Flying With Money

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Yes, something like this has been litigated. Back in the early days of AC, a BJ player was backed off, and successfully sued for the right to play. He then tried to recover damages, on the premise that he could have been playing all that time and would have been X ahead based on his EV. Rather than laughing at him, the court in NJ listened to his case. Unfortunately, he lost, with the court citing cases where a lost business opportunity was not collectible damages, because no one could figure out what such an opportunity was worth (how likely to succeed, worth how much if it did). The court did remark that parties should agree on liquidated damages in such cases. The plaintiff probably way overstated what playing at that casino would have been worth to him. The judge also remarked that there were other places to play where similar opportunities existed.

What's the cite? You're not talking about Uston v Resorts, I think, which was decided on different grounds and not related to lost business opportunity. I'd be interested in reading the case you're referring to.

Quote: Romes

Guys... I... I.... I'm just sorry for calling Dan to the thread.

I really am sorry... lol

Pah. Don't apologize. Summoning him resulted in him offering real advice, good advice. For most of you, it (should be) old news. But some of us? I'm a middle aged man and I just found out what a cashier's check is not 8 weeks ago. Had no idea that was an available means to transport funds or conduct business with. I learned something.

And I hope Dan realizes, despite my inflammatory language (and I do sincerely apologize if I offended you, Dan), that my rail was against one thing only and that was your seeming acceptance of and lack of anger towards what is (to me) such a grave injustice. I really hope this thread at least made you think.

And for the others? Just look. Some people were already savvy to it, but are now a little more fired up. I know I began research. I saw Axel strongly suggest others (esp AP) do the same. I know another has been stirred into not being so complacent. I know another dropped the "devil may care" attitude. And the weirdest of all? Look at the players. Left, right, middle, or no stance at all, yet all on the same page.

It's a good thing, this thread =)

I've always said Dan's a good guy, and there's nothing wrong with setting a high standard for yourself like he has.

If I was his guru or something, I might guide him away from some of his conflicts is all. The greatest maxim of Sun Tzu, crystallized, is that you should 'pick the time and place of your battles'. He might learn from that one, I think our boy is a little too ready to tangle.

Quote: Face

Pah. Don't apologize. Summoning him resulted in him offering real advice, good advice. For most of you, it (should be) old news. But some of us? I'm a middle aged man and I just found out what a cashier's check is not 8 weeks ago. Had no idea that was an available means to transport funds or conduct business with. I learned something.

And I hope Dan realizes, despite my inflammatory language (and I do sincerely apologize if I offended you, Dan), that my rail was against one thing only and that was your seeming acceptance of and lack of anger towards what is (to me) such a grave injustice. I really hope this thread at least made you think.

And for the others? Just look. Some people were already savvy to it, but are now a little more fired up. I know I began research. I saw Axel strongly suggest others (esp AP) do the same. I know another has been stirred into not being so complacent. I know another dropped the "devil may care" attitude. And the weirdest of all? Look at the players. Left, right, middle, or no stance at all, yet all on the same page.

It's a good thing, this thread =)

Dan talks about cashiers checks and people mentioned other methods DON'T THINK YOU'RE SAFE WITH OTHER METHODS ***The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety has purchased several devices capable of seizing funds loaded on to prepaid debit cards to aid troopers in roadside seizures of suspected drug-trafficking proceeds.** Next it could be cashiers checks, wire transfers, money orders. Maybe you get it back maybe you don't, maybe it costs you lots of time and money. It's a slippery slope.


I'm surprised there's not more outrage than there is especially from many of the stories I have read, there's been some outrageous stupidity and serious abuse. Every little bit helps. On a positive note there's more publicly nowadays and people are fighting back more and more and even winning.

Government is corrupt/ that's why after school I soured on law- I watch something called prosecutorial discretion which basically means someone in the da office can basically decide to file charges or not. It's exactly what happenend in the bill Cosby case (not that I support him)


The casinos are and cops are two of the worst examples of this-

Quote: AxelWolf

I'm surprised there's not more outrage than there is especially from many of the stories I have read, there's been some outrageous stupidity and serious abuse. Every little bit helps. On a positive note there's more publicly nowadays and people are fighting back more and more and even winning.

