Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

The Newspaper ^ | Staff

[wireman]

It's strictly a money grab. Plain and simple.

Law enforcement and the courts are out of control.

[Just A Nobody]

The only thing not "cash" about it was the absence of paper money.

And now you know the difference between "cash" and a monetary "transaction."

You don't consider a transaction paid from your checking account to be a cash transaction?

It does not matter what I think. I am telling you there is a difference in the banking world.

When you were joining FR I was tracking "cash" transactions of $10,000.00 and above, for a large financial institution. What that meant was cash money, paper money.....not checks, not wires, not transfers.....paper, cash money.

Late in '03 or early '04, someone very close to me sold a home in a state other than where they lived. $10k was transferred to a checking account in their current state and the balance was wired to their investment account.

ALL accounts were frozen for 7-10 days and they were given no information as to why. Their broker, who was a friend, was forbidden, by federal law, to inform them why.

[Just A Nobody]

Any cash transaction above $9,999.99 gets scrutinized

CORRECT! See my last post.

[elkfersupper]

Sorry.

Yet another reason to read the whole thread before posting.

[Just A Nobody]

Why are you apologizing? YOU were right! ;*)

[Myrddin]

ALL accounts were frozen for 7-10 days and they were given no information as to why.

I hope the party "freezing" the accounts in that manner is subject to civil suit for any late fees or impacts on credit rating caused by having the accounts frozen. The action may well be "legal", but the damages are real to the person with the frozen accounts.

My bank in San Diego once took my paycheck deposit and "lost" the check under a book on the manager's desk. No deposit was posted for 2 weeks. A few checks bounced. I went into the office and raised hell. Moments later the manager says "oops" and produces my check from under the book on her desk. She refused to remove the "fees" for NSF caused by her incompetence. I moved all my accounts to another institution.

[A. Pole]

Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation.

Bump

[A. Pole]

The lesson here is to put large sums of money in a bank account and use a wire transfer when the appropriate time comes to transfer it to the intended party.

Wire transfers are suspect too. The best way is to stay poor.

[elkfersupper]

Attracting attention and scrutiny is fine if the transaction is perfectly legitimate. In most cases there is no further action.

Trouble is, when action comes,it comes from here:

[dsc]

"Please do tell us how GWB is responsible for a court ruling."

Please do tell me where I said he was.

[Bon mots]

I love my country, but fear my government.
It has gone mad.

[marron]

When it becomes illegal to make cash transactions, liberty is all over except the shouting.

It may be apparent to us that "something is not right" if someone has a hundred grand in the trunk of his car, but I would say the burden of proof is on law enforcement, and not on the citizen. To be clear, the fact that he is in position of a large amount of cash perhaps ought to have been noted by the cops, since they found it in presumably a lawful search, and that fact would have become evidence if later the man were arrested for some real crime.

But they had no right to seize the cash.

Possession of cash must not be criminalized. The burden should not be on the citizen to prove why he has the money or to have to sue the government to get it returned.

If I am a free man, I have the right to take actions without having to explain myself to everyone. That means from time to time I may operate in cash. That does not make me a criminal, and I must be presumed innocent unless there is some other compelling reason to believe otherwise.

If I am a free man.

[DarkMaterials]

Unbelieveable.

Somewhere along the way we Americans somehow forgot about that whole IV Amendment thingy. What was that about, anyway? Ah who cares, the dude was probably up to no good. Everybody knows that no true Loyal Citizen 1st Class would ever carry around that much cash. The Telescreen says so!

The point is, folks, it doesn't matter if the guy was driving around wearing a three-cornered Pirate hat, a chicken suit and a big red button that says MANUEL NORIEGA FOR PRESIDENT on his lapel, or in a car wih the words "DRUGS FOR SALE HERE LOL" spraypainted on the side. It_doesn't_matter, because none of those things are illegal.

Sure, a guy driving around like that should expect to get searched (and searched often), but if he doesn't have anything illegal on him, then the Police don't have the right to sieze a single penny out of his pocket. Full stop. End of story.

The fact that this isn't self-evident to some Americans shows how far we've gone down the path from Liberty to Tyranny.

[DarkMaterials]

Amen!

[DarkMaterials]

Thanks for the add! News stories like this that don't get reported by the MSM are what keeps me coming back to FR...

[FreedomCalls]

The fact that this isn't self-evident to some Americans shows how far we've gone down the path from Liberty to Tyranny.

More evidence of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVACCaVxYEk

[A. Pole]

When it becomes illegal to make cash transactions, liberty is all over except the shouting.

You have absolute freedom of shouting, but not after the shouting!

[A. Pole]

The point is, folks, it doesn't matter if the guy was driving around wearing a three-cornered Pirate hat, a chicken suit and a big red button that says MANUEL NORIEGA FOR PRESIDENT on his lapel, or in a car wih the words "DRUGS FOR SALE HERE LOL" spraypainted on the side.

That would be cool

[samm1148]

You know,I've jumped on behaviors that the police and courts have done. But I agree with you here. This seems pretty high-handed; especially for the state to appeal the first decision. Someone must have thought something was wrong. I'd like to hear more before I'd say yea or nay.

[A. Pole]

Someone must have thought something was wrong

Always there is "someone" who is "thinking" so.