Quote :

" Anastasio Prieto, a truck driver from El Paso, Texas, doesn't trust banks and prefers to carry his savings with him in cash. While this is a dangerous way to manage one's money, a cursory glance at recent headlines tends to validate Prieto's concerns about the stability of the fractional-reserve banking system. During a stop at a weigh station in New Mexico on August 8, Prieto made a critical mistake: He cooperated with the police, assuming that as a law-abiding individual he had nothing to fear from them. Never make that assumption. A New Mexico state trooper asked Prieto for permission to search his truck for contraband, such as needles or cash in excess of $10,000. Displaying an ingenuousness that breaks my heart, the truck driver consented, informing the officer that he was carrying nothing illegal -- but admitting that he had $23,700 on board. Never consent to a police search, for any reason. Never admit to a police officer that you are carrying large amounts of cash. Always assume that a police officer would make the same use of that information that would be made by any other armed and potentially violent individual: He would find some way to steal your money. And that is exactly what the officer did to Prieto, with the help of comrades from the federal Staatspolizei -- agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Border Patrol. Over his objections, Prieto was detained for several hours, photographed, and fingerprinted, while his truck was searched by agents with drug-sniffing dogs. As Prieto had explained, his truck was devoid of contraband. So the police apologized profusely, returned his money, bought him a cold drink and sent him away with a friendly smile and a wave. Oh, stop it! You're killing me! What country do you think we live in, anyway? The police "forfeited" -- that is, stole -- Prieto's savings. The DEA agents who presided over the theft "told Prieto he would receive a notice of federal proceedings to permanently forfeit the money within 30 days and that to get it back, he'd have to prove it was his and did not come from illegal drug sales," reported the Houston Chronicle. You see, under existing laws and recent legal decisions, "possession of a large sum of money" by a motorist "is `strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity." So ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a decision handed down almost exactly a year before Prieto was robbed at gunpoint in New Mexico. The case was entitled "United States of America v. $124,700 in US Currency" (.pdf). You see, it's not necessary to find the owner of the money guilty of anything; the money itself can be convicted of involvement in criminal activity and "punished" by being permanently taken into government custody. Prieto has been told it will take a year for him to recover his stolen money, should the regime condescend to give any portion of it back. Meanwhile, he is apparently left penniless, with no funds to maintain the truck that is the source of his livelihood. The collectivist State ruling us treated Prieto in much the same way the Soviet state treated Ukrainian kulaks -- at least those kulaks who were permitted to live, anyway. If our money can be seized from us simply because some agent of the State wants to, in what sense is it our property? Summary seizure and "forefeiture" of property -- including cash -- by police is one of the larger gifts bestowed on our society by the murderous fraud called the "war on drugs." Ten years ago, Congress enacted a "reform" measure intended to rein in the practice, but as we see it is pointless to attempt to reform a practice that should be abolished outright. Invariably, "forfeited" cash and goods are depicted as the ill-gotten gains of narcotics trafficking; it's never explained, however, how those supposedly dirty proceeds are magically cleansed once they are handed over to the police. The bounties seized by police are often used to buy the latest in tyranny tech, such pimped-out SWAT vehicles and other goodies for the jackbooted pests who are deployed to bring in the loot; this makes a nicely self-sustaining system of official corruption. In fact, asset forfeiture has made it possible for corrupt police departments (or do I repeat myself) to cut out courts and juries and get straight to the business of plunder. To expedite the process, Bradenton, Florida's Police Department devised a "Contraband Forfeiture Agreement" (.pdf) for use by officers carrying out drug enforcement raids. Citizens who sign such agreements surrender their property -- such as cash or cars -- "to the DEPARTMENT free and clear of all claims or liens"; they also waive their due process rights. In exchange, the police agree not to prosecute. Janie Brooks, a local resident in her mid-50s, was taken into custody by police who claimed to find drugs in her car. The automobile and $1,200 in cash were confiscated, and Brooks was intimidated into signing the agreement. "He [the officer] kept rushing me, like, `Go ahead, things will be better if you did," recalled Brooks. "It was like, there's gonna be some big time stuff that happens to me if I don't sign it." Asked for his expert opinion of the practice, law professor Joseph Little of the University of Florida overcame a tragic handicap -- decades of legal training -- to offer a sensible assessment: "It sounds like robbery to me." Indeed it does -- robbery coupled with extortion and more than a hint of terrorism. And it was immensely profitable: The county's asset forfeiture fund at one point topped $150,000. Using almost exactly the same methods -- traffic stops, contrived searches, and armed extortion in lieu of prosecution -- the Dallas County, Iowa Sheriff's Department sucked up $1.7 billion from motorists traveling along I-80 between 2002 and 2006. This profitable racket had to gear down just a bit after Sheriff Brian Gilbert was convicted of stealing $120,000 in stolen money. But Gilbert's lenient sentence -- a $1,000 fine, a year's probation, and a brief term of "community service," rather than a prison term -- suggests that his comrades have a license to steal from the general public, as long as they don't skim from the State's take. The same priorities governed the Soviet Union, of course: The police were free to expropriate the bourgeoise at whim, but stealing from the State was a capital offense. --William N. Grigg, Pro-Libertate Blog"