Part of the problem is the cost, I'd think. Spending a bunch of money on lawyers, even on spec, to get back something that was already yours to begin with is a tough spot. That's why I was asking whether lost income could be a plausible liability theory. Compensatory and punitive damages stemming from harming a business (as opposed to just the monies recovered) would make a much more attractive case for an attorney.

Quote: MathExtremist

Part of the problem is the cost, I'd think. Spending a bunch of money on lawyers, even on spec, to get back something that was already yours to begin with is a tough spot. That's why I was asking whether lost income could be a plausible liability theory. Compensatory and punitive damages stemming from harming a business (as opposed to just the monies recovered) would make a much more attractive case for an attorney.

Not sure but I think I read somewhere a judge was outraged(good for him) and encouraged them to go after lawyers fees.

Its always a matter of whim and I don't trust any TSA luminary's whims. Nor do I trust any DEA or Treasury agent because even they actually believe every word you say, they seize the money to improve their own statistics and its an uphill battle to ever get it back and it will take both time and money for you to do it.

If I had ever hit it really, really BIG in a casino, I'd travel on the cheap. A junket bus from Laughlin to Los Angeles might work. Or a sail boat from Biloxi to Key West. Or buy an RV in Biloxi and drive to Key West, the cops are always looking for RVs going in the other direction.

I'd rather travel by the Mexican Limousine Service than go thru an airport. (Old GM vehicles going to crop picking areas).

I'm not paranoid... its just that if I hit it BIG then it will ALL be seized and I'll have to promise a lawyer a third or something like that, just to have a CHANCE to eventually get it back. No matter how rare it is, I'd sure hate to have something seized because my winning it again is going to be even rarer. Sorry folks... just call me a paranoid coward. I'll sip my booze and read about other people having their money seized.

Quote: MathExtremist

Part of the problem is the cost, I'd think. Spending a bunch of money on lawyers, even on spec, to get back something that was already yours to begin with is a tough spot. That's why I was asking whether lost income could be a plausible liability theory. Compensatory and punitive damages stemming from harming a business (as opposed to just the monies recovered) would make a much more attractive case for an attorney.

Since they'll never actually get rid of the law that allows this, they should afford free representation to the money. These forfeiture cases actually have titles like "The United States of America vs $102,000 US Currency". The property is actually the defendant. They should, then, offer that property the services of a Public Defender, just like any other defendant in a case filed by the state/federal government. If the owner of the property wants to hire their own lawyer, then fine, but at least give them the option. It won't take Johnny Cochran to win most of these forfeiture cases anyway.....most have no merit. Simply going through the motions would be enough in most cases.

Quote: MathExtremist

What's the cite? You're not talking about Uston v Resorts, I think, which was decided on different grounds and not related to lost business opportunity. I'd be interested in reading the case you're referring to.

I tried to look it up, but the reach of the databases I have access to is limited, and the case is over thirty years old. The plaintiff definitely wasn't uston or anyone else high-profile. He must have been a successful counter, though, to have gotten backed off in AC at that time.

There actually is quite a wide range of interpretations in that if you can demonstrate that money is capital for your business (as it certainly is for a counter), then tort damages apply for your not being able to use that capital. I wish there was more case law on this. I wonder if it applies in other fields--for example, a day trader deprived of his funds for two days because of a bank error--can he sue for loss of use of that money?

Quote: Romes

Guys... I... I.... I'm just sorry for calling Dan to the thread.

I really am sorry... lol

You should be. You invited the guy who thinks that anyone who has more than $1500 in cash is a SCHMUCK and deserves whatever perils befall them to the discussion.


Paigowdan here: Let me say if you're carrying more than a paycheck's worth of cash when traveling domestically ($1,500 with a pay check stub), then something may be up, in the eyes of law enforcement. If you're innocent, fine, if you're dead-to-rights guilty, also fine - but you're a SCHMUCK if you're so stupid as to travel with tons to cash; little sympathy from me if you have no brains on the road and how to travel with money. Sad? - Yes, oftentimes very sad, but a bit of Cry me a river if you fail to think before you travel.


The current asset forfeiture laws were constructed in the Reagan years to assist the war on drugs. News flash, drugs won that war. Look at what we have now and how many people we have incarcerated because of the war on drugs. It has even spawned a new industry, private prisons because the government prisons were full. The laws were to allow the DEA to seize cash from drug dealers and drug king pins to hurt them financially. This was a good idea since drugs were making foreign drug producers rich at America's expense. These laws however are being used by many government agencies against law abiding citizens simply to steal their money and property. The fact is that the government steals more in asset forfeiture from citizens than criminals do every year. It's disgusting.

