Driving With Money is a Crime

[ravelkinbow]

so no crime was commited, no drugs found, nothing....betcha they still didn't get the money back...sick

[KBCraig]

Ah, but you don't understand the asset forfeiture program. The people don't commit a crime: the money does. The money is charged with a crime. In this example the case would be titled, United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, or somesuch.

The money is then found guilty of being drug money, and fined $124,700, payable to the agency that seized it.

Since the person carrying the money was not charged with a crime, the courts rule that he has no standing in the case.

It's crazy, so you're forgiven for not thinking like an insane politician.

Kevin

[Demolama]

This is just a way to turn us into a cashless society.  Once that happens then they can track everything you do

[felix.benner]

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

[Michael Fisher]

C'est ici la sagesse. Que celui qui a de l'intelligence calcule le chiffre de la b?te. Car c'est un chiffre d'homme, et son chiffre est 666 (ou 616?).

[tracysaboe]

What's with the French?

Tracy

[Pat McCotter]

Just remember that 666 in Roman numerals is the one number that uses all the numerals - digits? - less than 1000 only once. DCLXVI. Looks like doodling to me.

Edit: Unless you want to include 444 - CDXLIV - and all the variants of numbers with 4 and 6 as digits. But 666 is using the numerals in reverse order.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Drinking Coke doesn't make me less hungry. 

When it does.....one good burp and you're good to go!

[Follow]

Ah, but you don't understand the asset forfeiture program. The people don't commit a crime: the money does. The money is charged with a crime. In this example the case would be titled, United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, or somesuch.

The money is then found guilty of being drug money, and fined $124,700, payable to the agency that seized it.

Since the person carrying the money was not charged with a crime, the courts rule that he has no standing in the case.

It's crazy, so you're forgiven for not thinking like an insane politician.

Kevin

Actually, they didn't even bother with a criminal case.  They made it a civil case so their burden of evidence was drastically lessened, and they still failed to meet it, and still took the money.




Follow 

[Dreepa]

The only response I can muster is:

Fuckin' A these guys suck.. Fuck them!

[mraaron]

This is just a way to turn us into a cashless society.  Once that happens then they can track everything you do

    Exactly.  The hardware is in place to do this, already.  They want cash to be a burden, so everybody will use cards, implants, etc.  This way, less transactions take place that they don't know about, so they get higer tax revenues.  When they say having cash makes me a criminal, I will respond accordingly. It reminds me of a sign Ron Paul had in his office that said "Don't steal...the government hates competition." I wonder how they will stop barter? 

    Lets say you work six hours chopping firewood. (HARD WORK!)  You go to the guy you work for to get your pay.  Right before he hands you your $50 pay, some guy cuts in front and takes a ten dollar bill from the money, hands you what is left and says "here you go".   A year later the guy sends you a paper that YOU have to fill out, then says "I'll give you a dollar back, this is your REFUND." Thats exactly what the IRS does to MILLIONS of workers every day.  Sadly, few people are willing to put a stop to it.  Soon, having any money at all will be a crime.  Just wait.

[Michael Fisher]

Soon, having any money at all will be a crime.  Just wait.

Having real money was already criminalized in the US for about 30 years.
Buy it up while you can.

[Michael Fisher]

What's with the French?

My new plan will require fluency in several foreign languages.

[citizen_142002]

I thought assest forfeiture only worked if there was a criminal conviction. Is something suspicious a criminal thing in itself? I would appeal to a higher court. This is an dreadful ruling, not just unjust but without legal precedent or even sensible logic.

[Michael Fisher]

I thought assest forfeiture only worked if there was a criminal conviction. Is something suspicious a criminal thing in itself? I would appeal to a higher court. This is an dreadful ruling, not just unjust but without legal precedent or even sensible logic.

There's plenty of precedent for this.

Armed thugs with a monopoly of force mug you, take your money without justification, keep your money, and repeat ad infinitum.

I don't see what's so confusing.