I think she actually ripped dear old dad off and that is why their stories didn’t match up.
It would be strange for him to be participating with her in this suit then, eh?
Posted on 01/16/2020 4:05:18 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia
SOUTH FAYETTE TOWNSHIP, Pa. — A local man’s life savings of more than $82,000 was seized at Pittsburgh International Airport in August, and now he and his daughter are suing, Channel 11’s news exchange partners at TribLIVE reported.
Rebecca Brown, 54, of Lowell, Mass., told TribLIVE her 79-year-old retired father, Terry Rolin, of South Fayette Township, asked her to help manage the cash he and his late parents had hidden in hiding spots throughout the family home.
“It was late Saturday night after the banks closed when he gave me the money, and I had an early (Monday) morning flight home. So, I didn’t get a chance to get to a bank in Pittsburgh,” Brown told TribLIVE. “I was concerned about traveling with cash, so I checked online and found out it was legal to travel domestically with cash.
Brown told TribLIVE she was carrying the cash in a small, zippered bag inside a satchel when she was questioned about it by a Transportation Security Agency agent at a security checkpoint. After getting to the gate, she said she was approached by a state trooper and a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency agent.
(Excerpt) Read more at wpxi.com ...
In the end, we get the government we deserve/have allowed.
Way too simplistic a look.
No one was given an up or down vote on this tyranny.
It was brought in with numerous lies, control of the media by progressive statists, and government indoctrination centers.
That she said she didn’t have time to go to the bank suggests she knew the risks involved in carrying this amount of cash thru airport screening as most flights have a limit on the amount of cash you can carry.
There are a lot of problems with that law, but it is the law nevertheless.
No, it is not. It is only illegal if the purpose of the repeated deposits/withdrawals is to avoid reporting.
They aren't getting the money back...it's probably already gone.
It’s okay to seize funds if ownership is in question.
Which article? The first is badly written. And based on the info in the article I posted the link to, looks like LE wants to make sure legal ownership of the money is established and that no crimes have been committed. In this particular case, I think LE is acting within the law and responsibly.
If you are on a domestic flight in the US, there is no limit to the amount of cash or monetary instruments that you can carry.... However, the TSA may ask a passenger who is carrying a large sum of cash ‘to account for the money’....so she should have been “prepared” to answer those questions....she wasn’t.
“...they were making constant deposits just less than $10K in a bank across the street from the store.”
After getting to the gate, she said she was approached by a state trooper and a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency agent.
Try calling the cops for a real crime. Very likely they won't show up for hours, if at all.
They are incentivized to show up quickly when asset forfeiture is on the table.
$10K is an antiquated threshold. $10K is chump change these days. As if I have to say so, the gooberment is stupid. It is run by stupid people. Plain stupid since they never will learn they are not merely ignorant.
Because stupid people vote for them. Garbage in, garbage out!
I think she actually ripped dear old dad off and that is why their stories didn’t match up.
It would be strange for him to be participating with her in this suit then, eh?
The money was charged with a crime. And of course the money cannot hire a lawyer to defend itself.
There would still be plenty of attention. LEOs are aware of smurfing.
per the link you provided
Well obviously, he wants his money back.
Well obviously, he wants his money back.
So far, I see no reason to accept what you view as "obvious."
I'm glad the cash was seized pending an investigation.
From your link:
He said when the DEA sent Brown a civil forfeiture notice in October, informing her they intended to keep the cash, they cited “a broad catchall about seizing anything related to controlled substances.”
What’s that got to do with this thread
Since when does the Drug Enforcement Administration determine ownership of funds ?
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.