserving interest.

Imagine someone like Senator Kennedy, elected with out qualification or accomplishment, except for perhaps name recognition, and unimaginable inherited wealth, bestowed by the election with even more wealth, semi-celebrity status, and more then likely unaccountable for his own disgusting moral lapses, being lauded by the intelligensia as someone who has dedicated his life to the public good by virtue of his life long sacrifice. This notion freightens me.

Were do we draw the line? Since it has been happening for decades, perhaps even centuries, does that make it right? Are we beyond the point of no return? Is a revolution the only way to take back our freedoms? Are we no longer allowed to feel revulsion or express dissent because this is "nothing new?" Is a straw which breaks the camel's back a point which has no validity?

DK, I appreciate your postings, and frankly applaud your enthusiasm. Please keep up the good work.

As a quick reiteration of ~my~ opinion, regardless of precendent, compelling government interest, immigration status, the needs of a tightly budgeted law enforcement agency, or the sounds and smells of his story, taking this completely innocent man's money is theft. IT is theft of the worse kind because it is the government stealing from the people.

-bear

filtherton · 08-22-2006, 11:11 AM

It seems to me like this is exactly the type of thing we should be afraid of when we decide that the ends justify the means concerning matters of civil rights and safety/security. Those who would sacrifice liberty and all that. Once the precedent is set you just might happen to be fucked if you find yourself on the wrong side of the authorities' desires. For instance, these siezure priveliges sometimes are a big hit in underfunded police departments. Guess who gets the confiscated property?

dksuddeth · 08-22-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I do find it a bummer that you don't really care about my interest level because I feel and have been told by a fair number of members that my participation is interesting and desired. you might have been one of those people in a galaxy far far away.

Maybe you have misunderstood my statement. I didn't say I don't care about your interest level, just that my posts aren't meant to interest only you.

Quote:

why the hell am I going into this with you...
it's taken me all night to catch up on the bullshit that's been fuming around this site while I've been gone and I merely meant to reply that I only wish I had read those before this one so I could have spared myself the waste of time of attempting to participate and actually give you a constructive example of how I would have framed the issue myself--and in my opinion, would have generated a higher level of discussion than your typical beef with people who don't agree with you that we aren't worried enough about the state of our nation...on the basis that you just found out about something you view as an erosion of rights that a number of us have known about for some time.

again, I meant nothing disparaging with regards to my posts and your interest level or the relationship between the two. I thank you for the constructive criticism.

I just wanted to point out one thing in this decision, since the district court found for the defendent, yet the circuit court ruled against him.

Quote:

The district court’s opinion includes no finding as to the credibility of Gonzolez and the other two claimants. The court did observe that the explanations of the claimants were “plausible and consistent,” but this is different from a finding that the court actually believed the testimony.

Now, is there a different definition for 'plausible and consistent' when going from the district court to the circuit court?

Mephisto2 · 08-22-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

nobody should HAVE to prove that they came by their money legitimately. It should ALWAYS have to be proven by the government that you got it illegally. Forcing the individual to prove their innocence is allowing the government to be lackadaisical in their duties and providing them with more power over YOU.

As I said above, they absolutely SHOULD have to prove the money and assets are legally theirs, if the country has laws that require it. It's a well known, and rather common, anti-organized crime measure.

But letting a judge decide that on a whim seems a bit tenuous to me.

Mr Mephisto

magictoy · 08-23-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

I am begining to ask "what next?" I mean from here, it seems like the next thing you know, If I am heading down to the gun range, but only have my pistol, and a box of amunition, then a police officer pulling me over might have me arrested because I MIGHT be heading out to commit a crime with my pistol, since I lacked having targets in my car. Then an overconcerned Judge may ask me, what range I was going to:
"I am headed to Rick's gun range"
And did Rick know you were coming?
"Well, no, I didn't call for an apointment"
Then how do I know you were actually headed to a range, and not to a bank or other place to commit a crime?
"Because I told you?"
Not good enough! *raps gavel* Take away the pistol, and sentence him to 2 years for the possibility that he MIGHT have been headed to commit a crime!

