Yeah, right. He was going to buy land for his church WITH CASH. He didn't stop to convert the money into a cashiers check because hey, they don't have banks in el Salvador, so how would he know about that. And the seller was going to be perfectly happy to be paid in cash! Twenty-eight thousand in small bills!!!
Even so, if he had some kind of sales agreement or other documentation that the sale was going to take place, he would get the money back.
That's not as implausible as you make it sound. Private party transaction. Virginia landowner selling a piece of property, who prefers stuffing his mattress to banks. Cashiers checks have been forged many times the past couple decades due to increased capability of printers. I lived in Virginia for a couple years; met many locals who do business in cash only.
Might be as simple as a cash discount. I've bought a new roof, several used cars, a couple major upgrades on the house, a boat, all in cash over the last 20 years. Most of those were over 5k; the lowest was 1.5k . The roof in particular was 20% cheaper in cash.
Yes, the bank likes to ask. I don't like to carry large sums of money for long. But as WoN said, it's not the bank's business.
I used to use Amex travelers checks to transport. People seem to have stopped accepting them in large amounts; maybe the forgery problem again. Wire transfer is ridiculously expensive IMO, takes time, documents, tracking. Credit cards often have surcharges on cash, and start interest from the date withdrawn, where purchases get a grace period to PIF. Credit cash also usually gets limited to a small percentage of your purchasing power.
There is no really good answer. And worse now than it was before 911, though I think dating it to Reagan era is correct. I just didn't have a lot of money before the 80's, so no personal experience with moving money then.
Even if the person with the money has committed a crime, no money that isn't actually part of the crime should be taken. If you are rolling down the highway smoking a joint and get stopped by a cop, you should get whatever the laws call for in that case (ticket, arrest, etc.) but the money should remain yours. Unless there is actual evidence that you are a drug dealer (lots of drugs in the car packaged and ready to sell, etc.) or that the money is stolen (red dye from the bank on it), the government has no business being in yours.
There is that little thing called the Constitution that way too many people are willing to ignore or run over.
We already have a Constitution. It used to mean something.
It still does, but it will take some time before this makes it's way to the highest court.
The 5th Amendment reads, in part:
No person shall be... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The question here is whether "due process of law" can be construed as requiring the victim to prove their innocence rather than the prosecution providing evidence of unlawful behavior. I don't have any case cites, but that would see to go against everything our legal system has been built upon, (innocent unless proven guilty).
Time will tell, but I think that eventually this will be found to be unconstitutional, at least in it's current form. IMO, if this program is to continue then the onus should be on the prosecution to show a judge there is some correlation between the seizure and unlawful activity within a very short time period, such as 72 hours. That would minimize the potential impact on the innocent while still giving law enforcement the flexibility to act before it's too late.
A few articles I looked up indicated that about $2.5 Billion was confiscated by seizures on Amtrak, airports, etc. since 2001, quite a bit of money, with a lot coming from people needing to travel for business or relocation purposes. I understand that DEA agents and police fighting narcotics "follow the money/look for money," so to speak, but are now tracking frequent innocent travelers' travel records for patterns, without regard to the reasons one is traveling when presented. In other words, it's become "any serious money present for whatever the reason," and not the presence, (or even in the total absence) of narcotics or any other illegal activity, and even with a plausible substantiated alibi at the time of the incident. Traveling to purchase a business? Going Gambling? Relocating? All ignored except for the money they see, - and as the only thing they see as probable cause in and of itself. Quite often no other reason, it seems.
They can develop a blindness to the wrongness of the particular actions carried out, over the ostensibly valid or seemingly noble law-enforcement reasons, (fighting trafficking), where the actions can (and have) become very tainted, corrupted. Due process and reasonable cause faded when money enters the picture.
With just a follow the money/look for money directive or attitude, they lose sight of real task of fighting crime (which is to stop crime, not grab money for the sake of grabbing money). They're picking up a ton of innocent money as "probable cause" - simply because its money in transit with a person in transit. It now "fits the description."
This is the America we now live in, or so it seems - and that some have experienced.
When I said "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide," I mean have substantiating payroll stubs, business contracts, etc., with no pot on you, etc. It never helps to be argumentative with a cop. But even this squeaky clean scenario might not help at times when 100% above board.
But this is QUITE different from leaving valuables (such as cash) vulnerable or exposed to theft or seizure when you don't have to when traveling, which is silly to do if avoidable. While you shouldn't have to take such precautions in a perfect society, we don't live in a perfect society, apparently.
The country HAS changed, not necessarily for the better in some ways. We can agree (sadly) with that.
Innocent people have to cover their ass instead of being able to act in good faith, like in older days.
When I debate a point that people disagree with, or wish to disagree with, the point there isn't taken as much as offense is, although not (always) meant. This time we share a sacred cow instead of having a cow.
Anyway, I pray for the USA.
Anyway, I pray for the USA.
Amen to that, Brother.
Lol I like to play a game with myself called.... Who wrote that? I have my screen set up where I have to scroll left and right to read or see the name. Sometimes I just forget or don't feel like playing. I read the above post without looking at the name and thought sounds reasonable and moved on without looking at the name. After reading your post I was shocked. I had to look and make sure it was Dan who made that post and reread it, wondering what the catch was.Quote: Hunterhill
Dan this is the most sensible post you have ever made. Did someone hack your account?Is it really you. :)
I hope we can chip away at his no tears attitude on this one.
Let's not get started on that subject.Quote: Paigowdan
Anyway, I pray for the USA.
David Guillory started his research by driving his cluttered red Volkswagen Jetta to the Shelby County courthouse, in Center, Texas, where he examined the ledgers that listed the past two years of the county’s legal cases. He wanted to see “any case styled ‘The State of Texas versus’ anything that sounds like a piece of property.” The clerk began hauling out one bulging accordion file after another.
“The eye-opening event was pulling those files,” Guillory told me. One of the first cases that caught his attention was titled State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix. The police had confiscated a simple gold cross that a woman wore around her neck after pulling her over for a minor traffic violation. No contraband was reported, no criminal charges were filed, and no traffic ticket was issued. That’s how it went in dozens more cases involving cash, cars, and jewelry. A number of files contained slips of paper of a sort he’d never seen before. These were roadside property waivers, improvised by the district attorney, which threatened criminal charges unless drivers agreed to hand over valuables.