Posted on 06/05/2005 12:59:52 PM PDT by jern
"Ali Abdel Latif Mbarak and Ali A. M. Thatata, made 463 withdrawals from July 13, 2000, to June 28, 2004"
Ali Abdel Latif and Ali A.M. are both the followers of the Book of Jihad (i.e they are Muslims) and plus they made these big money transactions. Hmmmm, that tells there is more to this story. Possibly, they may be planning to use this money for the violent Jihad for the moongod?
I agree.
I also think that to see real change, this country likely needs a good battery-acid enema in the form of President Hillary. Her evils might just wake people up - I'm getting tired of the slow rot under Republicans; life's too short to wait for The Lump to take care of the McCain types, and liberty is too precious to leave in the hands of the Bushes, Doles and Trent Lotts.
Got to be a F'n muxlum and his religion of piss. NSNR
actually what he was doing is what drug dealers do as part of money laundering to legitimize funds.
I suspect there is more to this story than can be reported in the media.
No, the law existed before 9/11 per this Treasury handbook published in 2000. Wire transfers over $3,000 must be recorded. It's always the Democrats that create these citizen spy laws trying to look for tax cheats, but Democrats also keep the amount high enough to keep their prostitute visits off the books.
There's nothing illegal with large transactions. The government is just looking for unusual or unexplainable patterns. Only if your wife suddenly stopped generating regular activity, then they might wonder.
If the limit is $10K, then why is the government monitoring his $9.9K withdrawls.
It's been like that since the 16th Ammendment was ratified in 1913.
A giant lie and scam, just like Social Security.
2/3rds of the states can't be counted on today to pass an ammendment banning gay marriage, but back in 1913 the feds sure railroaded the suckers in state legislatures across the nation with this whopper.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
After that point it was really over for joe six pack, you either became an apparatchik and got on the federal dole any way you could or paid and shut up about it on penalty of imprisonment.
What really amuses me is the talk about living in a "free" country when us "Citizens" tell the government every April 15th where you work, what your job title is, how much money you make, how much money you have in the bank, your marital status, how many kids you have and their ages, how much you spend on medical insurance, how much your mortgage is, is what you pay or do not pay in alimony, how much you gave to charity, etc....
By the way, at the same time workers in the private sector have pretty much seen "Bonuses" eliminated except for top management, did you know that 66% of federal apparatchiks, record budget deficit not withstanding, get bonuses?
Two-Thirds Of Federal Workers Get a Bonus
By Christopher Lee and Hal Straus Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, May 17, 2004; Page A01
Almost two-thirds of 1.6 million civilian full-time federal employees received merit bonuses or special time-off awards in fiscal 2002, according to a comprehensive examination of federal records obtained by The Washington Post.
Of the 62 percent who got awards, half received $811 or more. The typical bonus amounted to 1.6 percent of salary. The awards ranged from less than $100 to more than $25,000. At some agencies, more than 90 percent of General Schedule workers collected a bonus. Government-wide, about 2,900 employees received cash bonuses totaling more than $10,000 each.
The disclosure of the figures brought varying reactions. Some civil service specialists said the proliferation of bonuses reinforces a common belief that many federal workers are rewarded for little more than showing up. Some agency and union officials said it was evidence of a talented workforce that performs admirably, and often at salary levels inferior to those of the private sector.
For the Bush administration, the numbers underscore the challenge President Bush faces in his drive to revamp personnel systems to more strongly tie pay to performance, an endeavor underway at the departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
White House officials have called the federal pay system broken, saying it rewards civil servants for longevity rather than how well they do their jobs. The Post undertook a wide-ranging analysis of federal bonuses after obtaining detailed pay records from the Office of Personnel Management through a Freedom of Information Act request. The records covered all civilian federal employees, except for those whose data was excluded for security or technical reasons.
Paul Light, a professor of government at New York University, said he doubts the public will swallow the notion that merit was the driving force behind the awards.
"I don't think Americans think that 60 percent of federal employees could possibly be so well above average that they would earn a bonus," Light said in an interview. "This is just going to further confirm what many Americans believe, that the federal government is somehow an island unto itself."
Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said such views are unfounded. "There are an awful lot of federal employees who do a very good job, whether it's on a project or on a consistent annual basis," Kelley said. "And I'm glad to see that managers are looking for some way to recognize and reward them."
Under civil service law, federal agencies can hand out cash awards or additional time off to reward employees for good annual performance or contributions on specific projects. The law allows for multiple awards throughout the year, and all civil servants are eligible.