I see us heading this direction....Anybody ever seen "Minority Report"?

(OK, I know its a little far fetched, but if you look at history, all it takes is the first step, then things get CRAZY!)

I was thinking along the same lines--"That's an expensive car you're driving, Missy. You must be a prostitute! Get into the back of my vehicle..."

And nice post, j8ear.

dksuddeth · 08-24-2006, 08:24 AM

But it continues all over the country....here is another case.

state supreme court rules to confiscate and destroy 500 CD's even though state failed to prove they were illegal

Quote:

The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.

Cohen was arrested for attempting to sell bootleg recordings. But the police case collapsed when it turned out that most of the recordings were made legally. Police dropped six of the seven charges, and Cohen went to trial on one charge. He beat it after the judge concluded that the recording was legal.

However, the police refused to return Cohen’s CDs. In the state Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, Chief Justice John Broderick, writing for the majority, reasoned so poorly that it appeared as if he’d made up his mind ahead of time.

Dissenting, Justice Linda Dalianis wrote, perceptively, that “the majority does not explain how statutes prohibiting the production, publication, or sale of certain works render possession of such works unlawful.”

Further, Dalianis concluded that “the state’s failure to establish in any way that the seized property constitutes contraband” made it impossible to justify keeping Cohen’s property.

Indeed, the majority’s reasoning is chilling. The majority concedes that no crime or illegal act was proven, but allows the confiscation anyway by concluding that a crime might have been committed. The majority used words such as “apparently,” “likely” and “would have” to describe the alleged illegal activity.

It should go without saying that speculation by a few judges that a crime might have been committed is a frightening basis for taking someone’s property.

Earlier this year, Nashua police confiscated video recordings of two officers being rude to a citizen at his own home. Though police dropped all charges against Michael Gannon and admitted they could not prove the recordings were illegal, they still kept the tapes.

If someone is found with cocaine or any other item clearly illegal to possess, confiscation is easily justified. But the illegality of these items was never proven, and mere possession was not itself illegal.

If the government can seize and keep a citizen’s property by simply asserting that it is contraband, even when the assertion is unsupported by the facts, then we have entered into dangerous territory.

I repeat, how much further do we need to go down that slope?

kutulu · 10-23-2007, 08:19 AM

They can also take your money if you have it in a safe:

Quote:

A dozen FBI agents stormed the warehouse and took a computer hard drive and a memory chip from a digital camera system, as well as $2 million in cash that was inside a safe, reported CNN affiliate KLAS in Las Vegas, citing a source close to the investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/1...obe/index.html

They are investigating a rape accusation. How is $2M cash relevant evidence?

The_Jazz · 10-24-2007, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

They can also take your money if you have it in a safe:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/1...obe/index.html

They are investigating a rape accusation. How is $2M cash relevant evidence?

If the warrant mentioned the contents of the safe, it's relevant. We don't know what else was in the safe - perhaps pictures of the alleged rape? (yeah, I know, probably not)

I'm sure he'll be able to petition for the return of the case and have that request granted relatively easily, especially that he'll be able to show where it came from with relative ease along with the necessity for it - traveling extensively in foreign countries as a performer.

fastom · 10-24-2007, 11:37 AM

The Dave Copperfield deal is criminal but not on his part.

It's all just part of the process to become a police state.

Anybody who frequently crosses the border or flies has gotten used to the intrusions, what's a few more?

It's nothing that George Orwell didn't warn us of.

Plan9 · 10-24-2007, 06:11 PM

Good thing I'm a broke OEF/OIF vet!

I don't register on their harass-dar.

loganmule · 10-27-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I keep reading references to standards of proof that lead me to believe that a number of you are not making adequate distinction between civil proceedings and criminal ones.

This practice, of seizing assets, has been around for almost a decade. It's a civil proceeding, as are civil gang injunctions. My friend researches the latter, and we both see these types of proceedures as end-arounds to "flip" suspected criminals into the less protected domain of the civil court systems.