The problem is that the way the laws are written the government, whether City, State or Federal can seize property without an arrest or a conviction by simply stating that the property is either the product of or is to be used in criminal activity. All any cop has to say is that because of their "training" in their op inion this property is the proceeds of criminal behavior and they can and will seize it. There is no burden of proof on the police or other agencies to prove their suspicions or to even prosecute the owner of the property. After the property is seized the prosecutor who has jurisdiction will file charges against the property and here is the kicker, the prosecutors office keeps a large percentage of the property or the proceeds. This means that you must go to court and defend your money against the same people that want to keep it and use it for their department since these funds are not in any budget. There is a company started by a California highway patrolman called Desert Snow that teaches the art of "highway interdiction." No kidding. This is so far out of control that it seems surreal. Many departments regularly send officers to this school to learn how to steal your money.

IMO the problem goes beyond police and government agencies seizing property it is the governments wish that there would be no cash transactions at all so that they could track every cent that citizens have and spend. It's their desire to have total control over the population that is what makes these transgressions commonplace. Many banks, Bank of America in particular, are so afraid of government intervention that they have been forced to become government informants, not only by being forced to comply with our restrictive banking laws and filing CTR's and SAR's but by asking every customer why they are withdrawing cash. Try this experiment, go to BoA and withdraw Dan's magic number of $1500 and see if the teller doesn't slyly ask what the money is for. I tell them it's none of their F'N business every time they ask which is every time that I withdraw cash. One of the banks that I have one of my business accounts in charges fees for depositing cash in excess of $10,000 per year. That's right they charge to take my cash, not checks or credit cards only the cash. Why would a bank charge more to do transactions that have less risk and less effort for them? My guess is that it is a some regulation by the feds. BoA now forces customers to supply ID for all cash transactions. Try this trick, go to BoA and deposit your pay check but add $5 cash to the deposit. They will demand that you produce ID to complete the transaction. They require ID for all cash transactions of any amount. In years past it has been commonplace for renters to simply make deposits into accounts that were set up by landlords to receive rent payments. Try and make a deposit into someones account now and see what kind of reaction you get. If it's cash forget it. A check may slide especially in the drive thru but cash is a no no if it's not your account and you don't have ID.

OK so IANAL but I know that it is still legal for an American citizen to hold as much cash as they desire and it's probably legal for anyone citizen or not to hold cash for any reason within our borders. To see what has and is happening around our country you should go to the Washington Post and look up their great series of articles on asset forfeiture. There you will see where police, DEA, IRS and other agencies have ruined or tried to ruin the lives of law abiding citizens in their never ending thirst for more money and more control. Look up Desert Snow, City of Philadelphia asset forfeiture, the feds having to assume control of the northern Nevada Highway Patrol district, the ACLU's suit against Tenaha, or what the IRS has seized from businesses that operate legally and see for yourself how bad this is. There are also videos on youtube and an interview with a couple of guys on GWAE. It's so easy to find the proof because it's so prevalent.

Folks have been writing about flying with cash and stated limits etc. A lot of what has been written is BS and comes from peoples speculation. Don't take what has been written in this thread as gospel because there are too many assumptions and too little fact. Do your own research to find out the facts for yourself and your situation so that you can protect yourself. It is not against the law to fly or travel with cash from anywhere to anywhere. If you leave the country by any mode and are holding cash in an amount over $10,000 you simply must declare it. What many don't realize is if you are traveling with a friend or spouse (on the same ticket especially) and the cash between both of you is over $10,000 you are required to declare it. These regs are also not limited to cash but all cash instruments. If you live in Detroit and gamble at Windsor and carry a supply of chips over $10,000 or cashiers checks you had better declare it. I would not trust the border guards if they searched you and found the chips or cashiers checks that weren't declared, and by the way never tell the guards at the tunnel that you went there to gamble, I made that mistake once, and furthermore I would NEVER tell a cop that I was going to or coming from a casino. Cops can seize anything of value not only cash, and of course they often have their own interpretation of laws which in many cases are not proper. And by the way don't think for a NY second that you can fly to Vegas with a $10,000 cashiers check in your pocket on Friday night and cash it at a casino cage without being a known player with a credit line there. You won't be gambling until they can verify that check. Yes when I was a neophyte I tried that, didn't work, didn't gamble.

Just so no one starts in on this being a political party issue, it's not. The laws were passed during Reagan's tenure but the amount of cash and property seized has doubled during Obama's terms. It's our government's thirst for more, not Republicans or Democrats. It's lousy politicians that couldn't care less about their citizens or their rights. I also don't want to hear well it won't happen to me so it doesn't matter. If it happens to anyone it can happen to you and if it happens to only one person that is too many and shouldn't be ignored or condoned.


As you can tell I am passionate about this issue and I wish every citizen was as passionate as I am because there is far too much complacency in our country today which allows the government to overstep it's bounds and then lie about it in court. I was a staunch police supporter for my entire life until about 15 years ago when I started reading about what the police and the government were doing. I now must assume that I have more chance of being robbed or shot by a cop than being helped by them. I don't trust the police or government anymore with good reason. I'm sure there are "good cops" and good politicians in our country but even the good ones will lie in court to protect the bad ones which I guess means that they aren't good ones at all.

It's a cat and mouse game- you can no longer used prepaid credit cards overseas because of drug dealer using them to cross the border with hundreds of thousands in cards that were undetectable
Then just run in Mexico.... You can load a card with a green dot money Pak anymore same reasons

Quote: FleaStiff

Or a sail boat from Biloxi to Key West. Or buy an RV in Biloxi and drive to Key West, the cops are always looking for RVs going in the other direction.

Some time back, I had a real good Biloxi trip. Stopped by Wells Fargo in both Biloxi and Ocean Springs when the wallet got too full.
If I ever have occasion to have more than 10k to deposit, I have another Credit Union and an Amex debit card, deposits can be made at Walmart. There is way too much paranoia in this thread, common sense has flown the coop.

Quote: Face

Pah. Don't apologize. Summoning him resulted in him offering real advice, good advice. For most of you, it (should be) old news. But some of us? I'm a middle aged man and I just found out what a cashier's check is not 8 weeks ago. Had no idea that was an available means to transport funds or conduct business with. I learned something.

And I hope Dan realizes, despite my inflammatory language (and I do sincerely apologize if I offended you, Dan), that my rail was against one thing only and that was your seeming acceptance of and lack of anger towards what is (to me) such a grave injustice. I really hope this thread at least made you think.

Much obliged - all is good with Face.

Quote: odiousgambit

If I was his guru or something, I might guide him away from some of his conflicts is all. The greatest maxim of Sun Tzu, crystallized, is that you should 'pick the time and place of your battles'. He might learn from that one, I think our boy is a little too ready to tangle.

Debate are good, if civil and of good arguments, it strengthens wit and critical thinking. Debating at a forum is more like wrestling than war.

Quote: AW

Dan talks about cashiers checks and people mentioned other methods DON'T THINK YOU'RE SAFE WITH OTHER METHODS ***The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety has purchased several devices capable of seizing funds loaded on to prepaid debit cards to aid troopers in roadside seizures of suspected drug-trafficking proceeds.** Next it could be cashiers checks, wire transfers, money orders. Maybe you get it back maybe you don't, maybe it costs you lots of time and money. It's a slippery slope.

It is. When they start arbitrarily raiding the personal accounts a person has, it has gone to a ridiculous level. I just can't see how they can tap personal bank accounts; what's next, get caught with a checkbook and you'd have to donate to the state for just passing through an area? We read Orwell's 1984 with a "thank God I live in America, land of the free," if that [our financial freedom] goes, all is lost.
I may go to Barona/So Cal from Vegas soon enough, I think $80 in cash for gas is explainable, the rest in my account debit card or in TC's. I get a ticket for speeding or a broken tail light, that should be just a ticket and that it is, God willing.

Quote: Paigowdan

Much obliged - all is good with Face.


Debate are good, if civil and of good arguments, it strengthens wit and critical thinking. Debating at a forum is more like wrestling than war.


It is. When they start arbitrarily raiding the personal accounts a person has, it has gone to a ridiculous level. I just can't see how they can tap personal bank accounts; what's next, get caught with a checkbook and you'd have to donate to the state for just passing through an area? We read Orwell's 1984 with a "thank God I live in America, land of the free," if that [our financial freedom] goes, all is lost.
I may go to Barona/So Cal from Vegas soon enough, I think $80 in cash for gas is explainable, the rest in my account debit card or in TC's. I get a ticket for speeding or a broken tail light, that should be just a ticket and that it is, God willing.

IT'S WENT TOO A RIDICULOUS LEVEL. As I already pointed out they have a device that can and does steal your funds from your personal account. And it's attitudes from people like you that's lead to the slip in that slope(It's all under the same law) >>>

Quote: Dan

but you're a SCHMUCK if you're so stupid as to travel with tons to cash; little sympathy from me if you have no brains on the road and how to travel with money. Sad? - Yes, oftentimes very sad, but a bit of Cry me a river if you fail to think before you travel.

IMO, BY FAR THE WORST THING YOU HAVE EVER SAID ON HERE, I kinda get the AP stuff because you're in the table games business, but this isn't an AP or casino issue, it's an American issue that affects everyone and it could be you or a loved one being a schmuck by simply carrying a debit card or cashiers check.


Nowadays many americans use prepaid debit cards it's really no difference than a debit card issued by your bank. you need Name/address/ phone number/email/ dob/SS# etc.
Oftentimes people use them as their primary finance tool and payment method to control their finances while avoiding overdraft fees. It's not just for people who can't get or don't have bank accounts most prepaid debit card holders also have a bank account.

Let's not forget those invisible roadside towers that scan you as you whiz by, reading your credit and debit card info from your wallet and emptying out your accounts before you reach the next exit. Also beware of the millions of invisible police drones that X-ray everyone to see if they have more than $20 on them, in which case local police are alerted and directed to your location to confiscate the money.

Really, at what point does this devolve into irrational paranoia? All I'm hearing and seeing here is "xyz happens," which is meaningless. Earthquakes happen. World wars happen. Acts of extreme violence by midgets happen. Burnt egg mcmuffins happen. So what?

Again, I've examined reputable news sources, and nowhere do I see any evidence that an honest citizen is in danger of losing assets to the police. Yes, on VERY RARE occasions, cash is confiscated, but it's relatively straightforward to get it back, though a hassle, obviously. What is NOT happening is the cops swarming the interstate, looking for people to rob so they can put more money in the police party fund.

I do realize that nothing I can say will serve as any kind of antidote to paranoia. Also, especially if you hate cops, a good old internet anecdote about how eeeeeevil they are is sure more entertaining than reality.

We can maintain the position that traveling with too much cold hard cash is foolish and is asking for trouble in too many ways.

As stated, I'm not sympathetic to those who fail to plan.

True, we have to refuse to be paranoid after taking reasonable precautions.

Quote: Paigowdan

We can maintain the position that traveling with too much cold hard cash is foolish and is asking for trouble in too many ways.

As stated, I'm not sympathetic to those who fail to plan.

True, we have to refuse to be paranoid after taking reasonable precautions.

No I can't agree it's foolish because there's many different reasons to travel with cash. Risky perhaps but not foolish. There's a multitude of reasons someone might have 2k+ on them.

Wrong thread.

Quote: Paigowdan

We can maintain the position that traveling with too much cold hard cash is foolish and is asking for trouble in too many ways.

As stated, I'm not sympathetic to those who fail to plan.

True, we have to refuse to be paranoid after taking reasonable precautions.

Ugh such a frustrating statement- let's just give one example
In three weeks I'm taking a group of 24 people out for a party at Peter lugars in Brooklyn
It's cash only- so prolly 'need 3-5k. Should I be accosted on the way to dinner as to why I have so
Much cash

Generally when I go to a bar or restaurant, I put it on a card. It is very unusual for such an establishment to not accept Visa, Amex, etc.
And yeah, you might be accosted, but I doubt you'll get your cash confiscated in NYC by a cop. Other things to worry about, there.
If you're travelling a long distance, there might be a small issue.

You can arrange with Peter Lugar's; Brooklyn's a big place with a lot of banks.

Was just giving a real life example- why should I have to jump through hoops- one of the most expensive places to eat in the country is raos in NYC they don't take credit cards either - I live in the us - I should not have to hide my legal money- your stance on this is borderline absurd. Atm machines are useless for the most part in terms of limits and it I want more in a casino I would need to pay a fee-
What is states I need to put my money in a bank -
Most of the problems and fights in the world are for lack of understanding -
cops can't fathom why someone has 20k so it's illegal
Michael Milken who is now considered a financial genius was in jail for the same things that are now commonplace .