Three agencies -- the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy and the General Services Administration (GSA) -- each gave bonuses to more than 90 percent of their General Schedule employees.
At the NSF, Joseph Burt, the director of human resources, said the high number reflects "a high-performing staff across the board." He said the awards vary greatly, ranging from as little as $200 to more than $6,000.
"[P]eople recognize that if they do a good job -- do their jobs, if you will -- that they are going to likely get some bonus," Burt said. But, he added, "people know that the payouts are much larger for top performers. So there continues to be an incentive . . . to perform at a higher level."
At the GSA, bonuses are based on merit in a system that is fair and inspires good performance, said spokeswoman Mary Alice Johnson.
"Who is to say that those 90 percent didn't all merit awards?" Johnson said. "Maybe the number we should be concerned about is the 62 percent" of government workers overall who get bonuses. "Maybe those 62 percent aren't where we are." GSA recently revamped its bonus system for senior executives so that only those achieving the top two annual performance ratings will be eligible for awards, Johnson said. Similar changes for General Schedule workers are on the drawing board, she said.
The Energy Department also has changed its bonus system, said spokesman Joe Davis. As recently as 2002, managers were obligated to give bonuses to all employees with an annual performance rating of "met expectations" or better, Davis said. Now only an "outstanding" rating guarantees a bonus, although some workers with lesser ratings still may get awards, he said.
"We don't recognize people if they don't do a good job," Davis said. White House officials say there is plenty of room for improvement across the government.
Clay Johnson III, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, said the large number of awards did not surprise him. Johnson said he could even envision a revamped system rewarding roughly the same percentage of workers with bonuses -- but only if top performers got substantially more than those who were merely competent.
"You hear anecdotes where bonuses are divided up equally across all employees. I don't know that to be the case, but you hear those stories," Johnson said. "And yet you hear other stories about the great lengths that agencies go to to determine bonuses and awards. But we do want a system that has a more conscious, formal link between someone's formal performance evaluation and how that performance is recognized."
A 2002 survey by the Office of Personnel Management found that many federal workers are unhappy with the bonus system. Only 47 percent of workers said awards depend on how well employees do their jobs. Fewer than a third said their organization's awards program gave them an incentive to perform their best.
"Those numbers are not numbers to be proud of," said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, which promotes government service.
Warren Joseph, 54, a lawyer in the Internal Revenue Service's Office of Chief Counsel, said bonuses don't always track with performance. A GS-14 who earns more than $96,000 a year, Joseph said his bonuses steadily declined -- from $1,500 in 2001, to $900 the next year, to $700 in 2003 -- even though his annual performance evaluation improved every year. Other employees in the same pay grade who had similar evaluations sometimes got bonuses double or triple the size of his, he said.
"I don't see employees who are just merely average getting the awards," Joseph said. "It's more the lack of correlation between the amount of the award and the performance that seems to be totally mysterious."
In the private sector, bonuses tend to be rarer but bigger, one analyst said. Laura Sejen, a compensation expert at Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a human resources consulting firm, said private awards often are in the 7 to 10 percent range, but only two-thirds of workers would be eligible for bonus plans in a typical company. So a far smaller share of the private sector workforce is likely to get an award in any given year.
"The amount that is at stake, or the potential opportunity, will be much greater," Sejen said. "Now what comes with that is a greater degree of risk. . . . In any given year, maybe about half of people eligible for a plan are going to see their full target bonus as an award. In the year in question, 2002, we were still in the thick of the soft economy then, and bonus awards took a dramatic drop."
The Post obtained bonus data for 2002, the most recent year for which records were available. The Post and Washingtonpost.com analyzed the records across agencies and occupational categories and discussed the data with personnel experts inside and outside government. The analysis found:
• Workers were more likely to get a bonus if they were in the upper reaches of the General Schedule, the government's 15-grade pay system. Bonuses were awarded to nearly three out of four workers above the GS-11 level, where salaries ranged from $49,959 to $107,357. But they went to only 57 percent of employees below the GS-8 level, where workers earned $40,551 or less. General schedule workers typically are in white-collar occupations. "We don't recognize people if they don't do a good job," Davis said.
There is...:
DURING THE LAST MILITARY REGIME HERE IN NIGERIA, THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SET UP COMPANIES AND AWARDED THEMSELVES CONTRACTS WHICH WERE GROSSLY OVER-INVOICED IN VARIOUS MINISTRIES. THE PRESENT CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT SET UP A CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A LOT OF INFLATED CONTRACT FUNDS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY FLOATING IN THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA READY FOR PAYMENT.
HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF OUR POSITION AS CIVIL SERVANTS AND MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL, WE CANNOT ACQUIRE THIS MONEY IN OUR NAMES. I HAVE THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY COLLEAGUES OF THE PANEL TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT WE WOULD TRANSFER THE SUM OF US$21,320,000.00(TWENTY ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS). HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER. WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS; 1. 20% FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER 2. 70% FOR US (THE OFFICIALS) 3. 10% TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND ALL LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES. IT IS FROM THE 70% THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE IMPORTATION BUSINESS.
PLEASE,NOTE THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN (7) BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX; 234-1-7740449, YOUR COMPANY'S SIGNED, AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY. THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR COMPANY'S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT IN YOUR COMPANY'S NAME.
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX NUMBERS. I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.
YOURS FAITHFULLY,
DR Ali A. Odeh
NOTE; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER (VE/S/09/99) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES.
I know this will come as a shock to you (I'm assuming you're 'conservative') but the last time I checked how much money I have in the bank and how I choose to withdraw that money is none of the national government's business as long as I properly file and pay taxes every year.
The story does not say the money was stolen, only that he made withdrawls below $10,000. IMHO if it was his money, what is the crime?
To: Tunehead54
I know this will come as a shock to you (I'm assuming you're 'conservative') but the last time I checked how much money I have in the bank and how I choose to withdraw that money is none of the national government's business as long as I properly file and pay taxes every year.
51 posted on 06/05/2005 3:43:16 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
To: jern
The story does not say the money was stolen, only that he made withdrawls below $10,000. IMHO if it was his money, what is the crime?
52 posted on 06/05/2005 3:48:34 PM PDT by sonofatpatcher2 (Texas, Love & a .45-- What more could you want, campers? };^)
Well, if they want him to have to report on transactions UNDER $10K, why don't they get legislators to enact that into law? Until then, he's complying with the existing law, so they should mind their own bidness.
Guilty of WHAT? Taking his own money out of the bank in small chunks? How about the GOVERNMENT is guilty of violating in serious measure the whole bill of rights in cases like this!
Remember when CASH was king? Now, we're criminals if we try to pay CASH for items of $2,500 or more. (Maybe it;s higher than $2,500...).
Does he have three separate Social Security numbers -- one for each of his three identities? (You are aware that a valid, legitimate SS# is necessary in order to open a checking account virtually everywhere throughout the country, yes?) If so, then he's breaking the law. This isn't rocket science, surely.
Or is he using the exact same SS# for all three separate identities? If so... well: that's illegal, too.
I'm unfamiliar with that section of the Bill of Rights in which flagrantly criminal behavior is not only countenanced, but actively championed as a "right" enjoyed by one and all. Goodness, the things one learns online!
This is just a terribly reported story. I guess we'll have to wait for a blogger to get the facts. Right now this reporter is writing that this person was arrested for violating a law he did not violate.
It'd be like: A man was arrested for a DUI despite blowing 0.00 BAC.
Ah, more 'conservative' claptrap. So according to this, I should get on my knees and thank God above the national government has the right to be so deep in my internal affairs they can know how much money I choose to take out of my bank account each and every day. Well then again, if Republicans continue in the fashion they have the past four years, it won't be my bank account sooner or later. And I should thank them for that too, eh? Piss on liberty, who needs it? I feel safe so that's all that matters..
The criminal behavior in this case is that of FedGov. There is NO Constitutional basis whatsoever for the requirements laid on by them on any banking transaction. The Constitutional prohibition on such searches and seizures is being violated in wholesale lots. In this case, the individual involved is NOT being charged with funding terrorism; only with violating intrusive and Constitutionally repugnant rules on what he is able to do with HIS OWN MONEY. Apparently the bank knew that he was entitled to withdraw the money legitimately and had no problems with it. Theirs is the ONLY scrutiny he should have to face and when he proves that he is the one allowed to remove money, that should be the end of the matter.
I fear that liberal/Socialist Seattle has rubbed off too much on you. You seem too content with FedGov usurping such power. I don't know about you, but I am NOT a SUBJECT, for government to have ANY such authority over me.
Also, the SSN and the whole SS System is utterly and completely repugnant to the Constitution and the Republic which we once had. And there is a difference between committing a CRIME and merely breaking the law. Learn it, because they have so many laws on the books, YOU are a felon just waiting for your local fedGoon to come pick you up after he decides just which charges he wants to lay on you. It is Government so out of control that violent revolution may actually be the only way to rein it in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.