So if that means that narco-traffickers get their bling jacked and bangers can't hang at the local parks, it also means that ordinarily law abiding people need to pay particular attention to their conduct to not be swept up in a net they demanded be employed.

These public policies were reponses to a public demand during the hayday of public outcry about a (mythical) lenient criminal justice system. They were implemented over and above the objections of experts. Crime touches people in both tangible and gut level ways--and it often results in public responses that have no basis in sound responses that have been tested empirically.

Civil forfeiture, gang injunctions, 3 strikes, measure 11, mandatory minimum sentences, the new spate of anti-sex crime legislation that was until recently trumpeted as necessary and sufficient to address molestations, STEPping gang members, extending the RICO Act to gang members and drug traffickers (not to mention the empirically debunked link between traditional street gangs and narcotic trafficking) are all products of public hysteria over problems that either don't exist to the extent believed or produce much worse consequences than they hope to resolve.

BOTTOM LINE: public pressure on government to successfully prosecute drug traffickers, and failing that to at least disrupt their ability to conduct business as usual, created a situation that might possibly entangle law-abiding citizens...so don't moan about tyrannical government entities when they are merely responding to the demands of the people...

...and as someone who's been there and done "that," his story sounds like horseshit. but I don't begrudge him from trying and if he can muster up enough BS to win his money back all the power to him.

Smooth, this and your other posts do a good job of covering the waterfront on this issue. I have just a few thoughts to add:

1. If the guy had refused to consent to a search, the speeding offense probably would have been converted into a reckless driving charge or other offense requiring that he be taken into custody. Then, of course, to "protect" the guys's property, there would have been a search of the vehicle when it was impounded and the money would have been legally discovered anyway.

2. What bugs me most about this isn't the big picture (albeit admittedly it's problematic here to strike a balance between individual property rights and government interests in a way that will satisfy everybody), it is that the Court of Appeals, under the rubic of "mixed question of law and fact", uses a de novo standard of review, and in so doing, gives lip service to a "clear error" standard as to predicate facts, but then doesn't apply it. The dissent properly points out that no evidence was admitted to dispute claimants' plausible explanation of the situation, which the District Court obviously accepted. It is one thing to disagree, and another to find that the explanation was "clear error" on the part or the District Court, which had the benefit of weighing the credibility of the witnesses.

This has happened too much in my experience, and even where the result was to my advantage, it creates confusion and unpredictability in attempting to ascertain potential outcomes of cases in our legal system.

08-21-2006, 12:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Let's all remember that this decision is appealable and the Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't necessarily have the final say in the matter. Having read the entire decision (thanks for that dk), I'm inclined more towards the government than I was after reading the internet article. Basically, the appeals court said that they don't believe the plaintiff and that his story doesn't make sense. They also point out that their disbelief is the difference between their opinion and that of the lower court. Apparently Mr. Gonzolez never produced the guy who told him that it was bad to fly with more than $10,000 cash, the guy that rented him the car, the guy who he was going to buy the truck from, or the guy who was going to help him buy the truck (interestingly enough he couldn't remember this "friend's" name). The verdict sums it up nicely with "This testimony does not inspire confidence in the innocence of the conduct." (page 7) They basically said that his story was plausible but unlikely. If you read the entire decision, you might end up with a different opinion than what the reporter would have you think initially. Oh yeah, they also remanded it for further proceedings, meaning that they want more information and testimony from everyone involved, including Mr. Gonzolez. And will, I don't think the cops did anything wrong here at all. The prosecutors may have (should Mr. Gonzolez prove his case), but I don't see how the cops could be blamed at all since their job ended once he was in custody. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-21-2006, 01:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Silly me. I was taught that to get convicted, one had to have the government provide factual evidence instead of judges using 'common sense' to decide whether or not a person ought to be believed. This ruling takes the rule of law away from justice to the defendant and places guilt or innocence in the hands of judges that use their 'gut instincts' instead of facts. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