Hard to avoid the feeling that in today's America, we don't really own anything...it's all on loan from the government.

8/29/2007 10:32:46 AM

good to see the legal system working it's magic...

8/29/2007 10:39:12 AM

GG, good thread.

The Revolution is coming.

8/29/2007 10:45:51 AM

Smoke a spliff first.

8/29/2007 10:51:41 AM

G
I
V
E

M
E

B
A
C
K

M
Y

C
I
V
I
L

L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S

8/29/2007 11:35:23 AM

Quote :

"You see, it's not necessary to find the owner of the money guilty of anything; the money itself can be convicted of involvement in criminal activity and "punished" by being permanently taken into government custody."

Is this shit for real? Is this an Onion article?

8/29/2007 11:43:04 AM

I'm gonna get me a shotgun
and kill all the coppers I see,

I'm gonna get me a shotgun
and kill all the coppers I see.

When I kill all the coppers I see,
then copper he won't bother me,

I'm gonna get me a shotgun
and kill all the coppers I see.



Seriously though, how can we end the drug war and restore the constitution peacefully, and soon?

Don't get me wrong, I'd hate to have murder on my conscience, but these fucking socialists and neocons need to understand that real Americans will eventually take up arms if peaceful efforts continue to be defeated by this fascist nanny-welfare-police state under which we currently live.

I know how alarmist this sounds,

...how this sounds like some conspiracy-nut rant,

and it even bothers me to think about it,

but do we really have any other alternative?
(besides suicide, the popularity of which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone)

Can any of you think of even one peaceful alternative that will work?
Please?
I don't want to have to resort to killing..

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 11:52 AM. Reason : ^ yep, it's all fo real ---> http://fear.org/]

8/29/2007 11:50:58 AM

all u guys just hate america ,freedom, and democracy

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 12:14 PM. Reason : l]

8/29/2007 12:14:22 PM

or they love freedom...

and we don't have a democracy.

8/29/2007 12:21:45 PM

Quote :

"DEA threatens 150 Los Angeles landlords with forfeiture and prison The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration sent letters warning about 150 Los Angeles landlords that they risk arrest and the loss of their properties if they continue renting to cannabis dispensaries. A July 17 article in the Los Angeles Times, “DEA targets landlords of pot outlets,” details the latest escalation in the federal war against state sanctioned medical marijuana. Timothy J. Landrum, DEA special agent in charge of the Los Angeles office, sent the two-page letter to landlords last week. These letters “are definitely meant to serve as a notice” said DEA spokeswoman Sarah Pullen. “What might happen as to the continuing investigations, we’ll just have to see.” The letters were sent on the eve of a proposed city ordinance that would regulate and place a cap on the number of cannabis outlets in the City of Los Angeles, which, according to the LA Times, now total more than 400. The federal government has discouraged such regulation in other cities in the greater Los Angeles area, leaving most cannabis dispensaries to operate without any local regulation or oversight. In 2001 the feds shut down the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in West Hollywood and filed a civil forfeiture complaint against the LACRC building that had been financed in part by the City of West Hollywood. The City lost its hard-fought forfeiture battle when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment forfeiting the City’s $300,000 investment in the LACRC building. More than 30 cannabis dispensaries soon sprung up in the local vicinity, replacing the former LACRC that had operated in what Los Angeles Sherif Leroy Baca described as “a cooperative partnership” with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Having been punished for its oversight of the LACRC, the City of West Hollywood declined to involve itself or its law enforcement agencies in regulating the growing number of dispensaries. As Dale Gieringer of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws says, the recent DEA crackdown will likely result in widespread evictions and shutdowns, but won’t stop patients’ use of marijuana. Rather, patients who presently rely on the threatened dispensaries will be forced to find cannabis on the illegal market, with all its associated risks. The DEA’s unwarranted attack on medical marijuana also comes just as Congress is about to vote on a measure to deny federal funding for federal medical marijuana raids, namely the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. In the meantime however, as the DEA letters state: “It is not a defense…that the facility operating on the property is providing ‘medical marijuana’ under California law including the provisions of California Prop. 215. Violation of this law is a felony crime, and carries with it a penalty of up to 20 years in prison” as well as property forfeiture. There is no legal defense to federal forfeiture laws for landlords who have been put on notice that tenets are violating federal law. As the City of West Hollywood discovered, civil forfeiture laws bypass even the slightest chance of prevailing at trial – civil forfeiture proceedings in which owners cannot claim a lack of knowledge of the federal violations occurring on their property end in summary judgment without recourse to trial by jury. Riverside County's Press-Enterprise reported on July 19 that building owners in other counties may be targeted next, according to Special Agent Sarah Pullen, of the DEA's Los Angeles office, which oversees Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The DEA is aware of at least 300 marijuana dispensaries in the seven central and Southern California counties that it covers, Pullen said. According to Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, the only reason that more marijuana dispensaries have not been shut down is that federal officials don't have the resources to investigate every violation. "

I AM GLAD MY FEDERAL TAX MONEY IS HARD AT WORK

8/29/2007 12:24:26 PM

Wow, such a well written and unbiased article.

Quote :

"Never consent to a police search, for any reason."

Friend got pulled going 15-20 over on the way to App, cop pulled us, asked to search the vehicle, we consented, the cop said since we did he was only going to give us a warning.

Quote :

"He would find some way to steal your money"

Because all cops are assholes and just want to screw you

Quote :

"So ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a decision handed down almost exactly a year before Prieto was robbed at gunpoint in New Mexico."

Really? The cop drew his gun...where?

Quote :

"regime"

Quote :

"collectivist"

no bias to see here folks, move along

Quote :

"If our money can be seized from us simply because some agent of the State wants to, in what sense is it our property"

Because the average person transports 23k in cash across state lines



I mean yeah, I feel for the guy but I don't take the article very seriously. What if this guys truck was stolen or he wrecked it and the money was destroyed...he's an idiot.

8/29/2007 12:29:52 PM

It's not the government's job to rob idiots.

8/29/2007 12:31:55 PM

^^ it's disturbing that you don't see the problem(s) with this

8/29/2007 12:41:34 PM

Quote :

"Because all cops are assholes and just want to screw you"

not all cops are assholes, but from personal experience it seems the overwhelming majority of young ones are.

8/29/2007 12:42:59 PM

i see a huge problem with this particular incident but how much of the norm is it and how much of it is anecdotal?

8/29/2007 12:53:55 PM

while the overall point of the article stands, this is just retarded:

Quote :

"a cursory glance at recent headlines tends to validate Prieto's concerns about the stability of the fractional-reserve banking system."

Prieto apparently has $23k in life savings, and he's worried about putting it in a savings account at a local bank? He thinks it's more likely the government will go into his bank account and steal his money than a cop or robber will steal the cash out of his pocket? not bloody likely....

8/29/2007 12:54:01 PM

regarding the California medical marijuana thing i hope arnold calls in the national guard to defend against any seizure by the DEA

i am tired of the DEA thinking it is above the constitution

8/29/2007 1:25:05 PM

Quote :

"i am tired of the DEAfederal government thinking it is above the constitution"

but yeah, that would be absolutely fucking awesome

8/29/2007 1:32:58 PM

reminds me of the "frog in boiling water" theory...


"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson

8/29/2007 1:38:48 PM

Quote :

"He thinks it's more likely the government will go into his bank account and steal his money"

that's not the concern with the fractional reserve system


but yeah, carrying that kind of cash is retarded

but that doesn't make this OK or less troubling

8/29/2007 1:40:39 PM

Quote :

"with the help of comrades from the federal Staatspolizei -- agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Border Patrol"

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2007 2:04:14 PM

He was worried the bank could fail, taking most of his money with it.

Which this is a real concern with fractional reserve banking, it is not much of one nowadays, thanks to the Federal Reserve and the fiat monetary system. Banks have no trouble surviving in a world with sustained inflation.

8/29/2007 2:16:19 PM

Who cares about his thoughts on banking?

Dumb or not, carrying money is a civil liberty. No matter how much. Period.

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots."

8/29/2007 2:36:11 PM

I read a similar story about a cattle trader (legitimately carrying cash, because they conduct business in cash) who got held up at an airport by DEA. Apparently one of the dogs hit on some of his cash, he had no drugs. The confiscated all of his money because one of the huge wad of 20's and 100's he was carrying probably had some coke residue on it that was not his.

8/29/2007 2:45:31 PM

^ Actually no, some dogs are trained to sniff out cash and if he didn't declare the money then its his own damn fault.

Look, I'm not condoning the actions of the DEA here, but I do agree that him having that much cash on him does constitute probable cause. I think the money should have been confiscated but for a period of no longer than a week or so.

8/29/2007 3:23:41 PM

Quote :

"does constitute probable cause"

probable cause for what exactly? if they found money, that means they already searched him.

8/29/2007 3:34:29 PM

To impound the money temporarily while they investigate the guy. I mean how hard would it to grab your tax records, see how much you make, see you don't have a bank account, and give they the money back.

8/29/2007 3:36:02 PM

if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to worry about, right?

8/29/2007 3:52:30 PM

apparently, wrong.

8/29/2007 4:02:08 PM

http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/

Interesting link--this is what happens when your property is forfeited by the government. They collected 1 billion in cash last year.

Quote :

"Civil judicial forfeiture is an in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary."

8/29/2007 4:12:53 PM

Quote :

"Who cares about his thoughts on banking? Dumb or not, carrying money is a civil liberty. No matter how much. Period."

exactly it might be stupid; but I should be able to drive around my car w/ 200K $$$'s if i wanted too w/o the gov't hassling me.

If i got help up driving through the hood then its my own damn fault. Kinda like if i do not wear a seatbelt it is my own fault for getting killed I should not get pulled over and a ticket it for it.

8/29/2007 4:40:59 PM

the seatbelt isnt a good analogy here because mandatory use reduces costs for everyone

8/29/2007 4:44:18 PM

wasting resources like this increases costs for everyone.

8/29/2007 4:56:15 PM

^^ and there you see the dilemma that liberals find themselves in

campaign for socialistic programs whose collective cost to the people can be used to destroy our civil liberties

aw... who am i kidding - liberals don't care about civil liberties - there's no dilemma associated with, "I HATE BUSH, BAD BUSH BAD"

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 8:08 PM. Reason : s]

8/29/2007 8:07:06 PM

So, isn't it customary to link to the article?

Looking up the blog this comes from tells me that it is roughly equal to the Prisonplanet. Hell, there is a picture of Bush as Hitler amongst various other interesting images and ideas.

While this sucks big time if it is true, it is impossible to tell what the facts are from a fucking crazy ass blog.

8/29/2007 11:45:10 PM

^

Sorry...Here's Your Link:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5081398.html

Trashing the blog-author doesn't change the facts of the story. This trucker got ripped off by the police.

[Edited on August 30, 2007 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

8/30/2007 12:23:25 AM

Quote :

"Solinari and there you see the dilemma that liberals find themselves in campaign for socialistic programs whose collective cost to the people can be used to destroy our civil liberties"

well put! Of course the average liberal doesn't understand that is the end of there well-intentioned compassion.

8/30/2007 1:12:37 AM

I'm not sure I follow that quote.

The DEA is a socialist program? It seems rather fascist to me.

8/30/2007 9:25:54 AM

^
I think that^^ was in regard to seat belt laws and implied "public" health care costs^^^^^^^

socialist nanny-state crap

8/30/2007 10:32:03 AM

Quote :

"ampaign for socialistic programs whose collective cost to the people can be used to destroy our civil liberties aw... who am i kidding - liberals don't care about civil liberties - there's no dilemma associated with, "I HATE BUSH, BAD BUSH BAD""

u post better be sarcasm. otherwise your an idiot. i do not even consider my political view liberal

8/30/2007 10:35:19 AM

Quote :

"H.R. 1658 [106th]: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (Vote On Passage) Result: Passed Related Bill: H.R. 1658 [106th]: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 Primary Source This information comes from House Vote #255 on the House website . Totals & Party Breakdown Ayes: 375 (86%) Nays: 48 (11%) No Vote: 11 (3%) Total Democrat Republican Independent Aye: 178 193 1 Nay: 22 26 0 No Vote: 6 5 0"

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-255

I HATE THOSE LIBERAL REPUBLICANS SO MUCH.

8/30/2007 10:51:59 AM

Quote :

"otherwise your an idiot"

i don't know the retard, but i'm willing to bet the change in my pocket he's just that

8/30/2007 10:56:40 AM

I didn't mean to imply that you specifically were a liberal, but merely took advantage of the opportunity to point out the dichotomy that most liberals will find themselves in: campaigning for nanny-state care programs vs. preserving civil liberties

8/30/2007 11:01:55 AM

forfeiture victim stories
http://fear.org/victimindex.html

8/30/2007 11:23:48 AM

Quote :

"Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway. Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back. Ethel Hylton is just one of a large and growing list of Americans – now numbering in the hundreds of thousands – who have been victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, everything you own can be legally taken away even if you are never convicted of a crime. Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property. Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back. Property is now being seized in every state and from every social group. Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public-housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples: In Washington, DC, police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry." Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments. "Resident Ben Davis calls it 'robbery with a badge.'" [USA Today, 5/18/92.] In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car – specially equipped for her handicapped daughter - seized as the 'getaway vehicle.'" [USA Today, 5/18/92.] Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the US now shows some drug residue. In Monmouth, New Jersey, Dr. David Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counseling services from a spare bedroom in his mother's house. Counseling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn't stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother's home, totaling over $60,000. The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs. Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors' porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation. The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son. The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize property and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime. Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments", and sell the rest. How extensive are seizures in America today? The Washington Post has reported that the US Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, homes and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the US Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, state highway patrols, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management. Asset forfeiture is a growth industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today. Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your "guilty" property. "

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html

8/30/2007 11:34:53 AM

8/30/2007 12:09:43 PM

This country is going to shit, damn..one more reason to not let any cop search my fucking car.

8/30/2007 1:07:00 PM

Quote :

"one more reason to not let any cop search my fucking car"

Good luck with that. If you say no, they will say probable cause, get a warrant, and do it anyway.

8/30/2007 1:19:38 PM

thats fine

If I've got time


and nothing in my car


I'll wait all day

8/30/2007 1:20:41 PM

I waited 12 hours for them to get a warrant last time they tried.

Oh wait, they seized all my computers and called the narcotics unit out for what was fucking loose leaf TEA.

[Edited on August 30, 2007 at 1:25 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/30/2007 1:24:08 PM