You know, it's your money, you make the call. Do what you feel is best.

It's not a matter of what I feel/ it's a matter of government trying to screw you left and right

I would try to take that into account in the decision-making process. Me, I'd make an effort to protect it, if an issue.

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Ugh such a frustrating statement- let's just give one example
In three weeks I'm taking a group of 24 people out for a party at Peter lugars in Brooklyn
It's cash only- so prolly 'need 3-5k. Should I be accosted on the way to dinner as to why I have so
Much cash

FYI, Peter Lugar's has taken checks for as long as I can remember. They also take debit cards now. Just no credit cards.

I believe some people here have the underlying thoughts that if you have cash, you probably gained it illegally or are using it to "cheat" a casino. It makes no sense arguing with someone with that thought process.

Thank you to those who continue to inform posters about the real dangers out there. If it saves one person from a seizure of their property, it is worth it.

Quote: Boz

I believe some people here have the underlying thoughts that if you have cash, you probably gained it illegally or are using it to "cheat" a casino. It makes no sense arguing with someone with that thought process.

Thank you to those who continue to inform posters about the real dangers out there. If it saves one person from a seizure of their property, it is worth it.

Carrying around large amounts of cash in places like new York and Vegas and worrying about the COPS taking it is like trimming your hedge with a chainsaw while blindfolded and worrying about getting a sunburn.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Let's not forget those invisible roadside towers that scan you as you whiz by, reading your credit and debit card info from your wallet and emptying out your accounts before you reach the next exit. Also beware of the millions of invisible police drones that X-ray everyone to see if they have more than $20 on them, in which case local police are alerted and directed to your location to confiscate the money.

Really, at what point does this devolve into irrational paranoia? All I'm hearing and seeing here is "xyz happens," which is meaningless. Earthquakes happen. World wars happen. Acts of extreme violence by midgets happen. Burnt egg mcmuffins happen. So what?

Again, I've examined reputable news sources, and nowhere do I see any evidence that an honest citizen is in danger of losing assets to the police. Yes, on VERY RARE occasions, cash is confiscated, but it's relatively straightforward to get it back, though a hassle, obviously. What is NOT happening is the cops swarming the interstate, looking for people to rob so they can put more money in the police party fund.

I do realize that nothing I can say will serve as any kind of antidote to paranoia. Also, especially if you hate cops, a good old internet anecdote about how eeeeeevil they are is sure more entertaining than reality.

Stop trolling.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Carrying around large amounts of cash in places like new York and Vegas and worrying about the COPS taking it is like trimming your hedge with a chainsaw while blindfolded and worrying about getting a sunburn.

I don't know about NY, but as far as I know it doesn't seem to be an issue in LV. It is an issue in other areas (namely the south).

Quote: RS

Stop trolling.



I don't know about NY, but as far as I know it doesn't seem to be an issue in LV. It is an issue in other areas (namely the south).

Stop calling the act of disagreeing with you "trolling." It's a stupid internet tactic.

I wasn't naming those places as specifically dangerous places to carry large amounts of cash. It's dangerous to do that just about anywhere. Evil cop seizure aside.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Stop calling the act of disagreeing with you "trolling." It's a stupid internet tactic.

The following isn't trolling?

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Let's not forget those invisible roadside towers that scan you as you whiz by, reading your credit and debit card info from your wallet and emptying out your accounts before you reach the next exit. Also beware of the millions of invisible police drones that X-ray everyone to see if they have more than $20 on them, in which case local police are alerted and directed to your location to confiscate the money.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I wasn't naming those places as specifically dangerous places to carry large amounts of cash. It's dangerous to do that just about anywhere. Evil cop seizure aside.

And people aren't typically worried about carrying large amounts of cash in LV (idk about NY).


It'd be like talking about the increase in casinos across the US, then you saying something about "all those casinos in TX", as if there isn't an increase in casinos in the US.

Or if we were talking about homelessness, then you start naming off a few cities with low homeless rates, as if homelessness doesn't exist.

Or if we were talking about terrorism then you saying, "When's the last time there was a terrorist attack in Antarctica?! See it doesn't exist!!"


Yeah -- that's trolling. You shouldn't be talking about something you literally know nothing about.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Stop calling the act of disagreeing with you "trolling." It's a stupid internet tactic.