08-21-2006, 01:47 PM	#6 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	This is another disturbing example of big government out of control. It is interesting to me that the failed war on drugs has been a real threat to our civil liberties, but most us spend more time worrying about telephone calls to terrorists. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

08-21-2006, 07:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Hey smooth, long time no read...good to see you again. I must admit I completely agree with your analysis, particularly the typically over reaching over reaction of the system to deal with a problem (mythical or not). While your certainly more qualified to address the civil vs. criminal issues presented, I still see this as a criminal matter. An anology if you'll indulge me. Some states, perhaps even most states, suspend your driving "privledge" ~shuddering~ immediately upon arrest for driving under the influence. If the matter is adjudicated without a conviction your driving privledges does not remain suspended until you can prove you actually weren't driving under the influence. Do they? Is carring around large sums of cash even a "privledge" subject to suspension. It seems as of this current appeals court decision that it is indeed, and that the punishment can be doled out regardless of how the criminal proceeding is adjudicated! Additionally, while I'll grant you that the story is less then unimpeachable regarding the source of the cash, the sounds and smells of 'the story' are not sufficient in my opinion for the government to keep their loot. Of course the law and I differ on many issues. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-21-2006, 08:17 PM	#16 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	DAMN IT! my post was erased... here's the rundown: hi old buddy, thanks for the welcome, nice to see you too your analogy is correct. but yes, you do have to prove you aren't intoxicated or you're screwed. Walk the line and blow/test clean or you're through. refuse to blow in the tube and it's auto suspend--no trial necessary I agree with you that these types of things are criminal in nature. and in case I didn't make it clear enough, my friend and I think these types of things are just end-arounds to the traditional protections afforded criminally accused. don't like it personally, but people are happy when the dope doesn't get bought and sold, and they're upset when they are confronted with the implementation of their idea that criminals should be hooked and booked without regard for their "rights" (rights? what rights? what about "victims'" rights? ...see, this isn't a new mantra) but the direct answer to your question, I think, should be that if you are compelled to drive around with a hundred grand, packed in foil, hidden in a cooler, stuffed in a trunk of a rental car in someone ele's name, then: a) don't lie about it to the cops OR b) given that you didn't follow a), don't grant the cops consent to search the car for fuck's sake __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-21-2006, 12:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
Plaid13 I want a Plaid crayon	LoL Thats just bad. If a cop or police department tried to take money from me just because there was alot of it... if i couldnt find a legal way to get it all back i think it would just be time to go on a killing spree. If the system dosnt work all the way it dosnt work at all. From what i have seen... the system dosnt work at all. The court system the law system and the prison system are all a total joke. the second i heard that killing someone by shooting them from a moving car is a lesser crime then if the car comes to a stop then you shoot them i realized its all pethetic.

08-21-2006, 12:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Wait, how can they do that? If something legal is confiscated for trial (presumabally to be used as evidence), then it is released upon proof of innocence. If someone ISN'T EVEN CHARGED, then the property is returned immediatally. If it isn't returned, it is theft. The thing is, the article doesn't say that the cash wasn't reutrned. This seems more a case of an overzealous police officer bringing someone in without evidence of illegal activities. The police officer should be trained better, and Mr. Gonzolez should be allowed to continue his trek with his money.

08-21-2006, 02:05 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Initially I thought that this was crazy. But then I stopped and thought about it a bit more. I realized that it's no different to the powers the CAB or Criminal Asset Bureau has in Ireland. This body was created to combat organized crime in Ireland after a well known crime reporter was murdered because of the stories she was writing. There was public outrage and the government passed several anti-organized crime steps. The CAB has the power to seize property, assets and cash on the basis of suspicion of criminal activity. It is then incumbent on the original owner to prove they were acquired legally. This has helped address the bizarre past situations of "poor" and "unemployed" people driving around in BMW's and owning several houses. The gangsters in Ireland are now a lot more careful in flashing their money around, as it will otherwise be quickly confiscated. It's worked well, and seems like a good idea to me. I admit the above case is presented in such a way as to engender sympathy for Gonzolez, but if the cash is not the proceeds of crime then he should be able to prove it pretty easily. Mr Mephisto

