New Federal Patriot Act Turns Retailers into Spies against Customers

The Boston Globe ^ | 11/28/2001 | By Scott Bernard Nelson, The Boston Globe

[TheOtherOne]

What if I am the store owner?

I am being forced to give over MY PAPERS.

[copycat]

I disagree. It is EXACTLY a search of me, the customer, and my use of cash.

[TheOtherOne]

I agree 100%. The only possible argument is that it is reasonable to report every American who uses cash over certain amounts. Once they admit that is what is happening, then the issue is what is the limit. $1000? $5000? --- will we let then US government outlaw cash transactions. In a few years VAA might say, what do we need cash for, every one can use credit. : )

[Native American Female Vet]

"Yes they found this out later. But when he was stopped he was some guy of ME background trying to get in the US 3 days after a national emergency with a funny passport."

Once they were stopped their rights as a citizens did not end!

The government knew or should have know these men were citizens long before the lab tests came back. They were treated as GUILTY till proven innocent and all the while NON citizen illegals are free to run the streets with more rights than these citizens.

These men knew they did nothing wrong and to this day they are still not cleared. Does the color of their skin and the fact 1 of them came from another country 40 years ago take away your rights as a citizen?

[VA Advogado]

What if I am the store owner? I am being forced to give over MY PAPERS.

Yep. Just like you're required to file a tax return or pay social security tax on your employees. Have you been in America long?

[VA Advogado]

I disagree. It is EXACTLY a search of me, the customer, and my use of cash.

To say it doesn't make it a fact. I doubt you find any legal support for your position. How do you feel about filing a tax return every year?

[TheOtherOne]

Those things have been determined to be reasonable in furtherance of our tax system. I am not a big fan, but I can agree and live with that interpretation.

I do not agree that reporting all cash transactions in excess of $10,000 in the name of WOT is reasonable.

[JD86]

Since you are so new here here is what Free Republic.com is for "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."

Well, I must admit that is the most polite way anyone has ever told me I wasn't welcome somewhere....and I am stunned. You are the first person to question my right to comment...or to paint me as a liberal. Fortunately, your opinion of me is nondispositive. Since I have spent the last twenty years of my life working "to root out political fraud and corruption", including but not limited to, prosecuting multiple cases against the government and its various agencies, I would say my service to the country qualifies me to comment here. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

[VA Advogado]

Welcome to the battle brother. Some of the folks here are real pips. lol Remember, the more bizzare the response you receive, the more on the side of truth, honor and America you are.

[JD86]

Thanks for the support....:) I felt like I was in a hornet's nest....as fast as I respond to one...five more pop up...and they all say the same thing..:)
I think I am going to start posting a standard response. IT IS NOT A SEARCH NOR SEIZURE. They don't really answer on the issue anyway.

[savedbygrace]

you think I'm gonna give the clerk my name and address
Good Luck. Most things costing $9,999 come with a title...ie car, boat, motorcycle....not all, but most.

But very few cars, boats, motorcycles are purchased from a "clerk." If I'm buying a car, boat, motorcycle, I'm WELL aware of titling requirements and wouldn't be as likely to pay in cash. No, let me be more clear: I wouldn't pay in cash, period.

With my original comment, I was thinking in terms of jewelry, gold, silver, etc. Not cars or boats or motorcycles . . . . or trains or planes, either. ;-)

[JD86]

ping

[Native American Female Vet]

"That's a beef between the retailers and the government.

That means a beef between CITIZENS and the government.

"Until its determined you're a clear and present danger or are accused of a crime, you dont get to cry 4th amendment."

That sounds you are trying to say that a person is GUILTY till proven innocent and rights dont matter unless one has been accused of a crime. Is that what you are saying?

" To hold otherwise would be a follow. You enter into these transactions on a volunteer basis."

LOL your liberal side is showing.

[VA Advogado]

They don't really answer on the issue anyway.

An important element of rational debate is to seperate 'what should be' from 'what is'. Most of the mullet heads don't do this. There are very few here that do. I appreciate meeting one. Keep up the good work!

[JD86]

The purpose of the 4th is to insure unreasonable searches and seizures.

You give me too much credit, I am not that clever. And I think you mean to "insure against, not insure" searches and seizures...:)

However, I can read the law and I can read the 4th Amendment and there is no correlation. This is not a new law.
This is not a SEARCH and this is not a SEIZURE.

To borrow a phrase from another poster...if you are that paranoid, write a check or quit selling drugs.

[JD86]

In my opinion, you have not established probable cause.

I don't have to....it is not a search!!! it is not a seizure!!!!

[Henrietta]

Retailers are not LEOS. The 4th amendment only applies to government. Its like crying for your first amendment protections here if a moderator zaps one of your posts. The constitution is irrelevant until the government gets involved.

While true that the constitution only protects citizens against state action, and not private action, when a retailer is required by the government to collect information and report upon its customers, that IS state action.

[VA Advogado]

That means a beef between CITIZENS and the government.

But the arguements here have come from the perspective of the customers, not the retailers. Unless you own a business subject to this act, you have no standing to argue as a business owner. If you are and do, I will point out that you file a tax return every year. If you don't, I will tell you to shush and go find a better arguement. Unless, of course, you're saying we all own part of the businesses that we patronize. In that case I will ask you who is really the liberal here?

[JD86]

I disagree that a buisness owner is public, unless that buisness is an arm of government.

You are free to disagree, it doesn't mean you are right. As a business owner, I deal with the "public" every day and I abide by the laws.
That does not make me the government.

those like you, who refuse to recognize the Bill of Rights as absolute, facilitate that change.

and I have noticed when people run out of arguments, or cannot defend their positions, they resort to name calling...