It's not necessarily the act of disagreeing with someone, but more like the act of living under a bridge.

Quote: bobbartop

It's not necessarily the act of disagreeing with someone, but more like the act of living under a bridge.

The Yoopers call us that live in the LP of Michigan trolls because we're "under the bridge" referring to the Mackinac Br.

Is there anyone here that thinks the law doesn't need some major overhauling?

Quote: AxelWolf

Is there anyone here that thinks the law doesn't need some major overhauling?

We already have a Constitution. It used to mean something.

Quote: bobbartop

We already have a Constitution. It used to mean something.

Once you allow it to be "amended", it means nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper.

I will be posting up different stories from time to time.

The New Yorker

Victor Ramos Guzman, a Pentecostal Church secretary from El Salvador, who lives in the U.S. under temporary protected status, is typical in all these respects. A year and a half ago, he and his brother-in-law were driving along Interstate 95 near Emporia, Virginia, en route, documents show, to buy a parcel of land for their church. When a state trooper pulled them over for speeding, Guzman and his brother-in-law disclosed that they were carrying twenty-eight thousand five hundred dollars in parishioners’ donations. Although the trooper found no contraband, he seized the cash. By reporting the case to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Guzman was in the country legally, but he spoke little English), the state police could gain up to eighty per cent of the seizure through the federal Equitable Sharing program.

Quote: RS

The following isn't trolling?

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I wasn't naming those places as specifically dangerous places to carry large amounts of cash. It's dangerous to do that just about anywhere. Evil cop seizure aside.

And people aren't typically worried about carrying large amounts of cash in LV (idk about NY).


It'd be like talking about the increase in casinos across the US, then you saying something about "all those casinos in TX", as if there isn't an increase in casinos in the US.

Or if we were talking about homelessness, then you start naming off a few cities with low homeless rates, as if homelessness doesn't exist.

Or if we were talking about terrorism then you saying, "When's the last time there was a terrorist attack in Antarctica?! See it doesn't exist!!"


Yeah -- that's trolling. You shouldn't be talking about something you literally know nothing about.

You appear not to know what sarcasm is. You also appear not to know what "literally" means. I realize that some people react poorly to being disagreed with. Then the name-calling starts. Call my disagreement with you trolling if you wish, if it makes you feel better.

Your lack of understanding and cohesive thought makes further conversation pointless. Look, you're right, the cops are seizing billions from innocent people. We should all get very very mad about that. Feel better now?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Once you allow it to be "amended", it means nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper.

Not worthless, but definitely weakened since the Reichstag Fire.

Quote: AxelWolf

I will be posting up different stories from time to time.

The New Yorker

Victor Ramos Guzman, a Pentecostal Church secretary from El Salvador, who lives in the U.S. under temporary protected status, is typical in all these respects. A year and a half ago, he and his brother-in-law were driving along Interstate 95 near Emporia, Virginia, en route, documents show, to buy a parcel of land for their church. When a state trooper pulled them over for speeding, Guzman and his brother-in-law disclosed that they were carrying twenty-eight thousand five hundred dollars in parishioners’ donations. Although the trooper found no contraband, he seized the cash. By reporting the case to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Guzman was in the country legally, but he spoke little English), the state police could gain up to eighty per cent of the seizure through the federal Equitable Sharing program.

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.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

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.

The problem with thinking that money that is seized improperly can easily be returned to the rightful owner is that it does not always work that way. Once a government agency has possession of the money, the person who the money belongs to may have to make numerous phone calls, trips, etc. to the place where it is being held...or even have to engage a lawyer. The cost burden is then on someone who did nothing wrong in the first place. It isn't like the agency is going to just hand it back without some hassle.

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.

Quote: bobbartop

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:

Quote:

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.

Agree with Hullabaloo.
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.

Dan this is the most sensible post you have ever made. Did someone hack your account?Is it really you. :)

Thanks! It seems sensible here because it's easy to agree with here.
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.

Quote: Paigowdan

Anyway, I pray for the USA.

Amen to that, Brother.

Quote: Hunterhill

Dan this is the most sensible post you have ever made. Did someone hack your account?Is it really you. :)

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.

I hope we can chip away at his no tears attitude on this one.

Quote: Paigowdan

Anyway, I pray for the USA.

Let's not get started on that subject.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken Interesting read. Apparently this actually goes back to colonial days and pirates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.