Skip to comments.
Man wants his $400K back from the FBI
LimaOhio.com ^
| 12/18/07
| Greg Sowinski
Posted on 12/21/2007 12:14:30 AM PST by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 281-296 next last
To: LibWhacker
Any law enforcement agency can confiscate any currency from anyone if there is any reason to stop that person for anything or to search his person or domicile. They only have to see it. They don’t even bother with rationalizations anymore.
81
posted on
12/21/2007 5:25:09 AM PST
by
arthurus
(Better to fight them OVER THERE than to have to fight them OVER HERE!)
To: Cementjungle
Is there a law that says you cant have X amount of money in cash Yes.......
82
posted on
12/21/2007 5:25:28 AM PST
by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
To: Does so
Usually, police don't search a victim's housemuch less a safe's contents. But given the ability to steal whatever you find, wouldn't searching the victim's house now become standard procedure. Seizure funds don't go to charity, or to a general fund - the seizing department gets to keep it to use for whatever it wants. That's why cops in Podunk can play dress-up with paramilitary regalia and better armor than we can send to Afghanistan.
To: Welsh Rabbit
...but Im baffled that anyone would do that. Many people are like that, especially older folks. They do not trust banks, savings and loans, etc. My father-in-law is like that. He keeps money hidden in strange places. They lived thru a time that saw many banks fail and investments plunge and people lose their money. They aren't interested in interest...........
84
posted on
12/21/2007 5:29:43 AM PST
by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
To: Red Badger
And...what law would that be?
85
posted on
12/21/2007 5:29:54 AM PST
by
PubliusMM
(RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion.)
To: wrench
On the sketchy evidence presented in the article, I am seeing a preponderance of evidence that he was dealing.Something is wrong when "sketchy" becomes "preponderance".
86
posted on
12/21/2007 5:31:34 AM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: DB
Banks have to report transactions of $10,000 or more (it could be less now). Individuals dont. I think it's $2k now.......
87
posted on
12/21/2007 5:32:04 AM PST
by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
To: Puddleglum
See how that works? The sad thing is that there are too many here at FR that see how it works...and like it.
And, this is a conservative site.
88
posted on
12/21/2007 5:33:11 AM PST
by
TankerKC
(You don't have to believe everything you think.)
To: goldstategop
He looks like FRed Sanford.........
89
posted on
12/21/2007 5:33:30 AM PST
by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
To: Does so
He should have kept the marijuana in his safe, and the cash in the freezer, where it would be returned, like Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana.LOL!
90
posted on
12/21/2007 5:35:38 AM PST
by
TankerKC
(You don't have to believe everything you think.)
To: PubliusMM
I can’t state Title and paragraph, but I know it exists. It has been used many times before. This is not the first incident like this. As far as I can recall, nobody ever gets their money back, ever. I’m sure the local constabulary can cite chapter and verse..........
91
posted on
12/21/2007 5:36:01 AM PST
by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
To: LibWhacker
And the fun part is that the government will use our tax money, which they did not earn, to defend their improper confiscation of this man’s money, which they did not earn.
92
posted on
12/21/2007 5:36:17 AM PST
by
Teacher317
(Eta kuram na smekh)
To: kingu
Why wasn't he charged with anything? If you're so sure that he gained this cash from his illicit activity, why did they just take his money? The police who originally confiscated it didn't file charges or even arrest him, so there must not have been evidence of that criminal activity. But, the point of these laws is not about proof of the guilt of the owner, but that the money itself is guilty and property has no presumption of innocence, hence "Civil Asset Forfeiture".
I'm just glad the local police didn't get to spend it on SWAT gear or cars. I'll bet they were pissed when the feds swooped in like a hawk and stole their free meal!
93
posted on
12/21/2007 5:44:30 AM PST
by
Squeako
(Clothespin Republicans: holding our noses for bad candidates since 1988.)
To: LibWhacker
The law is tilted in favor of the FBI in that Ricks need not be charged with a crime and the FBI stands a good chance at keeping the money, Gamso said. If the government doesn't take most of your money through taxes, they can take what is left just because they feel like it.
If that happened to me, I'd probably go "postal", big time.
94
posted on
12/21/2007 5:49:14 AM PST
by
varon
(Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
To: endthematrix
95
posted on
12/21/2007 5:52:13 AM PST
by
Chuck54
(“Build a man a fire, warm him for a night. Set a man on fire, warm him for life.” HT/Archon)
To: kingu
There's still that lingering question - why did two guys from Tennessee come driving into Ohio to rob a house that just happened to have marijuana and 400k in cash in it? Coincidence, the man or a family member told the wrong person about the money in his safe, etc.
Let the government use the thieves' statements to prove the confiscated money was a result of criminal activity, instead of forcing the man to prove a negative.
To: LibWhacker
They are saying I have to prove I made it,
Guilty until proven innocent.
97
posted on
12/21/2007 5:58:18 AM PST
by
Rb ver. 2.0
(Global warming is the new Marxism.)
To: goldstategop
“Apparently, its a crime to keep a large sum of money in your home even when you haven’t done anything wrong.”
He had drugs.
To: mkjessup
Assault an FBI (or any LE) Office? Are you smoking the weedy stuff too?
Fruit loops attack where there is a low probability of resistance,or haven’t you really thought about it?
I intially would think that controlled substances+cash= trafficking, maybe it’s just me....
The concept that these folks never had a bank acount is rather un believeable-most employers for the last 25 years or so require direct deposit, yes?
To: LibWhacker
Where are all of the law and order “If you have nothing to hide, why worry...” FReepers?
100
posted on
12/21/2007 6:01:32 AM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
("Has there been a code nine? Have you heard from the Doctor?")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 281-296 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson