• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cops Seized Over $107,000 From Couple, Didn’t Charge Them With a Crime

DA60 said:
If he takes $107,000 in cash in a car over 1,000 miles? Has he never heard of a bank? Or a check?

Yup, I would definitely say he is an idiot and/or a criminal...at least in regards to the handling of money.


I have already said several times that I am not passing judgement on what the cops did until I have all the facts. Since I do not have them, then I will not pass judgement on their actions. High is exactly how I would want people to do for me were the roles reversed.

What part of that statement you people do not understand is beyond me.

We are done here.

Why so many people seem to love sitting around judging things in the news that they do not know most/all the facts about and/or do not personally know any of the people involved is beyond me. They see a headline and jump to a conclusion. Again, why I do not know.

Me? I strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty on such legal matters.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Problem is, nuance can often come through in the written word, also. You say the right words, but they ring hollow.
 
DA60 said:
If he takes $107,000 in cash in a car over 1,000 miles? Has he never heard of a bank? Or a check?

Yup, I would definitely say he is an idiot and/or a criminal...at least in regards to the handling of money.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't expensive to cash a payroll check, or bound by an employer required policy for direct deposit I would never use a bank.

Some time back I used Bank of America. I decided I wanted to do a European Trip for my three week summer vacation. Before I went I contacted the Bank to find out what the charges would be for using European Banks connected to their network.

I was assured that it would not cost me more than normal ATM fees AND there would be no foreign exchange fees.

So I went on my trip, withdrew money from ATM's when needed, and went blithely along thinking I had plenty of money in the Bank. I found out they lied. I was charged DOUBLE fees; one for BofA and one for the local bank, PLUS exchange fees each time I used the ATM's. I paid $600.00 in fees!

When I came home I closed my account and stopped using banks. I was able back then to cash out my paycheck at each of my subsequent employers, either at a cashier cage or an Armored Car supplied by the company. I had $70,000.00 in cash in 14 envelopes containing $5,000.00 each when I went to start Law School.

Sometimes people just don't want to deal with banks. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
If it wasn't expensive to cash a payroll check, or bound by an employer required policy for direct deposit I would never use a bank.

Some time back I used Bank of America. I decided I wanted to do a European Trip for my three week summer vacation. Before I went I contacted the Bank to find out what the charges would be for using European Banks connected to their network.

I was assured that it would not cost me more than normal ATM fees AND there would be no foreign exchange fees.

So I went on my trip, withdrew money from ATM's when needed, and went blithely along thinking I had plenty of money in the Bank. I found out they lied. I was charged DOUBLE fees; one for BofA and one for the local bank, PLUS exchange fees each time I used the ATM's. I paid $600.00 in fees!

When I came home I closed my account and stopped using banks. I was able back then to cash out my paycheck at each of my subsequent employers, either at a cashier cage or an Armored Car supplied by the company. I had $70,000.00 in cash in 14 envelopes containing $5,000.00 each when I went to start Law School.

Sometimes people just don't want to deal with banks. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Tere are other reasons as well.

We have heard lately of people with honest businesses that deposit a little less than the $10,000 limit often because that is what their business generates and the government comes in and takes the money saying they are trying to avoid the reporting laws.

Another illegal seizure, but they do it and it takes years to get the money back if at all.

I can't blame a guy for wanting to be liquid without out Big Brother looking over his shoulder.

Too many people in the country have been trained to accept the government as mother and father following whatever stupid rule put down.

The bottom line is that you are not allowed to have cash in your possession so follow the rules or the government will bankrupt you.

How much in legal fees is this couple spending to get back $100K?

It has been 3 years so I would bet it has surpassed the initial seizure.
 
DA60 said:
If he takes $107,000 in cash in a car over 1,000 miles? Has he never heard of a bank? Or a check?

Yup, I would definitely say he is an idiot and/or a criminal...at least in regards to the handling of money.


I have already said several times that I am not passing judgement on what the cops did until I have all the facts. Since I do not have them, then I will not pass judgement on their actions. High is exactly how I would want people to do for me were the roles reversed.

What part of that statement you people do not understand is beyond me.

We are done here.

Why so many people seem to love sitting around judging things in the news that they do not know most/all the facts about and/or do not personally know any of the people involved is beyond me. They see a headline and jump to a conclusion. Again, why I do not know.

Me? I strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty on such legal matters.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You said the couple were either stupid or criminals but you also say innocent until proven guilty.

Does the innocent until proven guilty only apply to the officers or does it apply to the couple as well?
 
Mason66 said:
Tere are other reasons as well.

We have heard lately of people with honest businesses that deposit a little less than the $10,000 limit often because that is what their business generates and the government comes in and takes the money saying they are trying to avoid the reporting laws.

Another illegal seizure, but they do it and it takes years to get the money back if at all.

I can't blame a guy for wanting to be liquid without out Big Brother looking over his shoulder.

Too many people in the country have been trained to accept the government as mother and father following whatever stupid rule put down.

The bottom line is that you are not allowed to have cash in your possession so follow the rules or the government will bankrupt you.

How much in legal fees is this couple spending to get back $100K?

It has been 3 years so I would bet it has surpassed the initial seizure.
Click to expand...
It's called "structuring" (if the intent is to be illegal, but it's not always, obviously).
 
Mason66 said:
You said the couple were either stupid or criminals but you also say innocent until proven guilty.

Does the innocent until proven guilty only apply to the officers or does it apply to the couple as well?
Click to expand...
That's how I read it.
 
radcen said:
It's called "structuring" (if the intent is to be illegal, but it's not always, obviously).
Click to expand...

The government doesn't care about intent.

They take the money and you have to fight to get it back.
 
Captain Adverse said:
If it wasn't expensive to cash a payroll check, or bound by an employer required policy for direct deposit I would never use a bank.

Some time back I used Bank of America. I decided I wanted to do a European Trip for my three week summer vacation. Before I went I contacted the Bank to find out what the charges would be for using European Banks connected to their network.

I was assured that it would not cost me more than normal ATM fees AND there would be no foreign exchange fees.

So I went on my trip, withdrew money from ATM's when needed, and went blithely along thinking I had plenty of money in the Bank. I found out they lied. I was charged DOUBLE fees; one for BofA and one for the local bank, PLUS exchange fees each time I used the ATM's. I paid $600.00 in fees!

When I came home I closed my account and stopped using banks. I was able back then to cash out my paycheck at each of my subsequent employers, either at a cashier cage or an Armored Car supplied by the company. I had $70,000.00 in cash in 14 envelopes containing $5,000.00 each when I went to start Law School.

Sometimes people just don't want to deal with banks. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Join a credit union. B of A sucks.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Join a credit union. B of A sucks.
Click to expand...

I encourage everybody I know to stop giving their money to the banking mafias. Help the free market by using a credit union instead.
 
Anomalism said:
I encourage everybody I know to stop giving their money to the banking mafias. Help the free market by using a credit union instead.
Click to expand...
In general, yes, but be careful. In my experience, the larger a credit union gets, the more bank-like they become. Stick with small to medium-sized credit unions.
 
Dittohead not! said:
but only because we allow it to happen.
Click to expand...

And because of the drug war that has infringed on our rights in countless ways while doing nothing to stop the flow of illegal drugs. It is time to admit defeat and revise all our policies.
 
iguanaman said:
And because of the drug war that has infringed on our rights in countless ways while doing nothing to stop the flow of illegal drugs. It is time to admit defeat and revise all our policies.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The war on drugs is one of the biggest and most expensive failed government projects ever. It's time to end it. If the goal is to reduce drug abuse, as it should be, the war on drugs is having the opposite effect. More people die now from drug overdoses than from motor vehicle accidents, and that's just mind boggling.
 
iguanaman said:
And because of the drug war that has infringed on our rights in countless ways while doing nothing to stop the flow of illegal drugs. It is time to admit defeat and revise all our policies.
Click to expand...
Here's the difference, I think. Back then (Prohibition era) people did what they did because they were doing what they thought was right.

Today there's money to be made and little government fiefdoms to protect.
 
As I understand it, in 2015, for the first time, the amount seized by government in forfeitures of this type, often without any due process, is c. $5 billion and exceeded the amount stolen by non-governmental thieves, i.e. criminals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom