People don’t believe that politicians are honest... what they believe is the ones they support will steal more from others and give a portion of it to them... and are OK with it as long as the corruption results in a net benefit for them.
re: ". the POTUS....aka the most corrupt of all of them." Yet EACH successive INVESTIGATION nets exactly NOTHIN. What's your next move Wile E. Coyote? Gonna order more ??? from the ACME company?
Almost wonder, what would happen if someone mistook the cop for a mugger when this was attempted, and shot the cop accordingly. If you shoot a mugger, you can claim self defense. Simply because there's a costume on the mugger doesn't change that he's a mugger.
@@alleyoop4465 Present tense = take Past tense = Took or taken Mistook can also be substituted for mistaken. English doesn't make any goddamn sense most of the time. Box= Boxes Ox= Oxen...Oxs...nope. Goose= Geese Moose=Moose...Meese? WTF!
I both love and hate that idea. Evey gun everywhere matches the description of another gun somewhere that was used in a crime. I don't think I would like their solution.
I’ve been saying for years that it appears that we are slowly creating a Royal Class in the United States. This is a good example of one of the steps we have taken. Congress already exempts itself from a lot of legislation and rewards themselves with money and privileges us regular folks can only dream of.
And this is how a lot of the lowly agents are retained - even though they themselves are from the underclass, they are allowed to wield instruments of power in a limited way to suit their own perverse ends, and they are allowed to keep a share of the spoils, even though they only serve at the pleasure of the overclass.
@@bugatti314159 Metaphor is lost on the feeble-minded, or those with an agenda. Using a common saying, "When you shoot at the king, you had better not miss" does not necessarily imply Trump views himself as the king, but what he shares with the king from his saying is an ability to take action against the subterfuge in his own ranks. If he truly did view himself as king, he would first dissolve congress and the judiciary by executive order, then he would eliminate any limit to his term, allowing him to serve for life. This is not to say that I think either of those should happen (I think they shouldn't), but those are just two changes necessary for the President to become a monarch. Until those things happen, he ain't king.
Banks have elected officials relatives on the board and that'd cause trouble. Instead, require the banks to provide 'know your customer' info real time when money with withdrawn. Then a special 'asset team' can be created that uses cell data to location track and stop anyone guilty of possessing assets that worth confiscating without leaving anything to chance.
We actually need a clear case like this to lose enough times in court to reach the Supreme Court. The problem is, the government will never let a case get that far before handing the money back. It costs millions for a single private citizen to progress a case through the many layers to reach the Supreme Court and the government knows that most of the people they seize the money from no longer have the means to fight them all the way.
You should see information that the Institute for Justice has compiled... ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/ And ij.org/activism/legislation/civil-forfeiture-legislative-highlights/ (You can get a hardcopy or an email of their reports)
so what if they give the money back go and have the officers/agents charged with grand theft that way when they give you the money back it is an admittance of guilt
re: "It costs millions for a single private citizen to progress a case through the many layers to reach the Supreme Court" >> If we JUST had something where we could all band together, with a cute name like "Citizens United" or something like that ...
My former local Rep tried to pass a law in making it illegal and got a lot of pushback from even the local LEOs and politicians here. After he left office, he came in my store and we were talking about it. The argument that was presented in opposition to his proposal was that locally we did it right and of course the claim was made that due process was served because a judge approves all of these and it is only used against criminals. I told him he missed the opportunity to stick a dagger in the heart of the argument that our local sheriff and law enforcement were making because the citizens they represent, travel all over Texas and other states and unless they were going to form up a posse and go arrest the police and sheriff deputies that were doing it illegally, they had a duty to support outlawing civil forfeitures because they had a duty to protect the traveling citizens that they represent. Look up the New Yorker magazine article on Tenaha, Texas for reference. They would threaten people with CPS taking their kids if they didn't sign over the property and more than half of the seizures that included stuff like jewelry was for less than $600. So it isn't like they were going after drug kingpins and leaving families alone. Pound your locals with a duty to protect the "local citizens when traveling" as the means to stop this abhorrent behavior by the government.
This sounds so crazy. I'm wondering why none of the national cable news channels report on it? I wish it would be brought up to all candidates, congressmen and women, and senators. There should be a bigger stink over this. This is a bipartisan issue.
Telling other people is very difficult. My father has been an attorney for over 50 years and he didn't believe me when I told him about it. He insisted that any forfeiture is part of a criminal conviction, or that I was getting the information from a conspiracy theory website.
I wonder if coffee counts? My daughter was pulled over for going 90 in a 65 zone. When she flipped open her wallet, her driver's license was next to her sheriff's department ID. The officer just shook his head and warned her to keep it under 80. And "if I have to pull you over again, I expect you to buy me a coffee. Three cream, four sugar." Which at the time happened to be how I like my coffee. A few months later, she was pulled over again for speeding. By the same officer. She had picked up donuts and coffee and was on her way to get me. She rolled down her window. "Hey, buddy. Three cream, four sugar. Right? And would you like a donut?" Although she was engaged in unlawful activity, the coffee and maple old fashioned were mine. Do I stand a chance of getting paid for my loss? Didn't think so.
To: Attorney Steve Lehto: I want to personally thank you for what you're doing on this and other issues. Another good video! I know that you sometimes have to endure various detractors who object to something you might share. But, you and I know it goes with the territory of video media efforts. The following is what I commented when I shared this video to all my readership and viewership: * "My friends, brethren, and fellow countrymen (includes women), I regret that I find it necessary to intrude upon your existence, so that, the scourge of Civil Asset Forfeiture can be addressed. For those who are planning to vote for various candidates for government office, where that office is poised to do something about this problem, I strongly suggest that you withhold your vote for any person who desires such office (or re-election to such an office) who will not promise to do something to stop the wrongful seizures of cash and/or property from USA-based Americans (or those under USA jurisdiction). Like Steve Lehto, I would likely support Criminal Asset Forfeiture (as opposed to Civil Asset Forfeiture) depending upon the proper practices and procedures involved, and the proper fact pattern under which such seizures take place. * WE, the People must get involved to put a genuine stop to such government practices. I would suggest, as an interim measure, that you talk to others about this and, if you are able, write to your legislative representatives objecting to the continued use of Civil Asset Forfeiture at the State and Federal level. * Again, give Attorney Steve Lehto a serious look and listen on yet another attempt to clarify the illegality of Civil Asset Forfeiture. Thanks Steve for your efforts to make it clearly known that we deal here with ongoing wrongful government conduct and practices. " * Link shared by: Pastor Mike Benjamins, Jr. of Oregon, USA. Take care and, as applicable, GOD Bless. 2-15-20 @ 11:41 A.M. Oregon Time.
Steve I had less than $200 bucks in smaller bills (singles , 5's) in a pouch in my laptop bag, driving across the Canadian border( it was change from coffee shops over the last year). CBP inspected my laptop bag during a secondary check at Pt huron...4-5 hours later,K9's etc, I was released, but all my data was transferred and all my SD cards and back up hard drives, phone etc were copied. But the $200 was the biggest questioning point. That and the 4 bottles of Canadian Heinz Ketchup.
They should only be able to cease cash as evidence in a trial. There has to be charges associated with it and all of it has to be maintained like any other evidence. They shouldn’t be able to take your money and then not charge you with anything.
Is Criminal Asset Forfeiture always any more just? I seem to recall a story from many years ago when a young guy borrowed his grandmother's car for a few days, decided to pick up a lady of the evening one night, and lost the car because it "facilitated a crime" or some such excuse. Didn't matter that he didn't own the car and that the owner had no knowledge of the crime and no intent to facilitate it. I also seem to recall a story where they tried to seize a motel from its owners because some ne'er-do-wells sometimes rented rooms from which to sell illicit substances. I guess the theory was that this made the motel a "criminal enterprise".
@@jonkirkwood469 It seems to be classic mission creep. Everybody who supports the War on Drugs (I don't) cheered the new laws, like RICO statutes, that were passed with assurances that they were needed to bring down "drug kingpins". Now they're used to rob all the small fry as well as innocent bystanders who get caught in the net.
This happened in Tennessee. A man was driving from one State over to buy a car he found on Craigslist. He was pulled over in the State of Tennessee for a traffic violation and somehow the police found the cash he was carrying to buy the vehicle. The police confiscated it all. Needless to say, he didn't purchase the vehicle.
Can groups of citizens file Civil Asset Forfeiture claims against the government when they break the law? Civil cases can be brought by anyone. Maybe taking some government assets and donating them to charity will change their mind?
Criminal asset forfeiture still sounds like theft, if the money was stolen from people then give it back to the people it was stolen from. But if it was consenting adults making a trade for goods, then it should stay with the criminals
@@markmiller4503 let's take drug sales one person made that product, sold it to another person for money. That person then sold it on to the user, for money. Assuming the user didn't steal that money. He traded his time for that money. At what point would that money have committed a crime worthy of being stolen by the government? By laws made by the government to say that the product or the means of sale where illegal?
In the 80's I lived in Miami Florida but worked on a Tug Boat in New York Harbor. I worked 2 weeks on the vessel and then had 2 weeks off (Vacation). Back then I drove a 2 year old Black Lincoln Town Car, I was in my mid 20's at the time. As flights were so expensive plus the fact that I had Family to visit, I so I would drive me car. My job was very high paying and I usually never carried less than $1000.00 sometime a lot more (if I was going on vacation before returning to Florida). There were times that I had well over $10,000.00 in cash, please remember this was before ATM's and Check Cards. I got pulled over so many time on the New Jersey Turnpike that I left the backseat unbolted and the Spare Tire was loose on the rim so they could search more easily. It got to the point that I know some of the Cops by name. Hearing things like this video makes me glad that I no longer travel this way anymore. I realize that this Law (like most) was created to go after the "bad" people but like most laws it doesn't take to long for them to find other uses for it!
The law was created with good intentions (seizing money from drug runners) but zero checks and balances, and should never have been given to your run-of-the-mill officers of the law to make the decision. It's pretty astounding that Congress hasn't taken this up and fixed the law to make it work for actual criminals, and provides safety checks in place for law abiding citizens.
Thank you for following this case please give us updates I hope they go all the way to the Supreme Court. It's ridiculous that they put money out that they say that it's tender but then when you use it like tender they say you're a criminal. It's like a trick. I heard that there was a police force that would sit outside swap meet places and they would watch if somebody was doing well with their sales and they would pull them over and take their cash
What’s next? “Sir, you look suspicious (of what and why, not provided) so we are ordering you to provide your bank and stock brokerage log in details to further our investigations”.”Here’s your receipt for the transfer of all suspicious funds out of your accounts”. “Have a nice day”.
Steve. I'm not a lawyer but I could play one on T.V. So if you are traveling with a lot of money, invite your moneys' attorney to tag along. That way if your money gets arrested he can demand a bond hearing to bail out your money. That way they would have to criminally charge your money with a crime. If the judge asks if the lawyer is representing you, he just says he is representing the money. You weren't charged with a crime. Someone else at the law ferm represents me.
I first read about civil asset forfeiture back in the early 90s. (I'm not a lawyer.) I was appalled then and I remain appalled now. I can't understand how the courts can square this with the Constitution. Frankly, it can't be, so the continuation of civil asset forfeiture, (among other police activities), serves as a chilling illustration that we are already living in a police state.
8:40 The LEO agency says, "Why wait a year and get 20% (our share of the total budget) of 20% (the total tax on this money), when we can instead seize 95% of it, and keep it all right now?"
And if the locals are forbidden by local law from doing it then all they have to do is "partner" with a federal agency and still get at least a cut of the proceeds.
Another good reason to end the prohibition on street drugs as they did with alcohol. The thieves now days are dressed in a blue uniform and a badge on their chest.
The idea that they are acting against the property doesn't preclude the fact that they are still depriving you of your property. It's not only a bizarre fiction, it's insufficient to the logical ends they claim.
This makes my blood boil. I don't travel with over 10 grand cash often at all. Reason being I have always worried about the possibility of it being stolen. Having to worry about the supposed "good guys" being the thief is insane. This definitely needs to end. I'm already not a fan of law enforcement but this makes it even worse. Thinking they are basically useless and inept is one thing but knowing they are openly corrupt is totally different. I've paid hundreds of thousands in taxes in my life and have never once been helped by law enforcement. I've had vehicles stolen, ATV's stolen, tons of things and never had any results from filing reports. To think that they now are the actual thieves..... What's being madder than blood boiling? That's where I am right now.
When this practice first came in, I was retained by my county prosecutors' office to advise and handle some civil forfeitures. At that time, it was popular in law enforcement to seize assets which belonged to third-parties who associated with the criminal defendant, even though they had little to no evidence that the property owner was involved. Right away, it became clear that the deputy DAs involved were motivated to seize assets which were not within the scope of the statute, purely as a manner of financial recovery. The money was being split between the DA's office and the Sheriff's office. I found that the Sheriffs were being very devious in their representations to support the process. After the first two cases, I stopped accepting requests for such representation. When asked why my position, I explained that the actual functions being employed by their office and the Sheriff would be a criminal enterprise, and son, one of their targets was going to get good lawyer and go after them in federal court. I didn't want to be on the list of defendants. After a year or some, the county commissioners became aware that this was going to be a publicly discussed issue and quietly told the DA to limit the practice to absolutely solid cases, or just knock it off.
Politicians as far as their salary don't make much money so how about we look into their assets and assume that they took bribes and are corrupt and that any excess money outside of their salary was obtained illegally and seized it. We'd see the law change then.
This is one of the most incredible concept of our times. Everybody knows that civil asset forfeiture is absurd on its face yet the fact that the government is permitting itself to get away with this flies in the face of common sense. In short, this is crazy!
Not crazy. They know you can't stop them. They have the power to take your assets, and soon they will take your guns so there will be no risk to their individual agents. What was once yours is now theirs. Might makes right. (As it ever was.)
Notify every govt agency you can think of that you believe Civil Asset Forfeiture is illegal and unconstitutional . . . Then sit back and wait for a tear gas, flashbang grenade filled, storm trooper blitzkrieg, no knock warrant raid on your home because "No "Reasonable" person would ever object to a government condoned operation." You must be doing SOMETHING illegal. Bonus points if you correctly predict which agency you complained to is the first to raid and destroy your home. Extra bonus points if they mistakenly raid and destroy your neighbor's home instead of yours.
We have a rare opportunity to change this this year. Call/write/email the news networks, and let them know that you want to hear what the presidential candidates think about civil asset forfeiture. If this question makes it onto the question list for debates, there is a real chance this could change.
It's much better to pull a Ken Bone. Networks too often screen questions that don't fit their narrative. One person's opinion of crazy or irrelevant questions may be another's important or great question. When you only have time for 12 questions, what, as president, will you do to improve the price of potatoes in Idaho, is definitely not going to make the rough draft! Civil forfeiture is more likely than not seemingly just as crazy for whatever reason. It might also legitimately crack the top 20 questions, but as previously stated, there is only time for 12.
This hits very close to home for me. I was about to do the exact same thing except that since I'm well aware of this theft I'm using cashiers checks. Fortunately I don't live in FL so the fraud linked to it is not an issue. The amounts are about right in the story. A used truck with mileage around 300 to 400k will cost you about $45,000 so $191,000 is right in that ball park for 4 trucks.
I heard of another recent case where someone was carrying her parent’s retirement nest egg on a flight to a new bank where they had moved. TSA took the entire (think it was $82,000) amount. It stinks. BUT, why in the world would someone not use some sort of secure financial instrument (or just electronically wire the funds) instead of (the worst possible and most insecure thing I could think of) cash! If it wasn’t the TSA that took it, it could be some other random person or the luggage could get lost ….it happens. With cash, you have no recourse……because when it’s gone, it’s just gone. The next time you are thinking about carrying some potentially large amounts of cash, first, ask yourself this: Can I afford the loss if this money turns up missing? If the answer is NO, then don’t do it. Come on people!!
Serve an action against THE MONEY? Bwuh? How in the heck does it answer service? Does it hire a lawyer to speak on its behalf - I'm assuming the money is smartly exercising its right to remain silent until counsel comes forth...
Hopefully this is a large enough forfeiture that the Supreme court will get involved and put a stop to this nonsense. Organizations should be donating to help with the legal fees on this, to help end it before it happens to others. Seems this is something a class action lawsuit should tackle with a large number of complainants.
I saw a show highlighting the Tennessee state patrol. They were openly bragging about taking EVERYTHING from “suspected criminals” on the highway. If they believed (could convince) that the money, your car, etc., came from drugs or other illegal activity, they took it all on the side of the road. They even used a drug dog, “that reacted”, to take everything.
Possible reasons behind civil asset forfeiture: 1. The supreme court lets them. 2. It makes great cash flow for the governing body that seizes the money. 3. The government wants to get any taxes owed on otherwise cash transactions. 4. The government wants to become a cashless economy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 5. The government (those in power) wants to create distrust so that they can grab more power than they already have by promising to solve the problem. How often does big government truly solve a problem? We need more statesman and less politicians. Vote for those who recognize they report to a higher authority. In most countries the common person can’t begin to hope to solve this. Only in America can we really hope to route out this corruption.
I don’t get it. If they can clearly prove their intentions they should hand the money back. They have a guy who sells trucks willing to say they were on their way to buy three from him. They have emails showing the seller asked for cash. They own a legit trucking company with 20 trucks and what they’re buying meshes with their business. Im sure they have no criminal history, just doing normal business. WTF else do they have to do to prove they’re innocent??!! 🤬🤬🤬
That's why, when Tennessee passed its reform bill a couple of years ago, one of the major provisions was to restore the presumption of innocence with respect to cash. T.C.A. 40-33-204(l) - "In any forfeiture warrant hearing, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that currency seized, for which a person has claimed ownership, is not subject to forfeiture absent evidence to the contrary. The burden to rebut the presumption is on the seizing officer. "
Now they're going to argue that the money they stole was ACTUALLY less than THEY wrote on THEIR OWN RECEIPT? Even the receipt checking fascists at Wal-Mart would question that nonsense.
There are SOME circumstances where the government (or at least politicians) are happy for you to do cash transactions. For example, if you walk up to your local rep in some private location and hand them a briefcase full of cash, they probably won't complain about it too loudly.
Has the question of whether civil asset forfeiture (at any level of government or by any entity) violates the 4th amendment prohibitions against unreasonable seizures been tested in any courts and if so, what did those courts find?
What's to stop them from pulling over and robbing armored trucks... They are private business no different than that trucking company. It is highway robbery.
Mary Barra of GM should drive through a jurisdiction that's known for doing this and she should carry a million dollars in cash, then when the local sheriff seizes it she can sign over GM to and tell the cop to have fun making payroll and not to crash the stock market.
Would a ruling from the federal courts against this practice even matter? The courts can rule however they feel appropriate but it's up to the officers and agencies on the ground to uphold and enforce the rulings, and since this is a revenue generation option I can't imagine a change in legal understanding making it stop.
Someone stole a Honda Accord from a housekeeping employee at where I worked. The thief immediately took the Accord across the border into Mexico and got caught with drugs returning to the U.S. The agents refused to return the Honda to its owner. It was not a high valued car but it was the only transportation that the cleaning woman owned. This is a scam.
If criminal assets forfeiture as you lay it out was the practice that would be a significant improvement, but I would like to add another provision to the forfeiture, not only the agency seizing the money/goods doesn't keep any of the money/goods, the money/goods are donated to private charities that can be voted on by referendum. Give the government as little incentive to abuse such authority.
What happens when an officer pulls over a Brinks or Loomis (armored car couriers) truck for speeding? Maybe when that happens it will be the case that makes it to the Supreme Court and changes things.
I'm not against capitalism, but everything is all about "profit" now. It's out of control, and something needs to be done about it. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but once profit becomes more important than people's lives and rights, it's become an evil, and needs to be done away with. At least, the excessiveness of it. Also, this argument about a lawsuit against money..... that's proof of insanity.
There are a couple of things that I don't get about these forfeitures. Are the people able to sue for legal fees? Also, wouldn't they be able to sue for triple the amount (treble law)? Also, can't they sue the people who stole the money and not just the agency?
With criminal asset forfeiture, you're likely also aware the Supreme Court recently put some heavy limits on that. They _unanimously_ overturned the seizure of a $42,000 Range Rover taken from someone convicted of drug possession, and they applied the Eighth Amendment's protection against excessive fines since the seizure was in response to a criminal conviction. The maximum fine for the conviction under the applicable State law (Indiana) was $10,000, making the vehicle seizure an "excessive fine". That case was _Timbs v. Indiana_, 586 US ___ (2019).
Why on earth would the trucking company let the guy take that much cash? If he was going to buy lots of trucks, go to the bank and have a wire transfer done. That way there would be no issue with possible bad cashiers checks. But I do agree the government should give him his money back.
It's got me beat why didn't the trucking company just go to the bank and withdraw the money on a cashier's cheque, or send the funds on an electronic transfer via to the seller's bank? Surely that would have solved the problem, or is the U.S. Government so broke that it has to seize private citizen's money to fund their illicit activities?
Our Founding Father's have to be turning in their grave's. The reason the Constitution was drafted was to protect our citizens from the vary thing that is happening all across our great Nation . Sad very sad☹️
Federal Asset Forfeiture is annoying and costly, dealing with it right now. Not sure yet what the government fine will be but I know what I am paying a lawyer to fight it is.
question : if a law enforcement agent - federal , state or municipal - commits a crime by stealing the personal property of a civil citizen do they not make themselves and their agency a target of punitive penalty ? crime : a violation of law. the only way to get their attention is the same way they get our attention. take money out of their pockets. translation : we should not only sue for our funds to be returned, but we should also sue for punitive damages and penalties imposed on the agent and agency responsible for the crime. when they start paying fines for attempting to steal money from people who are obviously not committing a crime they will be encouraged to stop stealing by the people who encouraged them to steal.
This is insane. Does any other country do this? Sometimes Americans think just bc something hasn’t been declared unconstitutional (yet), it’s okay. The whole thing is completely nuts.
1996 I had a couple of paychecks cashed and saved up. in my pickup. Got pulled over got a full illegal search, they set my cash aside then proceeded to tear apart my truck. CHP tore out my heater ducts, glove box, dropped my two completely full gas tanks on the side of the road. dumped out my tool box, took me to jail for suspeciously having $450 bucks.
Hi Steve. What gets me about that whole darn thing is that the police don't have to have any kind of proof that it's I'll gotten money. Just verbal suspicion is all. Also that the police face no repercussion for being wrong. There has to be something about this law that could get it thrown out for good, because it doesn't seem like a real law at all. Take care. Jpol.
At some point this needs to be remedied... and I mean quickly, before the public decides to take the stance that the police officer is violating his or her rights and is indeed committing "armed robbery" against them. At which point the public may decide that lethal force is deemed appropriate to thwart the crime. I'm in no way suggesting that this would be a proper way to handle the situation, but if the police officers realized that there was a fair chance they might get shot on the side of the road - either by some frail senior citizen grandma that carries her cash in her purse or some minimum-wage earner young man or woman that doesn't make enough money to even open a checking account ye,t the practice would stop overnight. When the citizens start to feel so utterly helpless against those same people that swore an oath to protect them and the constitution, that's when they might start to take justice into their hands. I hope you choose not to delete this comment because I think it's a real possibility that this practice unchecked will result in some poor officer just doing his job, doing what his commanding LT instructs him to do, doing what the Village Commissioners tell the Police LT to do, loses his life or is seriously injured. It would be senseless and tragic, all because the Police dept needs new vehicles every 3 years or the Mayor of the town needs a bigger salary or 12 assistants.
Looking at this from a Canadian perspective, is it not possible, in the U.S. to leave the money in the bank and then withdraw the money from the bank in another city? I question that carrying large sums of money for this purpose is common. What IS common, is that someone leaks to criminals that you are carrying almost $200 grand. Who then plot to take it from you! Tell me this! Do people in the U.S. buy houses this way?
I have to carry cash, the banks are terrible and the atm and debit cards go down for a week at a time sometimes, leaving people unable to withdraw cash or pay at the cash register, the reasons that the banks systems go down are unknown but I assume it is so that they can lock down customer money for special investment deals then unlock it when the deals have been repaid etc
The next thing we'll hear about is banks having a desk with a Notary in the chair to certify that the "more than 100 dollars cash" you are leaving the bank with is indeed legally your money!!! But God help you if you buy a pack of gum and don't keep the receipt to verify the original sum!
A $10,000 or more check should NOT get reported by a bank. Period. I say should only because stoopid stuff gets done all the time. Further, the report is NOT to the IRS. It’s to FinCEN, a dept that hires IRS under contract to do data entry. (They have lots of people and computers, ya know) The IRS needs a legit cause to access the data just like any other agency.
First rule. Get a travelers check. That can be canceled and reissued. It’s worthless to the cops. I’m going to the county clerk and seizing their money because it’s I’ll gotten.
I wonder if criminal justice curricula now contain "Armed Robbery of Taxpayers". They should. Giving a receipt for the correct amount was an amateur mistake. As was letting the victim keep any money.
Every person is the wrong person for this activity. Do not surrender the possession of the money under any circumstances. Receipts are not negotiable. Promises are not negotiable. If the contact persists, leave the airport. Can they detain you? Can they arrest you?
The only way to really work against this is to play a shell game. Company A in city A wishes to make a cash payment to company B in city B for durable goods (a lawful and legal transaction in the course of doing commerce). Company A must now split the full sum over three or more vehicles: Cars A and B carry 25% of the amount, and Car C carries 50% of the total amount. Car A (25%) takes a longer route using U.S. highways, and cars B (25%) and C (50%) may take interstates, but all cars need to take different routes in different cardinal directions, and leave at different times. These cars may not be rented - they must be company or employee vehicles. All cars must operate lawfully and legally, and be checked to be free of burnt out or flickering taillights, aftermarket accessories, political bumper stickers, mechanical problems, or any sign that anything is going on other than a person traveling from one city to another city, with their own personal effects. This way, depending on which car's driver is detained by highway patrol, at least 50% and hopefully 75% of the money is recoverable if the full amount cannot reach its destination.
Sir I’m from the Uk , I can’t believe your freedom loveing nation can continue to put up with this Gross abuse of power . I wonder what would happen if guns were confiscated on this basis !!
The missing money was obviously extradited to individual officers pockets.
Politicians are crooked. What amazes me is that people still believe they are honest.
People don’t believe that politicians are honest... what they believe is the ones they support will steal more from others and give a portion of it to them... and are OK with it as long as the corruption results in a net benefit for them.
re: ". the POTUS....aka the most corrupt of all of them."
Yet EACH successive INVESTIGATION nets exactly NOTHIN. What's your next move Wile E. Coyote? Gonna order more ??? from the ACME company?
Almost wonder, what would happen if someone mistook the cop for a mugger when this was attempted, and shot the cop accordingly. If you shoot a mugger, you can claim self defense. Simply because there's a costume on the mugger doesn't change that he's a mugger.
ruclips.net/video/KQ9w1HHRMQw/видео.html
When should you shoot a cop?
Mistook?
@@alleyoop4465 Present tense = take
Past tense = Took or taken
Mistook can also be substituted for mistaken. English doesn't make any goddamn sense most of the time.
Box= Boxes Ox= Oxen...Oxs...nope.
Goose= Geese Moose=Moose...Meese? WTF!
they should convict the gun when a murder is committed
I both love and hate that idea. Evey gun everywhere matches the description of another gun somewhere that was used in a crime. I don't think I would like their solution.
Maybe we should stay on topic.
gun manufacturer.
😅😅
The government is getting away with much more than this
Holy moly, yes they are. We are living in extraordinary times. The words people use don't matter, only their actions.
@@Acoustic_Theory Apparently not. Actions don't matter. Only the words on the news.
I’ve been saying for years that it appears that we are slowly creating a Royal Class in the United States. This is a good example of one of the steps we have taken.
Congress already exempts itself from a lot of legislation and rewards themselves with money and privileges us regular folks can only dream of.
Since 1933
And according to the constitution have grounds to no longer comply.
And this is how a lot of the lowly agents are retained - even though they themselves are from the underclass, they are allowed to wield instruments of power in a limited way to suit their own perverse ends, and they are allowed to keep a share of the spoils, even though they only serve at the pleasure of the overclass.
Not so slowly now. Our orange toddler in chief essentially proclaimed himself king in his weekend twitter rampage.
@@bugatti314159 Metaphor is lost on the feeble-minded, or those with an agenda. Using a common saying, "When you shoot at the king, you had better not miss" does not necessarily imply Trump views himself as the king, but what he shares with the king from his saying is an ability to take action against the subterfuge in his own ranks. If he truly did view himself as king, he would first dissolve congress and the judiciary by executive order, then he would eliminate any limit to his term, allowing him to serve for life. This is not to say that I think either of those should happen (I think they shouldn't), but those are just two changes necessary for the President to become a monarch. Until those things happen, he ain't king.
Maybe next they'll start pulling over armored trucks after leaving Banks.
Banks have elected officials relatives on the board and that'd cause trouble.
Instead, require the banks to provide 'know your customer' info real time when money with withdrawn. Then a special 'asset team' can be created that uses cell data to location track and stop anyone guilty of possessing assets that worth confiscating without leaving anything to chance.
They won't piss off banks. Not only do the banks have records for who owns every dollar, they have records for who owns every politician.
@@seanclark8452 DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!
re: "they have records for who owns every politician."
... and on speed-dial even.
Nope the banks are in the club
We actually need a clear case like this to lose enough times in court to reach the Supreme Court. The problem is, the government will never let a case get that far before handing the money back. It costs millions for a single private citizen to progress a case through the many layers to reach the Supreme Court and the government knows that most of the people they seize the money from no longer have the means to fight them all the way.
This is why we have a second amendment.
You should see information that the Institute for Justice has compiled... ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
And
ij.org/activism/legislation/civil-forfeiture-legislative-highlights/
(You can get a hardcopy or an email of their reports)
Layla OBrien Thank you for the links!!!
so what if they give the money back go and have the officers/agents charged with grand theft that way when they give you the money back it is an admittance of guilt
re: "It costs millions for a single private citizen to progress a case through the many layers to reach the Supreme Court"
>> If we JUST had something where we could all band together, with a cute name like "Citizens United" or something like that ...
The govt. needs to pay 3x damages and pay all legal fees if they lose in court!
Keep up the good work on Federal Asset Forfeiture! As a merchant, I am always worried about being robbed on my way to the bank by the police.
My former local Rep tried to pass a law in making it illegal and got a lot of pushback from even the local LEOs and politicians here. After he left office, he came in my store and we were talking about it. The argument that was presented in opposition to his proposal was that locally we did it right and of course the claim was made that due process was served because a judge approves all of these and it is only used against criminals.
I told him he missed the opportunity to stick a dagger in the heart of the argument that our local sheriff and law enforcement were making because the citizens they represent, travel all over Texas and other states and unless they were going to form up a posse and go arrest the police and sheriff deputies that were doing it illegally, they had a duty to support outlawing civil forfeitures because they had a duty to protect the traveling citizens that they represent.
Look up the New Yorker magazine article on Tenaha, Texas for reference. They would threaten people with CPS taking their kids if they didn't sign over the property and more than half of the seizures that included stuff like jewelry was for less than $600. So it isn't like they were going after drug kingpins and leaving families alone.
Pound your locals with a duty to protect the "local citizens when traveling" as the means to stop this abhorrent behavior by the government.
ruclips.net/video/KQ9w1HHRMQw/видео.html
When should you shoot a cop?
These stories make my blood boil
It's literally one of the many reasons this fucking country exists. They were tired of this shit happening.
I'm with you! This makes me absolutely sick... Whats happened to our once great country?
This sounds so crazy. I'm wondering why none of the national cable news channels report on it? I wish it would be brought up to all candidates, congressmen and women, and senators. There should be a bigger stink over this. This is a bipartisan issue.
Because we all know already they're happy with this happening.
John Oliver did a while back.
Because they're nothing more than CIA paid actors
Telling other people is very difficult. My father has been an attorney for over 50 years and he didn't believe me when I told him about it. He insisted that any forfeiture is part of a criminal conviction, or that I was getting the information from a conspiracy theory website.
I wonder if coffee counts? My daughter was pulled over for going 90 in a 65 zone. When she flipped open her wallet, her driver's license was next to her sheriff's department ID. The officer just shook his head and warned her to keep it under 80. And "if I have to pull you over again, I expect you to buy me a coffee. Three cream, four sugar." Which at the time happened to be how I like my coffee. A few months later, she was pulled over again for speeding. By the same officer. She had picked up donuts and coffee and was on her way to get me. She rolled down her window. "Hey, buddy. Three cream, four sugar. Right? And would you like a donut?"
Although she was engaged in unlawful activity, the coffee and maple old fashioned were mine. Do I stand a chance of getting paid for my loss?
Didn't think so.
To: Attorney Steve Lehto: I want to personally thank you for what you're doing on this and other issues. Another good video! I know that you sometimes have to endure various detractors who object to something you might share. But, you and I know it goes with the territory of video media efforts. The following is what I commented when I shared this video to all my readership and viewership:
*
"My friends, brethren, and fellow countrymen (includes women), I regret that I find it necessary to intrude upon your existence, so that, the scourge of Civil Asset Forfeiture can be addressed. For those who are planning to vote for various candidates for government office, where that office is poised to do something about this problem, I strongly suggest that you withhold your vote for any person who desires such office (or re-election to such an office) who will not promise to do something to stop the wrongful seizures of cash and/or property from USA-based Americans (or those under USA jurisdiction). Like Steve Lehto, I would likely support Criminal Asset Forfeiture (as opposed to Civil Asset Forfeiture) depending upon the proper practices and procedures involved, and the proper fact pattern under which such seizures take place.
*
WE, the People must get involved to put a genuine stop to such government practices. I would suggest, as an interim measure, that you talk to others about this and, if you are able, write to your legislative representatives objecting to the continued use of Civil Asset Forfeiture at the State and Federal level.
*
Again, give Attorney Steve Lehto a serious look and listen on yet another attempt to clarify the illegality of Civil Asset Forfeiture. Thanks Steve for your efforts to make it clearly known that we deal here with ongoing wrongful government conduct and practices.
"
*
Link shared by: Pastor Mike Benjamins, Jr. of Oregon, USA. Take care and, as applicable, GOD Bless. 2-15-20 @ 11:41 A.M. Oregon Time.
Steve I had less than $200 bucks in smaller bills (singles , 5's) in a pouch in my laptop bag, driving across the Canadian border( it was change from coffee shops over the last year). CBP inspected my laptop bag during a secondary check at Pt huron...4-5 hours later,K9's etc, I was released, but all my data was transferred and all my SD cards and back up hard drives, phone etc were copied. But the $200 was the biggest questioning point. That and the 4 bottles of Canadian Heinz Ketchup.
Thank you Steve .
"The US Govt vs 9 barrels of wine"
I know who I'm voting for!
They should only be able to cease cash as evidence in a trial. There has to be charges associated with it and all of it has to be maintained like any other evidence.
They shouldn’t be able to take your money and then not charge you with anything.
Is Criminal Asset Forfeiture always any more just? I seem to recall a story from many years ago when a young guy borrowed his grandmother's car for a few days, decided to pick up a lady of the evening one night, and lost the car because it "facilitated a crime" or some such excuse. Didn't matter that he didn't own the car and that the owner had no knowledge of the crime and no intent to facilitate it. I also seem to recall a story where they tried to seize a motel from its owners because some ne'er-do-wells sometimes rented rooms from which to sell illicit substances. I guess the theory was that this made the motel a "criminal enterprise".
@@jonkirkwood469 It seems to be classic mission creep. Everybody who supports the War on Drugs (I don't) cheered the new laws, like RICO statutes, that were passed with assurances that they were needed to bring down "drug kingpins". Now they're used to rob all the small fry as well as innocent bystanders who get caught in the net.
This happened in Tennessee. A man was driving from one State over to buy a car he found on Craigslist. He was pulled over in the State of Tennessee for a traffic violation and somehow the police found the cash he was carrying to buy the vehicle. The police confiscated it all. Needless to say, he didn't purchase the vehicle.
This is infuriating! Keep us updated with any developments or things we can do.
Can groups of citizens file Civil Asset Forfeiture claims against the government when they break the law? Civil cases can be brought by anyone.
Maybe taking some government assets and donating them to charity will change their mind?
How has it the the SCOTUS has not addressed this yet. I have been hearing about this for years.
I'm writing my state rep and senator today. This HAS to stop.
You're so cute 🤣
Criminal asset forfeiture still sounds like theft, if the money was stolen from people then give it back to the people it was stolen from. But if it was consenting adults making a trade for goods, then it should stay with the criminals
How can they charge a inanimate object?
Pretty sure the criminals are the ones stealing the stuff..
@@markmiller4503 let's take drug sales one person made that product, sold it to another person for money. That person then sold it on to the user, for money. Assuming the user didn't steal that money. He traded his time for that money. At what point would that money have committed a crime worthy of being stolen by the government? By laws made by the government to say that the product or the means of sale where illegal?
My wife has used civil asset forfeiture on my money for years, all monies in the house must be forfeited to her.
In the 80's I lived in Miami Florida but worked on a Tug Boat in New York Harbor. I worked 2 weeks on the vessel and then had 2 weeks off (Vacation). Back then I drove a 2 year old Black Lincoln Town Car, I was in my mid 20's at the time. As flights were so expensive plus the fact that I had Family to visit, I so I would drive me car. My job was very high paying and I usually never carried less than $1000.00 sometime a lot more (if I was going on vacation before returning to Florida). There were times that I had well over $10,000.00 in cash, please remember this was before ATM's and Check Cards.
I got pulled over so many time on the New Jersey Turnpike that I left the backseat unbolted and the Spare Tire was loose on the rim so they could search more easily. It got to the point that I know some of the Cops by name.
Hearing things like this video makes me glad that I no longer travel this way anymore. I realize that this Law (like most) was created to go after the "bad" people but like most laws it doesn't take to long for them to find other uses for it!
The law was created with good intentions (seizing money from drug runners) but zero checks and balances, and should never have been given to your run-of-the-mill officers of the law to make the decision. It's pretty astounding that Congress hasn't taken this up and fixed the law to make it work for actual criminals, and provides safety checks in place for law abiding citizens.
They don't like to go after real criminals as that is too dangerous
Read the protocols of the learned elders of zion. That is their play book, you'll cringe at whats next for us all.
Thank you for following this case please give us updates I hope they go all the way to the Supreme Court. It's ridiculous that they put money out that they say that it's tender but then when you use it like tender they say you're a criminal. It's like a trick. I heard that there was a police force that would sit outside swap meet places and they would watch if somebody was doing well with their sales and they would pull them over and take their cash
somewhere there's a federal agent twisting his/her mustache looking at a crisp 100 by the red Ferrari.
What’s next? “Sir, you look suspicious (of what and why, not provided) so we are ordering you to provide your bank and stock brokerage log in details to further our investigations”.”Here’s your receipt for the transfer of all suspicious funds out of your accounts”. “Have a nice day”.
Steve. I'm not a lawyer but I could play one on T.V.
So if you are traveling with a lot of money, invite your moneys' attorney to tag along.
That way if your money gets arrested he can demand a bond hearing to bail out your money.
That way they would have to criminally charge your money with a crime.
If the judge asks if the lawyer is representing you, he just says he is representing the money.
You weren't charged with a crime. Someone else at the law ferm represents me.
I first read about civil asset forfeiture back in the early 90s. (I'm not a lawyer.) I was appalled then and I remain appalled now. I can't understand how the courts can square this with the Constitution. Frankly, it can't be, so the continuation of civil asset forfeiture, (among other police activities), serves as a chilling illustration that we are already living in a police state.
8:40 The LEO agency says, "Why wait a year and get 20% (our share of the total budget) of 20% (the total tax on this money), when we can instead seize 95% of it, and keep it all right now?"
And if the locals are forbidden by local law from doing it then all they have to do is "partner" with a federal agency and still get at least a cut of the proceeds.
oath to uphold the constitution before taking office. after taking office, just words on a page........
Another good reason to end the prohibition on street drugs as they did with alcohol. The thieves now days are dressed in a blue uniform and a badge on their chest.
ruclips.net/video/KQ9w1HHRMQw/видео.html
When should you shoot a cop?
A well presented case, Steve.
The founding fathers are turning over in their graves.
If a police officer ask you if you are carrying any money 💰 do you have to tell him???
The idea that they are acting against the property doesn't preclude the fact that they are still depriving you of your property. It's not only a bizarre fiction, it's insufficient to the logical ends they claim.
So, when do the police start heisting armored cars?
LET them try coming in via a 'port of entry' ...
This makes my blood boil. I don't travel with over 10 grand cash often at all. Reason being I have always worried about the possibility of it being stolen. Having to worry about the supposed "good guys" being the thief is insane. This definitely needs to end. I'm already not a fan of law enforcement but this makes it even worse. Thinking they are basically useless and inept is one thing but knowing they are openly corrupt is totally different. I've paid hundreds of thousands in taxes in my life and have never once been helped by law enforcement. I've had vehicles stolen, ATV's stolen, tons of things and never had any results from filing reports. To think that they now are the actual thieves..... What's being madder than blood boiling? That's where I am right now.
When this practice first came in, I was retained by my county prosecutors' office to advise and handle some civil forfeitures. At that time, it was popular in law enforcement to seize assets which belonged to third-parties who associated with the criminal defendant, even though they had little to no evidence that the property owner was involved. Right away, it became clear that the deputy DAs involved were motivated to seize assets which were not within the scope of the statute, purely as a manner of financial recovery. The money was being split between the DA's office and the Sheriff's office. I found that the Sheriffs were being very devious in their representations to support the process. After the first two cases, I stopped accepting requests for such representation. When asked why my position, I explained that the actual functions being employed by their office and the Sheriff would be a criminal enterprise, and son, one of their targets was going to get good lawyer and go after them in federal court. I didn't want to be on the list of defendants. After a year or some, the county commissioners became aware that this was going to be a publicly discussed issue and quietly told the DA to limit the practice to absolutely solid cases, or just knock it off.
Politicians as far as their salary don't make much money so how about we look into their assets and assume that they took bribes and are corrupt and that any excess money outside of their salary was obtained illegally and seized it. We'd see the law change then.
This is one of the most incredible concept of our times. Everybody knows that civil asset forfeiture is absurd on its face yet the fact that the government is permitting itself to get away with this flies in the face of common sense. In short, this is crazy!
Not crazy. They know you can't stop them. They have the power to take your assets, and soon they will take your guns so there will be no risk to their individual agents. What was once yours is now theirs. Might makes right. (As it ever was.)
Notify every govt agency you can think of that you believe Civil Asset Forfeiture is illegal and unconstitutional . . .
Then sit back and wait for a tear gas, flashbang grenade filled, storm trooper blitzkrieg, no knock warrant raid on your home because "No "Reasonable" person would ever object to a government condoned operation." You must be doing SOMETHING illegal.
Bonus points if you correctly predict which agency you complained to is the first to raid and destroy your home.
Extra bonus points if they mistakenly raid and destroy your neighbor's home instead of yours.
We have a rare opportunity to change this this year. Call/write/email the news networks, and let them know that you want to hear what the presidential candidates think about civil asset forfeiture. If this question makes it onto the question list for debates, there is a real chance this could change.
It's much better to pull a Ken Bone. Networks too often screen questions that don't fit their narrative. One person's opinion of crazy or irrelevant questions may be another's important or great question. When you only have time for 12 questions, what, as president, will you do to improve the price of potatoes in Idaho, is definitely not going to make the rough draft! Civil forfeiture is more likely than not seemingly just as crazy for whatever reason. It might also legitimately crack the top 20 questions, but as previously stated, there is only time for 12.
This hits very close to home for me. I was about to do the exact same thing except that since I'm well aware of this theft I'm using cashiers checks. Fortunately I don't live in FL so the fraud linked to it is not an issue. The amounts are about right in the story. A used truck with mileage around 300 to 400k will cost you about $45,000 so $191,000 is right in that ball park for 4 trucks.
I heard of another recent case where someone was carrying her parent’s retirement nest egg on a flight to a new bank where they had moved. TSA took the entire (think it was $82,000) amount. It stinks. BUT, why in the world would someone not use some sort of secure financial instrument (or just electronically wire the funds) instead of (the worst possible and most insecure thing I could think of) cash! If it wasn’t the TSA that took it, it could be some other random person or the luggage could get lost ….it happens. With cash, you have no recourse……because when it’s gone, it’s just gone. The next time you are thinking about carrying some potentially large amounts of cash, first, ask yourself this: Can I afford the loss if this money turns up missing? If the answer is NO, then don’t do it. Come on people!!
Serve an action against THE MONEY? Bwuh? How in the heck does it answer service? Does it hire a lawyer to speak on its behalf - I'm assuming the money is smartly exercising its right to remain silent until counsel comes forth...
I am from Tampa, I missed this one.
Hopefully this is a large enough forfeiture that the Supreme court will get involved and put a stop to this nonsense. Organizations should be donating to help with the legal fees on this, to help end it before it happens to others. Seems this is something a class action lawsuit should tackle with a large number of complainants.
I saw a show highlighting the Tennessee state patrol. They were openly bragging about taking EVERYTHING from “suspected criminals” on the highway. If they believed (could convince) that the money, your car, etc., came from drugs or other illegal activity, they took it all on the side of the road. They even used a drug dog, “that reacted”, to take everything.
Possible reasons behind civil asset forfeiture:
1. The supreme court lets them.
2. It makes great cash flow for the governing body that seizes the money.
3. The government wants to get any taxes owed on otherwise cash transactions.
4. The government wants to become a cashless economy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
5. The government (those in power) wants to create distrust so that they can grab more power than they already have by promising to solve the problem. How often does big government truly solve a problem?
We need more statesman and less politicians. Vote for those who recognize they report to a higher authority. In most countries the common person can’t begin to hope to solve this. Only in America can we really hope to route out this corruption.
I don’t get it. If they can clearly prove their intentions they should hand the money back. They have a guy who sells trucks willing to say they were on their way to buy three from him. They have emails showing the seller asked for cash. They own a legit trucking company with 20 trucks and what they’re buying meshes with their business. Im sure they have no criminal history, just doing normal business. WTF else do they have to do to prove they’re innocent??!! 🤬🤬🤬
That's why, when Tennessee passed its reform bill a couple of years ago, one of the major provisions was to restore the presumption of innocence with respect to cash.
T.C.A. 40-33-204(l) - "In any forfeiture warrant hearing, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that currency seized, for which a person has claimed ownership, is not subject to forfeiture absent evidence to the contrary. The burden to rebut the presumption is on the seizing officer.
"
If money is the entity, then how do bank robbers get charged by the bank
Now they're going to argue that the money they stole was ACTUALLY less than THEY wrote on THEIR OWN RECEIPT?
Even the receipt checking fascists at Wal-Mart would question that nonsense.
Go back and look up the word fascist. You’re using that “scary word“ for Clickbait.
Well, we can't return the portion that was embezzled now can we?
There are SOME circumstances where the government (or at least politicians) are happy for you to do cash transactions. For example, if you walk up to your local rep in some private location and hand them a briefcase full of cash, they probably won't complain about it too loudly.
Has the question of whether civil asset forfeiture (at any level of government or by any entity) violates the 4th amendment prohibitions against unreasonable seizures been tested in any courts and if so, what did those courts find?
In the UK they have dogs that are trained to sniff out cash in the airport. It's disgusting and I don't think that we're too far behind.
What's to stop them from pulling over and robbing armored trucks... They are private business no different than that trucking company. It is highway robbery.
Mary Barra of GM should drive through a jurisdiction that's known for doing this and she should carry a million dollars in cash, then when the local sheriff seizes it she can sign over GM to and tell the cop to have fun making payroll and not to crash the stock market.
Would a ruling from the federal courts against this practice even matter? The courts can rule however they feel appropriate but it's up to the officers and agencies on the ground to uphold and enforce the rulings, and since this is a revenue generation option I can't imagine a change in legal understanding making it stop.
Thank you for making people aware.
Someone stole a Honda Accord from a housekeeping employee at where I worked. The thief immediately took the Accord across the border into Mexico and got caught with drugs returning to the U.S. The agents refused to return the Honda to its owner. It was not a high valued car but it was the only transportation that the cleaning woman owned. This is a scam.
Steve, that $100 bill behind you looks awfully suspicious!
If criminal assets forfeiture as you lay it out was the practice that would be a significant improvement, but I would like to add another provision to the forfeiture, not only the agency seizing the money/goods doesn't keep any of the money/goods, the money/goods are donated to private charities that can be voted on by referendum. Give the government as little incentive to abuse such authority.
What happens when an officer pulls over a Brinks or Loomis (armored car couriers) truck for speeding? Maybe when that happens it will be the case that makes it to the Supreme Court and changes things.
Can't one of these cases be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court and hopefully get ruled unconstitutional?
I'm not against capitalism, but everything is all about "profit" now. It's out of control, and something needs to be done about it. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but once profit becomes more important than people's lives and rights, it's become an evil, and needs to be done away with. At least, the excessiveness of it. Also, this argument about a lawsuit against money..... that's proof of insanity.
There are a couple of things that I don't get about these forfeitures. Are the people able to sue for legal fees? Also, wouldn't they be able to sue for triple the amount (treble law)? Also, can't they sue the people who stole the money and not just the agency?
I just notice your T-shirt. I found a poster of MC5 a few years back.
With criminal asset forfeiture, you're likely also aware the Supreme Court recently put some heavy limits on that. They _unanimously_ overturned the seizure of a $42,000 Range Rover taken from someone convicted of drug possession, and they applied the Eighth Amendment's protection against excessive fines since the seizure was in response to a criminal conviction. The maximum fine for the conviction under the applicable State law (Indiana) was $10,000, making the vehicle seizure an "excessive fine". That case was _Timbs v. Indiana_, 586 US ___ (2019).
Yes I am aware. I did a video on it. But they addressed it as a fine. They did not address the civil asset forfeiture angle of it.
Why on earth would the trucking company let the guy take that much cash? If he was going to buy lots of trucks, go to the bank and have a wire transfer done. That way there would be no issue with possible bad cashiers checks. But I do agree the government should give him his money back.
It's got me beat why didn't the trucking company just go to the bank and withdraw the money on a cashier's cheque, or send the funds on an electronic transfer via to the seller's bank? Surely that would have solved the problem, or is the U.S. Government so broke that it has to seize private citizen's money to fund their illicit activities?
Civil regulations are virtually impossible to counter. Just try arguing any civil regulation is punitive.
Our Founding Father's have to be turning in their grave's. The reason the Constitution was drafted was to protect our citizens from the vary thing that is happening all across our great Nation . Sad very sad☹️
Federal Asset Forfeiture is annoying and costly, dealing with it right now. Not sure yet what the government fine will be but I know what I am paying a lawyer to fight it is.
question : if a law enforcement agent - federal , state or municipal - commits a crime by stealing the personal property of a civil citizen do they not make themselves and their agency a target of punitive penalty ?
crime : a violation of law.
the only way to get their attention is the same way they get our attention. take money out of their pockets.
translation : we should not only sue for our funds to be returned, but we should also sue for punitive damages and penalties imposed on the agent and agency responsible for the crime.
when they start paying fines for attempting to steal money from people who are obviously not committing a crime they will be encouraged to stop stealing by the people who encouraged them to steal.
This is insane. Does any other country do this? Sometimes Americans think just bc something hasn’t been declared unconstitutional (yet), it’s okay. The whole thing is completely nuts.
1996 I had a couple of paychecks cashed and saved up. in my pickup. Got pulled over got a full illegal search, they set my cash aside then proceeded to tear apart my truck. CHP tore out my heater ducts, glove box, dropped my two completely full gas tanks on the side of the road. dumped out my tool box, took me to jail for suspeciously having $450 bucks.
Hi Steve. What gets me about that whole darn thing is that the police don't have to have any kind of proof that it's I'll gotten money. Just verbal suspicion is all. Also that the police face no repercussion for being wrong. There has to be something about this law that could get it thrown out for good, because it doesn't seem like a real law at all. Take care. Jpol.
At some point this needs to be remedied... and I mean quickly, before the public decides to take the stance that the police officer is violating his or her rights and is indeed committing "armed robbery" against them. At which point the public may decide that lethal force is deemed appropriate to thwart the crime. I'm in no way suggesting that this would be a proper way to handle the situation, but if the police officers realized that there was a fair chance they might get shot on the side of the road - either by some frail senior citizen grandma that carries her cash in her purse or some minimum-wage earner young man or woman that doesn't make enough money to even open a checking account ye,t the practice would stop overnight. When the citizens start to feel so utterly helpless against those same people that swore an oath to protect them and the constitution, that's when they might start to take justice into their hands. I hope you choose not to delete this comment because I think it's a real possibility that this practice unchecked will result in some poor officer just doing his job, doing what his commanding LT instructs him to do, doing what the Village Commissioners tell the Police LT to do, loses his life or is seriously injured. It would be senseless and tragic, all because the Police dept needs new vehicles every 3 years or the Mayor of the town needs a bigger salary or 12 assistants.
Looking at this from a Canadian perspective, is it not possible, in the U.S. to leave the money in the bank and then withdraw the money from the bank in another city? I question that carrying large sums of money for this purpose is common. What IS common, is that someone leaks to criminals that you are carrying almost $200 grand. Who then plot to take it from you! Tell me this! Do people in the U.S. buy houses this way?
I have to carry cash, the banks are terrible and the atm and debit cards go down for a week at a time sometimes, leaving people unable to withdraw cash or pay at the cash register, the reasons that the banks systems go down are unknown but I assume it is so that they can lock down customer money for special investment deals then unlock it when the deals have been repaid etc
So the majority of the money can sue for wrongful imprisonment and the remainder (30K ish), if ever found, can sue for being kidnapped?
The next thing we'll hear about is banks having a desk with a Notary in the chair to certify that the "more than 100 dollars cash" you are leaving the bank with is indeed legally your money!!!
But God help you if you buy a pack of gum and don't keep the receipt to verify the original sum!
A $10,000 or more check should NOT get reported by a bank. Period. I say should only because stoopid stuff gets done all the time. Further, the report is NOT to the IRS. It’s to FinCEN, a dept that hires IRS under contract to do data entry. (They have lots of people and computers, ya know) The IRS needs a legit cause to access the data just like any other agency.
First rule. Get a travelers check. That can be canceled and reissued. It’s worthless to the cops. I’m going to the county clerk and seizing their money because it’s I’ll gotten.
Write and call your congressman and do this every year until someone listens. The more people who write and call the more the congressmen listen.
Its a case of lack of awareness. We need to tell everyone about it!
They don't care because you know that it will never happen to one of them.
Jews only care about Israel, not about the cattle they plan on slaughtering in less than 5 years from now. 2025 isn't far from now.
I wonder if criminal justice curricula now contain "Armed Robbery of Taxpayers". They should. Giving a receipt for the correct amount was an amateur mistake. As was letting the victim keep any money.
As with any travesty of Justice, it's only a matter of time before they do this to the wrong person.
Every person is the wrong person for this activity. Do not surrender the possession of the money under any circumstances. Receipts are not negotiable. Promises are not negotiable. If the contact persists, leave the airport. Can they detain you? Can they arrest you?
It is a good thing that the common thief that tries to take people's money don't know to think like that. I wonder if they would get by with it.
The only way to really work against this is to play a shell game. Company A in city A wishes to make a cash payment to company B in city B for durable goods (a lawful and legal transaction in the course of doing commerce). Company A must now split the full sum over three or more vehicles: Cars A and B carry 25% of the amount, and Car C carries 50% of the total amount. Car A (25%) takes a longer route using U.S. highways, and cars B (25%) and C (50%) may take interstates, but all cars need to take different routes in different cardinal directions, and leave at different times. These cars may not be rented - they must be company or employee vehicles. All cars must operate lawfully and legally, and be checked to be free of burnt out or flickering taillights, aftermarket accessories, political bumper stickers, mechanical problems, or any sign that anything is going on other than a person traveling from one city to another city, with their own personal effects. This way, depending on which car's driver is detained by highway patrol, at least 50% and hopefully 75% of the money is recoverable if the full amount cannot reach its destination.
Your Honor, I am the (self) appointed attorney for the money and it has assured me it wishes to go home with me.
I use to think that the people who supported Bit Coin were of the Black Helicopter type but I am starting to reconsider that position.
Steve, you get me wound up. What about the "Interference with interstate commerce" angle to these forfeiture cases?
Sir I’m from the Uk , I can’t believe your freedom loveing nation can continue to put up with this Gross abuse of power . I wonder what would happen if guns were confiscated on this basis !!
Check out the state of Virginia...it's on their list to do just that. It's the only purpose of "registration"