08-22-2006, 04:14 AM	#20 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	seems that there are two schools of thought with this process. There are those who remember that the justice system is supposed to be 'innocent until proven guilty' with the burden of proof upon the government and there are those who seem quite comfortable with placing their trust and faith in a government that considers all parties guilty until they can prove they aren't. I hate to sound like Michael Moore, but 'dude, wheres my country?' nobody should HAVE to prove that they came by their money legitimately. It should ALWAYS have to be proven by the government that you got it illegally. Forcing the individual to prove their innocence is allowing the government to be lackadaisical in their duties and providing them with more power over YOU. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

08-22-2006, 07:25 AM	#23 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	That's the thing. Assett Forfeture has been around for about twenty years now; Republicrat administrations have been cheering it on the whole time. The BATF&E was quite notorious for it, as were the State PD's of several southern states plus MA IIRC. And no, you can't generally get the money/car/house back. People have lost multi-million-dollar properties and been told that their house had been convicted of a crime and was therefore being confiscated. The nominal excuse these days is "drug crime;" "Only a drug dealer would carry this much cash! I'm keeping it, this car, and we'll be sending people to Posess your house." And since over 80% of all currency in the US is contaminated with traces of Cocaine, all the Ossifer has to do is bring a dog and BANG! Instant proof it's drug money.

08-22-2006, 10:06 AM	#25 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	well, by all means, carry on then... however, when you title something like "it is now..." that is, surprise, framing your position as a discovery, a revelation of something new. something that didn't exist before. I do find it a bummer that you don't really care about my interest level because I feel and have been told by a fair number of members that my participation is interesting and desired. you might have been one of those people in a galaxy far far away. why the hell am I going into this with you... it's taken me all night to catch up on the bullshit that's been fuming around this site while I've been gone and I merely meant to reply that I only wish I had read those before this one so I could have spared myself the waste of time of attempting to participate and actually give you a constructive example of how I would have framed the issue myself--and in my opinion, would have generated a higher level of discussion than your typical beef with people who don't agree with you that we aren't worried enough about the state of our nation...on the basis that you just found out about something you view as an erosion of rights that a number of us have known about for some time. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-22-2006, 10:20 AM	#27 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	I am begining to ask "what next?" I mean from here, it seems like the next thing you know, If I am heading down to the gun range, but only have my pistol, and a box of amunition, then a police officer pulling me over might have me arrested because I MIGHT be heading out to commit a crime with my pistol, since I lacked having targets in my car. Then an overconcerned Judge may ask me, what range I was going to: "I am headed to Rick's gun range" And did Rick know you were coming? "Well, no, I didn't call for an apointment" Then how do I know you were actually headed to a range, and not to a bank or other place to commit a crime? "Because I told you?" Not good enough! raps gavel Take away the pistol, and sentence him to 2 years for the possibility that he MIGHT have been headed to commit a crime! I see us heading this direction....Anybody ever seen "Minority Report"? (OK, I know its a little far fetched, but if you look at history, all it takes is the first step, then things get CRAZY!)

08-22-2006, 11:11 AM	#29 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	It seems to me like this is exactly the type of thing we should be afraid of when we decide that the ends justify the means concerning matters of civil rights and safety/security. Those who would sacrifice liberty and all that. Once the precedent is set you just might happen to be fucked if you find yourself on the wrong side of the authorities' desires. For instance, these siezure priveliges sometimes are a big hit in underfunded police departments. Guess who gets the confiscated property?

10-24-2007, 11:37 AM	#36 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	The Dave Copperfield deal is criminal but not on his part. It's all just part of the process to become a police state. Anybody who frequently crosses the border or flies has gotten used to the intrusions, what's a few more? It's nothing that George Orwell didn't warn us of.

10-24-2007, 06:11 PM	#37 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Good thing I'm a broke OEF/OIF vet! I don't register on their harass-dar. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."